"As the weeks passed, and Taney's full opinion did not appear in print, the word spread that he was undertaking extensive revisions. The rumor had reached [Justice] McLean by the end of march, and he wrote to Montgomery Blair: 'Can it be true that the opinion of the court has been modified in the Dred Scott case? This, it appears to me, to be unusual, if not improper.' At about the same time, James Harvey investigated the matter and reported his findings to McLean: 'There are strong surmises about the manipulation to which the majority opinions have been subjected.... Last week, they had not been filed and were inaccessible. Taney's had been twice copied for revision, and an application from the intelligencer to publish was refused, owing to non-completion.'" (Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case, p 316.)
Taney rationalized his changes by writing to Curtis, "And until the Court heard them denied, it had not thought it necessary to refer to proofs and authorities to support them - regarding the historical facts and principles of law which were stated in the opinion as too well established to be open to dispute." As Fehrenbacher notes, Taney's denial was "covered over with a good deal of self-righteous indignation," but was the "plain acknowledgment that the ... revisions were indeed rebuttal to certain parts of the dissenting opinions."
"Taney's denial of having made any significant changes, though perhaps not untruthful according to his own peculiar lights, must be labeled inaccurate."
"As the weeks passed, and Taney's full opinion did not appear in print, the word spread that he was undertaking extensive revisions. The rumor had reached [Justice] McLean by the end of march, and he wrote to Montgomery Blair: 'Can it be true that the opinion of the court has been modified in the Dred Scott case? This, it appears to me, to be unusual, if not improper.' At about the same time, James Harvey investigated the matter and reported his findings to McLean: 'There are strong surmises about the manipulation to which the majority opinions have been subjected.... Last week, they had not been filed and were inaccessible. Taney's had been twice copied for revision, and an application from the intelligencer to publish was refused, owing to non-completion.'" (Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case, p 316.)
See my #611.
Taney responded. Curtis withdrew to saying he was -NOT- accusing Taney of any official misconduct. Curtis resigned from the Court. Upon seeing the published opinion, none of the justices filed any complaint.