New-York tribune., 1885-01-06
10 be lower, while providing adequately for eurf'
and reasonable growth.
THE COURTS.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


WARRINGTON. Jan, ga decision was rem
deed by the United States Supreme Court to-day In tho
case of the Liverpool NcwYork and Philadeiphao.c
ship Company plaintiff In error against the
Of Emigration In to the Circuit Court OF 'ne oe
States for southen District Of NewYork This
Of the head money casesbut one which diners y,
spects those previously decided at TINS term' "
the present case the plaintiff in alien corpora
ton brought suit against the Commissioners OF Ensr
ton of the of NewYork TO recover back
which It alleged had been unlawfuly exacted trom w
said Commissioners under cover OF certain laws a"'ho
izng the collection of head moneys from seamsmP oo"
panies for immigrants brought by them Into tho onea
States
The Commissioners set up defense to this suit al
Act of Congress entitled bill to legalize the coec
ton Of head moneys already paid approved juno A''
1S7s by the Of which the acts Of State and num-
cipal officers in tho several States, In collecting nead
moneys under the said acts were ratified adopted and
confirmed by the United States and suits TO recover
moneys paid forbidden. Tho court below oes
the opinion that the act above referred to was OAR 70
recovery the steamship company refused 10 near
evidence and directed verdict for the Commissioners
The steamship company thereupon sued out VIII oi
and brought the here This court inc
judgment Of the court and rsmands the case for
trial upon the ground that the ultimate quosohS
involved Of grave Importance, and tho iacts upon
which their solution must depend do not appear III INC
| present record
Chinese laundry of Francis Barber, paintih In e
ror against Patrick Connolly. in error to tho Superior
Court OF the City and County OF San Francisco Barpie
the plaintiff In error tried In tho Police Court OF
Francisco upon tho charge Of violating section OF
municipal ordinance relating to the establishment and
maintenance within certain limits Of public laundries
The alleged violation consisted In the washing Of clothes
between the hours Of 10 o'clock In the evening and
O'Clock In the morning OF the following day Barber was
found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment In the
county Jail for five days lie sued out writ OF haoeas
corps In the Superior Court and moved for his dis
charge the ground that the section OF tho ordinance
was In violation Of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution OF the United States The court oyerruled
the motion, whercupon the prisoner appealed.
This court holds that the section OF the ordinance,
whose nsttuonaty is called in question Is purely
police regulation within the competency OF any NUM-
cpallty II Federal tribunal should undertake TO
supervise such regulations The Fourteenth Amendment
was not designed interfere with the power OF the
State (someties termed Its police power to provide Tor
the health peace military education and good order OF
the people, and 10 legislae 10 increase the indus
tries Of the State. develop its resources and
add to its wealth and prosperity From the very
necessities OF society legislation Of special character
having these objects must often had In certain
districts. such for draining marshes aud irrigang
arid plains Special burdens often necessary for the
special bcnehtsfor supplying water preventing nres
lighting dlsri cleaning streets. opening parks and
may press with less unequal or unnecessary re-
sricOns upon than upon another but they aro de-
signed impose unequal unnecessary restrictions
upon any but TO promote with ~ hte inc"nyeni-
ence as possible the general good. Evils which may
arise ia the administration OF such laws matters
purely regulation. They can be rcncdied only
by the State present the provisions requiring
certificates may. In instances, DO unnecessary
and the changes De made 20 meet the conditions
upon which certificates granted may he buniensome,
sn It a matter OF administration and not OF violation
OF any right secured by the Fourteenth Amendment
The Judgment Of the Supreme Court was affirmed
Another question relating 20 the construction
| OF the Fourteenth Amendment was decided by
tho Conrt to-day In the case Of Samuel Head.
plaintiff In against tho Amosheag Manufacturing
Company. in the Supreme Court of Now-Iamp-
shire This Court hold that statute Of state author
iyng any person 20 and maintain hs land
water.m and mill-dam upon any stream not nayigabe'
having tho owners land flowed by tho dam damages
assessed by Jury does not deprive tho owners Of their
property duo process OF law. In violation OF the
| Fourteenth Amendment 20 the Constitution. The Judg-
| ment Of the Supreme Court Of Sew-lianpshiFe was
| affirmed
A decision Was also rendered by tho Court today In
the paten case Of David Hol-cr collector against
| tho Rencd,c. and Burnham Manufacturing Company.
| Appeal from the United states Circuit Court for tho
alleged infringement ofa patent granted originally to
Edward A. Locke upon an Improvement In identifying
rev, uue marks labels and transferred by Locke 10 the
present appelees. This Court holds that although the
Improvement claimed that tho patent Vas new In the
previous invention. % nov s sue" ,sn,r,ns AL ,p
A. an invention within the meaning OF the present laws
ON this ground the decision OF the Circuit Court was re-
the r'nanded with directions to dismiss
decision wa. rendered in the bond Of william o.
Cole plaintiff In error against tho city OF LaGrange.
IN rdr to The Circuit Court Of the United for the
Eastern District OF Missouri This was snit upon the
Interest coupons Of certain bonds Issued by the city OF
ImGrange as "A GIFT 10 the IaGrange Iron aud steel Com
many mi. holds that general grant OF legislative
power Ia the constitution of stale does not authorize
t|e ir"isatnre I'm the exercise either Of the right
Of domain or Of the right Of taxation, TO take private
nrouefty without the owners consent. for any but n
bubble object and that tho Legislature OF Missouri has
no constitutional power to authorize city to issue s
| nv The Judgment Of the Circuit Court was affirmed.
tansporaton case Of the 81 Paul Duluth Railroad
Company appellant against tho United states. Appeal
iToH e po oo and 81 Dalmh Cnmpany Successors Of the
| Lake Superior and Mississippi Railroad Company, to
| recover certain alleged TO be- due for
| transportation OF the mails under contract
| made by the latter company with the postmaster
of ts requirement through mortgage foreclosure and
sale Of the properly OF the Lake SUPERIOR and % Ms.is
between that company and tho United states. and can
clam no's hn 1u ts i ~ .sr,ian ~ of
the Revised satutes which forbd transfers and assign
monts OF claims against the United States. Tho jndg
ment OF the Court Of Claims affirmed A similar
decision ard upon similar grounds was rendered In tho
against the United States, which involved substantially
the same question
Thc further proceedings OF the court to-day
| follows:
No 1901 Dawson and others appellants agt George
Others Appeal from the Circuit Court OF
the United states the District OF Maryland at
nrned with costs
No eJO-Wlllam H. streepor and others appellants ag
tho Victor sewing Machine COMPANY and
No g5l-Rhoda Murphy, administering etc appellant agt
the Victor sewing Machine Company. Appeals rom the
Supreme OF tho Territory OF Utah DEGREES affirmed
with costs.
| No I35-Samuel A. Peugh appellant. agt Richard ".
others Appeal from the Court Of the
District @; Columbia. Decree with and
i,sl In Ouf
with the opinion OF this court.
No IlB-snomop iIstfcrty. plaintiff In error Herman
Wmerng In to the Circuit Court Of the United states