Mr. Ackerman, of North Carolina, was attorney general. He was what might be termed a strict constructionist. His views were conservative. As the legal adviser of the executive department, his opinions were adverse to the interests of the railroad companies on certain questions submitted to him. At the request of the president he resigned, and Judge Williams, of Oregon, was appointed in his stead. No one will question the integrity of the present attorney general. Yet it was a well-known fact that, at the date of his appointment, he was one of the attorneys of the Northern Pacific railroad company; that he was fully committed to the railroad interests, and that his appointment was urged by railroad men in all parts of the country. By his appointment a friend of these corporations became a member of the cabinet, and an important ally is present whenever questions affecting their interests are discussed in executive council. A question of the greatest importance to these corporations was the construction to be given to the statutes of the United States, and especially the "Legal Tender Act." The first of the legal tender acts was passed July, 1862. This was followed by other acts increasing the amounts of legal tender issues. Prior to the passage of these acts, railroad corporations had issued and sold many millions of bonds, and stipulated that both principal and interest should be paid in gold. Soon after the issue of legal tender bills their value depreciated, and from that time to the present there has been, and still is, a wide margin between their value and coin. If these railroad companies could pay their bond indebtedness with legal tender at par, a saving of from ten to fifteen dollars could be effected on every hundred so paid. In the year 1869, the question whether this act was retroactive in its operation or effect was presented to the supreme court. The court was then composed of eight justices. When the case involving this question was presented to and decided by the court, but seven of the justices were on the bench. Of these, four, including the chief justice, were of the opinion that the statute did not affect contracts made before its passage, and decided that these railroad companies must pay their bonds in coin according to the contract. This decision was not acceptable to this vast corporate power. It was condemned by railroad men throughout the country. The president was approached on the subject, and his great influence was besought in the matter. Four of the justices (one-half of the court) having held adversely to the corporations, a full bench could not reverse their decision. To effect a reversal, one of the four must change his opinion, or the number of justices must be increased. The latter alternative was decided to be the more feasible, and the president asked congress to increase their number to _nine_. The reason urged was, that upon important questions, before a full bench, the court