National Republican., 1884-11-04
1MpoRrANr DECISIONS.
Tho Question Of Indian citizenship Decided
in the Nesatlve--'rhe Secretary of the In.
terror Not Empowered to Orerrule the De-
cision OF the Commissioner Of Patents.

torior Not Empowered to Orerrule the De-
cislon OF the Commissioner Of Patents.
A decision was rendered by the supreme
court OF the United States yesterday in another
Of the long series Of cases which have arisen
out OF the adoption oi the iJurleontiruud nl.
tcenth amendments To lhc cpusulutiUu. The
present case, which /, that Of John Elk, plain
tiff in error, ngtiuI Charles wilkins aud
which came from the dis.riot of Nebraska, isH
suit brought by an indian alailst the registrar
of one of the wards Of the city Of Omaha tor
refusing TO register him rs a qualified voter
therein. The questions Iugsrnted are whether
the plaintiff In error is u citizen Oi the United
States, and whether he has been denied any
right guaranteed him by the fifteenth amend
ment TO the federal constitution. This court.
IN long and elaborate opinion by Mr Justice
Gray, holds: First, that an Indian who Is
born member Of one oil the Indian tribes
within the United States, which still exists
and Is recognized as tribe by the govern.
ment, and who has voluntarily separated
himself from his tribe aud taken up his
residence among the white citizens of state,
but who has not been naturalized or taxed or
recognized as n citizen either by the United
states or 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 amend
ment has been deprived Of no right secured
BY the fifteenth amendment, aud cannot main
tain this action. The Judgment Of the circuit
court Is affirmed.
Justice Harlan read long dissenting opin.
ion in behalf of Justice Woods aud himself.
decision was also rendered by the court
yesterday in the important patent case of Ben
jamin Butterworth, commissioner of patents,
plaintiff in error, against the United States eN
rel. Richard H. Hoe and others. In error TO
the supreme court Of the District of Columbia.
This was q suit brought for the purpose of OBJ,
tanning a writ of mandamus to compel the
commissioner to issue patent in accordance
with his own decision, Notwithstanding the
fact that that decision had been overruled and
reversed upon appeal 10y the secretary Of tho
interior. Tho question presented here Is,
whether any right of appeal exists in patent
cases from the decision of the commissioner to
the secretary of the interior.
This court, In a long and carcftllly-prepRred
opinion by Justice Matthews, holds that an ap-
peal does not lie In patent cases to the secretary
of the interior; that the commissioner of pat
ents has the exclusive right to decide for him.
self whether or not q patent ought to issue, and
the. secretary of the interior has no authority
| review such decision. If the commissioner
| errs, the party aggrievcd has a statutory rem
edy, but that remedy is not an appeal to the
| secretary. The Judgment of the supreme court
| OF the district awarding u 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 license tax
imposed by the city III accordance with u state
law upon steam pr0pelers plying between New
| Orleans and points on the gulf coast Is ''regu.
| lation OF commerce among the states" and
therefore forbidden by article 1, section $, of
the federal constitution. The supreme court
of Louisiana decided that 1t was not This
court reverses that decision and holds that such
II tax on cOastwise steamers Is a regulation OF
commerce among the states, and is therefore
unconstitutional and void
The following decisions were also rendered :
No. 90. Rebecca H. Mellen, appellant, VS..
Susan L. Wallack. Appeal from the supreme
| court OF the District of Columbia. Decree In
general term, made July 8, 1881, reversed with
costs, and cause remanded with direction TO
affirm with costs the decree of the court in
special term, made Dec. 20, 1880, and to take
or direct such further proceedings as may be
in conformity with law and NOT inconsistent
with the opinion of this court opinion by
Justice Blatchford.
No; 1893. Maria " Brown, appellant, VS.. A.
II. Shepard ct al. Appeal from the supreme
| court OF the District of Columbia. ON motion
of Mr.. A. G. bradley, for appellees, docketed
and dismissed with costs