The Andrew County Republican. [volume] (Savannah, Mo.) 1871-1876, 1873-09-05
"PAcxINGr THE SUPREME COURT.

" "1dCAlN4fr lie oOl n6M6 SVOA1'
Among the stories which the oppssi-
ton press was most fond of repeating
during the Presidential campaign, and
which it still never tires of repeating,
was one that the, Administration had
packed the Supreme Court to obtain, D
decision in favor of the Legal ltendes,
act. Nothing more insidious and moth
ing more false than this accusation
could be imagined. It was of the fami9
ly OF falsehoods which is, and always
has been, favored by the, political
scandal-mongers. It related to the mo-
iyes of the Executive and the Senate.
Being impossible to prove, even if true,
it could be safely repeated, without the
shadow of proof to sustain it. As the
nominations to the Senate of the Judges
of the Supreme Court are made to and
considered by The Senate under a pledge
of secrecy, it was not necessary to go
counter to any public record in making
the charge. The Supreme Court being
the highest tribunal in the county
being, in fact, one OF the coordinate
branches of the Government itseh.any
stain upon its character that could be
laid to the account OF the Administra-
tion was sure 70 a.tracs attention, and
was likely. to bling discredit. The
Legal-tender act being, moreover, o,
very extreme measure, the opposition
might attack the cour. by which it was
sustained and through ne court the
Executive, with Q certain appearance OF
virtues AT the same time, it ran little
risk of being deemed unfsyorable, to a
paper currency, which the main leaders
of the opposition have always been
ready to carry to, much greater lengths
than the Republican party. q.
The libel Of the Supreme Court has
been many times contradictsd. 1t has
lately, however, been refuted In way
which deserves the special attention OF
all respectable men who have ever given
ear to 1t. Several articles have recent
ly appeared in the Boston Daily AdUer-
tser from the pen Of o wIitsr evidently
familiar with the history of the case in
oil its bearings. The charge against the
Administration and the Republican
party has taken two forms. One was
that Congress created judgeship OF the
Supreme Court to enable the President
toappointtoi itsome one who would favora
reversal OF the decision against the con-
stitutionality of she Legal-tender act:
The other was that the President flied
the vacancy thus created, and le caused
by the resignation Of Judge Grier, with
the intention. o: securing reversal Of
that decision. The writer in the Adver-
tiser calls attention to the following
facts bearing on this charge, and show
ing its real character: -.
The Legal-tender net was decided to
be unconstitutional so far as its rela.es
to debts incurred before its passage on
the 7th Of February, 1870. The court
then consistedof seven acting members,
and there were two vacancies. The act OF
Congress making the whole number of
Judges nine, is the one which is said to
have been passed for the purpose of
enabling the PresidenS to pack the
court, aud secure the reversal of this
decision. Yet this act was passed in
April, 1859, ten months previous to the
decision it is alleged to have been meant
to affect. Pl' lnly, therefore, il is i'm
possible that in its first form the charge
can be correct. tr -a'saasl'
Il is not any more so in its secocd
form, which is that the President Sc
cured the reconsideration and reversal
of the decision by extraordinary means.
The answer to this Is, that the practice
of the court fixed during the Chief JUS
ticeship Of the eminent john Marshall,
demanded the course chat was taken.
This is established by the language of
Chief Justice Marshall himself, in the
case Of the City of New York vs.. Min
Is Peters, 118), as quoted by The writer
in the Advertiser: ''''' Z. " 2 "I
"The practice OF the court is not
(excep. 10 cases of absolute necessity TO
deliver any Judgment in cases where
constitutional questions are involved,
unless four judges concur in opinion,
thus making the decision that of a ma
jority of the whole court. In the pres
ent case four judges do rot concur in
opinion as to the constitutional question
which has been argued. The Court,
therefore, direct these cases to be rear
gued as the next term, under the ex-
pectation that q larger number OF the
judges may then be present.
This sound rule, entirely worthy OF
the profound Judgment and delicate dis
cretion of Marshall, to which the Su-
preme Court owes much of its great au-
thority, exactly applies to tie case OF
the legaltender act. That case was ar
gged before Q court from Which one
member was absent, and was heard by
but eight justices. 1t was decided by a
court from which two members were
absent and the decision was considered
only ~ seven justices. The decision
! was rendered by q bare majority of this
court, four Justices only joining in 1T.
It was one of the most important decis-
ions ever rendered, and the most i'm
pOrtant at that time possible for the
court to make. It affected vast sums of
Indebtedness throughout the Union, and
its immediate operation was of the great
est moment. But its relations to the
Constitution were still more SO, for it
stripped the Government of most es-
sential, if not Of an indispensable, war
power, and did this by the action of an
actual minority of the Supreme Court.
Livery consideration of policy and ju.-
tice demanded, therefore, that the well.
| established rule of the court should be
observed, end that the question should
he reargued and reconsidered. That I
should be was, moreover, the inevitable
result OF the natural operation Of the
ordinary method of transacting business
| in the court. III IL
There is not, as We have said, o shad;
ow of evidence, much less OF proof, thai
Gen. Grants appointment Of Judges
Bradley and Strong was made to effect @
reversal Of the legal-tender decision
The action Of the court in the matter
was Independent and ordinary. The
only thing in the case which could Justly
affect the reputation of the court wa.
the undue haste with which decision