Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-11-04
INDIANS AND THE BALLOT
TRIBAL REDSKINS NOT ENTI
tiled TO A VOTE.


The Supreme Court of the Nation the
Author of the Decision-The secreta-
ry eff the Interior Declared Not Au-
thOrIzed to Review Patent Decisions
on Appeals.
WASHINGTON, Nov. "A decision was
ordered by the Supreme Court of the
United States this afternoon in another
of the long series of eases which have
arisen out of the adoption of the four.
teenth and fifteenth amendments TO the
constitution.
The present case, which is that Of .Jobn Elk
plalntlH In error, against Charles Wilkins
which came from the District of Nebraska. Is
suit brought by an Indian against tho Req
lster of one OF the wards of Omaha fos 4 re
lusal to register him as qualified voter
thereln. The questions presented are
zen wme'ne[ Of 'he PdaintllI IN error i citi-
whether he has been denied anv right
guaranteed him by the fifteenth Amendment
70 the Federal constitution. This court in 4
long ann elaborate opinion by Mr. Justice
Grav holds:
Fi'st-That an Indian who is born mem-
per per OF one OF the Indian tribes within the
United States, which still exists and is recor-
nized as tribe by the government and who
has voluntarily separated himself from his
tribe and taken up his residence among white
citizens of State, but who has not been n atur,-
allied or taxed or recognized as a citizen
either by the United States or by the state -
not citizen of the United States within the
meaning of the first section Of the fourteenth
amendment.
Sec0nd-That the plaintiff in error not beine
citizen of the United States under the four7
teenlh amendment, has been deprived of no
right secured by the Fifteenth amendment and
cannot MAINTAIN this action.
firmed.
Justice Harlan read a long dissenting opin-
ION in behalf of Justice Woods and himself
APPEALS IN PATENT CASES.
A decision was also rendered by the court
to-day IN the important patent case OF Ben
jamin Butterworth, Commissioner of Patents.
plaintiff, in error, against United States ex-
commissioner Richard IL. Hoe and others in
error, to the Supreme Court. OF the District
brought for the purpose Of obtaining
wrlts OF mandamus to compel the Commits
slOner to issue patent in accordance with his
own decision, Notwithstanding the fact that
the decision had been Overrued and reversed
upon an appeall to the Secretary of the Inte-
rlOr. Ihe 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 carefully prepared opinion by JUS
tlce Matthews, holds that an appeal does not
lie IN patent cases to the Secretary of the In
terror; that the Commissioner of Patents has
the exclusive right to decide for him.
self whether or not patent ought
to issue, and that the Secretary of the Interior
has no authority to review such decision III
the Commissioner errs the party aggrieved
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 ques-
tlon presented by this case is whether q
license tax imposed by the city in ac-
cordance with the State law upon steam
propellers plying between New Orleans
and points on the Gulf coast is a regulation of
commerce among the States, and therefore for
hidden by article section of the Federal
The Supreme Court of LOUISE
ana decided that it was not. This court re-
verses that decision. and holds that such tax
on coastwise steamers is q regulation of COM
merce among the States, and is, therefore,
and void.