Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-04-07


ment of interest on its bonds for several
months yet, after the President had ten
dered him the appointment he now holds
The IFibtsae's article appeared while
Bradley's appointment was pending be-
fore the Senate for confirmation. Now
that Bradley has gone on the bench, and
did "sit in the trial' when the question of
reopening the case was decided, and viii
no doubt ''sit in the trial'' again on the
l1th inst, the 7ri6usle's thunder is silent.
The reopening of the legal-tender decision
has been, from the beginning, foregone
conclusion. No one has pretended to en-
force the law, for the very reason that
there was no feasible way of carrying it in
to execution. Immediately after the de-
cision was promulgated, leading coun-
sellers in New York were consulted, in
the interest of foreign capitalists, who
were largely interested in American rail-
read lines, the bonds of which dated pre-
viously to the greenback period. The ad-
vice was: "Offer legal-tenders. If they
are not accepted, let the parties sue. By
the time the suits are carried through the
State courts, and then appealed upon and
carried up to the Supreme Court, either
the country will have resumed specie paw
ments or the decision will have been
reversed" This was, in fact, understood
to be the decision of the Administration.
There are good and sufficient reasons for
believing that Grant appointed Strong
and Bradley for the purpose of obtaining
a reversal of the decision on the legal
tender act. Both Strong and Bradley had
openly declared that in their opinion the
legal tender act was constitutional before
they were nominated. Grant was there
fore satisfied that they would favor re-
versal of the opinion of the court. Had
they opposed a reversal of that decision,
they never would have been appointed.
The re-opening of this case and the de-
termination to reverse the late decision of
the court, is but one more open avowal
of the fixed determination of the Radicals
to set aside and trample under foot every
obstacle, constitutional or legal, that in
any way interferes with their so-called
progressive policy. 1t is another asser-
ton of their unprincipled resolve to make
principle subservient to expediency and |
law subject to power, so long as they are
enabled TO reap present profit, even at the
expense of honesty, morality and every
thing else which tends to the mainten-
ance of public virtue. 1t shows how little |
they regard the preservation of independ-
ence even in the highest judicial tribunal,
and how Indifferent they are to the con-
tinued existence of the republican form
of government under which liberty to the |
people was once guaranteed. While the
question of the admission of Gen. Ames
was pending before the Senate, Mr.. Ed
munds, of Vermont, who has sanctioned |
perhaps hundred violations of the con-
stitution since the commencement of the |
war, unintentionally exposed the sole in
fuence by which the Legislators of the
hour are governed. He said in reference
to the admission of the military carpet
Dagger:
''The Republican party was SO strong
in this Chamber that Senators had made
up their minds TO act from personal con
and not let that great moral
obstructionist, the Constitution of the
United States, stand at all in their way.
1t is all very well to 90 on in this way,
but, sooner or later, some of us, particu-
laTly those who live in doubtful States, !
will wake up to the fact that it is the last |
straw which breaks the camel's back
The fact that members of Congress have
doubtful constituencies, and that they
may cast vote which may lose them
their seats-these are nova days the only
by which the successors of
our statesmen of other days are governed.
They concede the present apathy of the
people to the strides which despotism and
corruption are making, and only fear the
possibility Of being called to some account
in the future. Integrity, truth and duty
are not elements in their political or per-
,onal calculations.