The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-05-01

the grounds explained IN the dissent. But tho
three Judges who had disspntcd from W. dccia-
ion in Hepburn AIT. Griswold insists, upon re-
hearing IL, and their views prevailed by the
votes OF the ncwly-appOintrd justices. An
order was therefore mndc that these cnecs be
IXI prfi Tor argument on Monday the ''' Of
This order was In disregard Of the usual
practice ot the Court to leave the time for nrRu-
mont in eases. situated rs these were. to be ar.
ranged by counsel. subject 10 the approval Of
the Court; and before II was announced u lrttrr
was received from Mr.. Carlisle by tho Chicf
Justice. protesting against nc r"argumcnt OF
lust To MS clients, whose rights had been
already adindicatcd.
In consequence of this letter. the Chief JUS
tice sintcdt 70 the Judges. before going Into court
on Monday morning. the 2Sth. that he would
defer the announcement of the order for argu-
mcntupiil MIR. Cnrisc's letter could hr consid-
ercd. 1t was then ordcred-Mr. Justic c Brad:
ley having gone TO New Jcrsey-that it should
bc considered Immediately after the adiourn-
mont the next DAY. Accordingly. Mr.. Justice
Bradley having returned. the subject WIS
brought thn next day March ~. before the
The discussion resulted in m order that the
upon the matters involved in the motion Of the
former ON Thursday morning, March 81. and
that the matter be considered in conference i'm.
mcdiatcly after the Adjournment OF the court
on that LAY. and that the result be- announced
the next morning. This order was without
precedent. The regular motion day IL Fridny
and the regular conference day il saturday. No
instance IL recorded. nor is any instance re
mcmhcred In which III" regular motion day
ticipatcd for the purpose OF reaching any pay
tculnr case. That 1t WINS done in this casc solcly
for the purHlso ol forcing n rchcaring OF tho
legal-tendcr question at this term will hardly
be questioned The order WINS passed against
tho circumstances Of the justices who dis
scented from the original order and 10y the votes
OF the new Justices. and was carried into full
effect.
The Attorney General and Mr.. Carlisle wcre
heard on the motion of the former on Thurs
day morning. an argument already in progress
having been suspended contrary to all prccc-
dent. Tor That nurnpsN. The conference
held Immediately after adjournment. and then
new order was made by the snmc majority ms
In the previous instances. without inquiry into
the convenience OF counsel: That the cases of
Luthams .agt. the United Statcs.. and DominH
agt. the United States. lie heard on all ques:
| tons involved In the records on the second
| Monday Of April OF this term'-th Is, April H.
| day, Friday. Anril l. by the Chief Justice. who
distinctly stated that he. with Justices Nelson,
| Clifford. and. Field disscnttd from i. Suh-c-
quently. on Friday. the sth Of April. the gular
motion day. statement in behalf Of Mr. Car
| lisle WIS submitted 10y Mr., Sattcr to the cife 4
| that professional duties. undertaken previously
| In New York. would detain him In that city
| present i'm court on that day, Upon this state
| mcnt and after some observations hy the NJ
| tOrney General. and some remarks by members
| of the court the hearing WIS further postponed
until the next week. on Monday. the 18TH OF
During. the following week the Chief Justice
| learned from Mr.. Norton. the Solicitor of the
| Court Of Claims. when the order that the two
| cases thus ordered Tor argument should abide
| the decision in other cases was made. that he
| then representing the Government in these
| casos-Iistincily understood the order made by
the Court Us dire ting that the decision OF the
| legal tender question involved In them should
| abide the decision OF the same questions in the
cases OF Bronson AIT Rod,s aud Hepburn agt.
Grswold. specially assigned, and upon tho
Chief Justices request Mr.. Norton embodied
this statement in a note addressed 70 him lthe
{. Jl. This note. with the note OF Mr.. Carlisle
submitted through Mr.. Potter. showed conrlu-
slvey that counsel understood the matter pre-
cisely rs II wis understood by the majority OF
the Justices then on the bench md still MEM
bers Of the court and the Chief Justice Thought
II his duty To- call the attention OF tho Cour
again TO the subject. believing that even vet the
order for argument 50 far as the Legal -ienlei
| question was involved. might be rescinded. II,
| did so but the same majority which mad inadt
to it.
The question was then made 10y Justice Field
| whether the two newly appointed justices were
the Camden and Arihov Railroad Company. th'
J Board of Directors having made the payment o.
. Interest IN coin contingent upon the pcrma
nence Of the decision in Hepburn AIT. Griswold
Mr. Justice Bradley stated that he had sold al
pointment; and MIR Justice Strong said he helt
some shares, hut though the interest was small
anu not as ne seemed 70 mink, u ulsduallhca'
tion. he could easily obyate the objection bJ
on Monday, tho 18th. just before going into
| court, the Chiei Justice was surprised to heal
| that the cases would probably be dismissed
But this actually happened;
| When the cases were called, Mr. Chatflold
representing the Lathams we'll as Deming-
arose and said that In behalf OF his clients h'
would relieve the court from the further consid
Grafton Of these cases. and with the permission
OF the court would dismiss them. Some ObJec
ton being made 10y the Auorney-Gencrala an,
on the bench. the court, at the suggestion Of Mr.
Justice Miller. retired TO consider 81 the matter
No objection to the proposed dismissal wat
made in conference except by Dlr. Justice Brad
| ley. who. however. yielded to the general opn
ion that in cases OF this kind the court could no
refuse the leave asked.
Thereupon the court resumed its sitting, an,
| flnal Of
and the cases were dismissed.
The FOREGOING statement facts relating the order
for reargument the legaender que in the
Of Laihams agt the United STATES AMI Dcming aet IN
United states and the dismissal OF those eases which oc
Cured IN March and April, 1870" also written h
Mr. chase ami Is also among the papers belonging to III
estate now in my possession
| Both these papers correctly copied in my owl
hand, and are furnished by me to Mr.. o. u. Latham
March II, ISIS, at tue city Of Washington.
J. W. souucKfas
The following paper prepared by the chief justice
in April $50 and by him fled with the Clerk t
supreme Court II concurred in by justices Nelson
Clifford and Field. and intended by them 20 be- 81
the Of protest against the OF the maort
the Court in the order Of the hrs OF that month for
rehcarng OF the legalienier question II subs,
quenty thought best 10 Withdraw II from the records
the court which done, aud the original is no,
among papers belonging the estate ofhe late Chic
Justice in my possession. j.. W scnucsHRs
| THE PROTEST OF FOUR UPRIGHT sUDGEs.
Supreme Court Cf the Tpued Sdfes-O H. an
o. s. Latham act The Tnited states. ISRAEL Dep,
ing dgt. The Lnded SidfeS.-Appeals from tn
Court Of Claims.-Fuur members Of the Court
the Chief Justice and Justices Nelson, Cllnord
and Field-havlng dissented from the order q
the Court made on the first of this month. whirl
directs that these cases be set for argum' n
upon all questions arising upon the records
think II their duty to place upon the record
of the Courtth the grounds Of that dissent
The main purpose Of this order Is to reOpo
for argument the legal-tende questions alread
adiudicatcd at this term. under Circumstance
which we shall proceed To state.
, During or before the December Torn
1866, which ended on the lGlh Of --, sGi
nne cases supposed 10 present moro or les
prominently various questions upon tho con
Struction or constitutonaity OF the lcgal-tcndr
clauses in the Currency acts OF 1862 and 1856
had been brought upon the docket OF the Su
preme Court
One OF these cases-that Of Lane County ag
| tho state Of OregOn-prcsente tho question
whether the lcgal-tender clauses. properly con
strued, made United States notes u logul-ieudr
for taxes which the Inv Of the state Required O
be paid in coin and whether, Il such wns ih
effect Of the act. twas consiltutionnl Another
that of Bronson art. kodra presented the quos
E ton whether the legal-t'nder clauses ME ir
specific contracts Tor payment IA com; nnu