The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-21
THE SUPREME COURT.


Yesterday-InpOrtant Case Advanced.
WASHINGTON. Dec. pa decision was rem
dered in the Supreme Court to-day in the patent
case of Louis p. Sutier and others against Isaac
Robinson and others. brought up by appeal from
rhe United States Circuit Court for the northern
district of Illinois. This suit brought by
Robinson aganst the appellants to restrain the
alleged infringement of patent granted him
June 10, 1879, upon an apparatus for re-sweat-
ing tobacco. This court holds that the patentee
has no claim for process of steaming tobacco
by means OF steam, or steam and body OF hot
water, or by any process whatever. His inven
ton must be limited to his own specific appar-
atus. and as to that. he was expressly required
to state that its structural plan was old and not
of his own invention The decree of the Circuit
Court in favor of the patentee is reversed and
the remanded, with instructions to dismiss
che bill.
decision was also rendered by the court in
the case of the California Artificial-stone Paving
Company against F. w. Schalicke; appeal from
the United States Circuit Court for the district
of California. This is suit brought by the
paving company against Sehalicke to recover for
the alleged infringement of reissued patent
granted to John j. Schlinger upon improve
men: in concrete pavements. The Circuit Court
dismissed the compliments bill and this court
afirms that decision.
A decision was also rendered by divided
court in the case of the Chicago 81 Northwestern
Railroad Company against the executor OF John
d. ONeilI. deceased. brought here by writ of
error TO the United States Circuit Court for the
Northern district of Iowa. This was a suit
brought by ONeill. an employe of the railroad
company, 10 recover damages for injuries sus-
tanned by him while in its service. and, as al
legged, through the negligence of its employees.
The jury in the court below found verdict
awarding damages to the amount of $4,000.
e A. Iii
absant) are equally divided in opinion upon the
questions presented. and the judgment of the
court below against the railway company there
fore stands as final.
decision was also rendered in the county
bond case of L. G. Whitford against the county
of Clark; In error to the United States Circuit
Conrt for the Eastern district of Missouri. This
was a suit upon the interest coupons of q series
If bonds issued in June, 1871, by the county of
Clark Missouri, as subscription to the pital
stock of the Missouri q Mississippi Railway
Company The court below held that, upon the
facts as presented. the holder of the coupons who
was not the holder of the bonds from which
they had boon detached was not entitled to
cevery. This court comedies in the view taken
by the circuit judge, upon the facts found
but holds that there was error in the rulings of
the court bslow. and for that error reverses the
jattsr's judgment and sends the case back for a
new trial.
decision was also rendered in the case of
VIM. L. Huse and others. appellants, against
Joseph Glover and others, Canal Com missioners;
appeal from the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Northern district of Illinois
The questions presented by this case relate to
the navigation of the Illinois river. The State
Of Illinois, acting under authority of various
acts of her Legislature. adopted, about 1867 a
system of measures for the improvement of the
iavieatior of the Illinois river. Among these
measures were the construction of locks and
dams at Henry and at Copperas creek, and the
appointment of board of canal commissioners
ham and rhn fotAG S.f4
for the passage of vessels. The complainants,
Huse, Loomis & Co., are engaged in cutting ice
1t Peru and other points, and transporting it
down the Illinois and Mississippi rivers
Southern markets. They contend that
the dams and locks at Henry and
Cnppsras creek constitute an impediment to
the navigation of the Illinois river, and that the
tolls collected from vessels which pass through
the locks are in violation of Article of the or
.dinance for the government of the territory of
the United States northwest of the Ohio river,
passed July IT, 1887, and of that article of the
United States Constitution which prohibits the
imposing of q duty on tonnage in any State
without the consent of Congress. They, there
fore, pray that the defeadantsin this case, who
are the Canal Commissioners, may be restrained
from collecting such tolls and from interfering
in any way with the free navigation of the
river This court holds:
rst-fFollowing Its decision in the case of
Escanabs VS.. Chicago, lO7 U. S.. 67s) That the
ordinance OF 100 couio not cohtrol the authority
and power of the State after her admission.
Whatever the limitations on her power as gov
eminent whilst in territorial condition, wheth-
or from the ordinance of 1887 or the legislation
If Congress, it ceased to have any operative
force, except as voluntarily adopted by her after
she became State of the Union.
Second-That, even apart from these consd
erations, the terms of the ordinance of 1887
were not violated by the construction of the
dams and locks in question.
Yhird-Taat the exactiOn of tolls through the
locks is in tie nature of compensation for the
use Of artificial facilities. and not i.nposts upon
the navigation Of the stream IT, in the opinion
Of Inc State. greater benefit would result TO her
commerce from the improvements made than
from leaving the river in its natural condition
and that point tie State must necessarily de1ss~
nine for itself-then it has full power to author
ze such improvements, even although they may
aase increased inconvenience and expense 70