The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-04-25
THE LEGAL TENDERS.
withdrawal OF the Appeal in the la
than and Deming Case&-Motion for n
Rehearing Denied.

In the Supreme Court of the United States,
on Wednesday morning, Mr.. Chatfeld, OF the
counsel for the appellants in the cases OF Latham
and Deming vs. the United States, declared the
appellants had determined their own appeals In
these Gases, and, therefore, moved to dismiss
them, and fled notice OF withdrawal The Wash
incton correspondent OF the New York Times
says:
There were present Attorney General Hoar, for
the United States and MeSSrs Chatfeld, McPher-
son and Merriman for the appellants. Hon.
Clarkson n Potter was also in court by leave to
discuss the legal-tender question II heard. After
the motion was made 10 dismiss, Attorney Gene
raj Hoar expressed this opposition to 1t, but de-
sired In case the court concluded TO dismiss these
appeals, 10 grant the motion he made last week
to rehear Mr.. Potter's Hepburn w. Grlswold
which was still undecided. He urged the argument
ought 10 be heard, involving so many important
interests, and especially IN view OF the fact that
the Fourteenth amendment OF the constitution mas
ratified the legal.tendcr act OF Congress- and tue
validity OF this issue OF the public debt to the
full measure Of its statuary qualities could
no longer be questioned IN the courts. Justices
Miller and Bradley suggested doubts as TO the
rights OF the appellants TO Withdraw the appeals,
and asked for conference. After brief couver-
sation among the judges, the Chief Justice an
nounced that the court would retire lor consuita-
tion, which they accordingly did. They returned
in q few minutes, when the Chief Justice said tile
motion TO dismiss the appeal was unanimously
concurred in by the court as the absolute right OF
the parties, and he at the same time announced
that the court had determined to deny the motion
OF the Attorney. General for rehearing IN the
Hepburn and Griswold case. This IS the case
in which the court heretofore decided that
The Lega!.tender act Is invalid as to contracts
made before its passage. The Chiel Justice
said the reason why the rehearing was de-
MED was that none OF the four Judges now on
the bench vino concurred In the opinion in that
case desired 10 have the case rcheard. and, under
the rule Of the court without the consent OF some
one Of the judges who concurred in the decision
OF case. it could not be reheard. Justice Brad
ley said, according to the practice TO which he
had been accustomed, an appeal on writ OF
error could not be dismissed without the consent
Of the other party; but as the practice OF the Su-
preme Court was otherwise he had yielded
cheerful concurrence. The refusal 10 rehear
leaves the decision us 1t was heretofore made
these two appeal cases withdrawn, THAT OF
o. L. and O. S. Latham vs. the United States,)
the Court Of Claims had ruled as conclu
sion or law, that the United States notes Of
fered TO and received by the claimants were
d legal tender in payment OF any debt due
the Claimants in the premises, whether due
under the special contracts set forth IN the
petition or in any other manner whatever. The
Special contracts above referred TO were con.
tracts in which the secretary OF the treasury in
the wears 1855 and 1856, agreed on behalf OF the
United States to pay to the LathamS good anu
lawful money Of the coin OF the United STATES, as
above stated. Upon the calling OF these cases
this mornng the counsel for the appellants IN
stead OF proceeding TO argue In support OF tnelr
tion was allowed, so that the Judgment OF the
Court OF Claims including the point above stated,
remains uDdlsturbe0 as valid judgment and the
law Of the land.