The Supreme Court

The New 1 ork Tribune properly condeiui)8 tho attcmpt which is uow being made to chango tbo recent decisión of tho Supreme Court of the United States in regard to the constitutionality of tho Legal Tender act. In a recent artielo on tho necessity of kocpiog the erminc ppotlcpa, it siiys : "Two thin8, howcver, we have a right to demand, and tlieiffiue is of such momentous iinportanco that we nhnll take good care that ncitlierbc orerlooked. "This qucsüon largtly involves the pecuniary liabilitk'B of powerful railroad and other moneyed covporations. - Wc insiet tbat no one heavily interested D them, either ns stouk-holders or na long-rotained counsel, can, without, grosa indecency. Rit in the trial. It ruises questions late y much discussed among members of the bar. We insisk that no One, freish from tho bar, can, after havinp nlready, as au advocate, expressed decidcd opiuions coneerning the points now to ba tried, eit as a judge oa tbeir trial. "In the universal alarm conoerning tho purity of cur judiciary, we have buen aecustomed to turn toUie Supreme Court as a rcfuge from the prevaiüiip oorroption. Let our judges look to it that tlicy do notliiug to cause even the shadow of suspicion to fiill en tbeir hi"h office." Thia ia undonbtedly aimed at Justico Bradley, who, up to tlio time of his taking a place upon the boncli, was the attornpy of the Camdeu & Am boy llail road, aud is at present a Urgo itoekholdcr iu that corpcration. Tho Camm don & Auib y Railroad is doeply in'erwicd ti having the Ifgal tender decisión rsrerseJ, nd ii. CBBoot be denied that it woulil inanifeHlfj iaapproprÍBte for JuRtiee Bradley lo tuke iiny part in the