Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-03-04
THE DERNHER RESSORT.
A Number of Cases Decided by tn
Supreme Court.

ChhC OV0Aes
WASHINGTON, March 3.-The case of
the Louisville, New Orleans and Texas
Pacific railroad VS.. the State of Missis-
sippi was decided by Justice Brewer to-
day. The question involved was the
power of the State to compel railroad
companies to provide within the State
separate accommodations for the two
races. Judge Brewer holds that the
State has such power.
TWO MURDERERs RELEASED.
An opinion was also rendered allowing
the applications of James Medley and
James q. Savage for writs of habeas
corpus. They were convicted in Arapa-
hoe county, Colorado, of murder. and
sentenced to be hanged. The law under
which they were sentenced was passed
after the commission of the crime,
and it was contended that it was er-
post facto and therefore unconstitutional
and void. In support of this contention
it was alleged, among other things,
that the law under which the sentence
was passed, inflicted q. greater punish.
ment than the law in force at the time
of the commission of the deed, in that it
added solitary confinement, forbid rela-
tives and friends from visiting the con-
demned, and made it uncertain just
when the convicted men would be
hanged, thereby putting them in fear
that each moment may be their last.
The court, through Justice Miller,
holds that the provisions do add to the
:-l RI h.
are therefore eg post factoland void. Sol
itary confinement, he says, is decidedly
an extra punishment, having a decided
tendency to make men fatuous and
weak-minded. 1t is therefore held
TO be the duty of the court
to discharge the prisoners, but as
there is no question that they were
lawfully convicted, their sentence
only being irregular, it is directed that
the warden of the psnitentiary notify the
Attorney General of the State of the time
Of their release, so that he may i'm
rearrest them and bring them
to trial once more.
Justice Brewer vigorously dissented
from this opinion. The substantial pun
ishment under each statute, he said, was
death by hanging, and the difference in
details was. in his opinion, too trifling
upon which to base decision that would
turn two red-handed men loose upon
society.
CITIZEN CAN NOT SUE STATE.
The court also rendered an opinion in
the case of Bernard Hans, plaintiff in
error, vs.. the State of Louisiana. Hans
is the owner of a considerable quantity
Of Louisiana consolidated bonds. When
these were issued the State made pro.
vision for special tax to meet the inter-
est and principal, and declared the bonds
to create a contract between the State
and the bondholders, which should not
be impaired. The constitution adopted
in 1879, however, partly repudiates this
from the special tax be diverted to de-
Tray the expenses of the State govern
ment.
Hans brought suit to have the new
constitution declared invalid 80 far as it
impaired the contract. The State set up
the plea that it could not be sued by one
Of it's own citizens without it's consent,
and the Circuit Court deciding in favor
Of the State, the case came here.
The Supreme Court affirms the finding
of the Circuit Court, and in reference to
the exsmp ption of a sovereign State from
prosecution at the suit of individuals,
says: "The legislative department Of
State represents it's policy and it's will,
and is called upon to preserve justice
and judgment and hold inviolate the OBJ
legations of the State. To deprive the
Legislature of the power of judging
what the honor and the safety
of the State may require,
even at the expense of temporary fail
ure to discharge public debts, would be
attended with greater evils than such
failure could cause. 1t would, in fact,
deprive the State of that sovereignty and
independence in the management of it's
affairs, which are essential to it's auton-
omy, and which is always understood to
be it's prerogative."
1t is said from ten to twelve million
dollars are involved in the case.
The court also reversed judgment in
the case of the State of North Carolina
and Roberts, Auditor, against Temple,
for the same reasons stated in the Hans
case. This case also involved several
million dollars.
AN IMPORTANT RANK CASE.
The court also rendered an opinion in
an important bank case, growing out OF
the well-known failure of the Fidelity
National Bank, of Cincinnati. The suit
was by David Armstrong. receiver,
against the American Exchange National
Bank, of Chicago. The Fidelity Bank
drew draft for $1OO 900 on the Chemical
National Bank, of New York, payable
to the American Exchange National
Bank, of Chicago. This was given
to Kershaw & Co., of Chicago, who
placed it at their credit in the American
Exchange National Bank. Harper,
vice. president of the Fidelity Bank, was
using his banks money in his famous
wheat deal, and had issued various
drafts without consideration. When he
saw the deal hopeless, he wired
the Chemical Bank to stop payment.
The Fidelity Bank failed, and on
the refusal of the receiver to allow the
claim of the American Exchange Ma
tional Bank for documents it had cashed
in good faith, the bank sued the receiver
to recover. The lower court gave judg.
ment in favor of the American Exchange
National Bank, and this court affirms
that judgment, ordering that the receiver
allow the claim.
CATARRH CURED, health and sweet breath
secured, by Shiloh's Catarrh remedy. Price SO
cents Nasal Injector free. For sale by G. f.