St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-11-04
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
The Indian Declared Not a Citizen
Of the United States
Other Decisions.

Other Decisions.
WksHTSerox, Nov. "a decision was
rendered by the supreme court Of the United
States this afternoon IN another Of the long
series Of cases which haze arisen out Of the
adoption AZ the fourteenth and fifteenth
amendments TO the constitution. The pres
ent case, which is that Of John Elk, plaintiff
in error, against Charles Wilkins. and which
came from the district court Of Nebraska, as
q suit brought by an Indian against the
register of one Of the wards OF the city OF
Omaha for refusing 10 register him as
qualified voter therein. The questions pres
ented are whether the plaintiff in error is
citizen OF the United States, and whether be
has been denied any right guaranteed him
by the fifteenth amendment 10 the federal
constitution. This court in a long and
elaborate opinion by Justice Gray holds,
First That an Indian who is born 4
member OF the Indian tribes, within the
United States, which stin exists and is re-
cognized as a tribe by the government, and
who has voluntarily separated himself from
his tribe, and taken up his residence among
the white citizens Of a state, but who has
not been naturaliZed or taxed or recognized
as citizen, either by the United States or by
the state, is not citizen Of the United
States within the meaning Of the first section
OF the fourteenth amendment
Second. That the plaintiff in error. not
being citizen Of the United States under
the fourteenth amendment, has been de-
prived Of no right secured by the fifteenth
amendment and cannot maintain this se-
ton. The judgment OF the circuit court is
affirmed.
Justice Harlan read long dissenting opin-
ion in behalf of Justice Woods and himself
decision was also rendered by the court
In an Important patent case, Benjamin But
terworth. com missioner Of patents, plaintiff
in error, against the United States ex rel.
Richard II. Hoe and others, in error TO the
supreme court of Columbia. This was a suit
brought for the purpose of obtaining a writ
of mandamus to compel the commissioner 10
issue patent in accordance with his own de-
cision, notwithstanding the fact that the de-
cision hadb cen overruled and reversed upon
appeal by the secretary Of the interior. The
question presented here is whether any right
10 appeal exists in patent cases from the de-
cision OF the commissioner 10 the secretary Of
the interior. This court, in opinion by Justice
Matthews holds that an appeal does not lie
in patent cases 10 the secretary OF the in
terror. That the commissioner of patents
has the exclusive right to decide for himself
whether or not patent ought to be issued,
and the secretary OF the interior has no au-
thority 10 review such decision. II the COM
missioner errs, the party agrieved has stat
utory remedy, but that remedy Is not an ap-
peal to the secretary. The judgment Of the
supreme court Of the district awarding a writ
Of mandamus is affirmed.
A decision was also rendered by the court
in the case of Joseph Cooper, plaintiff in
error, against the city OF New Orleans.
/ The question presented by this case Is
whether a license, a tax imposed by the city in
accordance with the state law, upon steam
| propellers plying between New Orleans and
| points on the gulf coast, is Regulation Of
commerce among states" and therefore for.
| hidden by article one, section eight Of the
federal constitution. The supreme court OF
Louisiana decided IL was not This court re-
verses that decision, and holds that such tar
on coastwise steamers is regulation of com
merce among states, and therefore uncon.
stitutional and void.
A decision was also rendered by the court
in the municipal bond case Of the city Of
Fort Scott, plaintiff in error, against Samue
/ g. Hickman, in error to the circuit court Of
the United States, district OF Kansas. Thi:
was suit brought by Hickman to recover
the amount of principal and interest on GER
tain improvement bonds issued by tn,
city of Fort Scott. The city maintained IL
the court below that the action was barred b-
the statute Of limitations, more than ivi
years having elapsed since the bonds ma
tured. Plaintiff contended that the city had
made an ackno Eledgement of the bonds a
existing liability after their maturity, an,
that according 20 law, the state salute Of lin
itations began TO run at the time OF sucl
acknowledgement, and not at the time In
bonds matured. The court below sustaine,
this contention Of the plaintiff, and awarde,
him judgment for S26, $50. This court, how
ever, holds that an acknowledgement canno
be regarded as an admission OF indebtedness
where the accompanying circumstances ar
such as to repel that inference, or to leave /
in doubt whether the party intended 10 pro
long the time OF legal Limitation. The iudg
ment Of the circuit court is reversed, and In
case remanded with instructions TO ente
judgment for defendant with costs.