The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-05-15
DECISIONS IN BIG CASES.
DECLARING OF THE TELEPHONE
SUIT DENIED.

The Failure of Any of the Justices
Who Concurred in the Decision to
Request the Reopening of the Case
Fatal to Drawbaugh-State Rights as
involved in the Virginia-Kentucky
vendetta-States Can't Tax Tele-
graph Companies.
WASHINGTON, May 1.-The Supreme
Court to-day denied the application for a
rebearing of the telephone case. This ap-
plcation was made by the Peoples and
Overland Telephone Companies, who claim
that Mr.. Drawbaugh, and not Prof Bell,
was the first inventor of the telephone.
Justice Miller announced the decision of
the court. He said that the usual procedure
is to hand the decision upon motion for
rehearing to the clerk, but in view of the
importance of the telephone cases he would
announce the courts opinion in that matter
orally. He simply said that as none Of
the three Justices who had concurred in the
4 opinion of Chief Justice Waite uphoIding
the validity of Prof. Bells patent had re-
ouested rehearing, and that as it was a
4 settled rule of the court not to grant rehear-
inCs unless this we're done, that the appli-
/ cation must be denied. The court room had
4 been crowded to suffocation in expectation
of this decision, but the crowd of spectators
promptly thinned out.
HABEAs CORPUS wRITs DENIED.
Applications for writs of habeas corpus
were denied in the cases of Mccoy and
4 Others, the West Virginians who were kid
4 naped into Kentucky by Kentucky deputy
/ sheriffs known as the Mccoy Hatfield
/ vendetta case); Mccoy and Bernhamer, of
A Indiana, now serving sentences for election
tally sheet frauds, and Benson, who is
4 awaiting extradition in New York for the
Patti concert ticket swindle in the City of
Mexico.
a writ of habeas corpus was granted to
the musicians convicted in the Washington
Police Court for conspiracy to destroy the
II business of other musicians by boycotting
N them. The cases are known as the "Union
81 musicians boycotting cases." The members
Il of the union had demanded trial bv Jury
b when the cases came before the Police
b Court, but this was denied them Under
81 today's decision the prisoners were dis
charged.
RIGHTS OF STATES.
The court in its opinion refusing habeas
81 corpus to Mahan, in the Hatfield -McCov
81 Vendetta cases, enunciates the following as
its views with regard to the rights of States
in these cases: "If the States of the Union
were possessed of an absolute soveignty in
# stead of limited one, they could demand
81 Of each other reparation for an unlawful
invasion of their territory and surrender of
n parties abducted, and parties committing
NJ offenseS, and in case of refuss1 to
comply with the demand, could re-
"a sort 10 reprisals, or take such other
n measures as they might deem necessary as
"A redress for the past and security for Tie
n future. But the States of the Union are not
absolutely sovereign. Their ability to pre-
vent invasions of their territory and
forcible abduction OF persons residing
within it, consists only In their power to
punish all violations of their criminal laws
committed within their limits whether by
their own citizens or by citizens Of other
States. If such viOlators have
escaped from the jurisdiction of the State
invaded their surrender can be secured
upon proper demand on the Executive of
the State to which they have fled. The
surrender Of fugitives in such cases to the
State whose laws have been violated, is the
only aid provided by the laws of the Unit d
States for the punishment of depredations
and violence committed in one State by in
truderS and lawless bandits from other
/ States.
MATTER BETWEEN STATES.
Offences committed by such parties are
against the State; and the laws of the
United States merely provide means by
which their presence can be secured in case
they have fed from its justice. No mode is
provided by which person unlawfully alb
Quoted from one State to another can be
restored to the State from which he was
taken, if held upon any process of
law for offences against the State
70 which he has been carried
II not thus held, he can, like any other per
son wrongfully detained of his liberty, OBJ
tam his release from detention on habeas
corpus Whether Congress might not pro-
VIDE for compulsory restoration to State
OIL parties wrongfully abducted from its
territory upon application of parties or of g
Ouate, and whether such provision would
not greatly tend to the public peace along
tne borders of the different States, are not
matters for present consideration. 1t is
'ullclent now that no means for
fuch redress through the courts of
the United States have as yet been
provided. The Judgment is affirmed. The
opinion is by Justice Field Justice Brad
ley, in a vigorous oral dissent. announced
that he did not concur in the views of the
court on this matter, and said that he might
some DAY state his objections in writing
oustlce Harlan also stated that he did not
q CONCUR In the courts opinion. The court
adjourned till next October.
TELEGRAPHY INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
o. An opinion was also rendered in case No.
20 Edward Leloup, plaintiff in error VS..
5ee port OF Mobile, in error, to the Supreme
court OF the State of Alabama This was
an ACTON brought against Leloup, who is
SseAI OF the Western Union Telegraph
roupany, to recover penalty of IS i'm
pJSeu on MIN for refusing TO obey munich
peI ordnance of the Mobile Police Board
providing that license tax of 1925 per
ear snail be paid by all telegraph compa-
lses The company resisted payment
VI lhis tax on the ground that the
ianroais over which its line ran were
PUBIC highways by the act of
oTTy -, 1865, and that as its lines extended
az az over The union, the tax was a regulation
Si coInlnerce, and therefore invalid. The
puWeme Court of the State of Ala
Ddlna gave judgment against the telegraph
ollpany, and from that decision. the appeal
was taken to this court. This court saws
, ny the question is squarely presented
hueDuer State, as condition of doing
BUSINESS within its jurisdiction, may
eAacI licensed tax from a telegraph
olnpany, large part Of whose business is
sNn mission of messages from one State to
1other Can State prohibit such com
Any from doing business within its juris-
ECoh unless 1t will pay tax and procure
iioense Tor the privilege il asksl If it can
~ Cau exclude such companies and prohibit
T ny transaction of such business altogether.
90. uo court is not prepared to say that this
de-; De Done. The court says that it has
NNk