National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-11-11
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Questions in Regard to the ProhIbitorJ Law
In Kansas, the RecolVSblllty OF VirglnlA
Coupon Bonds, and the Alabama Claims

Questions In Regard to the Prohlbitory Law
In Kansas, the Recolvsbility OF virginia
Coupon Bonds, and tho Alabama Claims
Cases Acted Upon.
Among the decisions rendered by the United
States supreme court yesterday was one In
case growing out of the prohibition law In
Kansas, entitled John Foster, county attorney
of Saline county, vs.. the state OF Kansas, cS
rel, w, A. Johnston, attorney general.
This was a suit brought by the attorney gem
cral against Foster TO remove him from Office,
because he had neglected to prosecute persons
guilty Of selling Intoxicating liquors In the
county In violation OF u statute of tho state
known as the prOhlbitory liquor law. The trial
below before a Jury resulted in verdict
against the defendant and q Judgment thereon
removing him from office. lie appealed on
the ground, first, that the prohibitory liquor
law was unconstitutional, aud, second, that IN
asmuch as the proceedings against him were
under writ OF quo warranto, which, in Kan
sas, was a criminal proceeding no was entitled
70 trial IN accordance with the criminal code
This court atlirns the judgment of removal, on
the ground that both of the questions which
the defendant would raise in his own defense
have already been decided here against him,
the first in Bartemeyer VS.. Iowa, is Wall, l29,
aud Beer company VS.. Massachusetts, % q. s.,
% and the second In Amcs VS.. Kansas, Ill u.
s., l4g. opinion by Chief Justice Waite.
decision was also rendered in the ex parte
case of T. Temple Crouch, petitioner, upon
motion for leayet to file a petition for a writ Of
habeas corpus. This was an attempt to bring
again before this court, In such a way as TO OBJ.
tain prompt decision, the question Of the re-
| ceivabllity of the coupons of Virginia state
| bonds In payment OF state taxes. Crouch, the
petitioner, insisted upon paying his license tax
| In coupons which the revenue officer of the
state declined to receive. Crouch refused to
make payment In any other way, whereupon
| no was arrested and held for trial by order OF
| the hastings court of the city of Richmond
| upon the charge of violating the license law.
lie thereupon applied to this court fora writ
| of haboas corpus upon the ground that he was
detained In custody by the state court in viola
ton OF the constitution of the United States,
! because tho statute which prohibits the
revenue officer from accepting the coupons
impairs the obligation Of the contract of the
state to receive them, and is on that account
imperative and void by reason of the provision
OF the federal constitution which pre-
cludes the state from passing such laws.
The supreme court holds that where 0
prisoner is in the custody of u state court o.
competent Jurisdiction, not illegally asserted
he cannot be taken from that jurisdiction and
discharged by court OF the United states on
writ of habeas corpus merely because he is moi
guilty OF the oilGnso for which he Is held
Here the right OF the prisoner to a discharge
depends alone on the suhciency Of his defense
and whether that defense Is sufficient or no
is for the court which tries him to determine
II in such determination errors are committee
they can only be corrected In an appropriate
form of proceeding for that purpose. The
Office of u writ of habeas corpus IL neither Il
correct such errors nor to take the prisone
away from the court which holds him for tria
for fear that If he remains there such error
may be committed. The motion of the peti
toner is, therefore, denied. opinion by Chic
| Justice Waite.
A decision was also rendered in the ex part
case of William l.. Royal, petitioner. Thi
was a motion for leave to file n petition for
, / writ of CertiOrnri and another ATTEMPT [
get before this court the question Of receive
Dility OF the coupons of Virginia state bond
in payment of state taxes. This court, how
ever holds that 1t has no jurisdiction, undG
! an appeal or writ of error, to review decisio
of Il circuit court upon writ of habeas corpu
in the case of person alleged TO be restraine
OF his liberty In violation of the constitute
or OF any law or treaty of the United state
The petition Is therefore denied. Opinion b
Chief Justice Waite.
A decision was also rendered in what nj
known as the Alabama claims cases, viz, tn
Great Western Insurance company and jon
, 7. Paulison, receiver of the Columbia II
, surance company, against the United state
These were suits brought by the insuranC
, companies In the court of claims to recover
one case, Sji6,g65; and in the other, $50 81
alleged to be duo them out of the GGney
award, or account Of losses arising from I'll
; capture and destruction by confederate crui
ers of certain vessels on which tho petitione
| had issued policies OF Insurance.. The sui
( were brought in tho court OF claims for III
} alleged reasons that tho special tribunal a.
pointed to consider such cases, had exclude
the claims of the petitioners; that the undi
l tributed remainder of the award had bee
b. covered into the United States treasury; m
. that the petitioners had been left without an
s other means of enforcing their demands. III
{ court of claims dismissed the petitions, wher
4 upon an appeal was taken to this court In
Q carefully prepared opinion by Mr.. Justi
n Miller, this court holds that the court belo
o had no Jurisdiction OF the cases. Even If d
II circumstances recited in the petitlo
n could be held TO raise an implied obligation
r the part of the United States, the court
o claims Is expressly forbidden TO take jurisd
y ton in this class Of cases by section 1866 of Il
: revised statutes, which provides that the jur
dictiOn of said court shall not extend to al
4 claim against the government not pendil
!. therein on Dec. l, 1862, growing out of or d
II pendent on any treaty stipulation entered In
s with foreign nations or with Indian tribe
Il lnasmuch as the present cases are clear
/ claims dependent on treaty stipulations with
foreign power, the court of claims could n
i take Jurisdiction of them, and its judgmer
y in dsmissng them was right and IL affirmed.
o Concerning the merits of the controversy |
Il tween the insurance companies and the Unit
y States this court declines to express an opini
for the reasons that special tribunal "
created to determine such questions, and I'll
bills are even now pending in congress for
D further distribution of the Geneva award.