The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-04-14
AFFAIRS AT THE CAPITAL.
Decisions by the Supreme Court Touch
ing Several Important Points.
The Civil-Seryice Commission Serves Notice
that Many 0ffice-Seekers Will Necessarily
Be Disappointed-Ceneral Notes.
THE SUPREME COURT.
Liability of Married Woman-Fines and
Penalties-Taxation of Corporations.

The SUPhEME COUhvs
Liability of Married woman-Fines and
Penalties-Taxation of Corporations.
WASHINGTON, April 13.-A decision was or
dered by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of Francis Dodge ct al, ap-
pellants, against Thomas Knowles, which pre-
sents the question of the liability of married
woman for certain debts contracted by her
husband nominally as her trustee The court
holds that neither the liability for provisions sup
piled at dwellnghou where husband, and
wife and three children are living together, nor
promissory note given by the husband describ-
ing himself as trustee of the wife, in payment
for such supplies, can be charged in equity upon
the wifes separate estate. without clear proof
that she contracted the debt in her own behalf
or intended to bind her separate estate for its
payment The decree OF the court below
is reversed and the case remanded, with di-
rections to DISMISS the bill.
decision was also rendered by the court to-
day in the case of Norman H. Pollock appellant
against the Bridgeport Steamboat Company
claimant; appeal from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Southern district of New
York This was proceeding for libel against
the steamboat Laura and her owners to recover
certain fines and penalties imposed by the statutes
of the United States upon the master and own
ers of vessels carrying larger number Of pas
sengers than they are allowed to carry by their
certificates of inspection. The appellant who
brought the suit in the District Court, would
have been entitled to share in the amount re-
covered for the steamboat company by way Of
penalty for its alleged violation of the law, but
while the case was pending the steamboat com
pany set up, in bar of further proceedings,
warrant of the Secretary of the Treasury renit-
ting. all fines and penalties which
might be found due the United
States and others from such company
on account of it's alleged offense. The appellant
raised the objection that the Secretary of the
Treasury had no constitutional right to make
this remission, and that the exercise of such dis
cretlon was an encroachment upon the pardoning
power committed by the Constitution to the
President alone. Upon the question thus raised
the case comes here by appeal This court sus-
talnS the contention of the steamboat company,
and afirms the constitutionality of the statute,
which gives the Secretary of the Treasury dis
cretionary power in such cases. From the
adoption of the Constitution to the present mo-
ment," the court says, Congress has asserted its
right by statute to invest the Secretary of the
Treasury and other officers of the executive
branch of the government with power to remit
fines, penalties and forfeitures imposed
for the violation of laws of the United States.
and in none of the cases in this court or
in the Circuit and District Courts of the United
States involving the operation or effect of such
warrant OF remission, has it been suggested or
intimated that such legislation is an encroach-
ment upon the Presidents power of pardon"
The decree of the court below is therefore
affirmed. Opinion by Justice Harlan.
decision was also rendered by the court in
the tax case of the Gloucester Ferry Company,
plaintiff In error, against the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in error to the Supreme Court of
that State. This was suit begun originally in
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, for
the purpose of recovering from the ferry COM
pany, New Jersey corporation, the amount of
stock by virtue of an act of the
Legislature of Pennsylvania to provide
revenue by taxation, passed June 7, 1879.
The Court of Common Pleas held that the taxes
could not be lawfully levied because the ferry
company did no business in Pennsylvania, ex-
cept the landing and receiving of passengers and
freight which is part of the commerce of the
country, and is protected by the Constitution
from the imposition of burdens of State legisla-
ton. 1t, therefore. gave judgment in favor of
the company. The case was carried on a writ of
error to the Supreme Court of the State, where
the Judgment was reversed, and it is low
brought here for final review. This court, in
long, elaborate opinion by Justice Field holds
that receiving and landing passengers and freight
is incident to their transportation. Without
both there could be no such thing as transporta-
ton the River Delaware. Trans
portatlon as to passengers is not COM
the city to which they are carried, ard as to
freight not until it is landed upon such pier
All restraints by exaction in the form of taxes
upon such transportation upon anything
necessary to its completion. are so many inva-
sions of the exclusive power of Congress to
regulate that portion of commerce between the
States. How conflicting legislation of two States
on the subject of ferries on waters dividing
them is to be met and treated, is not question
before this court for consideration. Pennsyl-
vania has never attempted to exercise her power
of establishing and regulating ferries across the
Delaware river. Any one. so far as her laws are
concerned, is free to establish such ferries as he
may choose. She merely exercises the
right to designate the places of landing as she
does the places of landing for all vessels engaged
in commerce The question, therefore, respect
ing the tax in the present case is not complicated
by any action of that State concerning ferries
However great her power, no legislation on her
part can impose a tax on that portion of inter
state commerce which is involved in the trans
portation of persons and freight. whatever be
the fundamentally by which it is carried on.
1t follows that, upon the case stated, the tax
imposed upon the ferry company was illegal and
void. The judgment of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania is reversed, aud the case remand
ed for further proceedings in conformity with
this opinion.
The Chief justice notified the bar that the court
will adjourn for the term on May f. and will