New-York tribune., 1886-01-05
POWER OF COURTS-MAKIIaL
CASE OF PAYMAsrER.GENERAL SMITH.

| following
No. 1,l45. Joseph A. Smith against William C. Whit.
ney. Secretary o. the Navy This is petition by Pay.
master Genera Smith OF the Navy for writ OF prohbi.
ton to the Secretary OF the Nayyani the martial
convened By his ORDER TO restrain them from further
proceedings against him for acts alleged to have been
committed in connection with bis duties as chief o.
bureau OF the Navy Department, TO which position he
was nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate The chief principle set up by the petitioner s
that this Office is a civil and that trial for alleged
irregularities in connection with the discharge Of It's
duties do not como within the Jurisdiction OF courts
martial The Supreme sCourt of tho District denied the
petition and its judgment is nov affirmed by the supreme
| Court OF the United States. The court holds that an
officer OF tho Army Navy may be tried by court
martial FOR actions which demoraling In their natne
tend to bring the seryice into srepute though such
actions may have no direct connection with the military
duties OF the defendant officer of the Army sOr
Navy. The effect is 10 give the court mart al authority
to proceed with the trial OF Paymaser General Smith
| Opinion by Justice GRAY.
No. 49, Herman Presser, plaintiff M against tie
State OF Illinois. In to the Snpreme Court OF
Illinois The principle inv olved is the right OF State
prevent the armed assembage OF its citizens and their
paradng as military companies when not organized as
such under the laws Of tho State or OF the United States
The court aBrms the Judgment OF the lower Tribunal
holding that the stare prevent such assemblage
To deny this right says, would be to deny tue right
|
aud the right to suppress armed mobs ben on riot
rapine. opinion by Justice Woods.
| No. 5s3 Henry c. Brown AGAINST the Governor aud
State officers OF Colorado; appealed from the Circuit
Court OF the United States for the District OF Colorado
Brown gave to the Territory OF Colorado ten Of
land in Denver upon which TO erect capital buildings
The Territory became State before the enaetion was
undertaken The effort made to restrain the State
from taking possession this land the theory that il
was conveyed to the Territory and not 10 the State OF
Colorado and that the Territory did not comply with tue
OF the conveyance. The Supreme Court holds that
title to all the property held by the Territory passed
the State The judgment OF the lower court TO this
effect is affirmed with Opinion by Justice Harlan
No. 03. The Port Of Mobile against Henry Watson
The City OF Mobile in its corporate name Issued bonds to
aid in the construction OF railroad and ma revision
for special annual tax TO lie applied ID tic bonds Tho
Legislature OF Alabama in $40 passed act to vacate
and annul the charter OF the City OF Mobile, and on tue
day passed act TO incorporate the Port OF
Mol lie, comprising a chief part OF the territory and all
the able property formerly included within the limits
of the city, Watson became the owner OF some OF tue
bonds issued by the city and sued the Port OF Mobile for
their payment He obtained judgment but no property
found upon which to levy. lie then prayed for
writ OF nandamus 10 compel the municipal authorities
OF the Port to and levy tax for the satisfaction
OF his Judgment. Tie authorizes denied that
they the OF tho government
OF the city and bounden for the citys debts. The
|
be levied and money collected 10 satisfy Watsous
Judgment WITH interest. This judgment Is affirmed. Tho
Supreme Court OF tie opinion that the Port is the legal
OF the City and liable Or IFS debts Opinion by
Justice Woods.
No. 722. John VI. Stone and Others, comprising the
Railroad Commission OF the 3tIe OF Mississippi against
Farmers Loan and Trust Company, appeal from tho
Circuit Court o. the District OF Mississippi This
OF the Mississippi Railroad Commission cases. 1t was
brought by the Farmers Loan and Trust Company. OF
New YORK; to enjon the Railroad Commission OF Mlssis
siDp from enforcing AGAINST the Mobile and Ohio Rail-
road Company the provisions OF the statHe OF Missis
spp passed in 1854 to- prov do for the regulation OF
freight and passenger railroads in the State and
oor purposes The statute declares that railroads
in the State public highways over which all persons
have equal rights and makes discrimination in rates
penal offence. II frrtAer prov des FOR the appointment
OF u Board OF Commissioners and cOnfers upon 1t tho
power OF revising The tariff of charges and of exercising
a certain de;roe of supervision the roads. Tie
companies are required 10 make certain reports
periodically to the Commissioners. The officers Of
tho roads made liable TO fine for violation
compliance with the provisions OF the act which
fine may be collected through the courts. This and
other acts relating TO the charterng AMI control
OF the railroads OF the State are cited at length
in tho opinion. Tho Circuit Court rendered
decree allowing the injunction. and from that
decree the commissioners appealed. The arga-
ment In support OF the decree is that the statute
under which tho commissioners TO act iWpairs the
obligation and charter contract OF the company; that
is regulation OF commerce among the states; that
denies the company the equal protection of the laws and
depryes II of its property without due process OF law
that eoners both legislative and judicial powers upon
the commission and IL thus repugnant TIE Constitution
OF Mississippi and void its face by O, its
sistencss aud uneert Ines. The Supreme Court ends
that the charter OF the company contains the
obligation of which is In any way impaired by the
statute under which the commissioners to act !t
finds that ths commission is in express terms prohibited
by the act OF the state Legislature from interfering with
the charges OF the company for the transportation Of
persons property through Mssssippfr from state to
| another. The commissioners have rs yet uDdertlkon
nothing in conflict with the Constitution of the United
states The great purpose, it OF statute IN
question Is to fix maximum OF charges and 20 regulate
III some matters o police nature the of railroads
In the state. In its general scope 1t il consu ona and
1t plies equally all persons corr oraons owuns
operating railroads in the State The Supreme Court
OF the state OF Mississippi has declared that the
statute ia not repugnant To the State Constitution and
in this opinion tie Supreme Conrt OF the United states
concurs.
10 Is difficult to understand" the opinion says In con-
ruson. precisely what ground expected to
decide that this statute inconsistent and uncertain
to render absolutely void It's face. The argument
this branch OF the controversy contains mush thas
might have been useful IL addressed 10 the Legislature
while considering the bill before Its enactment but We
lind nothing In It to show that the statute Us II no"
stands is altogether void and imperative. When the
commission has acted and proceedings had to enforce
what they have done questions may arise as to tho
validity OF Of the various provisions which Will
worthy OF consideration but unable saythstss
whole the statute Is invalid" The decree OF the Circa'
Court reversed and the remanied with III
sructions to dismiss the bill The opinion delivered
by the Chief Justice Justices Ficd and Harlan as
sened from certain OF the opinions expressed Oy tho
court in this but concurrei IN the Judgment
Justice BatchOrd did not take any part In the decision
No. 723. John NJ Some al Railroad Commissioners
of Mississippi al pellant, against the Illinois Centrai
Railroad ComT any; and No. 72i. the same appellants
against the New Orleans and Northeastern Railroaa
Company reversed In accordance with the decision
L. L