The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-12-07

SUPREME COURT NOT PACKED
IN THE TIME OF GRANT TO Sc
CURE A REVERSAL OF THE
HEPBURN CASE.
SETS FORTH THE PROC
Letters From the Surviving MEM
bers of Gen. Grants
Cabinet.

WORCESTER, Mass, Dec. 6.-Sen-
-ator George +. Hoar has written a long
letter defending his brother, the late
Z. r. Hoar, attorney general in the
Grant cabinet, from an attack made
during the recent presidential cam
paign. Mr.. Hoar says in explanation
of the letter:
About a fortnight before the cleo
ton, when on my way to dinner of
the Norfolk club l read in a morning
paper that Mr.. Fairchild, formerly
secretary of the treasury, had repeated
in a speech before the Reform club
the statement, often contradicted, that
the supreme court of tine United States
had been packed to reverse the decis-
ion in Hepburn VS.. Griswold, in which
the court held the legal tender act as
unconstitutional. AT the dinner, a
few hours later, 1 criticised this state
ment as being as vile as was ever ut
tered upon the stump. l do not sup
pose that Mr. Fairchild was aware of
the falsehood of the charge that he
Endorses. He only made the too COM
mon mistake of adopting, without in
Vestigation, an error which had become
current in regard to the facts Of po-
litical history
After entering into details concern
ing the matter and quoting literally
from the records, Senator Hoar makes
public two letters just received from
two of the members Of the cabinet of
President Grant Says Senator Hoar
in this connection:
Il have received this letter from
Gov. Cox. He was then secretary Of
the interior in Grants cabinet. He
dWelt in the same house with At
torney General Hoar during the sum-
mer until the meeting of congress on
the first of December, 1869, and was
the judges intimate personal friend.
He would have known of this matter
if it had been known, both as a MEM
Der of the cabinet ana from his famil-
iarity with Judge Hoar. This is the
letter:
Cincinnati, o., Nov. g. 1S96.-My Dear Sena-
tor Hoar: In reply to yours of the Sd inst,
l would say that l have always regarded the
charge that the supreme court was packed to
reverse the legal tender decision in Hepburn
vs.. Griswold, as one Of the most curious in
stances of declaring an unwarranted conclu-
sion from mere coincidence. When l orig
lnally heard the assertions made l carefully
reflected, to see whether l could recall any
fact that sustained it. l could not Every in
cident pertaining to the appointment Of
Judges to fill the vacancies was, far as
my recollection could reach, exactly what 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.
l can recall some discussion of the char
Rc:er and qualities of Judges Strong and Brad
ley among members of the cabinet, but not
single word of reference to their opinions
ON the legal tender 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 de-
termined to recommend only such men as
eombined the qualities of able lawyers with
those Of perfectly pure, single-minded and
upright citizens. When the nominations were
made we 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 be-
cause, as matter of fact my personal con-
Vicuons then were and still are, that the
opinion OF Chief Justice Chase in Hepburn VS.:
Grlswold as we'll as in the subsequent legal
tender cases, so called, was the better one in
law and a sounder one in craftsmanship as
well as a solid barrier against all forms of
fictitious or fiat money.
One of your brothers strongest claims to
pubic reverence as a departed worthy in
my Judgment, was his unchanging adherence
to the highest possible rule of action in
selecting the judicial nominations as
attorney general and this was the most notice.
able, as it should be, when the positions to
be hlled were the highest. Faithfully yours,
j. D. Cox.
"Gov. Cox resigned his position in
the cabinet not long after this transact
ton, stating in a public letter his rea-
sons for resigning, that he had not
been duly supported by the president
the United States against fraud. 1t
is absolutely incredible and l do not
believe any man in the country will
suggest that Gov. Cox would have
forgotten such a transaction, or that
he would have screened it from public
condemnation.
II also have a letter from Gov. Bou-
telle, formerly secretary of the treas
ury. believe he and Gov. Cox are the
only surviving members of that cabi-
net:
Grafton, Nov. 6, 1S96-Dear Sir: My answer
to your letter of the Sd of this month must
be by negative statements rather than by
affirmative assertions. The charge to which
you call my attention is this:
That in the year 1870 the supreme court was
packed by President Grant for the purpose
of reversing the legal tender decision in the
case Of Hepburn VS.. Griswold, and that
ley were sent to the senate on Feb. Z, 1870
the nature of the decision in the above
named case, although it had not been an
nouneed from the bench, was known to the
president and the cabinet.
was member of Gen. Grants cabinet al
the time mentioned, and l was present al
one or more cabinet meetings when the sub
3ect was considered, and when opinions were
expressed as to the fitness of Messrs. Strong
and Bradley for the vacant places upon the
bench OF the supreme court
The legal tenoer controversy was not spoken
of, nor in any manner referred to by the
president or by any member of the cabinet
Indeed, the conversation was limited Strong
and Bradley were then without controversy
at the head Of the profession in the states
Of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and
Delaware. At that time there was justice
on the bench frem New England, one from
New York and one from the Pacific coast and
four from the central states to the West
Al that time the South was not considered
Since the controversy was opened the state
ment has been made that Judge Strong ha6
recognized the constitutionality of the lega
terder law In his place judge of the SUI
O1lTt Of Dcr1T, x-lx orafo
whether that fact was known to the presi
dent or to any member of the cabinet, but
there was no reference to the opinion Of
either Strong or Bradley. Truly.
George S. BoutelIe