The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1881-12-30

ed to and considered by my predecessor
the only matter submitted as new eyi
dence being certified copies OF divers lei
ters written ut different dates, from Nh,
% to June 27, 1899, inclusive, by NJ. Birch
ard, the agent appointed to make sale o
the lands embraced within, in the For
Dearborn military reservation, to the Sec
retary OF War, concerning the sale OF sale
lands and extracts therefrom embodied Ii
an affidavit, the object Of the introduction
OF these papers being to show that the lot
sold by Agent Birchard didn't bring fail
price lido not consider this material
question in the case, but II It were other
wise, II appears from the faCe Of the papers
thus presented, that the matters reported
by Birchard must have received the con-
sideration OF the Secretary Of War before
he approved tho sale and executed the
deeds to the purchasers and hence that ex.
eCutiye discretion has already been exer,
cised upon this subject; but the letters OF
Birchard were matters Of public record in
an executive department Of tlfe govern
ment, and related to the sales, disposal or
appropriation Of the land In question, and
hence they cannot be treated US newly dis.
covered evidence. (See decision OF this
department Of March 9, 1881, in the mat.
ter OF Chauvin vs. Grant,
There is therefore nothing new presented,
either Of law or fact, and no suggestion OF
inadyertencyor accident on the part OF my
predecessor In rendering his decision, The
present proceeding therefore seems to be
In the nature OF an appeal to the tribunal
OF the last resort from Its own recorded de-
cision, The Supreme Court in Corning
ct, al. vs. the Troy Iron and Nail Factory,
l5Howard, 400, said; II Is plain therefore
that under the glise OF an appeal from a
decree of the Circuit Court this is an ap-
peal in fact from the decision Of this court,
There must be an end to the litigation at
some time, To allow tho second appeal 10
the Court OF last resort, as the same
questions that were open to dispute at first
would lead to endless litigation. In Rob-
erts versus Cooper, POS, Howard, 4Sl, the
Court used similar Language In announcing
the settled rule as to the power Of the Su-
preme Court OF the United States To review
Its own decisions To the same principle
are @, i. l2, Peters 4SS, Wheaton 4Sl,
CanCh 3lS, l5, Peters 81, 3, Howard, 424,
7, Wheaton 55, 10, Howard 0S, lS, Howard
42, s, y, Wallace l2. And It seems to me
upon general principles to be maniiestly
against sound policy and good department.
al regulations-if not against administra-
tive Inv, us expounded in various opinions
Of the Attorney General, to disturb the de.
cisions Of tho highest appellate executive
tribunals made upon careful and deliberate
Of all the facts and law Of
tho case and argument Of the counsel, even
upon applications presented 10 the execu-
tive officers, by whom decisions were rem
dered when new material is presented
md there Is no inadyertenCe or accident
shown in the rendition Of the same. En-.
tertaining this view, must decline to dis
turb my predecessors decision, which has
been acquiesCed In for more than two years,
while my predecessor was in office. The
papers before me upon the reargument Of
the caso are hereby forwarded for files Of
your office.