The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-01-29
TIE COURT.
Steel Rail Crop-Ends Must Pay Duty-A De-
cisior Affecting Cattlemen.

WASHINGTON. Jan. 2 .-The Supreme
Court of the United States to-day delivered
an opinion in the case of William III. Rob-
ertson. collector of the port of New York,
plaintiff In error, against the executors of
Charles l.. Perkins, in error to the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Southern
district of New York. This is a customs
suit brought TO determine the rate of duty
on crop-ends of Bessemer steel rails. The
collector OF the port assessed a duty of 45
per cent. on the Importation under the tariff
provision for steel not specially enumerated
or provided for. The importer claimed that
the cror-ends were dutiable at % per cent,
as "unwrought metal" The court below
gave Judgment for the importer. on the
ground that the crop-ends were a mere ex-
cess of material left over after the making
of steel rails, and that, as they were not fit
for use in their present form, they were
properly dutiablc as 'unwrought metal"
This court reverses that decision and sus-
tains the action of the collector. In an
opinion by Justice Blatchford, the court
holds that Bessemer steel rail crop-ends are
mono the less steel becau use they are an ex-
cess of material and not fit for use without
being remelted or reheated, and that there
fore they are dutiable as ''steel not spe-
cially enumerated"
The court rendered an opinion of consid-
cradle Importance to cattlemen of the
West. in the case of p. G. Kimmish, plant
if in error. VS.. John j. Ball and Henry
Tienken. The case involves the constitn-
nonalty of a statute of Iowa making n
person having in his possession within that
State any Texas cattle, which havenot been
winteree north of the southern boundary of
Missouri aud Kansas fiah1a Cor ap- J,x,
ages that may accrue frem allowing them
to run at large and thereby spread what is
called Texas fever. The two judges in the
Circuit Court of the United States for the
Southern district of Iowa, were divided in
here for final decision, with the
record. showing that the case
had been decided against the plaintiff on
the ground that the Iowa statute was an
interference with interstate commerce, and
also In violation of the constitutional pro-
vision giving citizens of the several States
all the privileges and immunities of citi-
zens of any State. The Supreme Court
holds that the Iowa statute Is not i'm con-
nlct with the paramount authority of Con-
gress TO regulate interstate commerce.. 1t
Is unable 70 see that the statute has any
thing TO do with such commerce. The case,
1t says; IL not one of q restriction of conf
merce, but SIMPLY a requirement. that who
ever permits diseased cattle to run at large
shall be liable for any damage occasioned
thereby, and the court entertains not the
slightest doubt of the right of a State TO
enact such a statute. 1t further holds that
as citizens of Iowa are liable under the
statute, the same as citizens of other States.
there is no force in the objection that the
law Is contrary TO the clause of the Consti-
tuition granting equal rights In the several
States TO all citizens of the United States.
Opinion by Justice Field.
In an opinion rendered by Justice Brad
ley, affirming the Judgment of the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Western
district of Louisiana in the case of Alfred
Carr. superintendent of the Insurance De
liant, VS.. the Executor of William T.. Hamii-
ton. the Supreme Court of the United
States holds that where an insolvent insur-
ance company holds a mortgage executed
by a person whom 10 has insured the in
sured person has the right. in any action
brought against him because of the mort