National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-01-07

under the authority Of their superiors. The
opinion is withheld for revision.
Mr. Justice Field read q dissenting opinion,
holding that the statute does not protect such
parties except upon express orders or prOcla
nation of tho President, and such were not
shown in this case. The dissent is sharp
criticism upon the theories advanced in sup
port of the reversal, and is of great length.
CONVICTION FOR PoLYGAMY AFFIRMED.
Reynolds VS.. United States. Error TO the
Supreme Court Of Utah Territory. This is he
case of indictment for poygamy, on which the
plaintiff was found guilty. The case was
brought here on exceptions TO the ruling upon
the evidence and to the charge of tho court,
and after tho reading of an elaborate opinion
sustaining the decision of the court below, this
court atlirms the conviction. The Chief Jus.
tiee delivered the opinion Of the court, which,
however, Is withheld for revision, aud no all.
stract of It Is now obtainablc.
Mr.. Justice Field concurred in the opinion,
except rs To one proposition, as to the right of
receiving the testimony of the polygamous
wife, given on q former trial, because the
officers could not fluid her to produce her in
court In his opinion this was erroneous.
THE EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OF MANU-.
FEATURING PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT
Welch VS.. Cook, Calleston, ct -, Appeal
from the Supreme Court of the District of Co.
lumbia. This is the case Of Welch to enforce
MS CVuhlIuCllou OF tne pIONlSOnS Oh ulle HCt OIL
the late Legislative Assembly of the District
exemptng from taxation for period of ten
years all property actually engaged in manu-
featuring enterprises. The court hold that
Congress had the power to invest the District
government with legislative authority, and
that II did so but that the act in question TACT
OF June, 1879 does not create contract in
the sense that IL could not be repealed. There
Is no pledge that the law shall not be repealed
at any time, and it was repealed in effect by
the act Of Congress of June, 1864, the inten-
ton Of which, il is held, was to subject TO tax
alton all the real property in the District ex-
cent such as was specifically exempted by the
act. The exemption of manufacturing prop
crty by the District Legislature was bounty,
merely, revocable at any time, and the repeal
does not involve a breach of faith toward the
| owner OF such property Thcappellant, there
fore, must have known that it was liable to
such repeal by Congress- by way of reducing
the burden Of taxation in the District, by in
crelsing the subjects of taxation. Mr.. Justice
Hunt delivered the opinion.
THE SUIT AGAINST A. T. STEWART & co.
A. T. Stewart & Co. VS.. Somehow. Error to
the middle district of Alabama. This was the
| action of SOnneborn to recover damages Of the
| plaintiffs in error for an alleged malicious act
in instituting proceedings in bankruptcy
against him as q member of u firm
Of which he was not q member Mt
| the time, and which was indebted to
them. The court find that there was no NAL
| ice, ana holding il to he a settled rule that nc
| sui. can be maintained against an unsuccessful
plaintiff or prosecutor unlcssit Is shown affirm
atiycly that he was actuatcd by malice or some
| improper or sinister motive, the judgment is
reversed. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the
opinion. Dissenting, Mr.. Justice Bradley.