Los Angeles herald., 1891-05-26
A Batch Of Supreme Court
Decisions.
The Original Package Law De-
clared Constitutional.
Territorial Courts Not Courts of the
United States.
Negotiations with San Domingo for a
Naval Station on Samana Bay.
Washington Notes.
Associated Press Dispatches.

WASHINGTON, May 25.-The United
States supreme court today upheld the
constitutionality of the original package
law passed by congress, and also held
that it was not necessary for Kansas to
re-enact its prohibitory law after the
passage of the congressional act, in
order to shut out liquors in original
packages.
The case came up on appeal OF Will
kinson, sheriff, against Roherer, the
lower court having decided against the
state. The court reverses the decision
of the lower court. Chief Justice Fuller
rendered the decision, the entire court
being with him.
MULCT MONEY NOT AssEssABLE.
In the case OF the Chicago Distillipg
company against Stone, internal revenue
collector, Justice Bradley delivered an
opinion in favor OF the distilling COM
pany, holding unlawful the government
method of assessing at the end of each
month what he called "mulct money )"
to make up any distillation by distillers
in excess Of the capacity estimated from
day to day.
EXPRESS COMPANIES NOT TAXABLE.
The court rendered judgment against
the state of Kentucky, in suit by an
agent of the United States express COM
pany, who claims that the law of the
state, imposing license tax on express
companies, was violative of the inter.
state commerce clause of the federal
constitution.
TERRITORIAL COURTS NOT FEDERAL.
The court also rendered an opinion
through Justice Harlan in the case Of
Ward McAllister against the United
States. McAllister was removed from
Office as Judge of the district court of
Alaska, by President Cleveland, and
claimed salary from the time CT re-
moval to the qualification of Dawson,
who was confirmed as his successor. One
question in the case was whether the
Judge of an Alaskan court came within
the provision of section 1853 revised sta
tutes, authorizing the president to sus-
pend all civil officers Except judges of
the United States" The court holds
that the Alaska court is not a court OF
the United States in the constitutional
sense, as set forth in the third article of
the constitution, but a territorial court.
The fact that the term of the Alaska
Judge is limited to four years, and that
he does not hold office for life or during
good behavior, the court says, proves
that it is not' court of the United
States' as the term is constitutionally
used. The court said the decision in
the present case gave the president COM
plete power over territorial officers.
Judgment was therefore given in favor
of the United States. Justice Field and
Justices Gray and Brown dissented in
the opinion. Justice Field maintained
that the mere will OF the president
was not sufficient to remove Judge oi
a court created by the United
States, and that the constitution did
not contemplate that judge should be
responsible to any man for his continu
ance in office. 1t seemed to him that
some of his brethren overlooked the
charter of the judicial branch of govern
ment when they made a distinction
against the courts of territories. These
courts had similar powers and there
was the same necessity that they
should use their Office fearlessly ano
without fear OF offending any president
lest they should be removed.
The case of Wingard, justice of the
Washington territory court, was decided
in the same way.