Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-12-07
The National lntelligencer repeats the above, with

hrtp[ SWpICuO vi tnah SssSS ~
c,oLa. from which il appeared that, though Mr.. ~
,oroey. General Butler was Of opinion that II was VII
Kendalrs duty 10 obey the law OF the on',cn o'a'es,
which had become the subject oI controversy, he YET
snsla,ned that officer i'll resisting u, ana became 'nF
champion Of Executive pretens'ons, at when rne
ci,eeks nj the Stuarts mIgtit have turned pale. Tue
article referred TO, noticed the rebuse Of the Supreme
Court to the doctrine which had been sci up Tor ~
President, that the Constitution, in requiring mat ne
..ball take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
ve,ts in ihr President "A dispensing power We cieu
IN. following passage Of The "p,nInn al tile c"uTt:
uThts power has no cnnn,rnance Tor IT'S support III
any part of Tie Constitution, aud IS asserting a pf'iG,
nj, which, IT carried out IN IL results to all cas's 'a'
mo vii, m Il, wnr.d be clothing the President "ih a
DO wcr entirely 10 control The Legislation "t Congress
and p2ral,zr The administration al justice. Io con
,,pd ihst te obiratou imposed on dc Prtsiden', 10 see
he inrs jauAJaty ereea'ed, implies a p"'esr 10 Jor%
,sftr eIrcaiion. IS Il RorG f"ndf"e1oh y We :"
tim ami entirety iaadmisstde.
aWe then added the Term
ssThe opinion al the court las printed ssarly leads
Report) goes on to say, 'lhe argument nihe opinion, a.
In such a result but the phrase nsed gunent WAS urg-
delivered from the bench; WAS, 'susSaas made at the sp-.
I'd nj the bar The mndificatInera Butler, the pre-
cual request Of MIR. Atiorneyand the author, after Mr.
rngativr lawyer III The cAF
) Kendall, Of the argnlnrTncer also cave, that in 'the
The National Inttt,id Republican R~v,ew for Fcb;u-
National Magas'"!d al Washington, al elaborate ano
cry, lc39, p"phred, reviewing the proceedings, hx.
aux ait's' - UIlCldl, VI lHP !liiodiHuo 'doI
/ rcuIivr ~ extracts i~herciro,n, corresponding win Tue
makrss above quoted.
0 PAGE above statements contain a portion OF u iu'''
!. II not the Whole truth Material parts of il are sup
+ pressed; and by this means an account esseht"'y
false, and grossly unjust towards me, is palmcd upon
the public.
1t is true tina, the opinion Of the Court, as read oy
Judge Thompson from the bench, was in the form
above stated; and that after it was delivered, l made,
n substance, the application ascriped 10 me y "
49,, I l.J ,,,trd nj The bar the lrUntUeHlI
m question; and il is NIL true, that Inc Judges, IN re-
uIy 10 nv application, asserted that they had heard OF
understood me To urge that argument. On the contra,
ry the truth ~,
I.t. Tina, although my associate, Mr.. Key, 0iien
Gn,,ed States Attorney for the District Of Colnmbia,)
.i,o o,ened tho cause, had uscd language in his aTgu-
,nenl mh,ci, vas 80 understood by the opposing coiii-
sci, and by the court, had tascn pans IN my reply 50
TO state my own positions as 10 avold any such lii'ei.
~prctation or consequence as VIII fully appear ny my
argument in ~ Peters, p. 5.2 to bCc.
ID. That the reference in the opinion, as read TO the
ARGUMENT of the Counsel for Mt United States, was in
tended TO refer mt 10 my argument, ut eroustrety to
Mr.. Keys; and, -.
Sd. That in reply 10 my application, inns was us
linclly stated from the bench.
All Tins viii appear from the following correspond
ence with Judge Thompson, and The following letter OF
"SEw YoRK, Dec. "a, 1910.
"Drar Sir: | beg leave 10 ask yonr attention 10 the
enclosed extract, purpor,ing 10 be a report Of what oc-
Cured in the Supreme Court o! the US. immediate
~ after You had delivered the opinion OF The court ~
the case Of Kendall Is. The I. 5. U2Peiers, 6lo)--
THIS rcpor, appears TO have been published at wash
inplnn in 1895, hut il never came to my knowledge
until the 9Th Of October, lS4O, when FIST heard of II
through the columns of the New York American. IL
does me, as you will perceive, no little injustice. "
nmils To state that IN your reply from the bench 10 my
disclaimer, after affirming that The doctrine referred
10 had been conlended for by the Counsel for the Us
r,, distinctly stated ttLaL !; rms due To the .JIUTHgH.
Genuai 10 say that you had moi understood Afm 10 take
this ground, and that IN the passage OF your opinion
complained Of, you had reference, not 10 the argument
Of the Attorney General, but 10 The opening argument
III Mir. Key"
"That | ~,hereupon stated to the court, slhat 50 lar as
was concerned, had nothing further u ash, as my
obi.c, had been su iiciently atluinrd.'
"Tha, Mr.. Key then rose, and attempted to shield his
opening argument from the construction you had gwen
10 il; aud that what was said by the Other judges, toi-
lowed a(ltr The mattsr had JoM placed by yon on The
opening aegumtnt IF .ur. Key, and his Dissertations on
the subjrct. You viii perceive, that although your al
fusion To the opening argument OF MIR. hey IS stated, II
is at the very close Of the discussion, and III a very
brief way; and that the effect Of the report is TO leave il
to be inferred, that the observations OF lac court we're
intended 10 apply 10 my argument, as to that oil my AZ
sociate the very reverse OF which was expressly de-
c!ared from the bench.
"Beinp desirons 10 correct tbs erroneous account, ]
am obliged 10 ask you 10 read the enclosed extract, and
10 state 10 mc how lar ynur recollection corresponds
with mine. | trust you will find my apology Tor the
trouble this request may give you, the circumstances OF
the case.
am, with high respect,
Your obedtent servant,
B. i. BUTLER.
The Hon. SalTn THoMrsos"
"NEw YORK, Jan. 4th. lSil
"Dear Sir: In answer II your letter ri The 2iL ut,
in r,lat;nn tn what occurred ~ the Supreme Court, IN
the case Of Kendall IS The United States, ! have 10
state, TINT after had read tie npininn Il the Court, a
er-oa.rd bv me, you disclaimrd what u had imputed
IN The counsel On the argument, relative To The powers
If The President, under That provision in the C"nstt,u-
Itinn which imposes upon hun the duty Of taking care
that the laws be faithfully executed. a! this distance
Of time, I do not recollrct distinctly what fell from
other members of the Court. All, however, cnncu:red
in opinion, that the argument had been urged at the
bar upon that question, as stated in the opinion. II -
no, usual in preparing an opinion, whe'e reference IS
made To the nrgument of counsel, 10 designate, by
name, BY whrm II was used. In preparing the OPT,
MON, however, alluded 10 the %nrgum-ni" i your as.o-
ciaie counsel. had. therefore, M hesitation IN stat.
ing, from the bench, ,ha, d,d n"t menn 10 refer to
YOU, but 10 your associate, by whom the argument had
been pressed with considerable rarnrsiuess IN the man.
ner represented in the npin'on How this vas under
stood b The niter Judges, know not.
| am. very respectfully,
Your oLrdicn, servant.
SMITH THOMPSON.
"B. F. BuTLyR, E-q"
Before giving The letter Of Mr. Key, should men
tion Tint it was written hy him spontaneously, and
withou, the ~.ligh,es, suggestion from m, or the least
IDEA Of publication. II is now published with his con
sent, emitting some passages IN application, or on
other subjects, instead Of a more formal statement, with
The preparation of which | was unwilling 10 trouble
him:
"WAsHiScroS, Nov. 3, 1910.
"My Dear Sir :
{ never saw. till last night, the National In,elligencer nj
the 9th October, as was from home when It came
cut. never saw thc article in The National
Magazine, nor in the New York American, to which re-
ference is made IN relation 10 the scene in the Supreme
Court which il undertakes to describe. II was men
toned to me, a day or two ago, and my first impression
was to send u short article 10 the lntelligencer, denying
the correctness Of the account il gives Of what TOOK
place on that occasion, aud stating that whateverit was
that in the shape Of reproof fell from the Court, goa
were entirely and immediately exculpa,ed by justice
Thompson, who said that the reference was 10 my ar
gument, not 10 yours. According TO my recollection
after Justice Thompson had delivered the opinion, you
spoke 10 me of the ~proprie,y Of our denying that we
/ bal ,-n,.,ad ILL.,, n..t.,, ,,,p,ta tn nc hr the Court