Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1878-12-30
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT.
rus BLAINE COMMITTEE TO GET THE
MONEY.
p,,ise Railway Cases Exports and I'm
nors-Ths Case Of Robeson-Un-
pleasant New Years's Gift
An Interesting Case.
AnInterrs sting Case.

l.. n,t DISPOSED vi quite u peculiar
49,. al which al the time only the brief
., m,ntion was made by the Asso-
.,,,I Press. and which in no SENSE
..,,rrI the points involved. ltappears
,.r a.Ilnn Was brought in u Virginia
,rt uuun numerous notes made in
Alexandria hv J. III. McNeigh X Son,
.u ,rril and May, 1861, indorsed, for
....,,nmodation, hv William NJ. Me
yeirh, and discounted by the Bank OF
,b,. uh Dominion of Virginia, which fell
ln, in Jdly, August and September fol
I.,iur while both makers and in
f,rsrrs. who had fled from Alexandria
an the iuth al May, on the occupation of
m, city hy the Federal troops, were
in Culprpprr county, Virginia, with
IN the Confederate lines. The notes
orr, regularly protested iOr nOn-pay-
u,,nt and notices ui protest III due form
i.,t al the dwelling house ot the indor-
.-r IN Alexandria. Among other de-
rru.r, made by the indorser was one
Bron which the result finally turned,
namely. that the said notice To him
Vl,a nulliIv, inasmuCh as public hos
riIitIr, existed between the citizens Of
Al,Nandri1 and the citizens I'll the Con
rrI rate states at this time. Upon this
,u..,ljun. under instructions given by
the Alexandria State Court, the jury
,,uud verdict lnr plaintiff, which the
C,url refused tu set aside, and entered
IN i,urul thereon. William y. Me
Weigh appealed Ia the supreme Court
# lrprtI~ ul Virginia, and in that Court
There Wd~ wide range nf argument, in
,uNiu. questions ot commercial law,
All whether, dnd how, that the law
NA, modified or affected iii its applica-
rnn IL the peculiar and abnormal cir
umslaucr~ al the case L. which the
h-tur, ni jurisprudence furnished no
parallel. 1t Was contcnded Tor McNeigh
lnat. whether because Of secession of
the State. at hy right al revolution, he
va, at liberty to leave Alexandria, and
incurred ~ responsibility 10 the bank
b., 81, doing al hirh it could take all
ANluIIy on lhi, -itr ui the beliigcrent
lines notices Ui protest were simply
,pi acts as Ia him. since il was by the
AV, al war alike Illegal iur the bank Ia
gt,,, ur hm tn receive notice across the
lines, and the bank could not give con-
S.W,tlSr notice when II could
HI give actual notice. The
Cml declined L. pass "n the validity
ri the 0rilddurc ui secession, but did
h ,ld that, under the circumstance, the
i .pHrturr m NcNri5h did not subject
hum tu any liability to the bank, or re-
l.trr IL IRON the obligation OF giving
ir al notice ui the protest which it held,
could not hr ton" during the war, but
NIGHT and ,huuII have been done with
lu reasonable time after lis trrmlna-
tiuu II, therefore, reversed the de-
y!~lun al tie luWCr court, and seIit the
,i-r back lur 4 new trial upon the prin-
rirIcN II had declared When the case
came "n lur = new trial counsel lur the
bank sought I" introduce INTO it an ele-
mrut which would give the Supreme
Court uI the uitcd States jurisdiction
tu review the final decision Ot the SUI
prrmr Court uI Virginia, hv raising
what /, Familiarity known as The Fed
rral Question:, ami IN various forms al
"lrjcrH separate Instructions asked the
i"urt. dIrv,tlN ur indirectly, Ia pass up
uu the Validity 81 the ordinance Ot SC
'rsolum, and the alleged constitutional
dnd legal rights ii the bank aS II citizen
"l the | ultcd States To- give the notices
a. they were given. After elaborate
argument the Court proceeded with the
rt~r upon the simple question whether
lh' bank had given due notice Oi pro-
lest I" ihc mdur,cr after the war. 1t
Ms drrIdri hy the Jury, under instruC-
lions from the Court, that such notice
HAT not been gwen, and verdict Was
therefore rendered lor defendant, upon
Which Judgment was entered in
his favor. The bank then
appealed to the Supreme Court of Ap-
pr.d-"i TglnlH. This Court sustained
The opinion "f the Court below, and
gave Jui gImrnt and its opinion in Me
NeiEh favor. From that decision the
htnk appealed I" the Supreme Court Of
ihe nItcd states, upon the gronnd that
"he"r more Federal questions were
involved. MIR McNcigh moved the
'"uIt To dismiss the case Tor want of
jurisdiction. because no Federal ques-
u'h Was III fact involved; and the
'"ull hy It's unanimous decision deliy-
cred hy the Chief Justice on Monday
last quietly, without II word 0i COM
mrHt, dismissed the case ior want OF
l"iiN,Iirtun, holding that the question
involved was one purely of commercial
"" andunder thceXclusive luris hction
"I lhe State Court, and without the jur-
Is lrtiUn OF the tnitcd States Supreme
''Hrt, because il involves no Federal
question.
Blsine's Boys.
WASHINGTON, December 2S.-The
'rIlrr Committee met this afternoon in
anticipation 0f Il favorable decision Of
A'iins Acknowledgement Phillips re-
S"5"ih& The senate appropriation, but
""''iNloh not being received the Com
ni''tre adjourned to Monday next The
N"dlfhIdn informed the Committee that
r w. las not Yet received from Senator
:. thurman al answer to the call for spec
Ill "tions, and presented the reply nj
'."t"r Blaine To the same call.
A'llng Acknowledgement Phillips has
~ Sg'' his opinion to the Secretary of the
treasury lie holds the Committee has
'sht t" Use the S25, 900 appropriated
"t Investigations by the Senate.
Pacific Railway Cases.
, "AsHlNGToN, December 2S. The
nearing in the Kansas Pacific Railway
oases was continued to-day. The first
question considered was the traffic con-
u"'i or running arrangement between
Unc ~ 'hlon Pacific and Colorado Central
- %H'I'"ad companies on one side, and
we Kansas Pacific Railway and Receiv-
Us -. On The other. This is II pooling con-
"Hc' entered into last summer, and
""'Sh placed the Kansas Pacific Rail-
IH'' under the management of the
mon facliic Company. The Court or
"sicu ,'.' The parties to take further testi-
"'o'! before the first OF February, that
G tr'e matter might be fully set forth and
I"i'o'ed oi at the March term of the
soT T!'ea States Court in Kansas. Coun-
.co,.' ce' 'or H. W. Lewis, trustee in the in
;";ne ;n; mortgage, moved to dissolve the
~ junction restraining prosecution of
T'' Ee.''lt sun instituted by Lewis against the
S,a,HM S,'SaS facllc Railway Company in a