The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-11-04
THE SUPREME COURT.
TWO IMPORTANT CASES DECIDED
The Secretary OF the Interior not En-.
Titled to Patent Case Appeals-That
Omaha Indian Can't Vote
Just Yet Awhile.

WASHINGTON, Nov. "a decision wa,
rendered by the supreme court of The
United States this afternoon of a lont
series OF cases which have arisen ont o
the adoption Of the fourteenth and ff
Loenth amendments to the constitution
! inc present case, which is that of Johr
NIX, plaintiff in error against Charles
! wilkins, aud which came from the dis.
trlct OF Nebraska, is suit brought NV
an indian agent against the registrar
OF one OF the wards of the CITY of Omaha
Tor refusing to register him as a uuaIi.
iled voter therein. The questions pre-.
sehted are whether plaintiff in
error is citizen of the
United States, and whether he
nus seen denied any right guaranteed
MN by the fifteenth amendment TO the
ieuefal constitution. This court, in a
| Gray, holds: ''''o
First-That an Indian who is a horn
member of one Of the Indian tribes
within the United States, which still
exists and is recognized as a tribe Inv
inc government, and who has volunta-
rlly separated himself from his tribe
ana taken up his residence among the
whlte people of a state, but who has NOT
been naturaliZed or taxed or recoV-
nlzed as citizen. either by the United
states or by state, is not citizen of
tho United States within the meaning of
the first section of the fourteenth
amendment.
Second-That plaintiff in error, not
Deing a citizen of the Uni.
Ieu states under the fourteenth amend
naelt, mas been deprived of no
IlSht secured by tho fifteenth amend
men ana cannot maintain this action.
affirmed. 40
Justice Harlan read a long DISSENTING
opinion on behalf of Justice Woods and
himself. ''N
a decision was also rendered by tho
court IN an important patent Office case.
benJ' ButerWsrth, commissioner of
patents, PLAINTIFF in error, VS.. tho United
states eXrel. Richard Hoe and others
III error 10 inc supreme court of the dis
trlct of Columbia. This was n suit
Drought Tor tho purpose of obtaining n
writ OF mandamus to the commissio1er
10 issue patent in accordance with his
own decision, which had been oyerruIed
ana reversed upon appeal by the sec
rotary OF tho interior. The question
presented here is whether any
I5nt OF appeal exists in
patent cases from the decision
Oh inc commissioner of the secretary of
inc interior. This court, i'm .he oninion
by Justice Matthews, held that nm
appeal does not carry q patent case In
the secretary Of the interior: that tho
commissioner of patents has the eXclu-
slVe rlght to decide for himself whether
OF not patent ought To issue, and the
secretary OF the interior has no autbor-
NY 10 review such decision. Ifthe com
missioner errs the party aggrieyed has
Statutory remedy, but tho remedy 10
not an appeal to the secretary, The
Judgment of the supreme court of tho
district, awarding tho writ of manda-
mus, Is affirmed.
A decision was also rendered bv the
court IN the 'caso Of Joseph Coopor,
plalnlu in error, against the citv OF
NeW orleans. Tho question presented
Dy this case is whether n Hconso
TAX imposed by city in
accordance with state Law upon
steam propellers plying between New
Orleans and points on tho rnlf coast 10
not regulation of commerce among
inc states and therefore forbidden by mr.,
tlclo section s Of the federal constitn-
tlon. The supreme court of Louisiana
decided II was not. This court roverses
that decision and holds that such tax on
co"stwiso steamers is regulation of
commerce among tho states, and there.
Tore Unconstitutional aud void.