The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-11-04
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Decision Concerning the Fifteenth Amend
ment-0pinions in Other Cases.

WASHINGTON, Nov. "a decision was rem
dered by the Supreme Court of the United
States, this afternoon. in one of long series of
cases which have arisen out of the adoption of
the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments
to the Constitution. The present ease,
which is that of John Elk, plaintiff
in against Charles Wilkins, and
which came from the district of Nebraska is
suit brought by an Indian against a registrar
of one of the wards of the city of Omaha for re-
fusing to register him qualified voter there
in. The questions presented are whether the
plaintiff in error is citizen of the United States
and whether he has been denied any right guar
anteed him bv the fifteenth amendment to the
federal Constitution. The court in a long and
elaborate opinion by Justice Gray, holds first,
that an Indian who is born a member of an In
dian tribe within the United States, which still
exists and is recognized as tribe by
the government, and who has voluntarily
separated himself from his tribe and taken up
his residence among the white citizens of
State, but who has not been naturaized or
taxed, or recognized a 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; sec
ond that the plaintiff in error, not being citi-
zen of the United States under the fourteenth
amendment has been deprived of no right Sc
cured by the fifteenth amendment, and cannot
maintain this action. The Judgment of the Cir
cult is affirmed. Justice Harlan read Il long dis
senting opinion in behalf of Justice Woods and
himself
A decision was also rendered by the court in
the important patent case of Benjamin Butter
worth, Commissioner of Patents, plaintiff in
error against the United States ex. rel. Richard
H. Hoe and Others in error to the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia. This was
suit brought for the purpose of obtaining writ
of mandamus to compel the Commissioner to
issue a patent in accordance with his own de-
csion, notwithstanding the fact taft the decision
had been overruled and %versed upon
appeal by the Secretary Of the Interior The
question presented here is whether any right of
appeal exists in patent cases from decision of
the Commissioner to the Secretary of the In
terror This court, in an ouinon of Justice
Matthews, holds that an appeal does not lie in
patent cases to the Secretary of the Interior;
that the Commissioner of Patents has the ex-
elusive right to decide for himself whether or
not patent ought to issue, and the Secretary of
the Interior has no authority to review such de-
csion. If the Commissioner errs the party ag-
grieved has statutory remedy, but that remedy
is not an appeal to the Secretary. The judg
ment of the Supreme Court of the District
awarding 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 the license tax
imposed by the city, in accordance with the
State law upon steam propeller plying be.
tween New Orleans and points on the gulf coast,
is regulation of commerce among
the States, and, therefore, forbidden
by section 8 of the federal Constitution. The
Supreme Court of Louisiana decided it was not
rt that decision. fhnt
such tax on coast wise steamers is regulation
of commerce among the States, and, therefore,
unconstitutional 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 Samuel G.. Hickman,
in error to the Circnit Court of the United States
for the district Of Kansas. This was a suit
brought by Hickman to recover the amount of
principal and interest on certain improvement
bonds issued by the city of Fort Scout. The