The record-union., 1891-01-20
Special to the REcoRp-US1oS.

Special to the REcoRD-USIoN.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10. - The United
States Supreme Court to-day handed
Down an opinion affirming the judgment
OF the Circuit Court of the United States
for the eastern district of Virginia, direct
ing that writ of habeas corpus be
granted to William Rebman, convicted
in Norfolk of violation of the State
meat inspection law.
This is one of what is known as the
dressed beef cases, arising out of State
legislation. having for its object the re-
striction OF the sale of meats by firms To-
Gated outside of the State in which the
meats are offered for sale.
1t was held that the law was an inter-
ference with interstate commerce.
Justice Brown to-day rendered his first
opinion as Il member OF the United States
Supreme Court. He delivered two opin-
ions, of which the more important was
in the case of George II. Cope VS.. Janot
Cope and Thomas II. Cope, brought here
on appeal from decision of the Supreme
Court of the Territory Of Utah. The
question involved was whether or not by
a polygamous marriage he had the right
OF inheritance from his father, it being
claimed that he was illegitimate. The
marriage did have the right, and
reverses the judgment of the Territorial
court. The court says the Edmunds-
Tucker Act declared legitimate all chill
dren of Mormon parents born within less
than twelve months from its passage.
The object, the court says, was to make
these unfortunate children the especial
object of care, and to make the parents
relinquish polygamy by liking the period
until after which their offspring should
be legitimate.
Justice Field delivered the opinion of
the Supreme Court in the case of George
4. Packer, plaintiff in error, VS.. Jake
Bird and Frank Bixler, appealed from
the Supreme Court of California. The
latter's decision is affirmed.
The question presented was whether q
patent of the United States describing the
eastern boundary of the land as COM
menclng at point on the Sacramento
River, which was on the right side of the
west bank, and running southerly on its
margin, embraces an island within it (in
Coiusa county,, or whether, notwith-
standing the terms of the apparent limi-
tati0n of the western boundary to the mar
gin of the river.
The patent carries the title of plaintiff
holding under it to the middle of the
stream.
The contention of the plaintiff is that
the land granted and patented, being
bounded on the river, extends to the
middle OF the stream and thus includes
the island. 1t does not appear on record
that the waters of the river at the point
where the island is situated are affected
by the tides, but il is assumed that such
is not the case. The contention of the
plaintiff proceeds upon this assumption.
II is undoubtedly the rule of common
law that the title Of owners OF land bor-
dering on rivers above the ebb and flow
fNf hot til L. \ l.
stream, but where the waters are affected
by tides the title OF such owners is linn
tied to the ordinary high-watcr mark.
In England this limit of the right of the
riparian owner is confined to such navi-
gable rivers as are affected by the tides,
but in this country those rivers are held
to be navigable which are navigable in
fact,