The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-04-25
o. 3. SUPREME COURT.
Albert Friederich's Case Decided Al
versely-An Old Territorial Case.

Albert Friederich's Case Decided Ad.
versely-An Old Territorial Case.
WAsHINaToN CITY. April 2A-The
United States supreme court today af-
fiImed the judgment of the United States
circuit court for the state of Washington
in refusing to grant writ of habeas corpus
in the case of Albert Frederick, now un-
dergoing . sentence of twenty years i'm
prisoment for murder in tho second de-
gree.
A case presenting unusual and novel
features was also decided today, Justice
Gray delivering the opinion. It was en-
titled Northern Pacific Railroad Company
vs.. J. J. Brooks & Co. ct al, defendants,
including number Of saloon keepers and
board of commissioners of Kittitas county,
Washington. The railroad company had
brought suit to abate the saloons main
tanned by the defendants az nuisances and
to prevent the county commissioners from
renewing licenses to them. The ground
upon which the complaint was based was
that the employees Of the company, who
must necessarily use dynamite and steam
in construct. : the company's railroad
line through kittitas county, were in
duced by the presence of saloons along the
safe use of these instrumentalities. and
thereby caused loss to the corporation by
the delay in finishing the work. The
Washington territory courts ruled against
the company, and they appealed from the
judgment OF the supreme court of WASH
ington to the supreme court. Justice
Gray, however. for the court. affirmed the
judgment of the territorial supreme court,
stating that upon none of the grounds ad-
vanced by counsel for the appellant could
it maintain the action and secure the re-
lief sought
The South Carolina tax cases were
passed upon by the supreme court of the
United States today. The opinion being
delivered by Chief Justice Fuller. 1t
came upon the petition of Sheriff Tyler, of
Aiken county. for writ of habeas corpus
to release him from imprisonment under
the judgment of the circuit court of the
United States, he having been fined $500
for contempt. He had seized train on
tho South Carolina railroad upon war
rant issued by the state authorities for the
collection of taxes which were in contro-
versy. The road was in the hands of a
receiver, appointed by the United States
court, and he was adjudged guilty OF
contempt for failure to release property
under the order of that court. He came
to the supreme court for relief Justice
Fuller returned an opinion containing g
much stronger language than is usually
found in such documents, denying the
application of petitioner for the writ. He
said:
The seizure OF property BY force was un.
justifabs and could not be defended. The
claims Of the state for taxes are not superior to
the general rule which makes property placed
in the hands of q receiver subject TO the orders
OF the court They are TO be determined in the
regular way and in the proper manner. The
action of the circuit court was in no sense an
action against the state OF South Carolina,
which, It was concluded, could not be main
tanned under rhe eleventh amendment of the
constitution. The circuit court was equipped
with the fullest power 70 protect Its dignity
and enforce it, mandates and its use of these
powers in the case in point could not BE-
reviewed here. Therefore. the petition for q
writ of habeas corpus 10 denied.
The same judgment was announced in
the cases of Sherman. Riser and Gaines,
who came up to the supreme court Of the
United States with Tyler for relief.