The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-08
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Issuing Of War Bonds I'm Arkansas-An
Act OF Open HOstility-A Maryland
Railroad Case-A Louisiana Cotton
Suit. fAt


Act OF Open HOstility-A Maryla nd
Railroad Case-A Louisiana Cotton
Suit.
WASHINGTON, April I, 1879
The following opinions were delivered by the
Supreme Court Of the United States to-day
No. 17s. Havener vs.. WOodrun-Certiicate of
division from the Eastern District Of Arkansas-In
this case Havener sued Woodruff on q pr0mssory
note given Tor consideration in war bonds issued
by the Arkansas Secession Convention. TN the trial
tons which were certified to this Court for answer:
First-Was that consideration OF the note void
on the grounds Of public policy, 50 that no action
oil the note illegal under the principles OF public
law the constitution OF the United States and the
laws OF Congress and the proclamation OF the Presi
dent relating 10 the rebellion. which existed and
was pending when the note was nader
tha onrt h"dna that tho se ~
the bonds was an act OF open hostility to the
United States, declaring the adherence Of the Con-
altogether the bonds were used as a cir
culating medium IN the sense that any
negotiable money instrument, founded on the pub
lie laith in its payment, is such medium. They
were still not a forced currency which the people
OF that section were obliged to use In this the
is distnguishable from the case OF Thorlngton
VS.. Smith, before decided by this Court. Tnere the
question was uDon the validity Of Confederate
money as a consideration and it was sustained on
the ground that it was the only medium OF ex-
change of . people under she absolute control OF
the Confederate ana was hence
or rather acquiesced, in the opinion, al
though he thought the Consideration IN
Thorington vs. smith; ana he did SO because it
limited that case as precedent, he having reluc-
family concurred therein on account OF the appa-
rent necessity for protecting millions OF people in
the transactions OF q term OF years. Mr.. Justice
Field delivered the opinion Of the Court.
No. 159. United States vs.. The Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad C0mpany-Error to the Circuit Court
for the District OF Maryland.-In 1854 the company
mortgaged its road to indemnify the city against
debt which 1t was 10 incur in issuing certain bonds
the company to provide the city with the
amount needed to pay the interest on the bonds as
1t fell due, and finally with the sum needed to pay
the principal The company has retained from its
quarterly payments to the city the amount OF the
government tax and the question is whether the
held that the interest tax was the property or the
CITY, and that 1t could not be taxed for that reason
This Court affirm that judgment, holding that
the loan was solely for the benefit of the city, and
that therefore, the tax, IL imposed, is upon the
property OF the corporation OF Baltimore; that 1t Is
not within the power OF Congress to tax the prop
erty oil o municipal corporation, and that 1t was
not the intention OF the Internal Revenue laws to
tax the property OF such corporations. II is also
held that the tax imposed by the l22d section Of
a tax on the stock and stockholders and not on
the railroads or canal companies therein men,
toned. Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion of
tue Court, Mr.. Justice Clifford dissenting. -
No. 1856. The United States vs. Tweed-Error to
the Circuit Court for the District Of Louisana.-ln
alleged, for the purchase OF cotton on the Red
River. He purchased certain cotton from other
sourches for his own benefit, but 1t was seized by
the government, and this action was to recover
for It's detention. He showed title to the satisac-
tion OF the Court below, and the judgment was in
his favor. The government claiming that the
Gotten was captured and Abandoned property. and
was taken possession OF by Tweed as an agent OF
the United states, brought the case here where
affirmed. Mr.. Justice Clifford delivered the
opinion. Dissenting, Mr.. Justice Bradley.