Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-04-27
HOW CoRPoRArroNs rnr0MPnED

OVER LAW
1t is notorious that Grant appointed
Messrs. Bradley and Strong Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court for the pur-
pose Of getting reversal of the decision
which that tribunal had previously rendered
affirming the unconstitutionality of the
legal tender act. Their assent was neces-
sary TO secure this reversal, and it was
readily given when the time came. This
was charged both before and after that de-
cision Of reversal was rendeded. 1t was so
apparent that this was the purpose of
Grant and those who controlled him, thai
even Republican journals, after the decision
had been rendered, made the same charge.
This damaging accusation against the Pre-
sident has gone unquestioned until very
recently. The New York Nation publishes
letter from ex-Attorney- General Hoar,
in which an attempt is made
to clear Grant from this grave
charge. There is one serious obstacle in
the success Of this defense. 1t comes a
little too late. The charges were freely
made at the time of the appointments, and
the scandal has been generally commented
upon since, not only by Democratic jour
nails, but in large portion of the Republi-
can press. Why has not Judge Hoar, OF
some other Cabinet officer familiar with the
circumstances, made this explanation be
fore? The Administration has not hesi-
tated to ieny far less serious charges than
this. The Nation was itself among the
first journals, certainly of the Republican
press, to srraign Grant for tamperiDg with
the highest judicial tribunal of the country,
and to oppose the reopening of the legal
tender question, which had already been
decided unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court. That journal said:
"One Of the very first acts of the present
| administration was to add to the Supreme
| Court two new Judges, chosen avoWedly
| because they were known to hold certain
! fixed opinions on a matter in litigation be-
tween private parties before the court, and
with the view and intention Of having
| judgment already given in that litigation
reversed by the aid of their votes. What
made the matter all the worse was that that
| Judgment bore hard on certain great cor
pOratioDs whose counsel one of the new
| judges had been, and that the relief it
granted was granted to creditors under con-
tracts which had for several years been de-
liberately violated.
DIT would be impossible to put into an
article in a newspaper all the moral ob-
jections there were to this performance.
Among the political objections to it were
these thatit was directly calculated to des-
troy the confidence of the country in all
subsequent decisions Of the court, or,
in other words, to destroy the popu-
lar respect for the whole Of
! that enormous branch of American iuTis-
! prudence which is embodied in judicial de-
cisiOns; that it was really an interference by
! the Executive alOne-an interference, too,
| such as royalty in its worst days has never
tempted-between private suffers about a
matter of property, the President having
| used his authority to effect the result of the
! suit almost as directly as if he had sent a
military force to prevent the execution Of q
writ or to intimidate the Judge on the
! bench; finally, that it was a direct and
! open tampering with the constitution Of the
Supreme Court, on grounds OF what seemed
to the President public policy, and in prepa-
ration for what he thought probable con
tingency, Che necessity for legal tenders in
! some other war)-he in fact constituting
himself sole judge Of the whole matter"
1t is too late for Judge Hoar to attempt
to defend Grant for making these appoint
ments. The facts point too unerringly to
the motive which prompted the appoint
ment Of Bradley and Strong, and now that
| they have done the work they were selected
to do, the defense of Judge Hoar will
amount to simply nothing. The previous
| arraignment Of Grant by the Nation shows
the rings that were subserved in the ap-
pointment Of Bradley and Strong and in
the action of the court by their votes. The
reversal Of its previous decision by the Su-
preme Court by the addition of Bradley
and Strong to that tribunal, was a triumph
of certain great cOrpOrations."