Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1875-05-07
HEADQUARTERS.
SALES OF GOLD BY THE GOV
ERNMENT.
RESIGNATION OF THE AUS
TRAN MINISTER.
NOTICE TO MARINERS.
IMPORTANT RAILROAD CASE IN
THE SUPREME COURT.
KICKING A HIGH OFFICIAL OUT
OF OFFICE.

The SUPRE NE COU XII.
KICKING A HIGH OFFICIAL OUT
OF OFFICE.
WAsHIsGToN. May 3-Noon THE
Government sells one million and a
halt Of gold on the first and third
Thursdays, and one million on the
second and fourth Thursdays III May,
making total of i've million.
Baron Schwazsen burg, Austrian
Minister, has rendered his resignation
aud it has been accepted
WASHINGTON, May 3.-Night.-The
light and fog bell on Fort Carroll.
Patapsco River, Md will be removed
May 5th, to the southwest angle of the
fort
GUSTS S. Burnham, Of Richmond,
Ky. has been appointed Assistant
Secretary Of the Treasury, vice Hast
ley.
The Supreme Court to -daf decided
the case of 1he Site OF Maryland
against til Baltimore and Ohio Bail
road Company. The State claimed Il
deferred payment Of five hundred
thousand dollars as due for the PERIOD
betws en- the years 1850 and 1870, being
one-fifth of the amount of passenger
fare over the Washington and Balti-
more branch o. the Road The com
pany refused TO pay tin amount to the
State on the plea that the tax was IN
constitutional. This the Court of Ap
peals Of Maryland overruied, Affirming
the right of the State TO the money in
question. The Supreme Court holds
of ia al far lt
from IA tax on lnt~r State commerce.
which tnt State could not enforce
The State had right to impose con-
ditions IN the grating of the chatter
for the road, aui it rnattered what Je
came of the money. The proportion
ate amount, or One-hfth of tia passen-
ger fare, was II bonus to the Stat. It
was condition imposed ID considera
ton of the franchise. This the State
had d right to do, The Court. in view
of the facts presented. could not re
gard the stipulation between the par
ties as uncon titutIonai. The dtcis-
ion of the Court of Appeals was
atfilm med Justice Miller dissented
from the opinion of the Court, regard
ing the tax imposed by the State of
III Try and as uncon@ situticnal.
202. The Mechanics aud Traders
| Bank VS.. the Union Bank of Louisiana,
error, TO the Supreme Court of Louis
| lana The pIair tit sued III the Sixth
! Dis riot Court of the Parish of Orleans
! t. recover Of the Union Bank $l30, 600
which they had paid under cOmpul-
sion OF a Judgment given by the Pro
vost Court OF New Orleans in 1862,
when the city was occupied by govern
msnt troops under Gen. Butter. The
argument WAS that the establisRme MT
| OF the Provost Court, the appointment
! OF the Judge ard the proceedings i'll
| the case before him were inv hid be-
| cause in violation OF the Federal Con
| stitutiOn, which vests the judicial pow
| er of the government IN one Supreme
! Court and in such inferior courts as
! Congress may from time 10 time es-
| tablish, It is here held reaffirming the
! decision in the case of the GrareShOt,
| that the Court instituted i'll this case
by authority of the President is Com
mander in Chief, to hear try and de-
! termine civil causes, was lawfully au-
| thorized to exercise such jurisdiction.
! It's establishment by military authOrl-
| ty was held to be violation OF the
| constitutional provisions referred to
above, and it is said that that clause
! has no application to the abnormal
| condition of conquered territory III
the occupancy OF the conquering
army. The power to establish
by military authority Courts for the
admin tratiou of civil as we as
criminal Justice in portions of the
| inaurgent States occupied by national
forces is precisely the same as thaj
| which exists when foreign terri ury
| has been conquered, and occupied by
! the conquerors. What that power IS
has several times been decided. The
case of Lietersdorfer and Haughton
VS.. Webb, growing out of the con-
/ quest Of New Mexico, in 1916, Is
! cited as a notable illustration
! Of their powers. There SINH
| lar courts were esta blished without
| any legislation of Congress and tn y
were held to be lawfully constituted
| by this Count In view OF these de-
cisiuns it is said that ii is not to be
questioned that the Cons! tuition does
not prohibit the creation by the mill
! tarY authority of the Courts for the
| trial of civil causes dur:ng the civil
! war IN conquered portions OF the in
! surge ut States. Il swas but .the exer-
! else of the ordinary rights Of cong aest.
| The plaintiffs, therefore, we're properly
subjected to the power Of those Courts
and had no right of immunity
| General Butler being in command III
| Louisiana. he was invested with all
/ the powers of making war. EXCEPT So
/ far rs they are denied him by the
cOmmander-in chief, and among these
% Dwers was that of establishing courts
10 the conquered territory. It must
/ BE- presumed that he acted under the
order of his superior officer, tue Pres
i ident, and tina his acts in the pros
| ecution of tine war, were the acts of
! his COMMANDMENTS chief. Although
/ the order by which the court
was created did not define
the nature and extent of it's Jun sdc-
ton, and while it is true that Pre-
! vost Court, ord inarily, has c,gnzance
! only of minor criminal offences, still a
legal Jurisdiction may be given to it,
! but whether such further Jurisdiction
I was given in this case, the Court are
/ not called upon to determine, having
affirmed the decision below; as to the
right questioned, the only point which
entities the case to be heard here, this
court declines to inquire whe Their the
Provost Court acted within its juris-
diction OR not: that is said to be a
question exclusively for the State TIL
bunal. The State Constitution of 1868
obtaining that all judgments on con-
tracts obtained and made in good faith
and in accordance with exist, laws
of the State between the Goth OF May,
1861. and the adoption OF the Consti-
tutionl should be valid, impaired no
implied contt act ON the part of the
Union Bank to refund in case the
Judgment of the Provost Court was
| void for want of jurisdiction. because