The New York herald., 1875-06-12


Park row, was yesterday held for trial In $1,000
on a charge Of embezzllng sss from his employer.
DARING ATTEMPT AT HIGHWAY ROBBERY.
At noon yesterday, as Mr.. Paul Richter, OF No.
l23 Forsyth street. was walking through Chrystle
street. ana when near the corner OF Bayard street,
he was suddenly attacked and Knocked down by
Henry 0bermeyer. The thief then attempted TO
grab his watch. oncer Mullery, OF the Tenth
precinct, saw the occurrence ana arrested Ooer-
meyer alter short struggle, Judge Smith COM
mtted him ia $1,000 ball TO answer.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
TITLE TO BONDS AND coUpoNs-oENERAL BUT
LEg's RULE IN NEW oRLEANs--A QUESTION
OF MILITARY AND CIVIL AUTHORITY.
WASHINGTON, June IL, 1875.
The following opinions have been rendered by
the Supreme Court OF the United States:-
No. IoriginaD. The State OF Texas, complain
ant vs.. George W. White. John Cnies ct al,-Pe-
titon for rule on John Chiles.-Mr. Justice Miller
follows:-
In the original decree In this case White ana
Chiles were perpetually enjoined from setting up
any claim or title TO any oil the bonds or coupons
attached TO them, which were the subject matter
OF the suit. Bonds known as Texas Indemnity
bonds. issued to the State by the United states,
and sold by the rebel authorities at the outbreak
In the case show that the purpose of the suit was
TO establish the title OF the state TO these bonds,
and to lree II from the embarrassmen, h o. tae
were, therefore, bound by the decree as 10
the ttle ana because Cniles was the owner,
or now claims TO be the owner, through a trans
action not set up in his answer, he is not the less
concluded and bound to obey the above Injunction.
Notwithstanding he how asserts o different title,
or source OF title, held by him when the suit was
brought, from the one imputed TO him IN the suit
aud defended by him, he Is Ia contempt OF court
In setting up and seeking TO enforce this claim.
Punisnments for contempt oil court have two as
poets, namely:-l. TO vlndlcate the dignity of the
llgfcSDeCt Or z.
TO compel the performance OF some order or de-
cree OF the Court which 1t is in the power OF the
party 10 perform, and which he refuses to obey
In the present case there is no part OF the original
decree which Chiles can perform which remains
can be made for him TO perform III this proceed
ing lor contempt. The Court, therefore, sentences
hi to fine OF $3.50 and costs, Tor MS contempt In
setting up a claim OF title TO seventy six OF the
bonds mentioned in the decree.
No. 202 The Mech mics and Traders Bank,
plainin in error, VS.. The Union Bank OF Louisi-
ana-in error to the supreme Court OF the state
OF Louisiana.-Mr. Justice Strong delivered the
opinion OF the Court IN substance as follows:-
The iacts In this case are that IN May 1862, after
Army. General Butler, then in command OF the
army at that place, issued general order ap-
pointing MAJOR j. NJ Bell volunteer , aldMe-dcsecamp DC
and directed that he should be oDeyed and re-
spocted accordingly. the same order appointed
Captain }. II. French Provost Marshal OF the city
and Captain stafford ID putty Provost Marshal.
few days after this order the Union Bauk lent TO
the plaintln the sum OF 100000, and subse-
quently, the loan not having been repaid brought
suit before the Provost Judge to recover the debt.
The defence was taken that the Judge had no
iursdictioa over civil cases, but judgment was
given asainst the borrowers, ard they paid the
money qnder protest. TO recover u back is tne
object Of tho present suit, and the contention or
the plaintin Is that the Judgment was illegal and
void because the Provost Court had no turlsdic-
ton OF the case. The Judgment OF the Distuct
Court was against the plaintln, and this Judgment
was AN med by the Supreme Court OF the state.
To this afiirmance error Is now assigned. The ar
gument OF the plaintiff In error is that the estab,
nshment oil the Provost Court, the appointment OF
the Judge ana ms aesoh US sucI MN, IN IHS eSe
valid, because In violation or the constitution OF
the United States which vests the judicial power
OF the general government in one supreme Court
and IN such inferior courts as Congress may from
time 10 time ordain and establish, and that under
this constitutional provision they were entitled TO
immunity from any liability imposed by the Judg-
ment OF the Provost Court. Thus Y Is claimed
federal question Is presented, and the highest
court OF the state having decided against the I'm
munity claimed, our jurisdiction Is INVOKED. As
suning tgat Ins Ssse y 'ays Drought wltesp our
whether the commanding general OF the ARMY
which captured New Orleans and held 1t In May,
to establish court and appoint Judge, with
power 10 try and adJudicate civil cases. Did the
constitution of the United States prevent the
creation OF civil courts in captured districts dur
ing the war OF the rebellion, and their creation
by military autnority ms cannot 5e said . 70 De
which mad been made on tue question the opinion
proceeded Then II has been determined that
the power to establish by military authority courts
for the administration OF civil as well as criminal
justice IN portions OF the insurgent states occupied
by the national forces Is precisely the same as
that which exists when foreign territory has been
conquered and Is occupied by the conquerors.
What tnat power Is has several times been con-
siaered. In Leltersdorfen aud Houghion VS.. Webb
go How, 176l may be found notable Illustration.
Upon the CONQUEST o. New Mexico In 1916. the
commanding Olicer OF the c0nquerng army, in
virtue OF the power or conquest and occupancy.
ana with the sanction aud authority Of the Presi-
dent ordained provisional government Tor the
country lkX, Doc, 20 Sess. 20.h Con-. vol g. Doc.
19D., The ordinance created courts, with both
civil and criminal jurisdiction. IL did not under
take 10 change The municipal laws Oi the terri
tory, but II established judicial system with
superior or appellate court, ana with circuit
to embrace, first all criminal causes that should
not otherwise be provided for oy laws; and sec.
ondly original and exclusive cognzancc ofall civil
cases not cognIzable before tne projects ana al
caldes. But though these courts aud this judicial
system we're established by the military auwOrity
OF the United states without any legislation ofCon-
gress, this Court ruled that they we're lawfully
established. And there was no express order for
their establishment emanating from the Presi.
dent or the Commander-ln-Jhlet the ordinance
was the act OF Gsnera Kearney, the commanding
rltory. In view OF these decisions II Is not TO be
questioned that the constitution aid not prohibit
the creation BY military authority OF courts Tor
the trial OF civil causes during the civil war In
conquered portions Of the lnsurpent states. the
establishment OF sueh courts ~ out the exercise
or the ordinary rights OF conquest. Tue plaintin
In error, therefore, had no constitutional
Immunity against subjeeiion 20 the Iudg-
ments ~ such courts. They argue, however,
that n tbis be conceded, sun General Butter had
no authority 70 establish such court that the
President alone, as COmfnander-in-Chtef had
such authority. We do not colnciae in this
view. General Butler was in command OF the
cOnqueTing army. lie was commissioned 60 carry
on the war IN Louisiana. lie was, therefore, in
vested with an the powers Of making war, ex-
cept so far as they were denied to him by the
Comma nder-in-C Chief, aud among these powers, as
we have seen, was tnat of establishing courts IN
conquered territories. II must be presumed that
he acted under the order OF his superior oncer,
the President, and that his acts In the prosecution
OF the war were the acts OF hts Commander-ln-
Chief Again, lt Is argued tnat even II the Pro-
vost Court was rightly established IL had no juTis-
diction over civil causes. IL must be conceded
tnat the order by which the Court was created
did not define expressly the nature ana eX-
tent ofits jurisdcuon. 1t Is also true that Pro-
vOst Court ordinarily has cogniZance only or
minor criminal offences, but that a larger iuris-
diction fnay be gwen 10 it by the power which
brings t into beng Is undeniabe. Whether a
larger jurisdiction was conferred In the now
under Onslderation we are not called upon TO I
determine. u ls not federal question. The Su-
preme Court of Louisiana decided that General