, 1890-03-06
THE SUPREME COURT.
Decisions Rendered at Yes
terday's Session.
QUEER HABEAS CORPUS CASE
Cases Involving the Right OF
State 10 Repudiate Its Dobts
on Occasion

WASHINGTON. March a--An opinion
was rendered by the supreme court to-
day, allowing the applications OF Joseph
J. Kelley and James II. Savage for writs
OF habgs corpus. They were convicted
In Arnpehoe county, Colorado. OF muir
der. ana were sentenced 10 be hanged.
The law under which they were rem
fenced was passed after the commission
ofthc crime. and ID was contended thaA
1t was an OF post facto law, and there
fore unconstitutional and void. In sup-
port OF this contention II was ALLEGED,
among other things, that the law under
which the sentence was passed inflicted
a greater punishme,., than the law In
force at the time OF tine commission of
the deed In that IL added solitary con-
ilnement, forbade relations and ffisnds
from visiting the condemned, and mads
II uncertain just when the convicted
would bc hanged. thereby putting Thorn
In fear that each moment might bs their
last.
The court through Justice Fuller,
holds that tho provisions do add TO ths
punishment Of the condsmhsd men, apA
are therefore az post facto and void.
Solitary confinement. he says. IL decid-
edlv IN extra punishment, and has do
cidcdiy the tandenoy 10 mako men fatu-
ous and weak minded. Ii Is, therefore.
held 70 be the duty Of the coprt 70 dis
charge the pnsoners, but, ss there q no
question that they were lawfully con-
victed, tho sentence only being irregular,
1t Is directh that the warden Of the peni.
tenfiary notify the attorney general of
the state OF the Ting Of the release 10
that be may Immediately ftarrsst thefn
and bring them TO trial 6nce more.
Jpstiee Brewer vigorously disrantsd
FROM this opinion. The ssbctanlial pun
ishment ofmurder under each state he
said, was death by h4ngink, and the
difference In the detSils was In his
opinion, too Irinins One upop which
red-handed murderers iooss upon 70
ciety.
A CASE INVOLVING STATE nieHrs.
The court also rendered an opinion In
the case OF Burnard Haus, plaintiff In
error vs.. the state Of Louisiana Haus II
the owner Of considerable quantity OF
Louisiana consolidated bonds. When
these were issued the state made q pro-
vision for special tar to meet the In
terest and principal, and declared that
the bonds created q contract between tho
state and the bondholders, which should
not be impaired. The constitution
adopted In 1879, however, partly repudi-
ated this agreement, aud directed the
revenue from the special tax be devoted
TO deiray the expenses OF the state
government. Hals brought suit 10
have the new constitution declared
invalid, so far as IL impaired this con-
tract. The state set up the plea that II
could not be sued BY one of It's own citi-
zens without It's consent and the circgit
court deciding in favor of the state, tho
case came here. The supreme court af-
firms the findings OF the circuit court
and says that TO deprive a Legislature of
the power OF Judging what the honor
require, even ut the expense OF tempo
rary failure TO discharge public debts,
would be attended with greater evils
than such failue could cause. 1t would,
in fact, deprive the state Of that
sovereignty and Independence in the
management OF Its affairs which are
essential to its autonomy, and which is
always yIzderstood to be Its prerogrative
by all private parties that deal with II.
1t Is SAID that from ten to twelve mill.
ion dollars are involved In the case.
A SIMILAR CASH.
The court also reversed the judgment
in the case OF the state Of North Carolina
and Roberts. auditor. against Temple,
for the same reasons as those stated In
the Hans case. This case also involved
several millions.
IHE EIDELIry BAHx CASE.
The court also rendered an opinion In
IN important bank case growing out of
the well.known failure Of the Fidelity
National bank OF Cincinnati. The suit
was David Armstrong. receiver, against
the American Exchange National bank
Of Chicago. The Fidelity bank drew .
draft for $4,000 on the Chemical Ma
,ional bank OF New York. payable to the
American National Exchange Of Chicago.
This was given to Kershsw 4 Co., OF
Chicago, who placed to their creditin She
American Exchange National. Harper,
vice president OF the Fidei.yy, Was using
his banks money In his famous wheat
deal. and had irsued various drafts with.
out consideration. When he saw that the
deal was hopeless, he wired the Chefni-
cal bank to stop payment. The Fidelity
failed, and on the refusal OF the receiver
10 allow the claims Of the Ameri.
can Exchange National, claiming that 1t
had cashed In good faith, the bank sucd
10 recover. The lover courts judgment
was affirmed in favor Of the hneffcsn
exchange National, and this cpur& af-
firms that in It's Judgment the hold