The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-05-26
United States supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, May 25.-The United
States supreme court today rendered judg-
ments against the state of Kentucky on a
suit by an agent of the United States Elk
press company, who claimed the law of the
state imposing license tax on the COM
pany violative OF the interstate commerce
clause OF the federal constitution.
The court also rendered an opinion
through justice Harlan in the case of Ward
McAlllster against the United States.
McAllister was removed from the Office Of
judge of the district court of Alaska by
President Cleveland, and claimed the salary
from the time OF MS removal to the qualifi-
cation Of Dawson, who was confirmed as
his successor. One question in the case
was whether the Judge OF the Alaska court
came within the provision of section 176S
revised statutes, authorizing the Presi-
dent to suspend all civil officers Except
judges of the United States courts"
The Court holds that the Alaska
court is not court of the United
States in the constitutional sense
as set forth in the constitution, but a
territorial court. The fact that the term
of the Alaska Judge is limited tofour years,
and that he does not hold office for life or
during good behavior, the court
says, proves 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 complete power over terrific
rial officers. Judgment therefore was rem
dered in favor Of the United States. Jus
Jice t'usler(!) and Justices Gray and Brown
dissented from the opinion in which Justice
Field maintained the will of the President
was not sufficient to remove the Judge of
court created by the United States. and
the constitution did not contemplate that a
judge should be responsible to any man for
his continuance his in office 1t seemed to
him some Of his brethren had over.
looked the character of the judicial branch
of the government when they made a dis
tlnction against the courts of the territories.
These courts had similar powers. and there
was the same necessity they should use the
Office fearlessly and without fear of Offend
ing any President lest they should be re-
moved.
The case of Wingard, Justice of Wash
ington territory court was decided the same
way.
Other business transacted by the SUI
preme court to-day was as follows: No.
l 1886, John German appellant VS.. Carrie c..
Havird, appeal from the supreme court of
the territory of Idaho. Dismissed for
want OF jurisdiction and remanded to the
supreme court of the state of Idaho.
No. 356-Gregory Consolidated Mining
company ct al, plaintiffs in error VS.. Lewis
M. Starr-in error to the supreme court of
the territory of Montana Judgment at
tirmed with costs and 10 per cent. damages
in addition to interest, and cause remanded
to the supreme court of the state of Mon
tana.
No. S57-Gregory Consolidated Mining
company ct AL, plaintiffs in error, VS.
Lewis M. Stan, in error to the supreme
court of the territory of Montana. Dis
missed for want of jurisdiction and re-
manded to the supreme court of the state
of Montana
In the case of Clara Botsford, who was
injured on the Union Pacific road and was
awarded damages, the court held the LADY,
was not obliged to submit to a physical
examination by the company's physicians:
such an examination would be an invasion
of the sanctity Of the person; it had no
foundation in law, and never has been
recognized in this country.
John M. Ross, serving life sentence for
murder committed on board United States
vessel in Japanese waters, applied for re-
lease. He was British subject when he
shipped and asserted the consular court
of Japan had no right to try him. The su-
preme court holds any seaman sailing on a
vessel floating the American flag is under
the jurisdiction of the United States. Plea
dismissed.