The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-04-26

Will Sny.
| From several sources at Washington, and
| In terms so positive that we cannot doubt IL
! we have the information that the majority OF
| the Supreme Court OF the United States have
agreed upon an opinion. and that on Monday
next they will declare it in open court, AFFIRM
| ing the validity of the Legal Tender act Of
| Congress of 1862, not only in reference 70
contracts made subsequent TO the passage OF
the act but also in reference TO contracts
made before its passage. The question sub
mitted to the Court, after argument on .
rehearing on Tuesday last, was whether the
so-called Legal Tender act is valid or Invalid
under the constitution in its application 10
debts contracted before its passage; and, OF
course, in deciding upon this question In the
affirmative the Court afirms the validity OF
the act touching debts contracted after its
passage. Something over a year ago, after
long, exhaustive and exhausting arguments on
both sides, the Court decided, five to three,
Chief Justice Chase delivering the opinion,
that the Legal Tender act could not apply TO
debts contracted before its passage, and that
accordingly all such debts must be paid In
coin. This opinion did not touch the question
contracted since its passage but there was'an
impression abroad at that time that il this
question had been brought before the Court
its decision would have been that this Legal
Tender act is unconstitutional in reference to
the payment of all debts-past, present and
to come.
Mr.. Chase, as Secretary of the Treasury,
was the author of this act, which Mr.. Chase,
as Chief Justice, as far as called upon to
decide, declared to be beyond the authority of
Congress. So far, at least, he has not been
able to reconcile his necessities as Secretary
Of the Treasury in the war for the life Of the
nation with the constitution of the United
States. During the war, however, the carping
politician may say, Mr.. Chase was regarded
as the. head and front of aggressive radical
ism, while in 1868 he was candidate before
the Democratic Convention for the Presidency,
and that this change of base may have thrown
new light upon the mind Of the Chief Justice
on the Legal Tender act. At all events he is
reported now on this new decision to be with
Justices Nelson, Clifford and Field. all demo-
Gratis, in the negative; while in the affirma-
tive are Justices Miller, Davis, Swayne, Brad
ley and Strong, the first three appointed by
Lincoln and the last two by President Grant.
But can it be possible that party politics or
personal schemes or interests have anything to
do with the decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United Statesp 1t is pretty broadly
charged by two Of our city contemporaries that
personal interests or party affiliations are
potential even in this Supreme Court.
For example, the Tribune, after approving,
with terms of high admiration of the Chief
Justice, the opinion of the Court of last year
on this Legal Tender act and after declaring
that this new decision will ignore the poor and
put Immense sums in the pockets of the
rich and fiourishing few corporations" and
| after rectlng some facts in connection with
this new decision, says, "Not only will the
above circumstances be mentioned in deroga-
ton of the Court, but the further one that the
two Judges bradley and Strong) who were
instrumental in reversing the action of the
Court, to the great advantage of the great
railway and moneyed corporations Of the
country, were themselves interested in rail-
roads at the time of their appointment"
Now, here we have side blow at General
Grant, who appointed these two Judges, and
we have puff of the Chief Justice, from
which we might infer that the Tribune is still
nursing him and is working to cut out General
Grant for the next Presidency. But why not,
when in the first place the 1'ri6une's specie
payment crotchets are wholly at war with the
maintenance of our paper money system, and
when, in the second place, General Grant
neglected to consult Mr.. Greeley in his Custom
House reorganization?
Next, with their never failing antediluvian
chop logic on State rights, the editors of the
| Post deplore this new decision as another step
| to centralized government and then with
some broad illusions to the personal compost
ton Of the Court, and especially to the per-
| sonal opinions of Justices Bradley and Strong,
| we are told that ''many observers go further,
and freely observe that these gentlemen, who
were well known long before their appoint
| ment to have formed and expressed similar
| opinions in the service of the great corpora
tons to which they belonged, are on the bench
for the purpose Of changing its judgment; 50
that the decision of the Court is really nothing
more or less than the will of the appointing
power" In other words, it is here suggested
that General Grant, in the appointment of JUS
tices Bradley and Strong, deliberately packed
the Supreme Court in order to obtain she de-
cision he desired on this Legal Tender act
But have not the learned pundits of the Post
been also disappointed in the matter Of certain
''castles in Spain?" We cannot tell, but we
may remark that since the appointment of
| General Sickles to Madrid everything to them