Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1893-06-23


States Circuit Court of Appels, Chief
Justice Fuller presiding, given this
morning.
The appeal from the order of Circuit
Tldge Woods and Jenkins closing the
fair on Sundays had been argued for
two days, and the Court of Appeals
reversed it and held that the local di-
rectory could do as it pleased in the
matter.
This settles the case for all time. rs
both sides had agreed that no appeal
should be taken from this court.
Neither is one possible, as it would
have to go to the Supreme Court of the
United States, which does not meet
until October.
Chief Justice Fuller rendered the de-
cision, in which both Judges Allen and
Bum concurred. 1t was Il short af-
fair, the Chief Justice announcing that
a more complete opinion would be
| filed next week and he would then but
give a synopsis of it, it being neces-
ssry to decide the case before another
Sunday had gone by
| When Attorney James L. High
for the government resumed his ar;yul-
ment Yesterday it did not take long
for him to tread upon shaky ground
and Judge Bum was soon hot after
him with puZzling questions.
| Conscience Not in It.
Mr.. High said there was no question
| in this case Of conscience no ques
ton of Sunday legislation, and no ques-
ton of public policy in the abstract,
further than the rights of the public
as represented by the United States of
America in securing the privileges in
it's behalf. Questions of conscience,
morals, and religious convictions were
eliminated form this controversy. He
said:
We are dealing in questions of law
questions of contact with the violation
as we claim, of such contract The
whole question is of the jurisdiction
of the United States in the matter of
| the enforcement of it's rights in the
premises.
Judge Bunn-As [ understand YOU
taken into consideration by this eX-
cept the naked right, Of the govern
mcnt of the United States and this
other corporation known as the local
corporal ton or the worlds Columbian
exposition. Now. as I look at il
the money put in by the government,
which is a small part of the MONEY
contributed from all sources, was paid
in the same way as the money paid by
the city of Chicago. The question to
me, then, is whether this court, sitting
as court of equity, can only regard
the rights Of the parties to this suit
and leave entirely out of consideration
| those other parties not represented
here, but interested to a far greater
amount. The government of the Unit
ed States has not given much over
81 100000 of this $2,50O,00O, whereas
thc1e were many more millions sub
[ repeat, the question is whether they
should pay all this money and not have
their interests taken into cosideration.
Mr.. High.-Those parties are not
before this court.
Judge Bunn.-No, they are not before
the court. but the question is, Are they
not possessed Of rights that should be
taken into consideration in a settlement
of this dispute before court of equity ?
Suppose if the government, whom you
claim to be paramount, should decide
to close ur the exposition six days of
week, would not the rights, as of those
citizens and taxpayers be entitled to
their rights because they might not
appear as contesting parties?
Mr.. High.-f such a case We're in
dispute before this court the bond
holders could come before the court
in proteC ton of their rights and in
terests.
Judge Bunn.-I don't mean bond
holders. l am talking of citizens and
taxpayers all over the country who
have contributed to the success Of
the fair.
Mr.. High.-They certainly have,
rights, but it is their right and duty to
interfere.
Judge Bunn-We1, the fair has got
to be a pretty large thing through the
contribution of people generally. These
contributions may not have been made
in large amounts. Now all the people
have to get out of this is the show.
If their contributions are not good for
that they are not worth anything.
Now, I ask whether we are to take
into considerat ton the interests of these
taxpayers or to ignore them entirely
and decide this question solely be-
tween these two parties.
JIJ,S D,,acf;o,
Edwin Walker commenced his ar
gunent by saying that the only ques-
ton to be determined by the court was
whether this local corporation or the
present defendant had any jurisdiction
of Jackson park or of Midway Plais
ance He said in relation to this:
The other counsel who seem to renre- |
are not willing to go to that extent. |
Mr.. Aldrich says that they do not !,
claim the government has exclusive do |
minion over this property, but only a /
qualified dominion, and argues to the
court that the government in its appro-
priaticn of August 5, 1892, made such
upon certain conditions;
that we accepted that appropriation,
with the condition attached. There
fore we can be compelled to observe
them, as well as all other provisions
of that act of congress. Mr.. High con-
ours with Mr.. Aldrich, but he goes a
little further and talks a great deal
about the doctrine of charitable trusts.
understand that there is no difference
of opinion about the jurisdiction Of