National Republican., 1885-11-17
THE CouRT RECORD .

INC NNhCh WCtc hrOuHNt by tlte fOilfUu Is 70
the supreme Court upon wrlts of error from
the Kentucky court OF appeals. Two federal
questions arose on tho record In these cases,
contained IN the following proposition affirmed
by the plaintiffs In error:
First, that the act Of tho state legislature and
the taxes levied in pursuance of II, Il enforced,
would, IN effect, take the, property oftthc roads
without due process Of law, and, secon1 that
they constitute denial of the equal protection
OF the Laws, violating in both particulars the
fourteenth amendment to the constitution of
The act in question provides for tho annual
valuation of It's property by the chief oIc1r of
each railroad, and return OF the same under
oath TO the state auditor Of public accounts,
and, In case of failure, the auditor Is required
to mako the valuation in such manner us ho
may deem best at the expense of tho com.
panics. Provision is made fUra board ofcqual-
igation to be appointed by the governor, whose
duty II shall be TO correct and equalZe' the
returns of valuation made TO the auditor IL
the same are, In the boards opinion, too high
or too low The act declares that the same
rate of taxation shall be levied for state pur-
poses upon the railroads property in the state
as upon other real estate, The court holds
that the proceedings to raise public revenue
by lcvying and collecting taxes are not neccs.
sarily judicial, and that "due process OF law"
as applied TO the case does not imply or require
the right to such notice of hearings ns Is es-
sentinl to the vnlidity of judicial proceedings.
Respecting the second question the discrlmi.
nations against railroad companies aud their
property, which Is the subject of complaint as
being obnoxious TO the fourteenth constitu-
tional amendment, arises from the fact that In
Kentucky nilroad property is classcd by itself
as distinct from other real estate. Tho Supreme
Court holds that the rule of equity. in respect
to this subject, only requires the same means
and methods to be applied to all the constl.
tuents Of each class so that the law shall
operate equally and uniformly upon all per-
sons In similar circumstances. There Is no OBJ
lection, the opinion declares to the discrlmi-
nation made as between railroad companies
and other corporations In the methods and In
strumentalities by which the value of their
property is ascertainod. The different nature
and uses Of their property justify the discrimi-
nation i'll this respect.
The judgments Of the court of appeals of
Kentucky are affirmed. opinion delivered by
Justice Matthews. Justice Blatchford did not
SIT IN these cases nor take any part In their
decision.
The court also rendered decisions in two
public land cases brought up on appeal from
The first (Denenbach VS.. Hawke) was an action
10 recover parcel OF mineral land upon which
is built the city of Deadwood. 1t was entered
at the local land office on the 3lst of january.
1873, as mineral land, on which date the
plaintiff paid for the land and received q re-
ceipt. The defendant in the action cl timed
that prior to the entry OF the land under the
site, surveyed, laid out In squares aud built
upon, and that on the both OF July, 1878 the
probate Judge of the county, acting as trustee
for the town people, entered the land at the
land Office as q town site, paid: the govern.
ment price and got receipt. The principal
question involved Is whether title to mineral
land can be acquired under the laws OF Con-
gfoss relating to town sites upon the public do
main. The Supreme Court holds that no title
from tho United States to land known ut the
time to be mineral land can be acquired un-
der the pre-emption, homestead. or town site
laws. The mining claim of the plaintiff In the
case was perfected, and title had actually
passed to him, though the patent had not
issued, before the probate judge took initial
proceedings 10 enter the land as town site.
The United States had therefore nothing to
convey. The judgment of the supreme court
Of Dakota to this effect was affirmed Opinion
, The other was similar In its general features,
the land In controversy being portion OF Cen.
tral City, Lawrence county. Dak.; but In this
instance the land had merely, been occupied
and built upon aud not formally entered at the
land Office by the defendants. The judgment
of the Supreme Court was affirmed. the court
holding that mere occupancy OF the public
lands and making improvements thereon give
no vested right therein as against the United
States or any purchaser from them.
Tbs eonIt also R delivered its oplniSp II the
lit against Isaac f. Burr, Samuel A. Carlt5n,
and John DeMerritt, citizens of Massachusetts,
John G. Stanton, of New York, and Daniel L..
Stanton, OF New Jersey. The defendants were
the directors aNd officers of the Alabama aud
Chattanooga. Railroad Company: The gov
ernor of Alabama was authorized by the state
legislature to indorsc the first mortgage bonds
ofthis company TO the amount Of SIC, 900 Cor each
completed mile of road and was also authorized
to issue 81, 600, 900 In state bonds and exchange
them for an equal amount of the company's
bonds, taking as security mortgage upon
lands granted the company. The money
realized in both cases was to be used only In
The 1he construction al, and l equipment Of the road
fraudulently represented that they had con-
structed certain miles OF their road In Tennes-
sec and Mississippi when IN fact they had in
one case purchased an old road and IN the
other leased n section OF road for which they
were paying rental, and that the governors in
dorsement was secured by this fraud. Also
that the defendants and their accomplices mis-
appropriated moneys accruing from the salo of
the state bonds received by them. The declara-
tion sets forth in conclusion that by reason of
wrongful. Illegal and fraudulent acts the COM
pnny became bankrupt and unable to pay the
interest on its indorsed bonds or redeem the
state bonds. The state was, therefore, COM
PEELED TO pay the interest and redeem its bonds.
The mortgages were foreclosed and the prop
erty of the company was sold.
The defendants demurred generally to tho
declaration The court finds thatthe state was
70 indorse certain bonds upon certain security.
II made the Endorsement and got the security.
There was no pretcnse that the road cost less
than the value of the bonds consequently If
| the bonds were not used to build the road other
funds belonging to the company must have
been used, and II was proper to treat the bonds
| as substitutes therefor. The loss of the state
was directly attributable to the deficiency in
| the value of the original security. The court
Is unanimously of the opinion that the facts
stotcd in the declaration do not constitute q
sufficient cause OF action against the defend
ants and the demurrer is sustained.
The other business transacted by the court
was as follows:
No 50. Humphrey Bell ct al, plaintiff in
error, VS.. the First National Bank of Chicago.
In error to the circuit court of the United
States for the northern district of Illinois.
Judgment reversed with costs and cause re-
mandcd, with directions to award a new trial.
Opinion by Justice Blatehford.
No. 80. J. b. Camors ct al, &C., appellants
ys. Edmund ii. Watts No. i76 Edmund il,
Appeals from the circuit court Of the United
States for the eastern district Of Louisiana.
Decree affirmed: each party to pay his own
costs IN this court. Opinion BY Justice Gray.
j. liroomall. Appeal from the circuit court of
the United States for the eastern district of
Pennsylyania. Decree affirmed with costs
Opinion by Justice Matthews.
No. 30. Dana Sargent ct al, &C., appellants,
VS.. John A., Helton, sheriff, &C., ct al. Appeal
from the circuit court Of the United States for
iirmed with costs. Opinion by Justice Woods.
No, 4. The Knickerbocker Life Insurance
Company, plaintiff in error, vs.; p. II. Pendlc-
United States for the western district of Ten.
nessee. Judgment reversed with costs, and
cause rem0nded with directions to award
nsw trial; Z, r, Opinion by Justice Bradley ,,,u,
The Board of Chosen :Freeholders of Bergen
County, Appeal from the, circuit court ofthe
York. Decree affirmed with costs. opinion
by Justice Field.
No. $50. The Enstern Band of Cherokee In.
dians, appellant, VS.. The United States ct nj.
Motion TO advance granted aud case assigned
for argument on the first Monday In January
next, Mt the head of the call.
No, ll0l The United States ex rel Robert
Carrick, plaintiff IN error, vs.. j.. q. c. Lamar,
Secretary, &c. Motion to advance granted and
cause assigned for argument on the first Mon
day in January next, after No. $50.
No. 100. n NJ. Dbprteufpr a. 1 nj nlaintiR I'm
error VS.. W. III. Robertson, collector, ISe, Mo
tion to advance granted. and cause assigned
for argument on the first Monday In January
next, alter No. liOl.
No, 1883 Ii. Bradford, plaintiff in error VS.
ii. @. Miller ot al, &c. Motion for order under
rule Is granted.
No, 1910 f. A. Marsh ct al, appellants, vs..
Nichols, Shepard & Co. Motion TO dismiss
denied,
No. D7i. FIX parte YIN. l., Royal no. y, mp.
pellnnt and plnintiIf In error; No. 075. Ex parte
Wm. l., Royal (No. y, appellant and plainti II
in error; No. 1909. Wm, II. Sands, plalntiif in
error VS.. L. q. Edmunds, treasurer &C.; No
I MI In