The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-03-07
Until Some Time in April and
Perhaps Not Then.
The Extreme Age OF Some Of
the Justices
One Of the Arguments Against the
Probability of - Full Bench at Any
Timc-Thc New York Fish Law Con-
situtiOnaI-Dccisions Of the Court
Case in the Court Of Claims.
BUREAU or THE SENTINEL,

w <ACIll M AJ4Ns ~ ~ -fAttANii .''
At-crney-GenaraI smith and John W.
Kern, representing the state of Indiana.
filed a motion today i'm the supreme court
to advance the railroad tax cases. They
asked that the case he heard next week.
alleging that unless the case was not
speedily disposed of many complications
would result The state, counties and
cities and townships needed money. a
new assessment would soon be made and
taxes become delinquent. Justice jack
son is sick and White has not taken his
seat Chief-Justice Fuller asked the at
torney-general whether he would be sat
isfed to have the case set for the frsJ
Monday in April. by which time there
would be a full bench. Mr.. Smith re-
piled that he desired to have the case
disposed of before that time.
$. O. Pickens and William Kctcham for
the railroads asked that the case be not
argued until fun bench could be Sc
cured The court then took the matter
under advisement. promising to decide to-
morrow whether 10 hear the case before
April. Ii is doubtful whether a fun
bench can now be secured in April or at
any other time. Justice Jackson is a
very sick man. Justice Field is very
feeble on account of age and two other
justices are affected the same way
The trouble with the supreme court is
the extreme age of some Of its mem
bers. There ought to he a law compell-
ing members to retire after they have
! arrived at seventy or before that age.
The New York fish law, which the SUI
preme court held constitutional today, Is
| of interest to Indiana as almost an iden-
teal law was enacted two years ago.
This law authorizes the contiscauon OF
nets for fishing purposes and allows no
| fishing except with hook
The constitutionality Of the tide
water laws of the state of Ore
gon was affirmed by the supreme
court in passing upon the suit OIL
Charles w ShiVely. plaintiff i'm error
against John @. \. Bowlby and w. w
! Parker. which was a contest over WhdIl-
| ing privileges on the Columbia river at
| Astoria Justice Gray affirmed the de-
cision of the supreme court of oregon
| and asserted that when lands are grant
! ed under general land laws, bordering on
/ naVigable waters. no rights to land undef
the water are given and such rights de-
| pend upon local laws. Congress never
| acted on the policy that tide water lands
! held them for public purposes under reg
ulations which the states might make.
| The decision of the Kansas court in
| the case Of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas
/ railroad company. appellant in error, vs..
| Roberts was reversed in an opinion by
Justice Field. This was a suit for eject
| ment. one of the principal questions be-
! ing whether lands occupied by the Usage
| Indians We're included i'm the grants, the
| court holding that they come under the
! reservations in the grant.
( The solcitor-general submitted mo-
| tions TO advance the two important cases
| of the United States against the trans
| Missouri freight association and the
! Union Pacific railway company and the
| Western Union telegraph company for
/ an early hearing.
| The stuffy room of the supreme court
| was crowded beyond its capacity with
! people. who expected TO witness the in
| stallation of a new justice. Within the
| railing sat several senatorial colleagues
| of Senator White. who had not learned of
] his decision to remain in the senate for
| time. Most Of the spectators beyond
| the railing were ladies, whose costumes
! were becoming and lent a touch of un-
| Wonted color to the court room. There
was much disappointment manifested on
| their faces when the justices filed into
! court. but seven in number Senator
| White failing to appear, and Justice
Jackson. who is in Florida for his health,
| being also absent
| The court of claims today rendered a
! decision on the claim of Charles H. Arm
| strong and 15S others for $40, 500 The
! decision was against the claimants Ir
| appeared from the record in the case
| that the claim was for expenses incurred
| and paid for services for labor furnished
| in 1868 in fortifying the city Of Pitts
| burg, Pa. against the threatened at
| tack of Gen. Lees army on its Gettys-
! burg campaign.
For number of years the case oscillate1
| between the war and treasury depart
| ments, and at last. on May %, 1890, it
| was filed in the court of claims The
| principal ground upon which the peti-
| tion Of the claimants is dismissed is
| that the court has no jurisdiction in the
| case, the six years within which claims
| under the law are permitted to be filed
| having long since expired.