The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-05
THE SUPREME COURT.

Tho Case of Paymaster Snith-Right of a
State to Prevent Armed Assembiages.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 1.-THE Supreme Court
to-day rendered its decision upon the petition
OF Paymaster-gerersl Smith, of the Navy De-
partment that writ of prohibition issue re-
straining the Secretary of the Navy from further
proceedings against him by courtmartial for
offenses alleged to have been committed in con-
nection with the administration of his functions
as chief bureau OF the Navy Department The
petition had been denied by the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia and this judgment
is affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
The court also rendered the following decis-
IONS
Herman Presser, plaintiff in error, against the
State of Illinois; in error to the Supreme Court
of Illinois. The principle involved is the right
of the State to prevent the armed assemblage of
its citizens, and their parading as military CON-
panies when not organized as such under the
laws of the State or of the United States The
court affirm the Judgment of the lower tribunal
holding that the State may prevent such
assemblages. To deny this right. it says. would
be to deny the right to dispense assemblages or
ganized for sedition and treason. and the right
TO suppress mobs bent On riot.
III. c. Brown against the Governor and State
officers of Colorado; appeal from the Circnit
Court of the United States for the district of
Colorado. Brown gave to the Territory of Col
orado ten acres of land in Denver upon which to
erect capitol buildings The Territory became a
State before the erection was undertaken. The
effort is now made to restrain the State from
taking possession of this land on the theory that
1t was conveyed to the Territory, and not to the
State of Colorado, and that the Territory did not
comply with the terms of its conveyance. The
Supreme Court holds that the title to all the
property held by the Territory passed to the
State. The judgment of the lower court to this
effect. is affirmed, with costs. Opinion by JUS
tice Harlan.
The Port Of Mobile against Henry Watson
The city of Mobile, in its corporate name, issued
bonds to aid in the construction of a railroad,
and made provision for a special annual tax to
be applied to the bonds. The Legislature of
Alabama. in 1879, passed an act to vacate and
annul the charter of the city of Mobile, and on
the same day passed another act to incorporate
the Port of Mobile. comprising specific part of
the territory and all the taxable property in
cluded in the limits of the city. Watson OBJ
tanned Judgment against the port, but no prop
erty was mentioned upon which to levy. The
authorities denied that they were the successors
of the city and bounden for the cty's debts.
The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the
port is the legal successor of the city, and liable
for its debts
William G. Ford administrator of John G.
Robinson, deceased appellant. VS.. the United
States. Appeal from the Court of Claims. This
was suit brought to recover the value of some
cotton seized during the Rebellion. The Senate
referred the case to the Court of Claims but that
body dismissed it on the ground that it was
barred by the statue of limitations. The Su-
preme Court affirms the judgment of the Court
of Claims. The court says: 1.-The Court of
Claims has jurisdiction to hear and determine
claim referred to it by either house of Congress-
Because and only because, the law has so de-
clared. But unless Congress otherwise pre-
scribes, that reference will not in itself enttle
the co-client to judgment if his claim is not
well founded or If. when so referred, it was bar
red by Limitation"