Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-03-01
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
The "No Quorum" Mckinley Act say
ward, and other Cases.
(By telegraph to tho Dispatcn.l

lbJ Telegraph W NtA' bl-patau'i
WASHINGTON, ID. c.. February 29.-The DO
quorum case. in which the Legality OF tue
Diupley worsted act was attacked by Rallin.
Joseph a. Co., importers, was to-day de-
cided by the United States Supreme Court.
The Dingley act was passed through the
action OF Speaker Reed IN counting quo
rum when there was quorum OF members
present but not voting. The importers
maintained that Speaker Reeds action was
i'm violation of the Constitution, ana tnat
an act passed in thus manner was VOID.
The United States Circuit Court Tor the
Southern District of New York decided
against tho United States and in favor OF
the importers on this ground: so that the
case came before the United States SUI
preme Court adverse to tho constitution
atty of the nO-quOrum" method OF par
liamentary procedure. The Court, IN an
opinion by Justice Brewer. holds that the
"nO-quorumn rule was valid, and that The
House Of Representatives had right to
make such rule.
The case of Edward III. Horner rs. the
United states was to-day decided by the
United States Supreme Court. HOrner Is
a New York banker who sold Austrian
florin bonds in which there is lottery
feature, the bonds being drawn In the
same manner as lottery prizes. Horner
was tried under the recent antl-lottery act
and convicted. Aside from the question
az TO whether or not the scheme comes
within the provisions OF the anti-lottery
act, an important constitutional point was
raised-viZ., that as the letters containing
an advertisement Of the lottery were mall
ed in New York. Homer cannot DO tried in
Illinois. in which State the letters were re-
ceived. The lottery act made the offence
fridble In either the district OF mailing or
of receipt. and il was contended that TINS
proyision violated the Federal COnstitu-
ton. The court reatiirmed the judgment Of
the lower court IN favor of the United
States in an opinion by Justice B.atchford.
Three cases in which importers sought
TO test the constitutionality OF the Mchin-
ley tariff act were to-day decided oy. the
United States Supreme Court. The titles
of these cases are : Boyd, Sutton d Co and
Herman Sternbach 4 Co. each Is. the
United States. and Joel Is. Erhardt, cOllec-
tor of the port OF New York, and Marshall
Field & Co. rs. Clark, collector OF the port
of Chicago. The grounds on which 1t was
maintained that the act was unconstltu-
tional were that the tobacco rebate sec
ton of the bill had been omitted IN its en-,
rollment after passage by Congress. and
therefore that the bill signed by the Presl-
dent was not the bill passed by the legls-
latlve department of the government; that
the reciprocity feature was TRANSMISSION
TO the Executive of the law-making power
and therefore void, yitiating the whole
act and lastly. that the act was void be-
cause of the sugar-bounty provision. The
Court affirmed the judgment OF the New
York and Illinois Circuit Courts OF the
United States IN favor of the constitu-
tionality OF the act. =,
Justice Lamar and Chief-Justice Fuller
concurred in the findings of the court, but
dssented from that part holding the re-
ciprocity section constitutional. They
held that ID was q transfer OF legislative
power. but concurred IN the conclusion
reached on the ground that there was not
vital connection between the reciprocity
section and the tariff portions OF the act.
In the case of the Church of the holy
Trinity of New York, TO test the question
OF It's right 10 import rector the rev.
MIR. Warren, the United States Supreme
Court to-day reversed the action OF the
lower court and decided IN favor OF the
church and Mlr. Warren.
The Supreme Court of the United States
TO-DAY decided the famous case OF er-pdrte
Thomas Henry Cooper, owner OF the "a
madam schooner ". L. Sayward, by which
the Government of Great Britain and the
Dominion of Canada sought to Obtain
from legal tribunal IN the United States
a determination of the question OF the
right of the United States TO exercise ex-
elusive jurisdiction over the seal-fsheries
in Boring Sea. In Cooper's name writ OF
prohibition was sought 10 restrain the
United States District Court for the Dis
trlct of Alaska from proceeding 10 carry
out a decree of forfeiture rendered by the
Alaska court. The forfeiture decree was
rendered after the schooner Sayward had
been libelled and sentence obtained on the
ground that she had violated the act OF
Congress prohibiting the catching OF seals
in the waters OF Alaska or Bering Sea. The
supreme Court to-day decided in favor OF
the United States and denied the petition
for writ Of prohibition.