The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-12-07
RefutatiOn of One of the Wild state
ments Made by Bryan and Others
in the Campaign.
SOME HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
SENATOR HOAR HAS LETTERS FROM
OLD CABINET MEMBERS.
His Brother, r. II. HOnr, Was Attorney
General and Recommended ster-
ling Men for the Bench.

WORCESTER, Mass, Dec. Ex-senator
George f. Hoar has written a long letter
defending his brother the late e. r. Hoar,
attorney general in the Grant Cabinet,
from attacks made during the recent pres
idential campaign. Mr.. Hoar says, in ex-
PLANTATION of the letter:
About a fortnight before the election,
when on my way to a dinner of the Nor
folk Club, / read in morning paper that
Mr.. Fairchild. formerly secretary of the
treasury had repeated in a speech before
the Reform Club the statement, often con-
tradicted, that the Supreme Court of the
United States had been packed to reverse
the decision in Hepburn VS.. Griswold, in
which the court held the legal-tender act
unconstitutional. AT the dinner few
hours later / criticised the statement as be-
ing as vile a slander as ever was uttered
upon the stump. 1 do not suppose that
Mr.. Fairchild was aware Of the falsehood
of the charge that he indorsed. He only
made the too-common mistake of adopting
without investigation an error which mad
become current in regard to the fact on
political history"
After entering into details concerning the
matter and quoting literally from the rec
ords, Senator Hoar makes public two let
ters just received from two of the members
of the Cabinet of President Grant. Says
Senator Hoar, in this connection
II have received this letter from Gov
ernor Cox. He was then secretary of the
interior in Grants Cabinet. He dwelt in
the same house with Attorney General 1oar
during the summer until the meeting of
Congress on the 1st of December, 1869, and
was the judges intimate personal friend.
He would have known of this matter if it
al0nr. Of fhka
Cabinet and from his familiarity with
Judge Hoar. This Is the letter, dated at
Cincinnati, Nov. 6, 1896:
My Dear Senator Hoar-In reply TO
yours of the Sd instant, L would say tnat L
have always regarded the charge mat the
legal-tender decision in Hepburn VS.. Girls
wold as one of the most curious Instances
of declaring an unWarranted conciuslOh
from a mere coincidence. When l originally
fiected, to see whether L could recall any
fact that sustained it. | could not Every
Judges TO fill the vacancies was. SO far as
my recollection could reach. exactly Wnat
high minded men would wish, exactly what
all who knew Judge Hoar would expect
from an attorney general having his high
ideals of public duty A.,
IL can recall some discussion OF the
character and qualities of Judges Strong
and Bradley among members of the Cabi-
net, but not a single word OF reference 10
their opinions on the legal-te lder question,
or to any case pending or likely TO be
pending in the Supreme Court. Nothing
could be palmer than that the attorney
general was earnestly determined TO rec
ommend only such men as combined the
qualities OF able lawyers with those or per-
fectly pure. single-minded and upright cit
izens. When the nominations were made ,oa %e
felt that just such men had been selected
"I am the more sure that / should have
been quick to notice anything inconsistent
with the good purpose ! have described;
r,oDt IF
convictions then were and still are that
the opinion of Chief Justice Chase in Hep
burn VS.. Griswold. as well as in the sub
sequent legal-tender cases; so-called was
the better one in law and sounder one
in craftsmanship as well as solid barrier
against all forms of fictitious or nat
money.
to public reverence as a departed worthy,
i'm my Judgment is the unchanging adher-
ence to the highest possible rule of action
in sitting and selecting judicial nominal
tions attorney general and this was
most noticeable as it should be when the
Governor Cox resigned his place in the
stating in a public letter his reasons for
resigning that he had not been duly sup
ported by the President in his attempts to
protect the right for the United States
against fraud. 1t is absolutely incredible
and do not believe any man in the coun-
try will suggest that Governor Cox
or that he would have screened it from
public condemnation. / also have letter
from Governor Boutwell,. formerly secre-
tary Of the treasury. believe he and Gov
ernor Cox are the only surviving members
of that Cabinet 1t is dated from Grafton,
Nov. 5. 1896. and reads as follows:
MY Dear Sir-My answer to your letter
of the Sd of this month must be by mega
tive .tatements rather than by affirmative
my the fe is shs Tht in he a
1870 the Supreme Court was packed by
President Grant for the purpose of re-
versing the legal tender decision in case OF
names of Messrs. Strong and Bradley were
sent to the Senate Feb. Z. 1870. the nature
Of the decision in the above named case.
although it had not been announced from
the bench, was known to the President and
Cabinet.
"I was member of General Grants
Cabinet at the time mentioned, and / was
present at one or more cabinet meetings
when the subject was considered and when
opinions were express ed as TO the fitness
of Messrs. Strong and Bradley for the va
cant places upon the bench of the Supreme
Court. The legal tender controversy was
not spoken of. nor in any manner referred
to by the President or by any member OF
limited Strong and Bradley were then
witho-t controversy at the head of the
profession in the States of Penn
Delaware At that time there was JUS
tice on the bench from New England one
from New York and one from the Pacific
coast and four from the Central States Of
the West AT that time the South was
not considered.
. Since the controversy was opened the
had nas b ha ange
of the legal tender law in his place as
Judge of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
/ cannot say whether that fact was known
TO the President or to any member of the
Cabinet but there was no reference to the
opinion of either Strong or BRADLEY; Very