union there could be no such political body as the United States. Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent iautonomy to the- States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not un reasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their govern ments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union, and the maintenance of the National Government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States." This exposition has been highly praised; but from, the standpoint of political science Justice Grier's dissenting opinion deserves careful consideration. In the Legal Tender cases he sat in judg ment upon and denied the constitutionality of his own executive acts. "It is not surpris ing," he said in his felicitous explanation of his change of view, "that amid the tumult of the late Civil War, and under the influence of apprehensions for the safety of the republic almost universal, different views, never be fore entertained by American statesmen or jurists, were adopted by many. The time was not favorable to considerate reflection upon the constitutional limits of legislative or ex ecutive authority. If power was assumed from patriotic motives, the assumption found ready justification in patriotic hearts. Many who doubted yielded their doubts; many who did not doubt were silent. Those who were strongly averse to making government notes a legal tender felt themselves constrained to acquiesce in the views of the advocates of the measure. Not a few who then insisted upon its necessity, or acquiesced in that view, have since the return of peace and under the influence of a calmer time, reconsidered this conclusion, and now concur in those which we have just announced." His course in this matter has been both praised and censured. But, as Justice Clifford afterwards said, "Men find it easy to review others, but much more
difficult to criticise and review their own acts, and yet it is th« very summit to which the upright judge should always be striving. . . . Judges and jurists may dissent from his final conclusion and hold, as a majority of the jus tices of this court do, that he was right as Secretary of the Treasury, but every gener ous miind, it seems to me, should honor the candor and self-control which inspired and induced such action." Chief Justice Chase's opinions, as recorded in fifteen volumes of Wallace's reports, dis play not only grasp of legal principles, but also admirable skill in applying them with clearness and force to new and perplexing conditions.1 When Justice Swayne (1862-81) took his seat, Chief Justice Taney was more than eighty years of age, and four of the five asso ciate justices either over or little under seventy. Coming to the bench in the prime of life, after a large and varied practice at the bar, and with settled habits of reflection and research, he was from the outset one of the most indefatigable workers in the court. The thirty-seven volumes of reports published in his time illustrate his energy and useful ness, if not conspicuous ability. See Gelpcke v. Dubuque, i Wallace 174; Farrington v. State of Tennessee, 5 Otto 679; The China, 7 Wallace 53; Gilman i1. Philadelphia, 3 ib. 713; Trist r. Child, 21 ib. 441; County of St. Clair '•. Livingston, 23 ib. 46; Edwards v. Kearzey, 6 Otto 595; United States v. Rhodes, i Abbott, U. S. 28. No other justice who ascended the bench •Texas v. White, 7 Wallace 700; Hepburn -•. Griswold, 8 ib. 603; Knox v. Lee, 12 Wallace 457; Cummings ••. State of Missouri, 4 it. 277; State of Mississippi i'. Johnson, 4 ib. 475; The Grapeshot, 9 Wallace 129; The Circassian, 2 it. 133: The Bermuda, 3 Wall 514; The Hart, 2 Wall 258; Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 it. 404; The Atlantic, 3 it. 425; The Peterhoff, 5 Wallace 28; Ex-partf Verger, 8 it. 85; Veazie Bank r. Fenno, 8 it. 533; Thomson v. Pacific Railroad Company, 9 it. 579; United States v. Klein, 13 it. 128; Lane County r. Oregon, 7 it. 71; the Case of Jefferson Davis, Chase's Decisions, i; Griffin's Case, it. 364; Keppel's Adminis trator v. Petersburg Railroad Company, it. 167; United States :•. Morrison, it. 521.
