Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1871-04-27

There appears to be no doubt that the supreme
court has decided the legal tender act to be con-
stitutional, and that it applies to debts contract
ed before as well as since its passage. The de-
cision has not yet been formally announced;
but it is understood that five justices, Miller,
Davis, Swayne, Strong and Bradley concur in
this opinion, while four, Chief Justice Chase and
Justices Nelson, Clifford and Field, dissent. The
members of the court, having heard the argu-
ments last week, met in council on Monday,
and arrived at their decision, which will be an
nounced when the court assemblies the first
week in May, though the written opinions will
not be delivered until the October term. The
previous decision of the court on this question,
in the case of Hepburn against Griswold, is thus
oyerruled. In that case it will be remembered
the court was divided, four judges against three.
The four who held the act unconstitutional then
as applied to debts contracted before its passage,
are of the same opinion now, while the three
who then dissented, reinforced by the recently
appointed justices, Strong and Bradley, have
now become the majority Of the court.
This decision is severely criticised by some OF
the newspapers. They say that it will seriously
impair the dignity and usefulness of the court
by weakening the public confidence in its indie
pendence and impartiality. They also comment
upon what they are pleased to call the indeeen
haste with which this conclusion was reached a
a single sitting, and before there was time ever
to prepare written opinion. These criticisms
seem to be unreasonable and unjust. The ques
ton has been most exclusively discussed man
times and before many tribunals. 1t is no
probable that the counsel employed in the cas-
just heard, advanced any new arguments, an,
there can he no doubt that the new judges, q
well as the old ones, were perfectly familiar witt
the previous arguments and opinions. The
had only to consider whether anything new hat
been said of sufficient weight to influence theil
judgment.
The only feature that seems at first unsatisfac
tory in connection with this case is that the two
new judges were, before their appointment
counsel for great corporations which have {
large pecunlary interest in the question dc
cided. This, however, was not easily avoidable
There are few lawyers Of the highest standing
and the selection Of judges for the supreme cour
must be made from these,-who have not beer
retained by wealthy corporations. 1t is no
necessary 10 suppose ulat they are lnnuence
unfairly by their former professional relation
in coming TO an opinion which has been hel
and declared, after formal argument by the 81
preme courts of all the states, we believe, ez
cept one, and by three judges of the Unite
States supreme court. The opinion of th
court in Hepburn against Griswold was, more
over, extremely unsatisfactory TO the legal pro
fesSion, even to many who approved the conclu
sion, but could not accept the reasoning by wbicl
twas reached. That decision was unexpected; i
overturned uniform succession of precedent
established by courts of authority only less thar
that Of the tribunal of last resort in the Unites
States; it was in effect the opinion of one man
who had himself formerly thought otherwise. O
the validity Of the act and its necessity, and if
reversal only re-establishes view Of the Ia,
which was universally acquiesced in and acte
upon for eight years, aud until nearly all III
contracts affected by it were discharged, and Ii
parties to them had received all the benefits
injuries which its operation could occasion.