The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-03-31
Total
Legal Tenders.
,onf.b IN fbo A eooo;ofsd preea

Legal Tenders.
Despatch to the Associated Press
WASHINGTON, March 31.-In the Supreme
Court to-day Attorney-General Hoar made q
brief argument to show why the legal tender de-
cision should be reopened.
He was not insensible to the great weight OF the
Judiciary, its public reputation and its claims to the
confidence OF the country, but more important de-
cison and its consequences both public ana private
was never before pronounced. The statute on
IN b s P afse ans
the forms of law and attention had been called in
both houses to its constitutionalitY
There was this weight of authority to begin with,
and q law substantially acquieSced in by the people
for nearly eight years. and on which millions upon
millions OF dollars OF contracts had been settled to
far as he was aware, with one exception, had been
held constitutional by every State tribunal, but at
time when by the law this court consisted of nine
members there were seven only on the bench, there
being two vacancies
The question was decided here by four against
three judges. The question therefore stood,
ducng 1t to its essence that upon judicial opinion
of single man the case was adjudicated. He sug-
gested that it should not be left to single man to
decide upon the whole constitutional power affect
ing the legislation Of such an important character.
He pressed the reopenng OF this question because
it concerned great mass Of private interests, but
more especially because it seemed to him to involve
fundamental principle. namely the powers OF the
Government. He desired again to present 1t when
the bench was full so that they may forever settle
what the law should be. Such cases of reconsde
ration were by no means without example.
In the case OF McCulloch VS.. The State OF Mary
land, the Court Ave years after an opinion was pro-
and reargued. 1t seemed to him it would be better
for all parties concerned If the opinion In the Legal
tender case could be changed.
James M. Carlisle replied, saying the Attorney
General had analyZed and disparagingy criticised
the court because, as he had remarked the question
was decided by the vote OF single judge.
However that might be, 1t was the Judgment OF
the court which had been pronounced In that case.
What was to become ofthe highest judicial tribunal
in the land, If opinions were to be reOpened and
reargued because Of the small majority deciding a
question? Whatever might be the majority 1t was
nevertheless the opinion Of the court. What had
they to do with the previous opinions OF the court
He then referred to the fact that the case OF He'll
per Vs. Griswold, one of the bank cases, involving
principles applicable to other parties had been post
poned from one term to another for the purpose of
argument, thus showing they had all been carefully
| and eaborately considered.
The Court said they would take the matter under
| advlsement
Naval Orders.
Lieutenant Commander William Blushing is
| ordered to ordnance duty at the Boston Navy
| Yard, on the 18th of April. Lieutenant Com
| mander j. G. Watson is ordered to the Alaska;
| Second Assistant Engineer George NJ. Greene is
| detached from the Terror and ordered to exami-
| nation for promotion; Second Assistant Engineer
| Thomas w. Roe is detached from the Washing.
| ton Navy Yard and ordered to the Terror; Sc
| cond Assistant Engineer Theodore Cooper is de-
tached from the Navy Yard and ordered home
| Lieutenant Commander B. f. Day is detached
| from the Alaska and placed on waiting orders
| Ensign Thomas III. Stevens is detached from the
| Colorado and placed on waiting orders.