Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1870-04-01
Legai-Tcnder Deefsieu.

Legai-Tcnder neefsiea.
Notion an ns SaPr~as C.srf for a ReargGHsr,
kcrerss o. At'orr,y Gcserui Hear, aRd R,Tly n
NJ. ar.tsie.
In the supreme Court OF the United state.
yesterday morning, as we stated in last evening"
STAR, melton for the rehearing Of the qucs-
tiOn Of the constitutionality of the legal tender
act was argued by the Attorney General, for the
United States, and by james NJ. Carlisle, on the
ourOsite side. The Attorney General in MS
address 20 the court hrst stating the posi- tinu OF
The cases, 60 and5,) ~ he understood them cor
tehde d that they still stood upon the dorket
and closed tins part OF his remark by saving
81 think that have the right % stand upon tie
record IN the cause, and 60 say that although Al
SET med q more convenient arrangement OF bust
ness that these cases should be postponed he
cause th3 result would perhaps make H. in m,
view Of the parties, imm lteria, further 90 dis
cuss the question; yet, IL the result has not male
IL, in their Judgment. ministerial 90 their inter
est 20 discuss the question, and the tribunal thar
they address are willing TO hear them upon tn
subject, that they have the right 20 do 80, and
that IL is neither a violation Of the rights OF the
other party. nor any violation OF professional
morals or courtesy, 10 insist upon the right"
Coming then to the reasons WHY the question
should in his opinion he reopeDed he said; "a
not insensible 60 the great weight OF char
acter, OF judicial experience, Of pablo rcputa-
non OF the claims-the just clsims-to the con
country of that majority of the court which ,,,o
nounccd the opinion on the legal-tender acts.
and i'm a case which had involved simply the
construction OF a statute and the determination
OF private right I should have been reluctant
especially in a case which every one must al
mt is open TO argument 10 strong on both sitles
20 have asked your HonOrs 90 reconsider ar
But the court viii pardon me IL I state what. IN
NV view, this case and this decision involves
and how u Is presented both 10 the parties
having rights and to the people o. tins country
more important decision IN IT. conss-
Quences, II seems 20 me. was hardly ever made
by this court and as L understand IL, here
speaking upon the record, il stands thus:
Your Honors have not decided that this legal
tender act did not. matter OF construction.
apply 10 contracts made before the passag. OF
the act. IL that were 50, IL would settle no yery
important and great principle. Sut your Hon
ors have decided that IL was not within the CON
stitutional power OF Congress 10 insert that pro-
vision, making Treasury notes a legal tender
for private debts previously contracted, into the
statute. We have, then, this position OF affair."
which, both on private and public grounds
feel that have right TO press upon your Hon
ors' notice statute passed By large maiorities
of both Houses of Congress, approved by the
President, having all the forms Of law the at
tention Of Congress when IL passed being called
TO the question of its Observation-Disclosures fhis
weight OF authority 10 begin with ON one side: a
statute substantially scquiesced in by the pe,-
PIE OF the United States for eight years, more
than seven years. in which millions uDoD
millions Of contracts have been settled 10 The
great l0ss Of parties 10 them; statute which 81
FAR AS i am aware, with but one exception bas
been held constitutional by every State court
upon and after the most thorou.yh eIahorste'
and exhaustive discussion; a statute upon tbe
constitutionsty of which this court at a time
wnen Dy law II consisted OF nIne judges, did, by
a majority Of only four to three. enter its iudg.
ment, with two vacancies upon the bench; and
II stands, therefore-reducing IL TO It's essence
that upon the judicial opinion OF a single man.
whose voice turned the majority, that great
question II sdjudcated. And IT, which IL a
supposable case, IL turned out that IN was AN
tI opinion about which even the deciding judge OF
some other time, II would come down to tba
point that, on the differing opinions at different
tunes OF his life OF single man the whole
constitutional power OF Congress and the Fx-
ecutive, in time Of the direst national ne
cessity, after this long, popular, acquiescence
and these decisions of State tribunals, was
forever TO be subverted and set aside and eN-
plunged from the practical powers OF this nation
by the judgment of this court. And upon the
question whether IL was necessary for the ever
that that necessity is judicial question ami
not a political one. The gravity of such a de-
cision, your honors, have no doubt, justly esti-
mate That IL was my duty, II that question
could be presented again with proprietv I'm tbe
exercise Of my Official functions. 10 Do So seemed
to me clear And may it please your honors,
lnvoying as II does such great mass OF private
Interests, but more, because il seems 20 me 10
involve a fundamental principle inSthe powers
OF the government, and, in my apprehension,
TO involve the question whether IL Il ever con.
stitutional TO have a rebellion beyond a certain
magnitude, have decided at the earliest pos
sible period 70 present II TO your honors, when
Is not TO be henceforth and forever the settled
law OF land, il shall now be declared what tIe
law Is. IL is not necessary for me 90 call your
honors' attention TO the fact that thi. n bv no
means unexampled. L had occasion the other
day, TO observe that in the great case of Mc(,ul-
loch vs.. The State of MARYLAND. the court al
lowed, within i've years afterward. that whole
question TO be reoPened and reargued II seems
TO me that If there can be any hope on the part
Of those who would not have concurred with
the decision Of the court, that this decision on
further consideration, might be changed ID must
be obvious to every mind, that the more speedi-
y II is done the better for all parties concerned,
and the better foI the country"
James M. Carlisle replied, saying the AttOr-
ney General had analyZed and disparagingIy
the court because. as ne had re-
marked, the question was decided by the vote
II single judge. However that might he IN
vas the judgment of the court which had been
in that case. What was now 10 he
,ome OF the highest judicial tribunal IN the land
I opinions were TO be reopened and reargued
because of the small majority deciding A ines
ion? Whatever might be the majority IL was
nevertheless the opinion OF the court. What
had they TO do with the previous opinions of the
'ourt? He then referred 10 the fact that the
,ase OF Henner & Griswold-one of the bank
,ases involving principles applicable 70 other
,arties-had been postponed from one term 10
mother for the purpose of argument thus show
ng they had all been carefully and elaborateIy
considered.
The court said they would take the matter
inder advisement.
Wages md Strikes In New York.