The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-06-28

DAY Of July next
I UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
DECISIONS.
WASHINGTON June q, 1875
sTbe Supreme Co urt OF the United States have de-
livered opinions ia the following cases:--
GOVERNMENT neutrality-suspicious. OF cox
TRACTS THEREFoR-THE uNLoADED TEAMS.
No. FOL Samuel Black CT al, appellants, vs. United
States-Appeai from the Court OF ims-The trans
portaton for which compensation Is now asked was
"irom point another within The route, and full
payment has been made therefor according 10 the
TO rates specified IN the tabular statement" II IS
claimed however, that Fort Phil kearny, the
point al winch the supplies We're received for iranpor
tation, twas within the route" the contractors
entitled TO compensation Tor the distance that was
travelled unoaded to reach that place, well "a for
the distance tho supplies were carried. This claim IS
based upon any express provision in the
requiring or even permitting such payment, but be-
cause is insisted, the service rendered not
cuded the obligation OF the contrast Tho
argument Is that the places named article
/ arc the only places at which the con-
tractors bound receive the supplies
10 be transported. But this excludes ON consldcra
ton articles and a. by which the contractors bound
themselves. not only 10 transport under the agree
inent rom the posts. dcpols and STATIONS named in
article l. but also IRON and oany otter posts, dcpots
or stations that might be established within'the dis
rict described said article aud 'ronl point TO
another within the routcn For the purposes CT con
struciion we must look 10 the whole Instrument The
intention 0: the parties Is 10 be asccrtancd by an ex
animation OF all they have said In their arguments and
not OF part only. In Cadweils (lY Wall. 264l
decided that the terms posts, dcpos, or stations
as used in articles and OF his contract 'n the
presence OF actual and IN reference 10 military
store," included military posts and stations alone
Consequently IL was held that Caldwell could not claim
the right OF Transporting supplies from railroad sta
tons within the districts which not at the
time military posts. stations, dcpos In the pres
cnt the starting pont was Fort Phil kcarny,
military "post.n and, consequently, point" within
| ruling in Cadwrlrs ease, be required 10
receive stores and supplies for transportation
nnfiCn tact hmm md lln
cumstanccs OF this un'mportant that the provs
ion tor transportation "Irom point TO anotherS
within the route which is found IN article - Of
the in this case, is not TO be found In Cald
wells contract. His contract was for the year 1865
this for 1852 II is not impossible that The Clam
by Caldwell may have suggested the necessity
this change the terms OF such agreements. In Cald
wells contract, too, article provided that stores
should be received Tor transportation a any points
places AT which posts or depos shall be established"
Here the article provided that they should be rc
such point ma. be determined upon dur
| ing the year, the Omaha branch, &c, omittng
the further provision that it should be post
.sdepoLn We are clearly OF the opinion that the SER
vices rendered by these appellants we're within the
qurcmcnts OF their contract and that the only CON-
pcnsat,on they arc entitled is for distance tho
articles actually carried, and agrccably 10 the
rates specified. Allrmc
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion.
/ rHE POINTS DECIDED IN THE NEW YORK AND LOUISIANA
ELABORATION CASES
Nos. $50 and 23s. John Henderson and Thomas
/ Henderson, appellants, vs. William II. Wickham
Mayor of the city OF New York, and the Commissioner
ol Emigration. from the Circuit court Tor the
1 N. COmmsSfOncrS
OF Emigration, appellants, VS.. The North German
Lloyd Appeal from the Circuit Court Tor the District
OF Louisiana. The text OF this decision having been
pahlished n lull the following statement vi its scope
US prepared by the Justice delivering the opnlon is
given for the convenience q the public The
| Cr Peters, 103) decided more than that
the requirement. from the master OF vessel
Of a catalogue Of his passengers landed IN tho city,
rendered to the Mayor OATH with correct descrIp
ton their ages occupations, places OF birth
and Of last legal settlement, was police regulation
/ Oh lf tha ufC IN pnacf and nptt
| sstenl with the constitution OF the United States Tho
result OF the passenger cases u How, 2s3) was 10 hold
that demanded OF the master or owner OF tho
vessel OF every such passenger was regulation Of
commerce by tho state. in conflict with the constitu
ton and laws oil the United states and, therefore,
i void These cases criticised and the wei. ht due them
rs authority consdcrch in whatever language statute
may be framed IT'S purposes and constitutional validity
must determined by its natural and reasonable elect
Hence statute which imposes burdcnsomo and al
most impossible condition on the snipmastcr AZ pre-
requisite his landing his passengers, with an altcrna
tive payment OF small sum OF money for each Of
them, in fact, tax on The shipowncr Tor the right
such passengers, and IN effect the passenger
himself since the shpirastcr makes him pay IL
vance part OF his Are Such statute OF State Is
a regulation OF commerce, and when applied TO passcn-
gers from foreign countries IS regulation OF
mcrcc with foreign nations u Is no answer TO the
charge that such regulation OF commerce by state Is
| forbidden by the constitution TO say that IL
falls within tho police power Of tho states;
Tor TO whatever class OF legislative powers
IL may belong, II is prohibited to the States
II granted exclusively Congress by that instrument
Though II rc conceded that there is class OF
4
epn nations and between the States IN regard TO which
laws Of tho states may be valid in the absence OF
ton under the authority OF Congress on the same sub
ject this have no reference TO matters which
in their naturcnationa, which admit of uniform
| system plan OF reputation The statutes OF New
| York ana Louisiana here under consideration are in
tended 10 regulate commercial matters which not
only oil national interest but OF national concern and
| which are also best regulated by uniform rule, APP
| plicabIe alike 10 all the seaports OF the United
! States. These statutes are, therefore, void,
because IcgIsation on the subjects which they
nall xcIf n Cluuge
the constitution which gives that body the right
to regulate commerce with foreign nations" Tho
constitutional objection this tax on the passenger
Is not removed the penalty for failure 10 pay
| does not accrue until twcntyour hours alter he Is
landed. The penalty Is incurred by the act OF land
ing him without payment and H. in fact, for the act
/ OF bringing him into the state The Court docs
not in this case. undertake 10 decide whether or not
state may, the absence OF all legislation oy Con
grcss the same subject, pass statute strictly
limited TO defend itself against paupers, convicted
criminals and others oil that class, out is OF tho
oppionf that Congress rghtiuiy aud appropriately
belongs the power Of IesisiaIlns the whole su'Jec.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion OF the Court.
| rn4cTIcy-REHEARya AFTgR An APPEAL IN EQciry-
THE PROPER PROCEDURE
No Asa william Roemcr, appellant, vs. Edward
simon CT al Appeal from the Circuit Court for tho
District OF New Jersey, motion motion 10 de-
Mol II clear that after an appeal IN equity TO this
Court cannot, upon motion. set aside decree OF
the Court below and grant u rehearing We can only
a,nrm. modify the decree appealed from,
and that upon the hearing Of the cause No new cvi.
dcncc can here Revised Statutes section
6.s.) The Court below caunoi grant relcarins acr
the at winch tue Hua uctIcc WAS tTcttdctcu.
Equity rule No $50 IL would be useless remand
Inn cause therefore, the term ~ which the decree
was rcpdcred has passed II The term still
continued, the proper practice would be to make APP
plcation Court below for rchcaring, aud have
that send request Tor return OF the record
in order that might proceed further with the cause.
SruuitSuch a request be made VIC might In proper
ease and under proper restrictions make the necessary
order but We cannot make such an order on the app
cation OF the parties The Court below alone can make
the request Tho application Of the parties must
be addressed TO that Court, and hot TO The Chief
Justice delivered the opinion.
ALABAMA CLAIMS.
WAsuxcrox June %. 1870