The New York herald., 1870-04-01
THE LEGAL TENDER QUESTION


Arguments in the United States Supreme
Court on the Proposition TO Reopen the
Question of the tionaiity oil thc Le-
gal Tender Act.
WAsHIsGroN, March 81, 1870.
IN the Supreme Court OF the United States this
morning motion for the rehearing OF the question
Of the constutlonalty or the Legal Tender act was
argued by the Attorney General for the United
Stetss, by lanes NJ. Caii,rae On ,uo vppvs,v~
side. Tho Attorney General addressed the Court as
fcllows:--
ARGUMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL HoAR,
May please the Court--I hold In my hand O letter
which received from his Honor the Cnlei Justice,
enclosing a communication from Mr.. Carlisle and
informi.ag .g ms that the Court would hear me upon
the court this morning. understand the question
upon winch have permission to address your
honors Is whether the cases number six and number
would involve. perhaps, substantially the Same
question--the case in which MIR. Merriman
IL concerned d-shatf stand for argument and upon
what points. the motion on the part OF the United
states is that tax cases standing upon the docket
United States is party on the one eide and prl-
vate person on the other, shall be heard and de-
what had previously occurred called your Honors
attention TO the fact mat the question OF the constt1
notes legal tender for private public debts as
involved III these cases, was raised upon the record
ana asked your Honors whether ~ would be your
pleasure TO hea US upon thai question. 1 deemed
~ my duty. hoe respect TO The court which had so
receltly announced Judgment involving that ques
undoubtedly where the Court has malureIy ana
fully considered question Of law and has decided II,
the same Court docs consider proper 70 take up
the time which other suitors are waiting to
occupy with reconsideration Of q question upon
however tba. your Honors sha repeat that question
and IN the first place. my attention Is very forcibly
directed by this communication, and II 1t had been
made when l was present I'm court II would have
received my attention at The time. 10 tie position
OF these two cases may say 10 your H0n0rs what
a nf ha xylts
nave recently become sucn, aware Of that
since 1t has been my duty to represent the United
those cases which has any bearing upon the ques.
tion. lind those cases upon The docket Tue party
to be heard by this tribunal upon any question ir-
VOWED IN the suit which anects the rights OF that
exssen and s S ~ as @ esen So far
address Is clear and decided that they deem n a
waste Of ,her time ana an Improper pressure upon
such an Intimation OF The Court should OF course
bow with profound respect. Ii the Court did not
could affect Its decision 1t would be unbecomng in
a counsellor OF the court TO urge rclearing. These
spring inquired whether tde5e cases that
STOOL upon the list Of cases OF the United States fur
nished me were TO be heard, and was told that as
they involved the question IN some aspects OF the
Legal Tender act, ana as that had en- fully argued
had been passed until a decision should bs
ammo announced upon tLat question. Last October,
1s5s applied to the Court in regard to these
cases when they were reached In their order,
ana said to the Court that understood that they
had been passed before my term OF Once com.
'menced, because tncy involved the question OF the
legal tender and asked whether t was the pleasure
Of the Court that We should proceed to aigue them
and your Honor said that they would be passed iof
the present; that they might as well be continued
think was the impression; ANA l think they were
continued. when the term opened and the docket
was commenced again the same question was asked
by me OF the Court, and the same reply was made
g. T6at Is all Of my oicial relation TO Inc cases; tnat
rs all OF which nave any personal KNOWLEDGE l
had made no suggestion tnot the Judgment IN these
cases should depend upon or have any other con.
nsStlon WIN the cases In which the Court rendered
Judgment few weeks ago than to inquire OF the
Court whether was their pleasure tnat the argu.
ment should be postponed untl after that
sats om %as aas aeSs
place before but l have inquired Of my
predecessor IN Office, and he has informed me that
been made by him or with hts knowledge. Mr. Mer.
riman says there made as far as he knows
comes then, may 1t please your Honors n that be
opinion OF the tribunal which s 70 render judgment
WITH the consent and acQuiesence OF the counsel
case has been passed until another case had been
legal right TO follow the same adjudication. It is
diaerent party: Without mis- agreement the Court
csnnos ceTtain not tho other side say that his
mined by 1t. AZ far as am concerned therefore n
your Honora please, though n has never been INV for
wsS Mnom s 70 nave amy doubts WITH
ally IN contract In regard to agreements stippatoDs
Oh understandings, think that have the right to
stand upon the record in the cause and TO say thai
although II seems q more convenient nrranrement |
OF business that these cases should be postponed
because the result would, perhaps, make n, IN the |
tho question; yet II the result has not made 1t |
"a ,nr.,, ,neir Judgment imnaterial to their M
;eres,s ;el,s, TO discuss the question, and the
upon the subject think that they nave a right to