The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-01-29

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2s.-The Supreme
Court Of the United States today delivered
an opinion in the case OF William II.
Robertson, collector Of the port OF New
York, plaintiff in error vs.. the executors
Of Charles l.. Perkins. in error 10 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 as-
sessed duty Of I5 per cent. on the inn
portation, under the tariff provision for
steel not specially enumerated or provided
ior The importer claimed that the crop
ends were dutiable at 20 per cent. as "un-
wrought metal" The court below gave
judgment for the importer on the ground
that the crop ends were a mere excess OF
material, left over after the making Of
steel rails, and that, rs they were not fit
for use in their present form, they were
properly dutiablc ~ "unwrought metal. T"
This court Icycrses that decision. aud sus-
tains the action OF the collector. In an
holds that bcsscmer steel rail crop ends
are none the less steel because they are
an excess Of material and not lit Tor use
without being rcmcltcd or relocated, aud
that therefore they are dutiablc ~ steel
not especially enumerated"
The supreme Court Of the United States
rendered an opinion Of considerable i'm.
portanco 10 caillemen Of the West In the
- ~ atah F.Iu Ia
VI. John J. Ball aud Henry Tienkcn. The
case involves the constiiutionaliiy OF a
statute Of Iowa making a person having In
| his possession within the state any Texas
| cattle which have not been wintcrcd north
OF the Southern boundary Of Missouri and
/ Kansas. liable for any damages that NAV
accrue from allowing them 20 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 Dis
,rict Of Iowa were divided In opinion, and
| the case was sent here Tor FINAL decision
with the record, showing that the case had
/ been decided against the plaintiff on the
/ ground that the Iowa statute was an inter
/ ference with interstate commerce aud also
/ In violation Of the constitutional
/ provision giving citizens Of the sew.
|
| immunitics OF citizens Of any state. The
Supreme Court holds that thc Iowa statute
Is not In conflict with the paramount
authority Of Congress 30 regulate inter
state commerce. Il Is unable 10 zee that
the statute has anything 20 10 with such
commerce. The case, 10 SAYS, Ia not on,
Of restriction Of commerce, but simply Z
requirement that Who ever permits dis
casrd cattle 10 run ut large shall be liabl,
fof any damages occasioncd thereby, nn,
the court cnicriains not the slightest duub
Of the right of State 30 enact such q stat
ute. II further holds that ~ citizens o
Iowa arr liable under the statute. the sam,
NJ citizens Of other States, there is not lorc'
In the objection that the law Is contrary q
the clause Of the Constitution gHntinI
equal rights In iho several States 90 al
citizens Of the United States Opinion b.
Justice Field.
In an opinion rendered by Justice Brad
ley today affirming the judgment Of ih
Circuit Court oi.tho United States for tia
Western District OF Louisiana, IN the cas-
Of Alfred Carr, superintendent OF the VI
suuncc Department Of the State Of Mis-
souri,, appellant, ". the executor 81 Wi
liam T. Hamilton, the Supreme Court ,
the United States holds that whore an III
solvent Insurance company holds q NOR
gage executed 10y person whom 4 hs
insured, the insured person has iho right !
any action brought against him because I
the mortgage 10 claim n set of equal
the equitable value Of his policy In NJ
. bankrupt Insurance company.