The Republican journal., 1892-03-17
The United States Supreme Court.

Interesting oplulVIls HdNe ueeH lcIluelCu
by the United States Supreme Court. The
New York Herald says:
Chief among them is that sustaining the
constitutionality of the Mckinley tariff
law This was assailed on three grounds
first, that the tariff tobacco rebate
clause. which was in the bill as passed by
Congress, did not appear in the law ap-
proved by the President; second, that the
reciprocity provision was unconstitutional
as being an unwarranted delegation of
/ legislative power to the President; third,
that the sugar bounty clause was invalid
for the reason that Congress had no power
to vote such bounty.
The Court overrules each and all of
these objections. 1t seems to admit that
Congress may not delegate any Legislative
function to the Executive, but holds that
there was no delegation in this case. On
this point Chief Justice Fuller and JUS
tice Lamar dissent.
In another case the Court SuStains the
authority exercised by Speaker Reed to
count quorum when a quorum was pres
ent but not voting The Court says that
the House has right to adopt such rule.
The >aywald Behring Sea case is decid-
ed in favor of the United States. As we
understand it from the synopsis telegraph
ed the decision is based ON technical
grounds and record considerations. 1t
does not enter into the broad merits OF
the pending diplomatic controversy as to
the RIGHT of jurisdiction in Behling Sea,
and therefore leaves to the arbitration
commission the determination of this
question. In other words, it does not
settle OF pass upon the international issue.
In the Chicago anarchist case a decision
was rendered which leaves SCnWab and
Fielden to serve out their sentences in
State prison. Their counsel contended
that they had been denied a constitutions
al right because they We're not present
when the supreme Court of Illinois affirm
/ ed their conviction and resentenced them.
The Court at Washington says that it is
the right of person to be present in the
trial court when he is sentenced and to
say why sentence should not be pronounc
ed. but this right does not extend to the
! appellate court when the conviction is al
tirmed and the prisoner resentenced.
| We are glad to see that the Supreme
| Court gives to the Alien Contract Labor
law a more liberal and sensible interpre-
| tation than that put upon it by Judge
Wallace in the case of the Rev. Dr. War
ren. That divine, it will be remembered,
was called from England by the Church of
the Holy Trinity, in this city. Judge
| Wallace held that his engagement was a
violation of the Labor law, and fine of
thousand dollars was imposed on the
church.
! There was no pretence that Coigfess
, had ever dreamed of excluding foreign
, pastors But Judge Wallace took strict
1 " literal view of the statute. and held that
it's terms We're broad enough to apply to
brain workers us we'll as manual laborers.
| The Supreme Court very sensibly repudi-
ates this rigid construction and gives eff
feet to the more natural intent of Con-
! gress.
Among the opinions handed down yes
terlav none is of more far reaching con
sequence than that upholdihg the grain
elevator statute of New York. This stat
ute regulates the charges of elevating and
storing grain. Its constitutionallty was
attacked ON the ground that it was an un-
warranted interference with private busl-
ness. The United States Supreme Court
rearming the much debated doctrine 1T
advanced some years ago IN the famous
Chicagu warehouse cases, holds that any
business affected with public interest
is subject to the regulation or control of
the State, and that elevatng grain is a
business of this kind.
The serious question presented by tins
exposition of the law is, What private bus
mess may not be regarded as affected
with public interest and thus be at the
/ mercy of any partisan or demagogic Leg
/ iSlature?
| The Washington correspondent ot the
Boston journal saws: Among the decis-
ions there was one which seems to have
escaped pnblc notice, yet it is one as far
j. aching in its consequences as any ever
rendered by that court. 1t was decision
which may have the effect to contribute
more to the stability of the General Gov
erlment. and to render impossible an
armed conflict between the United States
and the States of the Union, than any pre-
vious decision The case was that OF the
United States against the State of Texas.
The issue so far as it is of general inter
est, was to determine the question wheth-
er the United States can sue State. That
question has never before been raised in
terms in the final appellate tribunal in
this country.
In the case OF the United States against
the State of Texas that question was the
QlfCCu issue, ana IL Was ueC'uel ny VIC
United States Supreme Court (Justice
Harlan delivering the opinion, which is
noted for it's ability that the United States
has the right to sue a State. This decis-
ion declares that the United States is not
only the supreme governmental authority
in this country, but that there can be but
one supreme authority, and that it has the
right to appeal to the United States courts
to maintain that authority.
The strict constructionists of the Consti
tuition have hitherto denied that the Gen
eral Government had any power to enforce
its DEGREES against State, except such as
it may have by force of arms. The sover-
eighty of the State, it was insisted, could
not be invaded by a suit at the instance Of
the United States. In this instance the
two most extreme States rights men on
the Bench, Chief Justice Fuller and JUS
tice Lamar, dissented, maintaining that
the Constitution of the United States, in
it's grant of original jurisdiction to the
United States Supreme Court, does not
include the right to entertain jurisdiction
in suit of the United States against the
| State
But the court has now reached point
when it has decided that the General Gov
ernment is the supreme national power in
this country, that it has no superior or
equals, and that its authority is final and
can be enforced by civil process in the