A Judicial Farce

In. tlio Suprema Court of TJnited States, on Monduy, ono of tbc greaiest judicial far;es was enacted which has ever been " putupon the boards " in thi country. The telegTsph thus briefly oftrootcles it, but the mails will doubtless briug f ulier criCicisrns front " ïeporters on tho spot : " . " In the 8tfpTöme Court to-day, Associate Jtrstice Strong delivercd the opinión of the court, affirming the constitutionality of the legal tender acts of Congress, Messrs. Bw&yne, Miller, and Bradlcy coueurring. Tiio last naiued reacl las views on ono branch of the qoestion. Chief Justico Chase deli-vered a disenting one for limself. Messrsv Field's, Clifford's and ielsou's views on tho samo sute were read by Cliffórd. Field and Nclson were absent." This is nothmg more or less than a rteversal of n fonfier decisión ofthc Gortrt - the highost tribunal knowiï ta onr country and laNvs, - procuirod by mcans d!Bgraceful to all partios partieipating and concerned. After a f uil and patiënt hearing the Court had decided that the legal tender act, so far as it mado greenbacks a legal tender on contracts dated prior to its passage, was unconstitutioual and void. This decisión did not satisfy tbe grcftt corporations of the covmtry, eorpora.ions owing largo debts. contractcd on a gold basis, and forthwith it was deterinined ;hat by book or crook, fair means or fouli the decisión sliould bo reverscd. And with this end in view Congrcss was induced to roconstruct tho Suprcme Court. The Executive could not remove the offending judgos, but Congross was DBMter of the situatioa. Congress acted as ordered ; by legistatioo tvro appointuTeiits were given to Graxt, and Ghant, a willing porty to the schema- we had nearly written tooi, and will write TOOL- noininated Messrs. Bbadley and Sruoüo, two Corporation attorneys previously paid to form and express opinions in favor of the constitutionality of thu disputad clause of t! legal tendel act. And JstkxBiiADLKY and S trono roen forcc the three dissen ting Justicos, order the case re-lieard, and reverso tho former decisión. The first decisión was made by five concurring Jmtices, thr?o dissenting, there being thon eiglxt inumbers of tho Court. The new decisión is coneurred in by iive Justicos, and the-dissenters number four. Oiio aL the concurririg Justices is au addition to the Court, the other iills the seat occupiud by tb late Justice GniEiv, who-coocuTnxl in the former áctision. A decisión obtained in this way is disgraceful to Ihe Court, and will comman'l vary little rospc:t froiu rettectingjuen throughout the world. It is a very big nail driven into the cofiiu of an independent Judiciary.