The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-27

he added that the fact that the lands had
been listed ct the Land Office in 1858 nad
no binding force.
frustrated IL by implication ii could be DE,
pFived of essential powers by privileged
corporations. The powers of the land III
flee in deciding questions of title were dls-
cussed, and several authorities from the
Supreme Court and Interior Department
cited. among them an assertion by SecTe-
tary Lamar, when at the head Of the de-
partment that patents had Always been re-
fused railroads TO lands upon which miner
ais had been discovered prior to the appli-
Justice announced that the decision of the
Circuit Court was reversed and the cause
rernanded with direction to grant the de-
PENDANTS (Barden and others demurrer:
Justices Brewer, Gray and Shiras dissented
from the opinion
the steamship Haytien Republic. which
was lbeied first in the district of Wash
ington and later in the district of Oregon
for smuggling opium and Chinese, was de-
cided In favor of the government.
The suit brought by the International
& Great Northern Railroad Company
against the Encouragement of Texas and
Railroad Commissioners was passed upon
in favor of the road The court held that
IL was not within the province of the State
Legislature to fix railroad rates. and that
they could not constitutionally be fixed by
commissioners, and another point sus-
tained the contention OF the railroad COM
pany. that the rates fixed were unreason-
able
The case of the Covington AID Cincinnati
Bridge Company against the common
wealth of Kentucky decided by the
court In favor of the bridge company.
Justice Brown In his opinion for the court,
held that the toll bridge instru-
ment OF interstate commerce. and that the
Legislature of Kentucky acting alone had
no right to change the rate of toll as IL
had attempted TO do
The case of the United States against
the Illinois Central railroad. known as the
lake front cases decided bv the court
IN favor of the railroad, Justice Flel1 de-
liver.ng the opinion. Justices Brewer and
Brown dissented. holding that the United
States retained the same interest In the
property Individual -ho had granted
proDerty for a certain object and might
apply TO the court afterwsrd for a decree
to prevent its diversion from that pur-
pose. This case was another phase of the
| lake front litigation, the most important
| feature having been decided heretofore
In the case Of the 1nterstate-comms rce
| Comnnission against crimson. Justice Har-
| Ian delivered opinion to the effect that
| the Interstate-commerce Commission had
| the power through the courts 10 compel
| the attendance and testimony of witnesses
| and the production of papers and books
| upon matters into which 1t was en-
/ powered by Congress TO investigate, de-
| cIaring that such proceedings by the COM
| mission are judicial in their nature. The
| decision is of Importance. as, had rhe COM
| mission lost it, would have practically no
| power left
Mrs Palya A. Lockwood was disappointed
| in her attempt to obtain leave TO file a petit
| ton for writ TO compel the Court of Ap-
| peals Of Virginia 10 admit her 10 practice
| at it's bar Chief Justice Fuller said that
! it was within the right of the Virginia
| in its rules referred to woman and con-
| cluded with application denied"