The Indianapolis journal., 1884-01-08

payments to the REALTORS until diplomatic nego-
tiations between the two governments on the
subject were finally concluded.
The decision of the executive department Of
the government cannot be controlled by the
judiciary. The United States, when they
sumed the responsibility of presenting the claims
Of their citizens to Mexico for payment, entered
into no contract or obligations with the claim
ants to assume their frauds, and to collect on
their account all that by imposition and false
testimony might be given in the award of the
commission. AS between the United States and
The claimants, the honesty of the claims has
pose of fair dealing with the govern
inent against which the United States
eleim has been made. OF course we
express no opinion on the merits of the contro-
yersy between Mexico and the REALTORS All we
decide is, that it was within the discretion Of the
President to negotiate again with Mexico in re-
spect to the claims, and so long as the govern
Inents are treating on the questions involved he
may properly withhold from the reators their
shares in the money now in the hands of the Sec
retary of State.
Judgment in the case of the La Abra Com
pany was affirmed, with costs and the Keys
ease reversed with COSTS The case is remanded,
With instructions to dismiss the petition.
A decision was also rendered in one of the new
series of bond cases from Virginia, namely: Aus
tin Smith against Sam. G. Greenhow treasurer
of the city of Richmond. The question involved
is the right of the State to refuse to take the
coupons of the bonds for taxes, after issuing
such bonds with promise that it would take
them in payment of taxes. The suit was begun as
an action for trespass, in the State court,
but afterward removed to the United States
Circuit Court That tribunal .remapded it to the
State court on the ground that it did not involve
federal question. The United States Supreme
Court, however, decides that it does raise fed
eral question much rs the plaintiff alleges
that the act of the Virginia Legislature, which
virtually repudiated the coupons, in viola
ton of that provision. The Constitution forbds
AAo1l, al
legation or contract.
Judgment of the United States Circuit Court
reversed, and the court directed to reinstate the
case and proceed Herewith according to law
The submission of other Virgidia taX-coupOn
cases on printed briefs, set aside and they
were restored to the docket to be read when
reached This will have the effect to postpone
them three years.
A decision was also rendered in ten important
test cases from the Supreme Court of Iowa. in
velving the title to large quantity of land in
Western Iowa. The land in controversy, which
consists largely of improved farms, is claimed by
railway company under the act of Congress APP
proved May To- 1886, known as 1.-THE Iowa Railroad
land grant act and the amendment thereto
passed June 2, GA. The defendants in error are
settlers in actual possession under patents of the
United States, issued at different dates between
May, 10 and April "a, and under the home
stead and private entries made between March,
90, and January, 68 There are now pend
ing in Iowa courts about four hundred
Sulus IN winch SUBSTANTIALLY the same questions
of title are involved as those presented by the
cases brought here for final decision In the Su-
prerne Court of Iowa there were ten cases, all
decided against the railway company ON the
ground, first, that it (the company was entitled
to six sections of land per mile of constructed
road of the main or modified line only that is
271 6-l0 mile from Cedar Rapids to Council
Bluffs, and was not entitled to lands for the
Onaway branch; second, that even if the com
pany had not received all the land to which it
was entitled under the grant, it was not author
lied to take the lands here in controversy to sup
ply the deficiency.
This decision of the Supreme Court of Iowa
is affirmed by the United States Supreme Court
in all the cases.
REVISION OF RULES.
The Chief Justice announced a revision and
adoption of rules of practice by the court. In
this revision the old numbers have been retained
The most important changes made are as fol-
lows: In rule 10, by reason of want of appropria-
tions by Congress, parties are required hereafter
to pay in advance the cost of printing the record
In rule 26 provisOn'is made for advancing cases
once before heard their merits and brought
up by second appeal writ of error. The old
rule 30, concerning injunctions, has been strick-
out as obsolete, and new rule substituted,
embodying the settled practice of the court in