The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-05-20
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
THE FISKE WILL CASE GOES AGAINST
CORNELL UNITERSITE


Utah Under tho Edmunds Anti.POIyEnmy
LRw-MInnesota's Anti Dressed BeeT
Law Declared Unconstitutional
WASHINGTON. May I9.-The Supreme Court
OF the United states to-day rendered an opln-
ion against Cornell University in the we'll
known Fiske will contest In the decision the
court snys that the material question In dis
pute Is as to whether, at the time OF the death
OF Mrs. Hske In 1881, the University Of Cor
nell had real and personal property to the
amount OF 81, 00O, 900. According TO the find
ings Of the Surrogate in 1881 the university
possessed 81. 0SS.Ol2 worth OF property. but tile
| proceeds Of the sale OF the college land scrip.
or lands located Herewith. was at that time.
due, or payable to the State Of New York
under the Cornell contract OF 1866. and the total
amount and value OF the property owned by
tho university over and above It's obligations
to the State was $j9S.5SS. The opinion recltes
the reversa OF the surrogate's findings by the
Now York Supreme Court, which were that in
1881 the university held funds to the amount of
$3.O15.4l4; that II had reached the limit OF its
buildings and could not take tho property be-
| oueathed by Mrs. Fiske, and that title thereto
rested In the appellees.
The opinion continuing holds that the only
question subject to review is whether the prop
erty held blythe university exceeded the amount
| 1t could hold Tho court is bound by the find
|
| Appeals as 10 the value OF tho buildings and
grounds On the other point. as to the real
holding of the scrip and lands purchased by
| Mr. Cornell. the Court holds that the profits
! which he hoped to realize we're intended TO he
| q gift from him personally to the university
and not from him as a mere agent OF the State
or the United States. Therefore the claim OF
| the university that the moneys and property
derived from the sale OF these lands formed no
nart OF the $3,O0J.O0O OF property held by the
university Is not warranted by law.
THE EDMuNDs ANTl-roLYGAMY LAW SUSTAINED.
The court also rendered an opinion Of vital
interest TO the Mormon Church In the suit of
the Church OF Latter Day Saints against the
Utah iu favor OF the United states. This court
Of the lei passage % u Of tHe Edmunds Ant.PolGS!
amy law by the Forty-ninth Congress. This
mon Church corporation. annulled its charter
directed the appointment OF receiver TO wind
~ lis an affairs. and eseheated to the nited
in excess Of $4,000, which was not on The date
Of the p"ss4ge q the act held for rurroses Of
70 con flscate about $1,000 worth Of property
diately entered suit to have the Edmunds
law declared unconstitutional 1t was
% their R SsSn h h by c0 ths
dissolution Of the Church eorporation had a..
hs rhe att o the
Church constituted contract which could not |
be impaired by Congress under LIS authority TO |
repeal territorial enactment. Ii was also held |
that the doctrine OF escleat was alien to tho |
spirit IT free institutions. and that 1t had never
United States it was contended that Cor eress
mcnts; that the act incorporating the Church
was invalid ms an attempt to establish relig
ton and hat moreover rto the charter Should
DO annuIled Tor abuse Of the granted rights.
As.when the Church eorrqration was dissolved.
property: il was properly escheated to the
Two questions. the court saws nre involved
in this case. The first is: Has Congress the
power to reneal the charter Of the Church OF
ton 1t answers in the affirmative. The power
of Congress over the Territories Is generally
power. the power to declare war. The incl
dents o. these power are ed those Of national
over the Territories 1t acquired by purchase or
otherwise; and generally reserved, as It did in
the Territorial Legislature. 1t follows, there
fore. that it had the right to revoke the Church
After an elaborate historical review Of the
common law. the court comes 10 the concu-
prorerS and SAYS 1S s had be store Hs
contumacious organization welding bv its
OF Utah. and employing those resources in
constantly attempting To oppose. subvert and
t M the sGsatHn OF GIHnfreSs aaH The
nder such circumstances we have no doubt
Of the right OF Congress to do as it did. The
>, Chief Justice Fuller said that he and Justices
Field and Lamar were constrained 10 dissent
from this decision. The power Of Congress to
lcgislate over the Tei ritores was not incident
directly 10 that expressed or implied
in the Constitution There is no such power
granted as that involved in the act under con
an
power to suppress polyCamy, and 1t is lmma-
ter1al whether the crime, was committed in
power to seize and conflscate the property Of
corporations because they may have been
81 g have BEEN e0 q is mpas
sibie to subject 1t to n purT ose as near as pos
ment OF the minority the diversion OF the fund
contemplated by Congress Is in c0ntrnyention
nj the specific limitations OF the Constitution.
THE DRESSED BEEF MEN WIN.
The court also rendered an opinion In what
Is known as the dressed reef case, holding to
DO unconstitutional the law Of Minnesota re-
Ea ' h fe sns H% S w itnfs
no state and inspected twenr;iour hours be;
Of great interest to dressed beef men, who
win the case, barber was convicted Of selling
had not been inspected before slaughter ms
renuired by the law OF Minnesota. He alleged
that the law was an unconstitutional interior !
IN an opinion by Justice HARLAN, says:
Is x. the snr1 ~. ~ esa u, q s
yer anty whetherUr fresh beet: veal mutton lamb
Jr PORK designed tor human food, came from animals
~ the ho"t within very hort time before they
AuRhterei, and II Is insisted with great confidence
NAT or this fact tho must take Judicial notice
fact alleged TO exist and upon which the rights Of
Ihrties depend Is within common experience and
Wedge 1t is OF which tho will take u
iiGla notice bnt ascent to the
hat the fact alleged in this case 10 exist Of that class
i may be the opinion OF that tho presence OF dis
aSr In animals he time OF IhSir being slaughtered
annot be determined by n'nsrti9n OF the meat taken
rom heIn but aware that such Ia the view
Generally entertained. INT H. Az alleged the inSpec-
ion Of fresh beef veal mutton lamb pork Will not
leGesSariy show whether Tho animal from which II |
TAX was diseased when slaughtered IL would
olow that statute Hike he one before US IL within :
lie constitutional power of the state to enact
contrary the enactment OF a similar statute by each
me or the States composing the Union would result
lie destruction OF commerce among the several States
o far as such commerce involved in tho Transports
ion from one part OF the country 10 another
eslgned for human food and entirely Tree from dis
ase AcAreful eXaminRtO OF the Minnesota act Will
lace this construction Of 1t beyond question,
WI it'll regard TO tho contention OF counsel for ;
he state that the fact in question cannot but Z
rpnArhAt % N iubt n a. nf fI,a