The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-04
OTHER OPINIONS.
Action OF the Court in Other Important


Cases.
WASHINGTON March "A decision was rem
dered by the Supreme Court to-day in the muir
der case of Joseph Hurtada, plaintiff i'll ereor
against the State of California In error from
the Supreme Court of California. The federal
question presented by this court is whether a
man who has been prosecuted for murder by in
formation without Indictment by grand jury
has been tried by due process of law as those
words are to be understood in the Fourteenth
Amendment to the federal Constitution. The
court holds first, that the words due process of
! law" in the Fourteenth Amendment do not nee
| essarily require indictment by grand jury
! in the prosecution by the State for murder.
! Second, that conviction for murder upon infOr-
nation as prescribed by the Constitution, under
the penal code of California, and sentence of
death thereon are not Illegal or in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Judgment of the
| court below affirmed.
| A decision was also rendered in another muir
der case. entitled Frederick Hopt plaintiff in
error, against the people of the Territory of
| Utah. In error from the Supreme Court of
| Utah. On account of in ruling by the
| court below Judgment in this case is reversed
| and a new trial ordered.
| A decision was also rendered in the important
! and long pending land cases of Alfred Slidel1et
| al. appellants. against George Grantiean and
| Others brought here by appeal from the United
States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of
! Louisiana. These cases involve title to a large
! quantity of land fronting on the Mississippi
river above New Orleans, which is known as the
/ Houmas grant The court decides the case in
| favor of the present occupants of the land and
! against the claimants under the grant DEGREES
in all cases affirmed with costs.
Decision was also rendered in the case of the
Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
against the Denver & New Orleans Railway
Company Appeal from the Circuit Court Of the
United States for the district of Colorado. This
was a suit brought to compel the Atchson. To
peka & Santa Fe Railway Company to unite
with the Denver & New Orleans Railway Com
pany in forming through-ne railway Of trans
portatiOn to and from Denver over the Denver g
New Orleans railway By decree of the court
below, compulsory business connection was es-
tablished between the two companies, and rules
laid down for the government of their conduct
toward each other in this new relation. In other
words, the court made arrangement for the
business intercourse of these railways, such,
as in its opinion, they ought. in law to
have made for themselves. This court
holds that the constitutional right in Colorado to
connect a railroad with railroad does not of
| itself imply the right of connecting business
with business; that courts cannot compel one
railway to do business with another according to
a scheme which they 1.-THE cOurts) may devise;
that the question in relation to these two roads
as far as through business through tickets, in
terchange of cars etc, is concerned, is legisla-
tive rather than judicial, and that upon the ex-
listing facts the court in chancery can afford no
remedy. Decree reversed. Cause remanded,
prejudice.
A decision was also rendered by the court in
what are generally known as the 5-per-cent.
land cases, viz: The State ofIowa and the State
OF Illinois against Noah G.. Mcfarland, Commits
soner of the General Land Office. These were
petitions for writS of mandalflus to compel tn
Commissioner of the General Land Office to
make statement of the accounts between the
United States and the States of Iowa and Illinois
for the purpose of ascertaining what sums of
money are due said States under the acts pro-
viding for their admission to the Union. which
authorized the payment to them of per cent.
of the net proceeds of public lands lying within
their limits which should be sold by Congress.
The question presented by the cases is whether
or not public lands located by military bounty
land warrants come within the scope of the acts
above mentioned. That is, whether such lands
lands sold by Congress"
The court holds that under the act of March
3 1912 relating to the admission of the State of
Iowa into the Union, or the act of April Is, 1918,
for the admission of the State of Illinois into the
Union, by which per cent of the net proceeds
of the lands lying within the State, and after
ward sold by Congress, is reserved and appropri-
ated for the benefit Of the State, the State is not
entitled to percentage on the value of the lands
disposed of by Congress in satisfaction of mill
tary land warrants The writs of mandamus
prayed for are, therefore, refused, and the petit
tons dismissed
Opinion by Justice Gray Justices Miller and
Field dissenting.
The amount located on military bounty land
warrants under the various bounty land acts,
up to June 30 1880, was g. 322 600 acres. the
largest amounts being in Iowa, Illinois, Missouri,
Wisconsin and Minnesota.
no I.,,oN I'll oil