The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-05-26
SUPREME COURT CASES.
EXPRESS COMPANIES NEED NOT
PAY LICENSE TAXES.

virGinis's Flour Inspection Tax Also
Declared Unconstitutional - Ward
McAllister's Removal from the
Alaska Judgeship Indorssd-Respon.
sibility OF Bank Directors.
WASHINGTON, May 25.-Ths United
States supreme court through Justice Brad
ley to-day rendered judgment against the
state Of Kentucky on q suit by Crutcher,
agent of the United States Express Com
pany, who claimed that the law Of the stats
imposing license tax on express companies
was violation Of the interstate commerce
clause Of the federal constitution.
The court also held that the Virginia law
REQUIRING inspection. FOR which fees were
charged, OF -four manufactured outside of
the state when sold within the state 10 be
contrary 80 the federal constitution.
In the case Of the Chicago Distilling Com
pany against Stone, Internal revenue coli
lector, Justice Bradley delivered the opinion
In favor OF the distilling company, holding
sessing at the end Of each month what he
called ''mulct money" to make up the dis
tillation by distilleries In excess OF the ca
pacity estimated from day 10 day.
WARD M'ALLTsrER's JuDagsHIr
The court also rendered an opinion
through Justice Harlan In the case Of Ward
McAllister against the United States. Mo-
Alistsr was removed from office as Judge Of
the district court of Alaska by President
Cleveland and claims salary from the time
OF his removal TO the qualification Of Judge
Dawson, who was confirmed as his successor.
The one question in the case was whether
tne judge OF the Alaska court came within
the provision OF section 1T6S Revised Stat
utes, authorizing the President TO suspend
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 o constitutional sense as set forth
in the third article OF the constitution, but a
territorial court. The fact that the term Of
an Alaskan judge Is limited to four years
and 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 consti-
tutionally used. The court said the decision
in the present case gives the President COM
| plete power over the territorial officers
Judgment is therefore given in favor OF the
| United ,ates.
THREE JUSTICES DISSENT.
Justices Field and Gray and Brown dis
sented in the opinion, In which Justice
| Field maintained that the mere will OF the
| President was not sufficient to remove O
| judge of a court created by the United
States, and that the constitution did not
contemplate that judges should be respon-
in Office. It seemed to him that
some of his brethren overlooked the
character Of the judicial branch of the gov
ernment when they made distinction
against the courts Of the territories These
courts had similar powers. and there was
the same necessity that they should use
their office fsarlessly and without fear OF
| NRa Iaeft thaxy aahC hs
| removed.
The case of Wingard, justice of Wash
ington territory, was decided the same
way.
TIE ORIGINAL PACKAGE LAW.
The supreme court upheld the constitu.
tionality Of the original package law passed
by congress, and also held that II was not
necessary for the state Of Kansas to re-
enact its prohibtory law after the passage
of the congressional act In order to shut oui
liquor in original packages. The case
came up on the appeal of Wilkinson, sheriff
against Rahrer the lower court having de-
cided against the state. This court reversei
the decision Of the lower court Chief JUS
tice Fuller rendered the decision, the entire
court being with him.
RESPONSIBILITY OF BANK DIRECTORS.
The supreme court by majority of five
to four to-day affirmed the judgment Of th'
circuit court for the Northern district oi
New York In the case OF Albert b. Briggs
receiver of the First National Bank OF Buff
falo, against f. @. Spalding and others, di
rectors Of the bank. The receiver sought tC
hold the directors respons' BILE for bad loan
made by the president OF the bank
No dishonesty was charged, bu
it was asserted that IL the di
rectors had given proper attention
TO the affairs Of the bank IL would not hav,
| FatI I'D hat he Iiah b,
the bank. The court holds that the di.
rectors are simply to exercise ordinary
prudence, and that this prudence is TO b,
governed by usage in bank affairs Thii
was done in the present case. The case II
one of great Importance, involving the rela
tions OF all national tank directors Tn
opinion was delivered by the chief justice