St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-05-27
CnICAGO'S LAKE FRONT.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD WINS
ITS GREAT CASE
IN THE U. s. SUPREME COURT.

Merz.l - 5,-ius.
~ ssu5ss4rs'G -r
A Favorable Decision for the State
Of Indiana, Against the Big
Four and Other Railroad Tax
Cases-The Government Wins
an Opium and Chinese Case
Other Important Cases.
zic!3f1- g.s5,'-1 .f--i-,'n
WASHINGTON, May 26..-The case of
The United STATES VS., The Illinois Cen
trail Railroad. known as, the lake front
| case, was decided by the supreme court
in favor of the railroad, Justice Field
delivering the opinion. Justices Brewer
and Brown dlssented, holding that the
| United States retained the same inter-
est in tire property as an individual who
had granted property for certain Oh
| Ject. and might apply to the court after
ward for decree to prevent its diver
sion from the purpose. The case was
another phase of the lake front lItiga-
ton, the most important feature having
been decided heretofore.
| The supreme court today decided in
favor of the state of Indiana in the Big
Four and other railroad tax cases. 1t
was held that the assessment of railroad
! property by state board of tax COM
mlSSlonerS was open to no constitutional
objection, and the supreme court sus-
tanned the Indiana court justices Har-
Ian and Brown dissented.
The case of The United States
against the Steamship Haytien Repub-
| lie, which was libeled first in the Dis
| trict of Washington and later in the
district of Oregon for
| SM JUGGLING OPIUM
| and Chinese. was decided in favor of
the government. 1t was contended by
the steamship owners that since the
vessel had been libeled in Washington
! and was released unuer bond for it's
value, it could not be again libeled
| while the first case was pending. They
also claimed that the second charges,
involving the same nature of otfense as
the first, were practically the same
| OfenSe in the matter Of libeling the
vessel. Justice White gave the opinion.
| The suit brought by the International
| d Great Northern Railroad company
against the attorney general of Texas
and railroad commissioners was passed
| upon in favor Of the road The court
held that it was not within the province
| vi tilC StulC icy ioldttIc 10
| rates. and that they could not constitu-
tinnally be fixed by the commissioners.
| and on another point sustained the con-
tention Of the railroad cumpany+Aat the
| rates fixed were unreasonable.
The case of The Covington d Gin
| cinnati Bridge ComLany against The
| Commonwealth of Kentucky was de-
cided by the court in favor of the bridge
company. Judge Brown in his opinion
held that the toll bridge was an instru-
ment OF interstate commerce. and that
the legislature of Kentucky acting
alone had no right to change the rate of
tolls, as it had tempted 10 do.
- The decision of the
MINNESOTA cOUBTs
against the claims of Frederick Prem
tce to valuable lands in Duluth now
occupied by the Northern Pacific and
other railroads was affirmed on the
ground that the old 1nulan+title under
which Prentice claimed the property
was not SPECIFIC in covering the land in
question. -
| III the case of Primrose VS.. The West
ern Union Telegraph Company Justice
Gray reatfirmed the principle that a
telegraph company was not subject to
damages for a mistake III cipher dis.
;pateb transmitted Oil. a blank contain
from damages. .s>s,4 ~. 80 4. i
. Probably the most Int eresting decision
was one involving the standing of the
Interstate commerce commission. in
which the court oYerrtlled decision by
the present secretary of state, although
Justices Fuller, Brewer and jackson
disSented.
The appeal brought up for review a
Judgment rendered Dec: 7, 1882, by the
United States circuit court for the
Northern district of Illinois in the case
son, j. S. Keefe. and w. r. Sterling,
| declaring section IL of the interstate
commerce act to be unconstitutional.
The parties named, officers OF the
company. appeared as witnesses before
! the commission. were ordered to pro-
| duce their books, refused to do so under
advice of counsel, and the commission
appealed to the court to compel them.
Judge Gresham decided that $50 much
/ of section II as authorizes or requires
| the courts to use their process in aid of
| inquiries before the interstate COM
| merce commission is unconstitutional
| and void"
| JUSTICE HARLAN DISCUSSED
at length the scope ana purposes of the
act. The Judicial power of the United
| States, he said, extends to all cases ariS-
| ing under the constitution or laws of the
United States, and the circuit courts of
the United States are capable OF eXer-
clsing their power in cases of that char
acter under the restrictions prescribed
| by congress. The fundamental question
he held to he whether the proceeding
| was a ''caSe' within the meaning of the
constitution. The circuit court had adj
| judged it not to he ease" The court
below had held that in The act prescribed
penalty for refusal to testify such pro-
ceedlng would constitute case, while
d civil proceeding authorized by con-
| greSS to compel witness 10 testify
would not be case of which cogni-
Zance could be taken by any court.
This Interpretation of the constitution
would restrict the employment of
means to carry into effect powers grant
limits than i'll our Judgment is warrant
ed by that Instrument said Justice
Harlan. The test of the power
of congress was not the judg-
ment of courts that particular means
were not the best could have been
employed 10 accomplish. an end. but
whether the means were unconstitu-
| tlOnal. There could be no doubt of
the power of congress to authorize the
commission to summon persons and
papers relating to any matter which
might De legally committed to that
body for investigations, The appellees
deny the right of the government to
authorize the commission to make them
testify. and power to decide the dispute
must rest somewhere. 1t could not he
that the government was helpless in
such all emergency.