The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-07
of Pensions is removing old aud efficient clerks
for no other reason than that they are Repub-
THE SUPREME COURT.

N
tradition Case of Frederick Ker.
WAsHINsToN, Dec. Ga decision was rem
dered by the United States Supreme Court to-day
in the tax case of the City of New Orleans
against the Louisiana Lottery Company, brought
here by appeal from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Eastern District of Louis
lana. This suit was instituted by the lottery
company for the purpose of obtaining an injunc-
tion to restrain the city and the board of assessors
from assessing and collecting certain taxes levied
by them upon it in alleged violation of its char
ter. The act Incorporating the Louisiana Lot
terry Company provided that it should pay TO the
State the sum of 100000 per annum, to be cred
tied &c the educational fund, and that it should
be exempt from all other taxes and licenses
from the State, parish or municipal au-
thorities. The company alleges that, not
withstandng this exemption, the city of New
Orleans is about to assess and collect
a tax upon its capital stock and other property
by virtue of the provisions of act No. n of the
Legislature of Louisiana of 1880 This court
holds that the tax complained Of is prohibited
by the terms of the contract contained in the
companyS charter; that tax such as that sought
to be imposed upon the company is tax upon
the incorporation within the meaning of it's char
cause the corporation is compelled to become
surety for taxes nominaly imposed upon its
stockholders and is made liable primarily for
their payment. The fair inference is that the
taxation of the Louisiana Lottery Company is
not within the purview of Section 48 of Act II
of the year $780, and that it was not tho inten-
ton of the Legislature. expressed in that act,
to impose upon the company any other taxes
than those provided for in its own charter; but if
otherwise, act No. n is void as law impairing
Obligation decree
Circuit Court in favor of the lottery company is
affirmed. Opinion by Justice Matthews.
A decision was also rendered by the court in
the important extradition case of Frederick M.
Ker against the people of the State of Illinois.
brought here by writ of error to the Supreme
Court of that State. In 1883 ker who was
clerk in the employ of Preston, Kean 81 Co., of
Chicago, emhezzled large sum of money be-
longing to that firm and fed to Peru, South
America Unon application from the Governor
of Illinois, the President of the United States.
on the 1st OF March, 1883, issued warrant for
the extradition of Ker and sent it to Peru By
Henry g. Julian, who was authorized to receive
the accused from the Peruvian authorities and
bring him to the United States to answer a
charge of larceny. Ker alleges that Julian,
without presenting the extradltlon papers TO
any officer of the Peruvian government, and
without making any demand upon that
kidnapped him and placed him on
board the United States vessel Essex, by which
he was brought to Honolulu. There he
transferred, he alleges, to the steamer City of
Sydney and brought to San Francisco, and then
surrendered by the Governor of California to the
authorities of the State of Illinois fugitive
from Justice Upon his arrival in Chicago, Ker
put on trial and duly convicted of larceny
and enbeZzlement He alleges that this whole
proceeding was violation of the provisions of
the treaty between the United States and Peru.
ratified July q, 1874, and he appeals to the Su-
preme Court, upon the ground that the case
calls in question the validity or the proper con-
struction of a treaty. This court is of opinion
that if Ker had been brought to this country by
proceedings under the treaty of 1874 with Peru,
it is probaTie from the statement of the
case in thezE6erd. thathe might have success
fully pieade14k kaas he was extradited for larceny
and convicted by the verdict of a jury of embez-
Element But it is quite different case when
he comes to this country in the manner in which
he was brought here, clothed with no rights
which a proceeding under the treaty could have
given him, and no duty which the country owes
to Peru or to him under the treaty. The court
thinks it very clear that in invoking its jurisdic
tion upon the ground that he was denied right
conferred upon him by treaty of the United
States, the prisoner has failed to establish the
existence of any such right. The question of
how far his forcible seizure in another coun-
Try and transfer by violence, force or fraud to
this country, could DO made available to resist
trial in the State court for the offense now
charged upon him, is which this court does
not feel called upon to decide. since in that
transaction the court does not see
that the Constitution, or laws. or
treaties of the United States guarantee
him any protection. The court holds, however,
that this decision does not leave the prisoner or
the government of Peru without remedy for his
unauthorized seizure within its territory. Even
the existing treaty with that country provides
for the extradition of persons charged with kid
naping, and on demand from Peru Julian, the
party guilty of it. could be surrendered and tried
in it's courts for violation of its laws. Ker him
he could sue Julian in an action of trespass and
false Imprisonment and the facts set forth in
the plea would, without doubt. sustain the ac-
ton. Whether he could recover "a sum sufficient
to justify the action would probably depend upon
moral aspects of the case which we cannot here
consider. The iudgme of the Supreme Court
of Illinois, sustaining the decision of the Grim
inal Court of Cook county against the prisoner,
is alfirned. Onininn hv .Iustice Miller