The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-06-03
A PREVIOUSLY DIVIDED COURT.

decision of the Supreme Court Of the
United States in which the court was twice
dlvided-frst against and then for the issue
in question-seems to have been lost sight
of just now. Nevertheless, for more than
twenty years, and until recent date the
decision has been the subject of heated
contention. Reference is made 10 the legal
tender decision. Whether wise or unwise.
during the war for the Union Congress
passed an act making its paper money
known as greenbacks legal tender for the
payment of public and private obligations.
At the date of its passage it was de-
rounced as unconstitutional by the anti
war party in the North, but later, when an
effort was made to retire the greenbacks.
a majority of the leaders of that party
stood for the legal-tender paper of the
United States.
Soon after the close of the war cases
were brought to test the constitutionality of
the act. The validity Of the act was az
firmed by the United States courts in New
York and Pennsylvania, but in lS67-6S the
question reached the United States Supreme
Court on appeal from a Kentucky court.
The cause was argued and reargued. On
Feb. Z, 1870, the court handed down an opin-
ION written by Chief Justice Chase TO the
effect that the Constitution does not
thorize the issue OF notes which should be
legal tender in payment of debts contracted
before the passage of the law. In this con-
nection it may be said that Judge Chase.
who was secretary of the treasury when
the legal-tender act was passed, in recon-
lendins its enactment expressed the be-
lief that it was constitutional
AT that time the Supreme Court consisted
of eight members, who. on this question.
stood five against and three for the consti-
tutionality of the legal-tender act. At that
time however. the court was In process
Of reorganization, Judge Grier. of the ma
jority of the court, resisning, leaving the
court standing four to three. President
Grant filled the vacancy by the appoint
rent of Judge Strong. of Pennsylvania.
Congress having authorized a ninth asso-
oiate justice about this time. President
Grant appointed Judge Bradley. of New
Jersey These two associate justices were
in favor of the constitutionality of the
legal-tender act. and decision reversing
the former one and sustaining the law was
made May l. 1871. the court standing five
in favor and four against.
A nue. and cry was Immediately raised
that President Grant had packed the su-
preme Court for the purpose of establishing
Reputation as a constitutional doctrine"
For months this charge was shouted up
and down the country. in spite of the evil
'cence presented that General Grant had
not the remotest idea of the views of these
two lawyers upon the constitutionalIty of
the legal-tender act when they were Sc
lected Those who desire 10 know how
vehement and fierce denunciation can DO
can satisfy their curiosity by reading the
The haters of General Grant in his own
Marty at that time were most reckless in
their attacks upon him for packing the
court" Ii may be said that probably
majority of the ADLER lawyers In the Re-
publican party at that time agreed with
JuuSe NHdSe thd1 tIie act was unConstltu-
tional. Now. when IL is recalled how zeal
Gus General Grant was 10 maintain the ma.
t.onal credit and TO bring about the re-
sumption Of specie payments. We see how
wicked was the charge that he was de
termined Ito establish reputation as a
constitutional doctrine" There is reason
10 believe that whatever might have been
the Judgment of many good men in 1871.
men now generally recognize that the re-
suits of the decision were beneficial that