The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1884-11-06
Important Decisions

WASHINGTON, NoY. IA decision |
was rendered by the supreme court this
afternoon in long series of cases which
have arisen out OF the adoption of the
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to
the constitution. The present case,
which Is that of John Elk, plaintiff in
error against Chas Wilkins, and which
came from the district of Nebraska, is q
suit issue brought by an Indian against
the reglstar of one of the wards of the
city of Omaha, for refusing TO registrar
him as qualified voter therein. The
questions presented are whether the
plaintiff in error lie citizen of the Unit
ted States, and whether he has been
denied any right guaranteed him by the
fifteenth amendment to the
federal constitution. This court, IN
long and elaborate opin-
ion by Justice Gray holds, frst. that an
Indian who ID born q member of ono of
the Indian tribes within the United
States which still exists and is recog-
nized as tribe by the government. and
| who has voluntarily separated himself
| from his tribe and taken mp his residence
among white citizens of 9 state, but who
| has not been naturalized or taxed or rec
ogniz9d as citizen, either by the United
/ States or BY the state, is not q citizen of
| the United States within The meaning OF
the first section of the fourteenth amend
ineut. Second, that the plaintiff IN error
not beng q citizen OF the United States
under the fourteenth amendment, has
been deprived of no right secured by the
| fifteenth amendment, and cannot main
tain thia action. The judgms mt of she
circuit court Is affirmed. Justice Harlan
read long dissenting opinion in behalf
OF Justice Woods and himself.
A decision was also rendered by The
4 esurt in The impoFtant psteuts sLse o.
Benz. Bntterworth, commissioner OF
/ patents, plaintiff In srruf against the
United States, ex- rel, Richard Il. Hoe,
and others, in error. 90 the supreme
court OF The District of CoIum ,Is The
question presented is whether any right
of appeal exists IN patent cases from
the decision Of the commissioner 10 the
secretary of the interior. The court, IN
an opinion by Justice Matthews, held
that the appeal does not lie in patent
cases to the secretary of the interior
that Ibe commissioner OF patents has the
IexclusIYe right to decide for himself
whether or not q patent ought 70 issue,
and the secretary of the interior haa
no authority to review such decision.
If the commissioner eETs the perty ag-
grieved has statutory remedy, bul
that remedy Is not an appeal TO the sec
rotary.
| 4 decision was also rendered IN the
court IN the municipal bond case Of the
city Of Fl Scott. plaintiff in error sgAinst
Samuel @. Hickman IN error q the car
cuiI court of the United States, district
of Kansas Tbs Eaa esuis brought By
Hickman TO recover the amount ef prin-
cIpal and interest nf cenain improve
nent bonds issued By the city of Fets
Scott The city maintained IN the coGxl
below that the action was barred by the
statute of Limitation, i've yea5s having
elapsed since the bonds insured Plain
j til maintained that the city had made
acknowledgment Of the bonds Is al ex
fsting liability after their maturity and
that according 10 the law Of The ssa.e
the statue Of Limitation began 60 run as
the time Of such acknowledgement and
did not at the time the bonds Detured .
The court below sustained this ccpten-
ton Of the plaintiff and awarded him
4 judgment for &26 3S5 This court. how
ever, holds that an aeknowltdgeneni
cannot be regarded 81 an admission Of
indie Diedness where accompanying cir
icnmstances are such a. 10 repeI that in
ference or 10 Ieaye il doEbs whether the