Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1871-05-10
Back .fofiOn iii The Supreme


1t is not often that VIC can copy
anything profitable TO our readers or
the country from the New York Trib-
uHe, but the following possesses so
much common sense that we are com
PEELED to copy. That the action Of
the Court is an outrage all fair minded
men must acknowledge, aud to our
mind Judges Strong and Bradley are
even greater demagogues than either
Ben Butler or "Maxy' Morton. The
Tribune says:
"Something over n year ago the
Supreme Court decided that the Le-
pal.Tender act was not binding as to
contracts made before its passage in
1862. The decision was made by n
full Bench, after thorough argument
and mature delibcration, four of the
Associate Justices agreeing with Chief.
Justice Chase in the plain aud appar.
emily equitable declaration that obi
CATIONS incurred when gold and silver
were the egal-tenders of the country
could not be paid in a deteriorated
currency created and lcgalized subso-
quent to the conclusion of the con.
tract Tho logic of the Bench and
the common sense of the people CO
incided, aud the decision was at once
accepted as proper and final, and, ac.
quescing in it as a fixed principle,
pending claims were settled, and bust.
ness, which had been affected by the
question in dispute, was equally re-
sumed." "
"But the same Court, differently
constituted, having niue members at
present, instead OF eight as then, two
Of whom are now to the Bench aud
fresh from long and successful advoca:
cy before the tribunal upon which
they now sit, has just reversed the
former decision. CAT least, snch re.
vcrsal will be announced on Monday
next; the decision is already so Ger.
taiuly known that the division of the
Bench on the question is publshed.--
The ChiefJustico aud three of the
surviving Judges who formerly united
with him still declare the act not
binding as to obligations contracted
before its passage. The other three,
who in 1870 were of the opinion that
the act was retroactive, are of the
same mind now; and, reinforced by
the two new Justices, enforce as the
law of the land that which five other
Judges declared only year ago to be
illegal.
"rhc effect of this decision cannot
but be to derange business. Power.
ful corporations, welding large politi-
cal and moneyod influence, are deeply
involved in the question, aud in al
most every instance the present de-
oision favors thoir interests ms against
those of individual contractors. The
decision, therefore, Injuries tho poor
many, and puts immense sums in the
pockets of the rich and fourishing few
corporations. This latter fact may
not impugn the justice of tho decision,
and would warrant, and perhaps ere
ate, no dissatisfaction, IL the legality
of the present decision were unques
toned but in Wow of the positive
character of The former action the last
will not be heartily acquiesccd in by
the popular voice Further than this,
it is decision which, however iusti.
fed by the technicalities Of the law,
violates common sense. Still further,
il will not be forgotten that the Grst
decision was reached only after long
discussion aud study, whereas the
present was argued only on Tuesday
last, and the decision was arrived at
yesterday. II is stated that the opin.
ions will not be perfected until De.
oembcr, the Judges resolving 60 pro.
pare them at leisure 1t would have
been wiser, VIC think, to have reserved
Judgment as we'll. All this is certainly
not calculated to inspire confidence in
the wisdom and Justice of the new
decision Indeed, it Is useless to con-
ccal the fact that public respect for
the highest tribunal in the land will
he lcssened by tho reversal of the or.
igiual judgment Not only will the
above circumstances be quoted in
dcrogation Of the Court, but the furth.
er one that the two Judges Bradley
and Slrong) who were instrumental
in reversing the action of the Court,
to the great advantage of the great
railway and moneyed corporations of
the whole country, were themselves
interested In railroads at The time of
their appointment"