Los Angeles herald. [volume] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1890-1893, 1891-12-22
THE SUPREME COURT.
An Adjournment Taken Till
After the Holidays.
Several Important Decisions
Handed Down.
The Sentence of Embezzlers Claasen
and Simonds Confirmed.
Decision of the California Court in the
San FrancIsco Tide Lands Case
Reversed-History of
the Case.
Associated Press Dispatches.

AssOclhteQ IreSS OlspdtCues.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 21.-The United
States supreme court adjourned today
over the Christmas holidays, after trans
acting the following business:
1t advanced to the second Monday in
the next term argument in the suits in
volving the title to large amounts of
property along and under the lake in
Chicago.
1t affirmed the decision of the lower
court, declaring that the provision in
the New York law providing for the
solitary confinement of persons con-
demned to death, and other features,
unconstitutional. The legality of the
punishment of death by means of cleo
tricity was not attacked.
In an opinion by Justice Gray, the
court affirmed the decision of the lower
court in the cases of Peter j. Caasen
and Frederick Simonds, convicted of
embezzlement in connection with the
Sixth National bank of New York. 1t
is said counsel for the prisoners have
under consideration the advisability of
an application for pardon.
The court reversed the decision of the
supreme court OF California in the case
of Thomas Knight VS.. the United Land
association and Clinton Trip. This case
has attracted much attention on the
Pacific coast and concerns the title OF
property in San Francisco OF great value.
The effect af the decision is to sustain
the rulings OF the interior department
The case involved controversy as to the
boundary line of the city of San Fran
cisco. The city claimed as successor
of the Mexican pueblo, four square
leagues of land on the northern part OF
the peninsula on which the city is stu
ated. 1t presented a claim 60 the board
of land commissioners created under the
act of congress- of March 3, 1851, for its
adjudication and confirmation. The
board confirmed it for a portion of the
land, and rejected it for the remainder.
The case was appealed to the United
States circuit court for the district of
California. Here the claim of the city
was confirmed on the 18th of May, 1865,
for four square leagues. The case was
further appealed to the supreme court
of the United States. which in
December, 1886, on motion of the at
torney-general, dismissed the appeal. A
survey made of the claim decree,
founded the claim on the high water
mark of the bay of San Francisco as it
existed July 7, 1916. A dispute arose as
to where this line should be rum
whether it should follow the high water
mark OF the bay and cross the mouths of
the creeks and estuaries that run into
the bay, or whether it should
follow up the banks of the
streams to the interior. The
department held after repeated argu-
ments, that the line should follow the
high water mark of the bay and cross
the mouths OF all creeks that run into
it. A survey in conformation with the
decision was approved, and patent
issued. Certain parties claiming
land along the creeks, as marshy
or side lands, resisted the enforcement
of that decision. The matter has been
in more or less litigation some years.
This controversy was finally decided by
the decision of the court today in &C
cordance with the ruling OF the in
terror department, approving the sur
vey adopted by that department,
and the patent issued thereon. This is
said to end litigation that has lasted
nearly thirty-nine years. The lands
affected, though originally tide lands,
have been improved, and now form a
valuable part of the city OF San Fran
cisco. Valuable riparian rights are also
inuoIuoA