Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/106

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

80

THE SUPREME COURT

Commissioners.^[1] To test the validity of the action of the Judges as Commissioners, Congress, by Act of February 28, 1793, after repealing parts of the earlier questionable statute, made an express provision for the institution of a suit by the Attorney-General; and in compliance with this Legislative direction, the Attorney-General moved the Supreme Court for a mandamus against the Secretary of War to require him to put on "the pension list one of those who had been approved by the Judges acting in the character of Commissioners." The result of this motion he described in a letter to the Secretary: "Two of the Judges having expressed their disinclination to hear a motion in behalf of a man who had not employed me for that purpose, and I being unwilling to embarass a great question with little intrusions, it seems best to waive the motion until some of the invalids themselves should speak to counsel. To this end, I beg leave to suggest

↑ Cushing wrote to Jay, Oct. 3, 1792, from New Jersey: "There being no determination upon the subject in that district before … we acted as Commissioners and sent our certificates accordingly (without making any entry on the book about it) to the Supreme Secretary of War." As to this action, the New Jersey Journal (Elizabethtown, N. J.) said, June 6, 1792: "Who ever has attended the Circuit Court of the United States, the present term, must have been affected at the many objects who presented themselves as candidates for pensions. To see the lame and emaciated, war-worn soldier, the decrepit and almost naked seaman—the best years of whose life had been spent in the service of his country, humbly supplicating the scanty morsel to save him from perishing was a sight which affected every benevolent and generous heart present. … But the attention of the Hon. Judges was commensurate with the necessities of the wretches who applied." In Connecticut, Judges Iredell and Law decided to act as Commissioners in a case of John Chandler. "We have had a great deal of business to do here, particularly as I have reconciled myself to the propriety of doing invalid business out of Court. Judge Wilson altogether declines it," wrote Judge Iredell, Sept. 30, 1792. This decision of the Judges was commended by the Connecticut Courant, Oct. 7, 1792; Connecticut Journal, Oct. 3, 1792, Norwich Packet, Oct. 11, 1792, as follows: "We are equally happy in mentioning to the public that two of the Judges have, notwithstanding some objections, consented to act as Commissioners in executing the Pension Law. Their candor and indulgence in proceeding to the laborious task of examining the claims of the numerous applicants for pensions; a task which, in their opinion, their duty does not require them to undertake, do great honor to their humanity and compassion. It is hoped and presumed that the crippled soldier, the war-torn veteran will now obtain that justice which he long ago ought to have obtained from his unfeeling countrymen."

[1] Cushing wrote to Jay, Oct. 3, 1792, from New Jersey: "There being no determination upon the subject in that district before … we acted as Commissioners and sent our certificates accordingly (without making any entry on the book about it) to the Supreme Secretary of War." As to this action, the New Jersey Journal (Elizabethtown, N. J.) said, June 6, 1792: "Who ever has attended the Circuit Court of the United States, the present term, must have been affected at the many objects who presented themselves as candidates for pensions. To see the lame and emaciated, war-worn soldier, the decrepit and almost naked seaman—the best years of whose life had been spent in the service of his country, humbly supplicating the scanty morsel to save him from perishing was a sight which affected every benevolent and generous heart present. … But the attention of the Hon. Judges was commensurate with the necessities of the wretches who applied." In Connecticut, Judges Iredell and Law decided to act as Commissioners in a case of John Chandler. "We have had a great deal of business to do here, particularly as I have reconciled myself to the propriety of doing invalid business out of Court. Judge Wilson altogether declines it," wrote Judge Iredell, Sept. 30, 1792. This decision of the Judges was commended by the Connecticut Courant, Oct. 7, 1792; Connecticut Journal, Oct. 3, 1792, Norwich Packet, Oct. 11, 1792, as follows: "We are equally happy in mentioning to the public that two of the Judges have, notwithstanding some objections, consented to act as Commissioners in executing the Pension Law. Their candor and indulgence in proceeding to the laborious task of examining the claims of the numerous applicants for pensions; a task which, in their opinion, their duty does not require them to undertake, do great honor to their humanity and compassion. It is hoped and presumed that the crippled soldier, the war-torn veteran will now obtain that justice which he long ago ought to have obtained from his unfeeling countrymen."

[1]