Grant's Packing Of The United Stales Supreme Court

When De Tocqueville composed his gxeat work on Demociacy in America he exprossed his contidence in the itability of the Union so long as the Supremo Court should escapo degradation. The Suprame Court wascroatod by the founders of the republic to be Uig guardián of the libürties and franohises of its individual eitizens. Hamilton and his associates knew the dangers that flow from the unchecked power of majorities. They foresaw that efforts might be made to vote down riguis winoli might have becomu obnoxious to the multitude, and they accordingly drew up a constitution prohibiting the Legislature from passing any e.v post facto law, and forbidding every State from sanctioning any law which might impair the obligation of eontracts. This of itsclf would be insufficient, and thoy aceordingly went on to erecfc a Supreme Court of the Union, with power to disallow and declare void any acts that Congress itsclf might approve in violation of the Constitution. It was thus thought that the security of personal rights would be complete, while care was taken to provide, by an elabórate machinery, into which we need not now enter, tb at the Constitution might be altered from time to time so as to be accommodated to the varying stages of social and political development. But the articles to which we have referred have never been altered or modificd. To this day, as in 1787, the power of passing an ex pont facto law, or of abrogating the validity of eontracts, is deniod to the legislatures of the States, and the Supreme Court of the Union remains to guard the ark of the national covonant. The Constitution remains as when Washington signed it, in the twelfth year of the Iudependence of the States, but the safeguard on which De Tocquoville relied has become untrustworthy. The Supreme Court is degraded, and the authority that once hallo wed it is gane. The news transmitted to us by our Philadelphia correspondent, that the new members added to the Supreme Court have forced the court to reverse its own decisión on the Lcgaltender act, announces one of the most deplorable events that have occurred for many ycars in American history. The court uo longer defends the principies of the Constitution against the violence of party and the injustice of power. Men were much shocked, and not without excuse, when the Supreme Court, under the presidency af Chief-Justice Taney, denied to Dred Soott the utatun of freedöm ; but the decisión in t jat case, though questionable, was not without some show of reason in its favor, and it was undeniably pronounced according to due course of law. The decisión of the present court is violent as well as unjust. It has been pronounced by a court pucked for the purpone. It reverses a judgment arrived at after delibérate argument by the same court before new inembers were added for the purpose of mrumping its decisión. We must add, as boing able to survey the quêstion from a position of impartiality, that it is directly in conflict both with the principies and the procedents of American law. At the end of the first year of the civil war, Congress passed an act authorizing the Seeretary of the Treasury to issue promissory notes payable to bearer, and it provided that " such notes shall be receivablo in payment of all taxes, internal duties, and shall also be lawful money and a legal tender in payniont of all debts, public and private, within the United States." The legality of the act was immediately questioned, on the ground both that it was ex pont f'aetó and that it abroga ted the validity of eontracts. Monoy had been lent in hard cash within the Union, and even to States of the Union, both by its citizens and by foreigners, and this statute gave debtors the power of satisfying their preexisting debts by payments in inconvertible paper. The ditference in value of paper and bullion rapidly incroased until paper was worth not more than 40 por cent. of its nominal value, and creditors loudly protested against being thus mulcted of their just claims. The mass of the peopie, on the other hand, were very well satisfied with what appeared to be a convuniont mode of discharging their debts, and the apologista for the action of Congress attemptud to justify it by referring to the power given to the legislaturo under the Constitution " to coin money and to regúlate the valuo theroof." The point thus in issue is so simple that it was difficult to undorstand how it could be soriously contested, except by taking into account the perversión of jiidgment occasioned by the heat and frenzy of the war ; and the frieiids of the Union re ■ joiccd that, through the delays that must necessarily arise, the quêstion could not easily be argued on appeal bef ore the Supreme Court until after the fury of the contest was overpast. The result soemed to justify their expectations. The legality of the Legal-tender act did not come before the Supreme Court untii the smnmer of 181)9, and it was then argued at such length, and with such patiënt examination of every plea bearing upon it, that judgment was not pronounced bcfore the spring of last year. When it was given it was found that the Supreme (Jourt decidou by iour to three that the act of Congress was invalid so far as it presumed to iuake the notes it authorized legal tender for the satisfaction of debts existing bei'ore the act was passed. It condeumod the act to this extent both as ex jio.it facto andas abrog&ting the obliga.tion of conti-acts, and ordered debtors who had incurred debts before the act to o satist'y their ercditors in the sanie medium iii which the debts were ineurred - hat is to say, in gold and silver. The Leeision was given by a bare majority, jut it was hailed as a noble instance of .he triumph of law and justice that among the majority was found ChiefTustice Chase, who had been Secretary of the Treasury whon the act was passod, but who had been converted by sheer force of rcason to disallow the validity of a law passed under his auspices. All our congratulations were, however, premature. No sooner was the decisión prououneed than pressiin; was put upon tho President to appoint to the bench additional iustices who should ioin the ;y upon it so as to reverse the decisión. The President yielded to the pressure. He appointed two justices - Strong aud Bradley ; on the lst of April last year au applioation was made to rehear the case, and ftfter argument the application was granted, the two new justiees voting with the three dissentients from the existing judgment in favor, of the application. Aftcr tho lapse of twelve nionths thfl ease has been heard, and our American correspondent writes that " all accounts agree tlnit the .speeches against the constitutionality ot' the rotrospective part of the stature were by far the moét ablo, the speeches in its favor being weak and unconviucing." Ilowever that inay be, judgmont bas been pronounced in favor ot' the aot. The judges last appointed - Strong and Bradley - have ]oined the three ooustituting the ininority in the original judgiueut, and, overruling ChiefJustice Chase and Justices Nolson, Clifford, and Field, have decided that the act is oonstituticnal in respect to contracts made as well before as after its enactment. The decisión of the Stipreme Court tima reported is an immense misfor tune to the American Union. When the Legal-tender act was passed, in the heat of the war, immediate advantage was taken of its provisiocB by all tho States, except Masachusetts and Rhode Island. The Legislature of New York hastenod to pay off in paper tho creditors of the State, although miiuy wealthy merchants of the city offered to lcnd the State, without interest, the balance botween paper and gold, in order that fuitli miglit be kept with the pubKo creditor. When, however, the Supreine Court last year declared the act unconstitutional in its retrospoctive bearing, the Legislatiire of New York a resolution affirming that the State debt, principal and interest, ought to be paid in specie, and authorizing the purchase of gold for that purpose, the Legislature of liaine adopted a similar resolution, and the judgment of the court was thua seen to elévate tho inorality of the nation. All this must now bo reversed, and the latter end will probably be worso than the first. National honor and justice have received a terrible blow. The course of law has beea perverted. The guaraníes of individual right 'are set aride. Much has been said of the " patriotie anguish " of French statesmen who saw Prussia made strong by the victory of Sadowa ; but the pirase thus misapplied to describe a miserable jealousy at the development of a neighbor may be rightly emplojred to represent' the shame and sorrow that must fill the minds of patriotie Americana when tbey see their highest tribunal - the court whkh had icon the admirrtion, and respect of the world - brovght down so loio as to pervert 'ludgment and throw a gloss of legality ocer l-rrivate and public dislwnexty.