Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-11-18
WASHINGTON.
fyft0HT4NT DECISIONS By THE q.
s. SUPREME COURT.
slate Control Of Taxation Not Subject to
Federal superviston-The Law Protecting
Trade Marks Declared Unconstitutional
miscellaneous.

POSTAL.
Wasa1SaIoN Nov. 1.-THE loss to the gov
eminent in the amount of money received by
poatmsstcrs throughout the country the past
two years will be less than one-twentieth of
one per cent.
TRADE MARKS.
Under the provisions of the federal trade
mark law, which the supreme court to-day pro-
nounced unconstitutional, about 5000 trade
marks have been registered at the patent Of
tee and about 200 applications for registry are
now pending.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
No 53-Charlcs ". Kirkland, plaintiff in err
ror, Us. Leonard l.. Hotchkiss in error to the
supreme court, error Litchfe,d county, Conn.
The question presented by this case is whether
plaintiff in error, citizen of Connecticut, can
be rightfully taxed by that State under its laws
on certain bonds owned by him but held in the
city of Chicago and secured by deeds of trust
on real estate located in that city. The SUI
preme court Of errors Of Connecticut held that
the assessment OF which the plaiu tiff in error
complained we're in conformity to State laws
and that the law didn't in
fringe any OF compliments constitutional
rights. This court sustains the views
taken by TIC lower tribunal, and holds that
the locality of debt for tho purposes of taxa
ton ia not affected by the fast that it is
secured by mortgage upon real estate situated
in Illinois; that the debt has it's situs at the
Gre itors residence. and it is for the State to
determine whether it shall be taxed. The dis
crotion Of States in this respect is not in the
opinion of this court subject to supervision or
control by the federal government in any of its
departments, for the reason that such taxation
violates no provision of the federal constitu-
ton. The Judgment of the supreme court of
errors of Connecticut is affirmed, with costs.
No. 7O5, The United States, plaintiffs, vs..
Emil S!effene, and No. I'll, The United States,
plaintiff, VS.. Adolphe Whitman, on certificates
of division from the circuit court for the
southern district fNew York, and No. 7l9, The
United States, plaintiffs. VS.. ". A. johnson ct
al, in certificate of division from the circuit
coart of the Unted States for the southern dis
tr;ct OF Ohio. These three cases are prosecutions
for violations of what are known as the trade
mark laws embodied in sections 4,937 to ,947,
revised statutes. The question upon which the
judges Of the lower courts were divided in
opinion is, whether the acts Of Congress on the
subject Of trade marks are found on any right
full authority in the constitution of the United
States. 1t was maintained here by counsel
who sought Affirmative answer to
this question. that there are
two clauses OF the federal constitution
ton in dispute. The first is the 9Th clanse of
section 8, article |, which provides that Con-
grcss shall have power to pass laws to promote
the progress Of science and useful arts by Sc
curing for limited terms to authors and invent.
the exclusive right to their writings and
discoveries. With regard to this point the
court holds that ,he ordinary trade mark has
no necessary relation to invention or
discovery. Ii Is generally the
outgroUth Of considerable period
Of use rather than of sudden invention, and is
often the result Of accident rather than of de-
sign. The attempt to classify a trade mark
with the writings Of authors is open to OBJ
jections equally strong. The latter involves
IN element of originality, as do also inven-
items, while the trade mark is generally nothing
more than an adoption of something already in |
existence as distinctive symbol of the person
ventin, discovery, or of any work
of the brain, but is founded on priority of ap-
preparation. The court is therefore of the |
opinion that while such legislation as that in
question may be q judicious aid to the COM
mon law on the subject Of trade marks and
may be Wi thin the competency of the legisla-
tule, whose general powers embrace that class
of subjects, it is not authorized by constitu- |
tional provisions concerning authors and in |
ventors and their writings and discoveries.
Tho other clause of the constitution relied on /
to support this legislation is tho third of the |
shall have power to regulate commerce with |
foreign nations aud among the several States,
and with the Indian tribes. The argument is
that trade marks used to identify particu-
lar class quality of goods, and that as so
used it ia valuable aid or instrument of COM
merce, and comes within the scope of the
constitutional provision cited. With regard to
this point the court believes:
First-That tbs clause quoted does not bring
within control Of Congress every species Of
property which is sunject of commerce or
which Is used i'll commerce. Wallace vs.. Louis. |
lana, How, 70; Paul VS.. Virginia, 8 Wall, l6S,
and that the legislation now in question does
not limit the use Of trade marks to Interstate
or International commerce, rs it should do
II it i've based the constitutional
provis: IN now quoted in its support it refers
to all trade and to commerce between all points,
1t is obviously the exercise of a power not con-
ferred upon Congress. That this is the purpose
Of this legislation seems, in the opinion of the
court, TO b evident. It contemplates the
establishment of Oh universal system of trade
registration for the benefit of all who have
already used trade mark, or
wish to adopt ono in the future, without re-
gard to the character of the trade to which it
is to be applied or to the locality Of the owner
such legislation IS in the opinion of this court
in excess Of Congressional power. It has been
trade marks used in commerce with other ma
tions and among the several States, it's legisla-
ton far 1T relates to that class of
cases should be held valid
but to this the court holds
there ere t"o objections, first that there is
nothing to show that trade marks in the three
causes now under consideration were used in
that kind of commerce. aud second that it is
not within judicial province to give the words |
use q by Congress narrower meaning than
they arc manifestly intended to be. To o 80
would be virtually to make a law
yybi oh Il ho 0rlxy ~
its operation and which would
complcate rights which the parties would hold
in the same instance under act of Congress and
in others under State law. The court wishes,
however, to be understood as leaving the
whole question Of the treaty making power of
the general government over trade marks, and
tho duty Of Congress to pass any laws necces-
sary to carry such treaties into effect, untouch-
cd. The question in each of these cases, viz:
whether these statements can be upheld in
whole or in part, as valid and constitutional:
must be answered in the negative, and it Will
be so certified to the circuit courts.
No: 2, Nixon Il. Crane, executor, etc, ct al,
appellants, vs.. Kansas Pacific Railway COM
pany, appeal from the circuit court of the United
States Tor the district of Kansas. This was
suit IN equity brought by the children
and heirs OF Samuel Hallett to enforce a con-
tract he made in his lifetime with the railroad
company, for the construction of its line of
railway and telegraph. The court holds that
this contract formed part of Halletts personal
estate, aud belonged to his personal represent
ative; that the heirs couldn't rishtfuliy bring
this suit, and that the demurrer to their
bill WAS properly sustained.
INDICTED FOB EMBEzzLEMENT.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1.-THE grand Jury to.
day found an indictment against John Hetz,
late president, aud Chas. e. Prentiss late
cashier Of the German National bank of this
city, for embezzling $50, $40 in cash and $4,000
in STOCK of that bank.