enough to see that this must be so, for if it were not, everybody who had a decision rendered against him would have his case reopened at the incoming of a new Administration and that the whole time of the Departments would be absorbed by rehearing and deciding the same cases over and over? If you have never heard of this, you may learn what everybody else knows by reading the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States vs. Bank of Metropolis, 15 Peters, and the opinions of Attorney-Generals, vol. 2, pp. 9 and 464; vol. 4, p. 341; vol. 5, pp. 29 and 123; vol. 9, pp. 101, 301 and 387; vol. 12, p. 358; vol. 13, pp. 33, 226 and 456. But you can scarcely plead ignorance of this, for all these authorities are quoted in that very decision of mine, the decision of May 4, 1880, to which your statement above quoted refers.
This would seem sufficient to show what you are capable of in the way of reckless falsification, and I might dismiss this branch of the subject were there not a few more flowers too fragrant to be left unnoticed.
On page 246 of your article you say:
But they [the railroad corporations] were still exposed to possible danger under the adjudications referred to, and naturally felt the need of some further security. This they found in an opinion of Attorney-General Devens, dated June 5, 1880, and asked for by Secretary Schurz, as “an authoritative expression of his views.” Although the distinguished Secretary is not a lawyer, he is uncommonly skilled in the use of English words, and perfectly familiar with their import, and it seems a little remarkable, therefore, that he should have found it necessary to ask for this legal advice, in view of the clear and unmistakable language of three decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on the very question now submitted, with others, for interpretation. But this opinion of the Attorney-General is still more remarkable than
