Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-02-16
VERY FEW SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS
ARE RECONSIDERED

Washington, Feb. 16.-The phrase
land it is so ordered" with which so
many decisions OF the United States
supreme court are concluded is &C
cepted by the legal profession not only
of the United States but of the world
as the nearest approach there is to
absolute finality.
Petitions for rehearing Of the cases
are not infrequent occupying much
the same position in practice before
the supreme court that the routine
motion for a new trial does in the
county or city courts, but occasions
on which the supreme court has
granted such petitions are so rare
hat the exceptions are historical.
Necessity of bringing a legal dis
pute, to a close at some point is said
to have influenced the policy of the
court in this regard, a policy which
has stood since the days of Chief JUS
tice Marshall. A secondary considera-
ton is the fact that the court is always
from eighteen months to two years
behind it's calendar and, unless opti-
mistic attorneys were curbed some
where, the most trivial cause" might
be prolonged almost Indefinitely.
Only two clear cut cases in which
the court has agreed to reconsider it's
formal decision are recalled by veter-
an attaches. The most famous was
the appearance Of the late General
Benjamin f. Butler as a friend of
the court to point gu what he
thought was a palpable error in the
judgment given in American Emil
grant company VS.. Adams county,
Iowa. The story is told that General
Butler himself hesitated to TAX up
the question of a rehearing especially
since the formal motion had been de-
MED but upon reading the record in
the case he determined that the high
est American court should not be per-
mitted to rest under the false con-
struction it had promulgated.
IF your honors will read my brief,
I am certain you will be inclined to
thank me-" he is said to have replied
when the bench called his attention
to the violation of practice-if not of
clear ethics-he was making.
The court read the brief and volun-
tarily reversed itself.
The second outstanding incident
was that of the original suits over
the federal income tax, heard in 1895.
The first judgment upheld the act
partially, but declared it invalid in re-
spect to certain important classes Of
property. William p. Guthrie of
counsel for the interests fighting the
statute, presented a petition for re-
hearing, although his associates are
Sllu 10 nave diSueu SlIoHSIy lHdl he
let we'll enough alone"
To their surprise the court granted
the rehearing and finally reversed it
self in part by declaring the entire
act unconstitutional. 1t was this deci-
sion which led directly to enactment
of the sixteenth amendment giving
congress the power to levy a tax on
all income matter from what source
derived. The amendment did away
with the constitutional restriction
which forbade the imposition of a di-
rect tax unless it was apportiQned in
each state according to population.
The rule of the court on rehearings,
as stated by Chief Justice Tahey in
1852, is simple. No %rehearing would
be granted, he said, unless a justice
who voted for the judgment, votes for
the rehearing of it,"
when this court has made a deci.
sion," a prominent attorney said in
the course of arguing a famous case
of the past, lit is like a decree OF
Venice, irreversible; and like the laws
of Medes and Persians which a~ltereth
not, neither do they change. The de.
cision of this court Is the end of the
law"