Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-05-08
SUPREME COURT LORE.
IMP ORTANT CASES DECIDED AT
WASHINGTON.

"asHlHSiOn
WASHINGTON, May "A decision wa,
rendered by the United States Supreme
Court to-day i'll the patent case of Robert
l.. DaWnton, appellant, against the
feager Milling Company, which involves
the question of the validity of patent on
what Is known as the new process fol
making flour by crushing grain between
rollers. The court holds that the patent
Is void for want of novelty. the pro-
cess which the appellant claims as his
iINehtlOn, having been clearly described
as early as 1S47 in publication called
"Ang lO-American and Swiss Science Mil.
Ing" by Christian Wilhelm Fritzicb. Of
Lelpslc. The DEGREES of the Circuit Court
dismissing the bill is affirmed.
The court this afternoon denied De-
tltlons for rehearing in what are known
as the Louisiana and Virginia bond cases.
VIZ: State of Louisiana ex rel. Elliott
against Jumel, Auditor, and others: Ell
not not against WITT, Governor, and others.
ana Antonio against Greenhorn.
Decisions were also rendered in the fol-
lowing cases: No. pa, State of Louisiana
railroad, New Orleans Gas Light Com
pany, plaintiffs in error, VS.. the Council
OF the City of New Orleans ct al. i'm
error, TO supreme Court of the State of
louisiana. dismissed for want of iuris
dIctlOn; No. 2SS, j. W. Scarborough.
tutor, ETC., plaintiff in error, VS.. John
rank, IN error to Supreme Court
State oi louisiana, dismissed with costs:
NO. 2os, Sarah f. Vance ct al. plaintiff
IN error, vs.. Sarah f. Vance execrtriy-
etc, ct al: in error, to Supreme Court State
oil louisiana. judgment affirmed with
costs. A decision was also rendered bv
the court to-day in the Chinese civil rights
cases. i'9
No. !, ,23O, ex parte Tom Tong. on a pe-
tltlOn Tor writ of habeas corpus. This
case comes here upon certificate of de-
clslQn OF opinion between the Judges of
tae united States Circuit Court for the
District OF California. Tom Tong. the pc
tltloner, a subject of the Emperor of China.
was arrested and imprisoned in San Fran
cisco ON the 10th of January last. for ig
nOflng ana refusing to obey an ordinance
OF the Board of Supervisors to regulate
the ncenslng and maintenance of public
laundries in that city. He petitiOned the
united states Circuit Court for a writ of
haDeas corpus, on the ground that he was
unlaWfully arrested, and was deprived of
his liberty in contraventiOn of the Con
stitution of the United States and of the
Burhngame treaty. The Judges of
the Circuit Court were unable
TO agree upon answers to the oues-
tiOns raised by the petition and
they therefore certified such questions TO
TINS court for its judgment. This court holds
that the only questiOwhich NAV be certi
NED to 1t on division of opinion before
Judgment are those which grow out of a
trial or hearing of criminal proceeding
before the Circuit Court In the present
case the petitioner is held under criminal
process and the prosecution against him
is criminal prosecution, but the writ of
habeas corpus which he seeks
Is not proceeding in that
prosecution. On the contrary, it is a new
suit brought by him to enforce a civil
right which he claims as against those
VINO are holding him in custody under
process. This court has no
of the case in its pres
ent form, and must remand it to the
Circuit Court for further proceeding
according to law. The opinion is by
Chief Justice Waite. In the closely al |
lied case eXparte of Hung Hang, which |
is petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
1led as an original action in this court |
and which grows out of precisely the
same state of facts, the court holds that !
except in cases affecting ambassadors |
Dr other public ministers or consuls |
and those in which the State is a party. |
It can issue writ only for the purpose |
)f reviewing decision of some inferior |
)fficer or court. This petition presents no |
such case and the writ is therefore |
ienled. The opinion by Chief Justice /
Waite.
A decision was also rendered bv
-he court to-day in the sO-called Granger |
case, of Neal Ruggles, plaintiff in error, |
against the people in the State of Illinois. |
mis- case arises out of the facts below set |
Orth: On the 18TH of March. 1873, |
Morgan A. Lewis, passenger on /
train OF the Chicago, Burlington
md Quincy Railway Company, rendered |
Neal Ruggles, conductor of that COM
'any, eighteen cents as the fare for his
from Buda to NefOnset,
distance of six miles. This was at the
maximum rate of three cents per mile
prescribed by stutuet of Illinois then in
Orce. The conductor demanded twenty
ents, which was the fare fixed by the
abroad company. Lewis refused to paw
more than eighteen cents, and the con
uctOr thereupOn attempted to eject him
rom the car. For this act the cOnduc-
or was prosecuted before a Justice of
he Peace upon charge of assault and
attery, and was fined $40 and costs. The
ase was then carried up on through the
tate courts by successive appeals, the
abroad company sustaining the c0nduc-
/
t the State to interfere with its
usiness by fixing rates of fare, etc.
| decision was finally rendered in favor of
he State by its highest court, and the
abroad company thereupon appealed to
he Supreme Court of the United States
pom the ground that the act of the Gen
raj Assembly of Illinois of April 10, 1871,
king a maximum rate of charges for the
of passengers on the rail-
nd void, because it impaired an Obliga-
On of contract contained in the char
9rs of the various companies which were |
lerged into the Chicago, Burlington and
uincy Railway Company by cOnsOlida-
on. This court holds, first, that grants
immunity from legitimate government
Ontrol are never to be presumed; on the
Ontrary, the presumptions are all the
ther way, and unless an exemption is
early established the Legislature is free
} act on all subjects within its general {
lrisdictiOn as the public interests
lay seem to require. a State
lay limit the amount of charges by rail
)ad companies for fares and freights !
Mess restrained by some contract in the
larter. Second, That in the present
lse there is no such restraint. The
tate, it is true, has given =
le board of directors of the rail !
,ad company the power to establish
lch rates of tolls for the conveyance of
ersons or property as they shall from |
me to time by their laws determine. ;
1t such by laws must notbe repugnant
e State. Ii GLle 9S"'r ~ roouiste t6e
laroeS of carriages for hire the case :
ould be different, but that question mas
zen settled, and the amended charter !
hich this company secured from the
egislature- must be construed III Th The
ght of that established power. Inc :
Idpment of the Supreme Court OF liz ,
ois is affirmed with costs. The opinion
by Chief Justice Waite.
A decision was rendered Dy Ine GouIC
, tho case of the Illinois Central Railway
company, plaintlh IN error, agaihSe giIiiob ire ip
eoDle of the State of Illinois, Whlcn IN
Dives precisely the same questions which
rere presented in the preceding reasons
ivan nv the court in the opinion IN that
ase- the Judgment of the Supreme Court
f Illinois is affirmed The opinion Is by
,hief Justice Waite.
The following press dispatch was re-
eiyed from Denning, y. M, to-day IN
ormatiOn is received from FORT Apacne
hat .2OO San Carlos Indians have lelt
no AGENCIES. and are settling III the
Mountains around that post, and demand
.orn and small grain for seed. Inc cOlil-
handing officer, Captain w. E. Dougherty;
,as issued &, 600 pounds of corn, ana asked
no Secretary of the Interior for small
seed. Fears are entertained lndI
tbere will be difficulty in keep
mo. them quiet. Captain Dougnert!
was ordered at the last moment to return
fo his post from General CROOKS eNpeui-
tion in order to guard against just sucn
.o.,,;,,c, e
dir SfDnCDS.