New-York tribune., 1892-01-08
CLERGYMEN COMING UNDER CONTRACT
CHURCH OF THE HOLY TaNIrY's CASE ARGUED
IL THE SUPREME COURT.

CHURCH OF THE HOLY TINIrY'S CASE ARGUED
IL THE SUPREME COURT
Washington. Jan. THE questions asked bv the
Justices Of the court to-day dve ground for the sup
pO,ltion that the United states supreme Court will
decide against the Church Of the Holy Trinity Of New
York in the suit between II and the United States
growing out Of the church bringing tho Rev. E. Wal
pole Warren. of England O this country under con-
tIact a, It, rector. The rector. wardens and vestry
men Of The church wee sued for violation OF tho
Contract Labor law. and a fine Of 81 900 imposed
I'm the United state, Circuit Court for the southern
District Of New York An appeal was then taken 70
the supreme Court. Here argument was made to-day
bv counsel for the church. Seaman Miller. OF New
York lie argued that the law. n construed to be
applicable TO clergymen, unconstitutional. As "A
Prohibition OF the free exercise Of religion. He main
,an,d also that il was not the intention of Congress
10 exclude ministers coming here under contract but
simply laborers mechanics and ordinary workmen.
Nearly every one Of the Justices the bench then
took part in questioning counsel Their questions
showed that although Congress may have intended
simply 10 exclude workingmcn vet the language of the
act s, was on It's face plain as not 10 leave any
room for the court to inquire into Congressional In
tcntion.
The act prohibits inportatiOns Of persons under
contract to perform labor or services Of any kind
aid Justice Iici. and added: Don't We mcaning
the Iustces perform service here - Other questions
made 10 evident that tho court thOught all eAcept
actors lecturer, and Others specially exempted were
excluded by its terms.
Nj Mlller in answering these questions. contended
that such a construction would be an absurdity. and
that the court. following the custom. would give the
act such construction as wouli meet the most
sensible view that conld be taken Of the intention oi
Congress. Justice Brewer asked Is IL Lot Just a,
much Of an absurdity to prevent the incoming OF an
honest labOger Of an Episcopal minister
Assistant Attorney General Naury had Intended 10
make an ota argum-nt In behnf of the United states
but the questions of the court impressed him VITA
Lclef that it was unnecessary. and he merely sub
m!ttcd the brief he had prepared
other business done WAS follows:
No. 73i Joseph IL. Inglehart. ct al appellants, agt
Ida May Stan>buly. Surgc, tpn OF deain II lda NAY
tansuiry. and appearance Of the Wash ngton Loan
and Trust Company, executor hled and entered.
No. 1,23l john Glenn, trustee, etc. pkllnnn III
error, agt. J. Carter Magbuly. Motion Of Conway
Robinson. jr 70 enforce stipulation 10 submit granted
No. i,OI4- Rudolph E.chorn pianuf in error, agt
William II. Hoover ct al Dismissed ,, .
No. G5J-r. Il. Fielps. collector. etc. plaintiff in
error, AIT J. G. Scgrled ct al. Submit d.
No. lO05-The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
Railway Company. appellant agt. tie Denver and
no Grande Railway Company and No. l.lOo, the
AIT thc Chicago. Rock Island and Pacific Rnllway
Company. SUi mitted
40. IiO-E1eAicl Clark plaintiff In error. agt. Lev
crctt g. sidwaN. Argued.
No Ia f.. l.. Ilelden late Collector, etc, plaintiff
In error agt. William l.. Iaclin ct al Argued.
No. lij-DaniCl Magonr, Cole tor ETC., plaintiff in
error. ag Cara Rosenstcin. Argument begun
call will be- Nos: lf5. 49, IA. l49, 100, 15l, l52,
Ia IJI and