Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-04-02

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE
LEGAL TENDER ACT. IL
We referred yesterday to the proposed
attempt to reverse the recent decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States
relative to. the eoustitntionallty Of the |
Legal Tender Act BY the appointment Of |
Judges Strong and Bradley, because Of |
their avowed opposition to that decision. |
The kilograms from Washington, publish
ed in yesterdays Union AND AMERICAN,
announce that the Attorney General of
the United States has made an argument
before the court In favor of taking up
other cases in which the principle involv-
ed is identical with that already decided.
II was certainly bad enough that the
President should insist upon the confrma-
ton OF two Judges for the highest judi
cial tribunal in the Union because
of their preconceived and openly
expressed hostility to "a recent
decision of the very court of which, they
were to become members. 1t is not less
disgraceful that a member of his cabinet,
the law officer of the Government, should
seize very early opportunity after those
new Judges had taken their seats upon
the bench, to insist that the same CUES
ton which had been so recently and sol
emily adjudicated should be revised. We
are pleased to see that many of the lead
ing administration journals do not hesitate
openly to condemn the President in this
matter. The New York Tribune says of
the late decision of the Supreme Court
declaring the Legal Tender Act
not binding as to obligations in
CURED prior to its passage, that
the question had been considered with a
elaboration worthy of its grave impor
tance, had been argued in various forms
no less tLan six times before the court,
and had been held under advisement near
ly or quite two years. 1t was finally de-
cided by q full bench, five out of the eight
Judges Ito which number the court was
then limited by law uniting in the opin-
ion of the Chief Justice. If ever an
opinion of this highest Judicial tribunal
was entitled, by reason of care in its
formation or deliberation it its utterance,
to the respect of the whole country, this
one is.
Since this decision was announced,
changes in the composition of the court
have placed two new Judges, fresh from
the practice of their profession as advo-
Gates, upon the bench. Already it is an
nounced that the carefully considered
opinion of two months ago is to be recon-
| sidered on new test case, and decision
forced within the single month left for
the present session of the court. We
make no objections. The Supreme Court
has not been wont to make haste in dis
playing such contempt for its own adjudi-
cations, but that is, in large part, its own
concern.
Two things, however, we have a right
to demand, and the issue is of such mo-
mentous importance that we shall take
good care that neither be overlooked. This
question largely involves the pecunia1y
liabilities of powerful railroad and other
moneyed corporations. We insist that no
one heavily interested in them, either as
stakeholder or as long retained counsel,
can, without gross indecency, sit in the
trial. 1t raises questions lately much. dis
cussed among members of the bar. We
insist that no one, fresh from the bar, can,
after having already as an advocate ex-
pressed decided opinions concerning the
points now to be tried, sit as Judge ON
their trial.
In the universal alarm concerning the
purity of our Judiciary, we have been ac-
customed to turn to the Supreme Court as
a refuge from the prevailing corruption.
Let our Judges look to it that they do
nothing to cause even the shadow of sus-
picion to fall on their high office.