National Republican., 1883-05-08

court is auifncu Wlln COslss OplnlOh .pI.
Justice Woods
A decision was also rendered in the Chi
nose civil rights case, No. 1890, ex parte Tom
Tong petition for y writ of habeas corpus
This case comes here upon a certificate of
division of opinion between tho judges of tho
United States circuit court for tho district of
California. Tom Tong, the petitioner, q sub
joCt of the emperor of China, was arrested
and imprisoned in San Francisco on the IF.
tconth Of January last for ignoring and re-
fusing to obey an ordinance of the board of
supervisors to regulate the licensing and
maintenance Of public lnundrios in that city
He potitOnod Che United States circuit court
for Il writ of haboas corpus on the ground
that he was unlawiully arrested and was de-
prived of his liberty in contravention of the
constitution Of the United States and Of tho
Burlingame treaty. The judges Of the circuit
court were unable TO agree upon answers to
the questions raised by the petition, and they
therefore certified such questions to this court
for It's Judgment.
This court holds that the only questions
which may be certified to it on division of
opinion before Judgment are those which
grow ont of tho trial or hearing of a criminal
proceeding before n circuit court. In the
present case tue petitioner is held under
criminal process and tho prosecution against
, him is acriminal prosecution, but the writ of
habcas corpus which he seeks is not pro-
Creding in that prosecution. On the contrary,
it is NEW suit brought by him TO enforce
civil right which he claims as against those
who are holding him in custody under the
criminal process. This court has no .iurisdic-
tion Of the case in its present form, and must
remand il to the circuit court for further pro-
coedings according to law. Opinion by Chief
Justice Waito.
In the closely allied case, OK parte Hung
Hang, which is a petition for awrit of habeas
corpus filed as an original action in this
court, and which grows out of precisely the
same state of facts, the court holds that, ex-
except in cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers, or consuls, and those in
which state is party, it can issue the writ
only for the purpose of reviewing the decision
of some inferior officer of court. This petit
tion presents no such case, and the writ is
therefore denied. Opinion by Chief Justice
Waite.
A decision was also rendered in the so called
Granger case of Neal Ruggles, plaintiff in er-
ror, against the people of the state of Illinois
This case arises out of the facts below set
forth: On the eighteenth of March, 1873 Nor
gan A. Lewis, passenger on train of tho
Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway COM
pany, rendered Neal Ruggles, a conductor of
that company, eighteen cents as fare for his
transportation from Buda to Neponset,
N distance of six miles. This was
mt the maximum rate of three cents
per mile prescribed by the statute Of Illinois
then in force. The conductor demanded 20
cents which was the fare fixed by the rail-
ay company. Lewis refused to pay more
an Is, and the conductor thereupon at
mpted to eject him from the car. For this
act the conductor was prosecuted before q
Justice Of the peace upon charge of assault
and battery and was fined $40 and COSTS
The case was then carried up through tho
state courts by successive appeals, the railway
company sustaining the conductor and rails
s,,c tla nf ha rid Af n IN,
interfere with its business by fixing rates of
faro and transportation.
A decision was finally rendered in favor of
the state by its highest court, and the railway
company thcreupon appealed to the supreme
court of the United States upon the ground
that the act of the general assembly of 1lli-
nois of April 15, 1871, fixing maximum rate
of charges for the transportation of passen-
gers on railways in the state, was unconsti-
tutional and void because it impaired the
obligation of tho contract contained in the
charters Of the various companies which
were merged into the Chicago, Burlington,
and Quincy Railway company by consolida-
tion.
This court holds I. That grants of iml
munity from legitimate governmental contro-
are never to be presumed. On the contrary
the presumptions are all the other way, and
unless an exemption Is clearly established,
the Legislature is free to act on all subjects
csts may seem to require state may limit
the amount of charges by railway companies
for fares and freights unless restrained by
some contract in the charter. s1sy
.. That in the present case there is no
such restraint. The state, it is true, had
given tho board OF directors Of the railway
company the power to establish such rates
of tolls for the conveyance of persons or prop
erty as they shall from time TO time by their
bylaws determine" but such bylaws must
not be repugnant to the constitution and laws
of the state. If tho state had not tho legisla-
tive power to regulate the charges Of carriers
for hire the case would be different but that
question has been settled and the amended
charter which this company secured from the
legislature must be construed in the light Of
that established power.
The judgment of the supreme court of Illi-
nois is affirmed with costs, Opinion by Chief
Justice Waite. Justice Harlan concurs in
the Judgment, but not in the opinion. JUS
tice Blatchford did not sit in the case
A decision was also rendered in the case Of
the Illinois Central Railway company, plain
tiff in error against the people of the state of
Illinois, which involves precisely the same
questions which were presented in tho pre-
ceding case. For the reasons given by the
court in its opinion in that case, the judg-
ment of the supreme court of Illinois is
affirmed. Opinion by Chief Justice Waite.
Mr.. Justice Harlan concurs in the Judgment,
but not in the opinion.
No. 2l9. The Western Pacific Railway COM
pany et al, appellants, VS.. the United States.
Appeal from the circuit court of the United
States for the district of California. Decree
affirmed Opinion by Justice Miller.
No. 279. Tho Washington and Georgetown
Railway company, appellants, vs. the District
oil Columbia. Appeal from the supreme co,frt
of the District of Columbia. Decree af-
hrmcd with costs Opinion by Justice Miller.
No. 273 The District of Columbia, plaintiff
in error, VS.. c. IL. Armes, administrator of II.
W. Du Bose deceased In error TO the su-
premc court OF tho District of Columbia.
Il, Judgment affirmed, with costs and interest.
Opinion by Justice Field ar rt
No. 255. J. j. Manning ct nj appellants,vs.
The Cape Ann Isnglass and Glue company ct
NJ. Appeal from the circuit court of tho
United States for the district of Massachu.
sets. Decree affirmed, with COSTS Opinion
by Justice Woods.
No. 26s. George Henry Warren ct al, ap.
pellants, VS.. William King OF al. Appeal
from the circuit court of the United States foi
the district of Indiana. Decree affirmed, with
costs. Opinion by Justice Blatchford.
The United States supreme court yesterday
denied petitions for rohearing in what arc
known as tho Louisiana and Virginia bond
cases, viz; The state of Louisiana OK rel. Ell
lott against Jumel, auditor, and others FL.
lott against Witt, governor, and others, and
Antoni against Greenhorn.
The other decisions were as follows:
No 13. Original. Elk parte. In the matter oi
tho Devoo Manufacturing company petit
TONERS. Petition for writ Of prohibition
denied. Opinion by Mr.. Justice Blatchford