Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-05-26
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
virginia's Flour Inspection Law The
Original-Package Law--Other Cases.

OriQinal-Package Law--Other Cases.
[By telegraph TO the Dispatch.l
WASHINGTON, May 25.-The United States
Supreme Court through Justice Bradley
to-day rendered judgments against the
State of Kentucky III the suit by Crutcher,
agent of the United States Express Com
pany, who claimed that the law OF the
State imposing license tax on express
companies was in violation OF the inter
state commerce clause of the Federal Con-
stitution. The Court also held that the
Virginia law requiring inspection, for
which fees were charged, of flour manu-:
featured outside the State, when sold
within the State. 70 be contrary TO the
Federal Constitution. In the case OF the
Chicago Dlstilling Company against Stone,
internal revenue collector, Justice Bradley
delivered an opinion IN favor OF the dis
tilling company, holding as unlawful the
Government method OF assessing at the
end of each month what he called " mulct
money" to make up any for distlllatlon by
distilleries in excess of the capacity estl-
mated from day TO day..
The Court also rendered On opinion
through Justice Harlan in the case OF Ward
McAllister against the United States.
McAllister was removed from once as
Judge of the District Court for Alaska by
from the time of his removal to the quail
fication of Dawson, who was confirmed as
his successor. The question in the case
was whether the judge of the Alaska court
came within the provision OF Section lf0o,
Revised Statues, authorizing the President
TO suspend all civil officers " except judges
of the United States" The Court holds
that the Alaska court Is not court OF the
United States in the constitutional sense,
49, g. -, Es I'd rtI al
stitutiOn, but Territorial court. The fact
that the term of the Alaskan judge 10 limit
ed to four years aud that he does not hold
Office for life or during good behavior, the
Court says, proves that IL IS not court OF
the United States as the term Is constltu-
tionally used. The Court said the decision
in the present case gives the fresident
complete power over territorial ofncers:
Judgment is therefore given IN favor OF
the United States.
Justice Fields and Justices Gray and
Brown dissented in an opinion IN which
Justice Fields maintained that the mere
will of the President was not sufficient to
remove Judge of q court created by the
United States and that the Constitution
did not contemplate that q Judge should
be responsible To any man for his contlnu-
anee in Office. IL seemed TO him that some
of his brethren overlooked the character
of the judicial branch of the Government
when they made distinction against
the courts of Territories. These courts
had similar powers and there, was the
same necessity that they should use their
Office fearlessly and without fear of offend
ing any President lest they should DO re-
moved.
The case of Wingard. Justice of the
Washington Territory court, was decided
the same way.
The Supreme Court to-day upheld the
constitutionality of the original package
law passed by Congress. and also held that
it was not necessary for tho state. oil
Kansas to re-enact its prohibitory, law
after the passage of the congressional act
in order to shut out liquor IN original
packages. The case came up ON appeal OF
Wilkinson, sheriff, against Rahrer, the
lower court having decided against the
State. This court reyerses the decision OF
the lower court. Chief Justice Fuller rem
dered the decision, the .entire court being
with him.
The Supreme Court by majority OF 1--WE
to four to-day affirmed the judgment OF
the Circuit Court for the Northern Dis
| trict of New York in ths case Of Albert -
Brigss. receiver OF ths Rivst National Rank