New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-03-18
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
yIRGININs CLAIM NOT A VALID ONE.
LIABILITY OF MARsHALs-sARoNY AND OSCAR
wILDEs PHoToGRAPH-oTHER CASES.

IIApIIITy OF MARsHALs-sARoNY AND OSCAR
wILDE's ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CASES
WASHINGTON, March ia decision was
rendered by the Supreme Court oil the Uheo s'a'es W
day in the State claim which stands on tne
docket az No 16 ex parte the Commonwealth OF virginia
This ia petition for writ OF mandamus to compei the
Secretary OF the Treasury deposit with the state Oh
Virginia the sum of 1872 S09 which IL Its proportonae
part OF the fourth instsment Of the public money WHICH,
by an act entitled An act to regulate the deposits Oh Tue
public money" approved June 49, 1886. the secretary o
the Treasury was directed TO deposit Win tho
States The Court holds: Frat, that the act Gre
ated no debt OF legal obligation upon the part
of the United States to the States accepting
It's terms and only made provision for the deposit
Temporarily with the States subject to recall by the GOV
ernmcnt OF a portion OF the surplus revenue OF inc
United States and second that the original act author
lied the deposits be made out OF the surplus revenue
the Treasury January l. 1887 The act OF OCTOBER
1897 postponed the deposit OF the fourth
until January l. 1899, and when that time arrived thaV
instament could not deposited because the condluoh
OF the Treasury at that time did not admit OF us oehs
DONE But Congress has not made the fourth lnstamen'
charge upon the revenue arising in the Treasury since
January 1885, and the Secretary has not power 10 a
ply the present to meet the fourth nstancn
Without the authority Of act Of Congress. The petition
for a writ OF mandamus is denied. opinion by Justice
Harlan Under the act of 1886, to which eonstruc-
ton has thus been given by the Court there was
deposited with statcs-then twenty-six in numoer-
the sum of SOS GIL This has ever since been
carried upon the books OF the Treasury as an asset nut ah
unavailable one. The fourth instament, if 1t had peen
pad would have increased this to S37, 46Ss5s The
only State which has followed the example OF virginia III
insttutng proceedings to enforce the deposit OF the
fourth ustalment is the state OF Arkansas, which re-
Gently made formal demand upon the Secretary Oh inc
Treasury
decision relating to the duties and responsibilities OF
United States marshals and their surees rendered
in the case Of George l. Larnmon ct al against LOUIS
Fenser al executors, IN error to the Circuit court o
the United states for the District OF Nevada Inc Oour
holds that the taking by marshal OF the United States
upon writ Of attachment on mesne process ag lnst one
person Of the property Of another ia breach of the con-
dtion Of his official bond for which his surete are liable
The Judgment Of the Circuit Court Is affirmed Opinion
by Justice Gray
decision was rendered by the Court today in the case
of the Swift and Courtney and Beecher Match Company
appellant against the United States, appeal from the
Court Of Claims. This was suit brought Dy the mat.
company TO recover from the United states the sum OF
S5429 commissions upon purchases OF in'er Ie
revenue stamps under the revenue laws Oh Ieoo, loC
aud 1870 In lac Court ~ Claims the match company
of the court and renands the case WIN 9Itcuons 10
render Judgment in favor Of the Match Company for
GIG which is all of IS claim that II not barred by tue
statute Of limitation. Opinion by Justice Matlhcw' h
decision was rendered by the Court In the case or
as Nanocon s9ronY In error To- Inc Circuit Court Of
he United states for the Southern District OF New YORK
|
etaphic company under the provisions OF section
3952 Of the Revised for alleged infringement OF
copyriCht photograph or oscar Nlldc Inc Ohly
mpoftant question raised by the is whether Con
rcss had and has the constitutional right to protect pho
OgTaphs and negatives Thereon Dy copyIlH. n 10
holds FIRST that there IS no doubt that the Constitution ~
broad enough TO cover authorizing copyright OF
photographs. far they are representations OF 0ilni
Intellectual conceptions OF their authors ccOnu hdI e
finding of shows that the Photograph sued on III
this ease was original work OF art which was me pro
duet Of the plaintiffs inellectual invention anu OF Wc
! the plaintiff was heauhor; and that it belonged to
class OfnVcntiOus for which the ld'
Congress should to him the exclusive Tgh 10 use,
publish and sell il has done by section 403Z OF lne
| whether this protection would extend To mere me
chaniral reproduction by Photographic process OF inc
physical features or outlines OF an animate or @
object where there was no ORIGINALITY OF lnougut w
novelty IN the intellectual operations connected WIN s
visible reproduction in the shape OF picture Inc JuI5
men of the Circuit Court in favor or SarOny is aieu
| Opinion by Justice Miller. 80 , , y
J. Hoalstcr collector Of internal revenue, against Zion
Cooperative Mercantile Institution 10 error 70 INC
nrce Cont of Utah The question raised by this case Is
whether certain due bills orders merchandise issued
ana eaI fr circu zion are ''nOcs within the meaning
persons and corporations other IMAM nauOhl DAMS
pay tax OF 10 per cent on al notes nseo Ior t me
obligations here IN question are not notes whh lhe
meaning OF the law and are not taXabe. III was no
doubt the Court says, the purp se OF Congress IN I'M
posing this tax to provide against comeulOh WIN to
established national currency FOR circulation as oucy
but it not likely that obligations PayaDie IN any
thing else than money would pass beyOh lnlle' ~
borhuOd attention given to such Issues a. anec
ing the volume Of the currency or It's clculaory Naue
The Judgment Of the Supreme Court of Otah IL aIrned
! OnIuion bv Chief Justice Waite TIE same question
which il raised IN the above case Is presenter ny nc co
Of Jonathan & Willis collector. against the BsleVllle
Nail COMPANY. In to the Circuit Court OF the
United States for the Southern District OF Illinois For
reasons given the opinion OF the Court III me ZION 20
low in this Is also affirmed Opinion by Chef justice
| Waite.