Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-10-24

court the resolutions OF respect 70 the memory
of the late E. G. Morgan. adopted July 3lst at
meeting of the bar, with q req uest that they
be placed upon the minutes.
The Chief Justice directed them to b re-
corded, with the expression OF the courts con"
The docket was called, and the case of II p
ioe agt King was continued; Price agt. Z,
for hearing; Allen agt Ooyie, for hsar nk;
agt. Wetmore. for hearing
The case Of Parmelia Baltimore agt. VIM. O.
johnson was taken up, Mr.. Davis appearing
for plaintiff and Mr.. Swami for defendant.
The brief OF the appellee (Baltimore) repre-.
sented by Mr.. Davis sets forth that in 1920 the
property in CONTROVERSY In this cause was con
ley, in trust for PaHelia Baltimore and Taos.
baltimore, her brother, who were then slaves
Pamela Baltimore has resided on this property
ever since. In 1856, on the advice of her
order to get the fee, without the trouble and
expense Of getting the several heirs Of said
Bradley to convey to her. On the day Of sale
she employed an agent to purchase thi lot for
made BY the Corporation to her. The appel
liant, on the forenoon Of the day OF the sale,
called on her SAID agent, at the place Of sale.
matter for his mother. and that he (the agent)
need not remain any longer In attendance on
the sale; whereupon he (the agent) left.
sentation stepped into the shoes Of the
duly appointed agent, and became, in
? law. the agent of the appellee. 1t is perfectly
clear and well settled that, whenever an agent
pal, whether it be by exceeding his authority
or by positive misconduct, or by mere negli.
gence or omissions in the proper functions of
loss or damage thereby falls on his principal,
he is responsible therefor and bound to make
full indemnity. About dozen authorities are
cited on this point, and the brief further states
that when the property was sold for taxes it
was worth between seven and eight hundred
dollars, and the appellant purchased it for
$l62o- This being no consideration at all for
tiles to show that deeds obtained by a trick
and under such circumstances would be held
VOID. For SIX years he kept informing his
mother that he would get the deed from the
alone shows that he intended TO defraud her.
He obtained the deed in his own name.
The brief Of the appellant, johnson, for
whom Mr.. Swami is counsel, sets forth that
the property in question was sold tor taxes in
le56, and purchased by defendant in his own
right, with knowledge and consent of com.
deed in 1862, nearly seven years after said pur-
chase. IL any trust in the purchase, (which
is denisd,) 1t cannot affect the molety of an
other in the property, defendants title to that
is abs olute and indefeasible The trust, if any.
is mere legal implication from a fair and
reasonable construction of the acts of the par
ties. The conlplainants long acquiescence
with knowledge and without objection to this
purchase. destroys any such inference. II
such equity existed 1t must be pursued within
reasonable time, not after twelve years aequI-
escence. The assignment Of Thomas BaIti-
more OF his moiety in this property, in 1867
can pass no title to complainant. He had been
Invested OF the same by tax sale and convey
ance to the defendant Defendant denies
agency, misrepresen tation and fraud.
Chief Justice Cartier delivered the opinion
OF the Court affirming the decree OF the Court
below IN favor OF the plaintiff.
May agt. Schcfield, decree for complainant
doll no Nnip inn
Mayor, &c, eff Washington agt. Earnes:
Judgment by Justice Boswell; reversed deci-
sion by Judge Wylie.
Judge Wylie, in his opinion, after referring
to the fact that the case comes up On certiorurt
to Justice Boswell, who had rendered ludg-
Mt against the Plaintiff in error, (Barnes,)
under the act establishing the office Of harbor
master, quotes section 10. Constitution Of the
United States, which provides that ssno State
shall. without the consent of Congress, lay any
imposts or duties on imports or exports except
what may be absolutely necessary for execu.
ting its inspection laws and the net produce
OF all duties and imposts laid by any State on
imports or exports shall be for the uses OF the
Treasury OF the United States, and all such
law shall be subject to the revision and control
Of Congress. 1t further declares mo State
shall. without the consent OF Congress, lay
any duty Of tonnage, &c" The question is
whether these harbor fees are duties of tonnage
which the Corporation is prohibited from col
lecting without the consent of Congress.
After quoting various authorities as to the
y
the meaning a s'tax imposed upon vessel in
proportion TO Its burthen," he says it Is mani
fest from the debate by the trainers OF the Con.
sttutiop, that Congress should have the right
OF exclusive jurisdiction over the whole sub
ject, both as to tax on imports and exports as
well as on the vessels employed in their trans
portation. It would have been gross incon-
sistency in the Constitution had IL conferred
on Congress the right of exclusive
legislation as to duties on exports and ports,
and left to the several States the right to lay
fov fhn lie n
o. exports and imports. 1t follows, therefore.
that the ordinance in question is in violation
Of the Constitution of the United States, unless
it can be shown that Congress has by some act
plainly authorized the ,rporation Of Wash
ington 10 lay a "duty of tonnage" on vessels
visiting its port.
1t is admitted that such power has nowhere
been expressly granted; but the power is sup
posed to have been conferred by implication
from the following provisions of the charter.
contained in section 7of the charter of 1870, or
the navigation OF the Potomac and Anacostia
adjoining the city" ITO erect. repair, and
regulate public wharves, and TO deepen creeks,
docks and basins" "To regulate the manner OF
erecting and The rates Of wharfage at private
wharyes." ITO regulate the stationing, an
chorage, and moving of vessels" And tae
following in section eight: "And to pass all
laws which shall be deemed necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the powers
vested by this act in the said corporation or
its officers" We think it too plain for much
argument Iudt tue powers III question Is not 10
be found in either or all these grants. The
charter contains other provisions designating
clearly what powers over and what subjects Of
taxation shall belong to the Corporation.
From and by these alone must it collect the
funds with which TO carry on the city govern.
mant and discharge its duties to the public
The power TO lay a tax on commerce in the
form of a duty Of tonnage, has never been
parted with by Congress to any Of the States
and find no ground whatever to believe that it
has ever been granted to the Corporation Of
Washington.
The fact that the tax on the tonnage Of all
vessels coming to this port imposed by this or
dinance is Insignificant In amount in any one
instance, and is called "harbor fees. !" can have
no influence whatever on the decision Of the
question. The tax Is substantially duty ON
tonnage. Notwithstanding it is called bv
different name, and If il be small at present
and the right to impose be sustained by the
Court, 1t may be increased hereafter to an ex-
tent regulated only by the discretion Of the
aui horlties OF the city.
The judgment Of the Justice must be re.
versed.
Gunton agt. Mock submitted on brief.
On motion Of M. Thompson, j. q. Smith, OF
ILL.,, was admitted to the bar.
--1
WHAT DOES 1T MRAN?--Last night between
70 and O'Clock, three distinct cries Of ssmur.
der'' We're uttered by some person on First
street, between A and B south, Capitol Hill,
which was Immediately succeeded by scuf-
fling and sroans, as II some one had been muir.
derously assaulted. In q minute or two after.
wards all became quiet and nothing could be
heard or seen, although, but q short while