The national Republican., 1867-04-30
THE COURTS.

Magone, Of New York, was admitted an attorney
and counsellor Of this court.
No. 49, AlonEo Campbell, plaintiff In error,
W. the City Of Kenoshs. In error to the circuit
court Of the United States for the district Of
Wisconsin. Mr.. Justice Davis delivered the
opinion % the court reversing the Judgment OF
the said circuit court In this cause, and remand
Ing the same with direction to award q vsnife
faeias de nopo.
No. 1853. The schooner Sea Lion and cargo ap.
Psllants vs.. the United States. Appeal from the
district court Of the United States for the south
srn district Of Florida. Mr.. Justice Swayne dt.
liver.d tho opinion Of the court, Affirming the
decree Of the said district court In this cause.
Dissenting-Mr. Justice Grier.
Nols4. The City Of Philsdelphia plaintiff in error
vs. John II. Dehi In error 10 the circuit court Of
the United States for the eastern district Of Penn.
sylvania. Mr.. ,Justies Clifford delivered the
opinion Of the court, Affirming the judgment Of
the said circuit court In this cause with costs.
No 1856. William y. Purcell appallents vs.
James Coleman OF al. Appeal from the supreme
court Of the District Of Columbia. Mr.. Justice
0risr delivered the opinion Of the court, over.
ruling the motion for leave TO file bill Of re-
view. ....rg...-. ....r..
No. $50. william T. o'Nsil plaintiff in error
vs. John Kirkpatrick. In error TO the circuit
oort Of the United States for the district Of Cali
fornia. Mr. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion
Of the court, affirming the judgment Of the said
circuit court In this cause with costs.
No. ST. William @. Pervsar plaintiff In error
W. Commonwealth Of Massachusetts;
No. 37s Learned Lynde plaintiff in error vs.
samei .# ... ta .n0u. .-II.r...
No. 422 ThOmrs Salmon plaintiff in error vs..
samei
No. S23. Rufus Cas-, plaintiff in error VI.
same; and
No. 424. Christopher Armstrong plaintiff In
error vs. same. In error to the supreme court Of
Massachusetts H'f '.. o" ars-f1
Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion Of
tho Court affirming tho Judgments Of tho said
Superior Court In these cases with costs. .lsf
No. 1876. Margaret Wyatts administrator,
plaintiffs in error, OF al. vs.. James s. Thomns.
In error to the Supreme Court Of the State Of
Missouri. Mr. ohief Justice Chase delivered
the opinion of the Court dismissing this wrh Of
| error for the want Of Jurisdiction.
No. 270. Wellington W. wiltenbury and Ross
W. Doyle, claimants Of nino hundred and thirty
Eve bales Of cotton, appellants, VS.. The United
States. Appeal from the District Court Of the
United States for the Southern District Of nli-
nois. Mr.. Chief Jvstioe Chase delivered the
opinion Of the Court, overruling the motion to
dismiss this appeal. Dissenting, Mr.. Justice
No. 265. @. A. LsMore 4 Co., claimants Of
eight hundred and afty bales Of cotton, appel.
ants, VS.. The United States Appeals from the
District Court Of the United States for the
Southern District Of Illinois. Mr.. Chief Justice
Chase delivered the opinion Of the Court over
ruling the motion to dismiss this appeal.
oRDEROP COURT.
Tho Chief Justice announced TO the bar that
the Court will adjourn on the goth Of May next
and will not hear arguments after the 18th Of
May.
No. 100. The Lowell Manufacturing Com.
pany, appellants, VS.. Tho Hartford Carpet Com
pAny, The argument Cf hi. cause was COM
menced by Mr.. stoughton Of counsel for the
| appellants.
Adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.
The prise kaps-T ease efths Sea L.oa--
| The decree Of condemnation oDSrmed-Ihs Sehoon.
or Sea Lion aud cargo Is. the United State,-
This cause comes on appeal from the Southern
District Of Florida, and Is prosecuted to reverse
ajudgmsnt Of condemnation against the schooner
Sea Lion and her cargo OF cotton. Tho CAUSE
was recently reported In this paper.
Tho schooner was given up to the United
States blocknding ships at Mobile, BY direction
Of the claimants, May 0, 1868. They insisted
that under license or permit issued by ths
ngent Of the Treasury Department and collector
Of customs at New Orleans, February 10, 1858,
approved by Rear Admiral Farragut, then 10
. general order ofaths United States military
commander Of that Department, [aen. Banks.
that the commander ofthe tessei 70 whom the
Sea Lion was given up should have sent her to
New Orleans instead Of Key West, where sshs was
libelled.
'p II was claimed thst tho permit given by tho
special agent to the claimants was ample to pro-
tect the Bear lion and cargo everywhere within
the waters and territory under the control Of tho
United States civil or military authority that
the right to grant such permits was incident To
the otice and functions exercised by the special
agent at tho time he issued II; that the permit
was not reyokedor modified bsfors the capture
Of tho Sea Lionj that the Sea Lion was captured
Ia violation Of tho orders Of Admiral FaIrsgut,
by vessel under his command and was there
fore illegal thatthe order Of General Banks was
Of itself sufficient TO legaliEe the venture Of the
claimants within his department.
u MIR. Justice Swayno now road the opinion Of
the court affirming tho decree Of condemnation,
holding that the permits were unauthorized by
the Treasury regulations, Issued BY the Secretary
OF the TreasuryI and were Therefore void; on the
contrary, the permits were in conflict with the
rules and requirements Of those regulations.
Such permits found no warrant In the statute,
which provided that the President should license
trade Of this nature. The Secretary could only
establish the rules BY which such trade should DO
regulated when established. The orders Of Gen.
Banks endorsed by Admiral Farragut) author.
iIing trade beyond his military lines were clearly
void The President only could grant suoh a
license. Tho vessel and cargo bore other stamps
Of the enemy property. Tho paper rallied upon
was a nullity, and gave them NO protection.
They were as much liable to capture and con-
demnation as any other vessel or cargo leaving q
blookadsd port and coming within roach Of
blookadlng vessel ,I ,,.,.-..
7Hs Mayseha,stts L,qhOt Ca,s,- The Pay
RieIt Of a Tar on LigRors 10 Ihs United States
docs not AathOrisS M6 IroDe If Forbidden BY
Stats sL6iSs-bPaH y G. PsrVedT, plaintiff in er.
rOv, %. The Ooplpl0Htrealth Of MassaeknssttS.
This case has been fully reported. The ques.
tions wore; !. Whether the payment Of tax to
the United States upon the spirituous liquors kept
and sold by tho plaintiff In error, authorized him
TO keep and sell them In violation Of the statutes
of Massaohusetts; and O. Whether tho statutes
Of Massachusetts in this behalf were unconstitu.
tional ! 49, A"fa Af' ..r'.'.
The Superior Court Of Massachusetts, answered
both there questions 10 the negative, Ind they
are now bfought hefe for revision
Mr., Chief Justice Chase now read the opinion
Of the court affirming tho judgment below, and
holding that the offence II based on an 'Aot Of
Congress which specifically declares that tho I'm.
posing Of the tax shall not be taken to abridgo |
tho power Of ths State to tax or prohibit the |
licensed business that the sale Of homo made |
liquors, or liquors In second hands, within State
10 subject eIelusiysly TO State CONTROL that tho
tax on the article. by General Government docs |
not aftoet the traf1c as between the State and Its
citizens, and that the State law fiuing and i'm.
prisoning parties guilty Of the Aots charged upon
the plaintiff In this case Ia entirely constitutional