The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-05-27


court finished its sessions for this term to-
day, and announced its decisions on many
clses before adjournment for the summer
vacation. One of the attorneys within
the bar was Ms. Belva A lockwood. who
was awaiting the decision upon her appli-
cation for writ to compel the court ct ap-
peals of Virginia to ADM. her TO. practice
before il.
The first d, cision, and one of the most
important cases. WAS that OF Richard V.
Barden and others against the Northern
Pacific Railway company. As test cas.,
1t involves the title to many thousand
acres Of mineral lands along the Northern
Pacific railroad, principally in the sttte
of Montana, and included within the land
grants to the road from the government
under the act of July 9. 1864 Under the
the terms of this act mineral lands were
excluded from the terms Of the grant.
Mineral deposits of gold and silver were
discovered on some of the lands several
years after the railroad bad taken posses
sion and suits over the titles ensued. The
question ut issue was whether the IAN
guage of the act meant that only lands
found to be mineral when ths grant WAS
made were exempted from its operations.
or whether subsequent discoveries that
the lands were mineral in character would
deprive the company OF any title to such
lands The land grants included altsrnste
odd numbered sections for width OF
forty miles along the road lire. embracing
in all ST, 900 square miles. In the B.rden
case, the circuit court of the district OF
Montana decided in favor OF the railroad,
the lower court favoring the claimant aud
the circuit court everything IL.
Justice Field delivered the opinion or
the court today, asserting that want OF
knowled &c at the time of the grant of the
land reserved would not give title to such
lands, and that il would not be Claimed
that the govern ment had not tue right TO
reserve parts of public lands in making
grants thereof The original exception OF
mineral lands was without qualification
and it seemed plain AS words could make
il that mineral lauds known and unknown
| were specifically reserved TO the United
States.
1t was difficult to see on what principal
the word KNOWN" could be inserted
| into the act or congress The
| territory was known to embrace great
quantities of minerals, including gold
aud silver, and in all grants of lands to
| railroads mineral lands, except coal aud
| iron, were excepted and such grants were
never known to pass title TO minerals. IL
was impossible al the time of the grant
| for congress to know what lauds con-
| tanned minerals. particularly considering
| the condition of the territory. The United
States could not have meant, IN such an
| hour of distress to its finances, 20 give
away such imperial wealth, but left the
discovery of minerals to future explora-
tions. It was u certain rule OF grants that
| nothing was conveyed by implication eX-
| cept what was absolutely essential to the
| enjoy ment Of the grants.
There is in our opinion. no force in the
| Claims advanced by the plaiui q. Che rail-
road company said the justice. and he
added that the fact that the lands
| had been listed at the land Office in 1868
had no binding force. The purposes Of Il
government would be frustrated X by i'm
| plication it could be deprived OF essential
powers by privileged corporations.
The powers of the land Office in deciding
questions of title were discussed and sew
| eral authorities from the supreme court
aud interior department cited. among
Lamar. when at the head of the
| department, the patents had always
been refused railroads to lands upon which
| minerals had been discovered prior TO the
application for patent. In conclusion the
| Justice announced that the decision OF the
| circuit court was reversed and the cause
remanded with direction to grant che de-
| PENDANTS (Bartlen and otbers) demurrer.
Justice Brewer, Gray and Shiras dissented
| from the opinion.
la the case of Primrose vs. the Western
Union Telegraph company, Justlce Gray
re-affirmed the principle that telegraph
company WAS not subject To damage for
mistake in cipher dispatch transmitted
on a blank containing provisions absolv-
ing the company from damages.
Justice Harlan announced the decision
of the court affirming the decision of the
California courts in the conviction of
Thomas St. Clair of numbering the mate
of the ship Hesper, while on the high seas.
Probably the most interesting decision
was Que involving the standing OF the
interstate commerce com mission, in which
the court overruled decision by the pres
ent secretary of state. Justices Fuller,
Brewer and jackson dissented
The appeal brought up for review
Judgment rendered December :, 1892, by
The United States circuit court for the
northern district Of Illinois. in the case OF
commission agains, W. G. Crimson, j. ;.
keefe and W. r Sterling. declaring sec
ton 70 of the interstate commerce act TO
10 be unconstitutional
The parties NAMED, officers of the COM
pauy, appeared as witnesses before the
commissions were ordered TO produce thslr
books. refused to do so under advice OF
counsel, and the commission appealed TO
the court to compel them
Judge Gresham decided that so much
Of section II "a authorizes or requires the
courts 10 Use their process IN ald oil ID
ouiries before the interstate cUrnmerc=
commission Is unconstitutional and void.
Justice Harlan discussed at lecgth the
scope aud purpose OF the act. The judicial
power of tie q it-c States, he said. ex
lands TO all ca,e- arising under the cOBsli-
tuition OF laws Of the Cult Il States, and
tae circuit courts OF the CuIt@d
L. . 49,.
nower in cases II that cnsract ~ under re-
-trIctions prescribed by congress. The
Fundamentals! question, be bed 10 be.
whether the proceeding was - case
WITHIN the mraul8g ~ the constitution.
The circuit court usc adgGdgsd II nDt 90
be - case" The court below mad held
ii.at IL the act prescribed n p-naity for re-
.usai TO testify. such proceeding would
constitute case. waiIe a evil proee-tling
authorized ~ congress TO compel = witness
70 testify would not he n czse OF walsh
cocniz.nce could D- AIKEN ~ any court.
This interpret ilos Of tie coost!i otson
would rsztTict toe employment OF rs-aas
10 carry iato eflecs power granted p Goa
rress within much narrower limit tbsn
in our Judgment - wsrrsuted oy oe tn
strumzlt,H sssd J1stsCs iiz:lso- Tae te--
OF tbe power Il COT gees ~as 1t Sae
Judgment o. courts tllat .-as ticrlsr means
wer, not tue O~st t8st could haze eees
buE whctaef the means were
Unconstitutional. There cou.d be ne
doubt Of the power 81 cOGcs-ss 20 autso.-
ize the Commission a. sa1on4oss pxfsnns
and pzr,srs Te.aLsH. 70 zrr rlGit = ubtce
might = --3liT committed - +tsat botT
To- sssvl~1 .-@s.ea- The appellee @ssst-i
The rlrLf a. ta= zorcFELsen- "a sufgCf-z=
tie eouls.lis-.oa ~ make ;ssern testify. AID
pose. - 1xefie tse d.spSts gBuss res
somewhere i. esaiG 5oS % thai iiss gov
erangeut vas heioiss- - SAGA an e.asF-
.-eECs-