The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1870-04-16
The Legal Tender Decision Reversal
1.-The Argument.

The Legal Tender Decision Reversal
The Argument.
| WAsII1NaTOS, March 31.-In
the Supreme Court to-day, Attor-
ney General Hoar made q brief
argument to show why the legal
tender decision should be reopen
ed. He was not insensible to the
great weight of the judiciary, it's
public reputation and it's claims
! to the confidence Of the country,
but more important decision in
its consequences, both public and
private, was never before pro-
nounccd. The statute on which
it was based was passed by a large
/ majority in Congress, approved
by tho President, having all the
forms of law. Attention had been
called in both Houses to it's con-
stitutionality. There was this
weight of authority to begin with,
and besides it was law substan-
TALLY acquicsced in by the people
+ for nearly eight years-on which
millions upon millions Of dollars
in contracts had been settled. The
statute, so far us he was aware,
with one exception, had been held
constitutional by every State tri-
bunal. When by 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 ques-
ton, therefore, stood, reducing it
to it's essence, that upon the po-
litical opinion of q single man the
case was adjudicatcd. He sug~
gested it should not be left to Il
single man to decide upon the
whole constitutional power affect
ing legislation of such al impoR-
tant character. He pressed the
re~opening of the question, because
it concerned a great mass of pri-
vate interests, but more especial
! ly because it seemed to him to ia
volve a fundamental principle,
viz: The powers of the Govern
, ment. He desired again to pre-
sent it when the bench was full
, SO they may forever settle what
the law should be. Such cases Of
reconsideration were by no means
without example. In the case Of
McCulloch VS.. the State of Mary
land, the court, after opinion was
pronounced. allowed the whole
question to be re-opened and re-ar-
gued. 1t seemed to him that it
would be better for all parties con-
cerneQ if the opinion the legal
tender case could be changed.
Mr.. james M. Carlisle replied,
saying that the Attorney General
had analyzed and disparagingly
criticised the court because, as he
had remarked, the question was
decided by the vote Of a single
judge. However that might be,
it was the j,adgm ent Of the court
which had been given in that
case. What, now, was to become
of the highest judicial tribunal in
the land if opinions were to be
re-opened and re-argued because
Of the small majority deciding
tho question? Whatever might
be the majority, it was neverthe-
less the opinion of the court.
What had they to do. with the
previous actions Of tho court? He
then referred to the fact that the
case of Hoffman 81 Griswold, one
of the bank cases involving the
principles applicable to another
party, had been postponed from
one term to another for the pur-
pose Of argument, showing they
had all been carefully and elabo-
rately considered. The court said
they would take the matter under
adviscment.
XVIII AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION INTRODUCED.-S
tio1, 1.-The RIGHT of citizens of