National Republican., 1882-12-19

inflicted for dsregarding the prohibition is |
clearly within the discretion of Congress- |
provided it be not cruel or unusual.
If there were no other reasons for legisla- |
tiou of this character that such rs relate |
TO the protection of those in the public SER |
vice against unjust exactions, its constitu-
tionality would, in our opinion, be clear; but
there arc others to our minds equally good. |
If persons in public employ may be called on
by those in authority to contribute from their
personal income to the expenses Of political
campaigns, and u refusal may lead to putting
good men out of the service; liberal payments
may be made the ground for keeping poor
ones in. So, too, if a part of the compensation
received for public services must be contrib
uted for political purposes it is easy to see
that an increase of compensation may be re-
| quired to provide the means TO make the con-
| tribution, and that in this way the govern
ment itself may be made to furnish indirectly
the money to defray the expenses of keeping
| the political party in power that happens to
have for the time being the control of the
public patronage. Political parties must al
ways necessarily exist under republican
form of government, and when public em-
| ployment depends to any considerable extent
on party success those in Office will naturally
be desirous of keeping the party to which
they belong in power. The statute we are
now considering does not interfere with this.
! The apparent end of congress will be accom-
plished if it prevents those in power from re-
quiring help for such purposes as condition
to continued employment.
We deem it unnecessary to pursue the SUBJ
ject further. In our. opinion the statute un-
der which the petitioner was convicted is con-
stitutional. The other objections which have
been urged to the detention cannot be con-
sidered in this form of proceeding. Our en-
quiries in this class of cases are limited to
such objections as relate to the authority of
the circuit court to render the Judgment by
which the prisoner is held. We have no gen.
eral power to review the Judgment of the
inferior courts of the United States in crimi-
nal cases by the use of the writ of habeas
corpus or otherwise. Our jurisdiction is
limited to the single question of the power of
the court to commit the prisoner for the act
of which he has been convicted. lex parte
Lange, IS Wall, 1863, and ex parte Rowland,
1O1, United States 604.)
We think the commitment in this case was
lawful, and the petitioner is consequently re-
manded to the custody of the marshal for the
southern district of New York
Justice Bradley read u dissenting opinion,
in which he took the ground that congress
had no constitutional power to enact q law
forbidding an employe of the government to
associate himself with others for the promo
tion of the political opinions which he enter
tained or to make such disposition of his
private means as he should think fit. Justice
Bradley said he did not approve of enforced
, political assessments, but he thought that
congress, in enacting the present law to pre-
vent such assessments, had deprived the in
dividual citizen of one of his inalienable rights,
and in so doing had overstepped the limits of
its constitutional authority.
LIABILITY FOR CUSTOMS DUTIES.
Adhesion was also rendered by the court in
the case of John w. Minturn ct al. against
, the United States, which involves question
+ of some Importance with regard to the liza
bility for customs duties on goods sold by the
, importers from bonded warehouse. The
c United States sued the firm of Grinnell Min
turn & Co. as principals and L. M. Clark as
: surety upon a bond in the usual form upon an
| entry for warehouse of $50 packages of sugar
t imported at the port of New York by the bark
Ocean Home. The importers, in accordance
with an established trade usage, sold part
? of the sugar in bond (the purchaser assum-
signed written consent to the with
drtfwal by such purchaser of the pur-
l chased merchandise. Through the negli-
l gence of the custom house officers the
. purchaser was allowed to withdraw the sugar
t without paying the duties thereon. The pur-
+ chaser soon afterward became insolvent and
the United States brought this suit to recover
7 the amount of the unpaid duties from the i'm
, porters and the surety on their bond. This
{ court holds that both principals and
+ surety are liable. Although it was the usage
of trade to sell goods in bond and deliver
F.; chaser paying the duties and withdrawing the
5 goods, the obligors in the bond did not become
I merely sureties, with the goods as primary
I, security for the duties; and they were not re-
leased because the officers of the United States
$ unlawfully parted with the possession of the
4 goods without eXacting payment of the
i duties. The negligence of United States Off
GERS does not affect the liability of either the
S principal or the sureties in bond to the
S United States. The judgment of the circuit
; court is affirmed. Opinion by Justice Blatch-
S ford.
: ANOTHER CUSTOM HOUSE CASE
Another custom house case of some i'm
: portance in which q decision was rendered il
= | that of Thomas RUSSELL collector, agains
u Robert B. Williams, jr., ct al, brought here by
. writ of error to the circuit court of the United
States for the district of Massachusetts. Thi
u u was suit broughtby Williams etal. to recover
y from the collector certain duties paid undel
y protest upon tea, grown in China but imported
. from Liverpool. The importers maintained
;, that the tea was liable to 10 cents per pound
u only, but the collector eXacted that duty will
u an addition of 10 per cent. advalorem, upol
the ground that the tea having been grown
: at place east of the Cape of Good Hope ha,
Il been imported from place west thereof Tn
!, question presented therefore, by the case i
. whether the provision of the act of March 8
1865 for the payment of ten per cent. ol
: goods produced in countries east of the Cap'
- | OF Good Hope Wnen imported from place
V west of the cape, was q general commercial
= regulation for the encouragement of direc
: trade with those countries as well as for tn
- benefit of American shipping, or whether
% was intended simply as an increase of dutie
, for purposes of revenue. If the former,
g would be independent of the duties impose
- - on the articles and would not be repealed by
. modification. of them. If the latter tn
- result might be different. This cour
y holds that the provision was intende
10 as a general regulation of commerce; that il
:, object was to favor direct importation froI
" countries east of the cape without regard
~ the amount of duties imposed on the article
70 imported. The court is further of Opinio
~ that the law in question continues in force il
~ ~ reference to all goods not expressly exempte
~ from its provisions whether dutiable or free
and whether new duties imposed are declare
~ to be in lieu of all other duties or not. Th
= duties on tea have been several times change
=" since 1861, but in the view taken by thi
~ court these changes have only had referenc
~ ~ to the ordinary duties imposed for the puI
, pose of revenue only, and not to the standing
- regulation here under consideration. TIL
10 Judgment of the court below is reversed wit
oS costs, and the cause remanded with direC
VI VI tions to award new trial. Opinion of Jul
ne ne tice Bradley.
ne TITLE TO MINING LANDs-A TEST CASE,
ne A decision was also rendered in an impol
o. tant test case involving the title to certai
to mining lands in the city of Leadville, Col
to namely, the case of John Steel ct al, plaintiff