The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-04-14
THE C0U r T s.
Important Question on the Construction Of 8
Froaty Tho Jumsl VIII Case in the Federal
Courts Compromising Claim-A Theatri
cal Critic In Ccurt-charter Of Vessels
During The War-A Lilo Insurance
Case-Eusncss in tho Gen.
eSal Observation-Disclosures
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT c1JiT.
Ssspossaut Question Upon tho Construction Of
q Treaty.


ssspos.aut Question Upon the Construction Of
Treaty.
Before Judge Woodruff
WtR,anl Ropes d co. Us. II. Cinch.-This case,
already reported In the HERALD, was resumed yes
tcriay al the sitting OF the court Tue plaintiffs VINO
arc extensive hemp manufacturers, bring an acton
against the defendant, former Collector OF mis- port
for the recovery OF $4,000, which they alieSe ne
exceed by imposing excessive duty on quantity
or Russian hemp imported by them Into the uaited
States. Mr. Ol;nch is merely q nominal. defendant,
the virtual defendant being the United states whose
agent Mr. Clinch was. Mr.. Cnca. under the provl.
mons OF an act Of Congress or August 1891 collected
forty dollars. q ton on this Russian hemp,
which was In an manufactured state, only
twenty five ioa, q ton may be collected on Ma
ala and other hemps Of Iniia. The plantids claim
thai The imposition was In violation 81 the Terms Of
treaty entered into between the United States and
the cnipe Of Russia In l:s]a. This treaty contains
provision to the chect thnt mi her or other duties
shall be imposed on the Importation INTO lne unneG
States VI any article, The praactou or manufacture
OF Russia. than alc Or shall be payable on !. hac
article beng The PRODUCTION or ataesure q any
other foreign country. The government aliege nat
anmanulacturcd Russian hemp ana Manila he.np
are IKE articles wltiin the view pna meaning OF INC
treaty, aud that therefore tie imposition OF forty
dollars ton on the importation IN question was q
proper oae. questions Of constitutional law arise in
the case, rs AREA iy noticed i'll our rapovi.
Mr.. George rcknor Curtis yesterday MADE an ar
Gnment IN reply TO mat addressed TO the Court by
II.
noy. Tic government contended that tins treaty,
being commercial one. had not the effect OF law,
90 as TO oind officers ana ctl1eas IN me absence or
legislation u special character to siyo 1t sneh
eject. This treaty bore date May ii, 1888 and was
repealed by an act OF Congress oil August, 1901 This
latter acG allows drty or forty dollars Per ton on
Russian hemp in an uniDanuiaciurcl state. hir.
Curtis, in his argument as to whether the treaty
should be regarded as law, cited cccision OF chief
Justice Marshall In the case OF Foscr VS.. Nelson.
The decision Is In these terns:-
treaty Is in it, nature eomp.c. between two nations
object to be accomplished especially So "a: - m operation
sovereign power OF the respective parties to sne instrument
iathe United states however different Is
shs land consequently 70 BE- rcFa,asa n courts OF Jai
Itself without tho aid OF legislative provisions
The argument was made b. counsel that this
decision converted tieates with ioreI nations INTO
municipal laws OF Tie United states. Operating upon
MI courts OF justice and TO be Administered BY them
an the same manner ana as iul!y as me ordinary
laws OF the land. Mr.. Curtis addressed himself 10
the repeal OF the treaty by the act Of August lse
observing, rs treaty with Russia 1t could
not have been repeated, either wholly OF partially
for the that 1t the subject OF repeal.
IL WIS \ compact between sovereign and indepen-
dent NATIONS, ana could mol, therefore, be repealed
like an act Of the Legislature; neither could the Oh
lgatioH imposed be IN any way Impaired 10y the act
Of one OF the parties only. rus could on.3 be done
by the joint conseuu OF both. One Of tae parties to
treaty could violate II, and III the event VI such yio
laton the other party might elecs to consider n an.
nulcu or apr0Gated, but may also eject To consider
Il still In ELECT. and may insis. on tuii compliance
with Its terms and provisions N the iusre, aud re-
sci proceeded to show that there SeIe bur ways
for snspendiag the operation Ola trcaty-abrogaiIon
and violation. Ii this treaty mad been repealed 1t
hsu been repealed by implication only. buG IL was
argued that Congress must have designed 10 repeal
the treaty stipulation, inasnluch Us the act OF Con-
gross OF August laGl, was subsequent 70 tho treaty.
anil was therefore, inconsistent Yiih 1T. Counsel
submitted that it Was not sufficient 10 SHOW that
Congress intended simply 10 impose daty or forty
dollars a ton on Russian hemp. /. was necessary
10 do this, the provisions Of the treaty the
tTnTy Notwithstanding. In other words, that the
peal should be specifically mentioned in the act
repeating the tIelty.
After hearing the arguments at length the Judge
directed the jury To HAD verdict for the defend
ant (thc government, which they accordingly did.
The funnel VIII Case Revived.
Before Judge Woodruff.
A Jury was empanaled yesterday IN the United
states Circuit and Immediately after discharged
until this morning, when the case OF Champion,
Bowen and others against Nelson Cnase and others
viii be called for trial. The p,aintif Bowen, pe-
Ing nonresident CT the state. hal The case removed
from the State to the federal eodrts. The trial will
undoubtedly he Oh longer duration than the famous
contest commences and closed IN the day the
Suprcne Court OF the State some years ago. nut
doubleday tho interest does not attach TO the
present suit dd TO the referred to. There are
apparently TOO many "Mor.an3n turning mp as heirs
TO the deceased Mrs. Junel- and too late the day
20 attract much public Interest TO their revelations
Lh0lr claims.