National Republican., 1882-12-12
SUPREME COURT CASES.
decision Day in the Highest Law Tribunal Of
tho Land
Cetton-Ties Subject to Duty OF 35 Per
Cent. Ad VaIorem.
OF Interest 10 Debtors of the United States--Land
Titles.
bther Business Transnct cted-h Arguments
Observation-Disclosures to the Bar.

A decision was rendered in the supreme
court Of the United States yesterday, in the
case of A. S. Badger, collector of customs of
the port of New Orleans, against j. i. Ranlctt
d Co., in which the controversy relates to the
proper duty to be collected on imported cot
ton-ties The court holds that cotton-ties
each consisting of an iron strip and an iron
buckle imported in bundles, each bundle con-
ssting of 80 strips and so buckles, each strip
II feet long, and the whole blackencd, are
subject to a duty of 35 per cent. ad valorcm
as manufactures of iron not otherwise pro
vided for" under schedule L, section 250i, of
the revised statutes, and not to duty of II
cents per pound under said schedule, as "hand
hoop. and scroll IRON The question as to
whether the articles were subject to some
Other rate of duty than one of those two not
having been raised on the trial in the court
below cannot he raised by the plaintiff in
error in the court. The Judgment of the cir
cult court is affirmed. Opinion by Justice
BlatChlUrd.
OF INTEREST TO DEBTORS.
decision was also rendered in the case of
Henry Fink, United States marshal, appel
liant, VS.. Thomas O'Neill, brought here by ap-
peal from the circuit court of the United
States for the eastern district of Wisconsin.
The question presented by this suit is one of
considerable interest to debtors of the United
Statcs-namely, whether, in cases of eXecu-
ti0ns upon judgments in civil actions, the
United States are subject to the same limita-
tions and exemptions which apply to private
persons under the law of the state in which
the property levied on is found. O'Neill, the
appellee in this case, owns and occupies
As a homestead forty acrer OF land, with
u residence thereon, situated in the
eastern judicial district of Wisconsin. The
United States has obtained in the district
court a Judgment against him in civil ac
tion, and seeks to enforce it by u levy upon
and sale of this farm. Under the laws of
Wisconsin homcsteads of forty acres, if sit
uated in the country, and of One-quarter of an
acre If situated in Il town or city, are exempt
from levy and sale upon executions under
judgments recovered by private creditors.
The questions raised by the appeal are
whether the action OF the United States in
this respect is to be controlled by the laws of
Wisconsin, and whether the United States are
Ou the same level with private individuals
as regards the enforcement of their rights.
The argument in support of the appeal is
based upon the doctrine that the United
States, as a sovereign, is not bound by the
laws of the state of Wisconsin eXempting the
homestead of the debtor from sale on eXecu
tion.
This court holds in long and carefully
prepared opinion by Mr.. Justice Matthew's
First. That the laws of the state creating
such exemptions are not laws for the United
States unless they have been made such by
congress itself.
Second. That, however, by the act of con-
gress of June l, 1872, and the earlier laws
upon which it was founded, the courts of the
United States were forbidden either to adopt
or recognize any form of execution or give
any effect to it not duly authorized at the
time of the passage of the act by the state in
which the case should arise.
Third. That, as the statute of Wisconsin
oxempting holhesteads from levy and sale upon
fnr t1nt t;,,,a fha npt
congress OF June 1, 1872, took effect, and has
remained so continuously from that time, it
follows that the exemption has thereby be-
come law Of the United States within that
state, and applies to executions issued upon
judgments in civil causes recovered in their
courts in their own name and behalf, as well
as to those upon judgments rendered in favor
Of private parties. This conclusion cannot be
avoided by the consideration, which has been
urged, that these laws cannot limit the sover-
eign rights of the United States, for the rea-
son that the sovereign is not bound by such laws
unless he is expressly named. These laws are
the expression of the sovereign will on the sub
iect, and are conclusive upon the judicial and
executive officers to whom they are addressed;
and as they forbid the issue of an execution
in every case except subject to limitations
which they mention, and as there is no au-
thority to issue an execution in any case what
ever except as conferred by them, the sover
egn right invoked is left without the means
of vindication. The United States cannot
enforce the collection of Il debt from an I'M
willing debtor, except by judicial process.
They must bring a suit and obtain a iudg-
ment To reap the fruits Of that Judgment
they must cause an execution to issue. The
courts have no inherent authority TO take any
one of these steps except as it may have been
conferred by the Legislative department, for
they can exercise no jurisdiction except as
the law confirms and limits it. And if the
lou in Question do mt pprmit pyppufipn
TO issue upon a Judgment in favor OF the
United States except subject to the eXemp-
tions which apply to citizens, there are no
others which confer authority to issue any
execution at all. The Judgment of the cir
cult court is affirmed.
IMPORTANT LAND-TITLE DECISION.
decision was also rendered by the court
IN the important land-title case Of Charles II.
Van Wyck, appellant, against sherman w.
Kneyals. An appeal from the circuit court
of the United States for the district of Ne
braska. The principal question presented by
this case is what was the time of the taking
effect of the land grant made to the state of
Kansas by the act of congress of July %,
1866, for the benefit of the st. Joseph and
Denver railway company in the construction
of II railway from Elwood, in that state, to its
junction with the Union Pacific railway or a
branch thereof, The granting act provides
that if it appear when the route of the road
is definitely fixed" that the United States
have sold any section or part thereof or the
right of prc-emption or homestead settlement
has attached or the same has been re-
served by the United States for any
purpose, the secretary of the interior
shall cause an equal quantity of other lands
to he selected from odd sections nearest those
designated, in lieu Of the lands appropriated,
which shall be held by the state for the same
purposes, The question thus arises when is
the route of the road to be regarded as s. def
nitely fixed so as to cut OFF the right of pre-
emption from subsequent settlers ON the land.
In the present case the same tract of land is
claimed by both the litigants. Knevals, the
complainant in the court below, who derives
his title from the railroad company, contends
that the route is definitely fixed " within
the meaning of the act of congress, when the
company files with the secretary of the inte-
rior map of its lines approved by its direc-
tors, designating the route of the proposed
road.
On the other hand, the defendant, Van
Wyck, who acquired his interest by subse-
quent settlement on the land and by obtain
ing patent therefor, contends that the route
cannot be deemed definitely fixed" so that
The grant attaches to any particular sections,
and cuts off the right Of settlement thereon
until the lands are withdrawn from mark ct
by order of the secretary of the interior, and
notice of the order of withdrawal is commu-
nicated to the local land officers in the dis
tricts in which the lands are situated. This
court holds that the position of the complain
ant Knevals is the correct one that the route
must be regarded as indefinitely fixed" when
it has ceased to be the subject of change at
he In