The San Francisco call., 1895-10-16
JUDGE LONGS PENSION
His Suit Against the CommiS-
Sioner to Be Soon Finally
Determined.
CALIFORNIA; VARIED SUITS
Actions Against the Central Pacific
and the Irrigation Contro-
Versy in Order.

WASHINGTON, D. c., Oct 15.-The
Supreme Court to-day devoted the fore
noon hour of its session to hear
ing motions by attorneys chiefly to
advance cases on the docket for an
early hearing. Solicitor General Conrad,
on behalf of the United States,
made this motion in nine cases, the most
important being that of the United States,
ex rel. Judge Long of the Supreme Court
of Michigan, VS.. Commissioner Lochren,
to test the question whether or not pen
sion once fixed by Commissioner can be
changed by Commissioner subsequently
in Office.
Five of them were murder cases from
Texas and Arkansas. Another was the
case of Marie M. Schwalby VS.. Davis. s.
Stanley, brigadier-general, U. S. A, ct. al,
involving the title to part of the military
reservation in San Antonio, Tex.
Attorney w. l.. Ketchum Of Indiana
asked to have advanced the cases appealed
from the Supreme Court of that State in
volving the law for the taxation of telegraph
companies. The Western Union corpora
tion thinks the statute does not provide the
proper method of assessing property, but
majority of the States Supreme Court
decided against its views. A. II. Snow,
counsel for the telegraph company, was
present and united in the request of the
Attorney-General.
The irrigation law OF California is in
vol7ed in two cases, which Mr.. Hunting
ton for the law and Mr.. Choate against
the law moved to advance. Mr.. Choate
suggested that, inasmuch as the Supreme
0fG Go1iforpto HaI a. n ~ lo
constitutional, and Judge Ross of the
Federal court for the Southern District OF
the State had decided to the contrary,
the case was one for a full
bench of the Supreme Court of the
United States to hear and deter
mine. Messrs. Choate and Huntington
said that so far as they were informed,
General Harrison had not been engaged in
the case. AS to the amount involved, Mr.
Huntington said his information was that
not more than $2O,0O0,0O0 of bonds had
been authorized by the several irrigation
districts, and not half that amount was
issued.
On motion OF Mr.. Shellabarger three
cases 20 which the Washington and Idaho
Railroad Company and the Coeur d Alene
Railroad and Navigation Company are
arties were consolidated for hearing as
one case. The question they present is,
Which company under the act of 1870 has
the better claim to right of waY2
The cases of the State of California VS..
the Central and Southern Pacific Railroad
Company will be heard at an early day il
the wish of counsel is gratifed. When
case No. 2 was called, the Southern
Pacific Company in New Mexico VS.. LeofiIe
Equibel, Hubley Ashton of counsel for the
railroad company stated that it was de-
cided to pass the case until No.
361 was reached, which, he said,
involved the same question as to
the power of Congress to forfeit the
Texas and Pacific land grant. As this
case has been pending since September,
1889. at which time the record was filed,
and no brief has since been filed, the Chief
Justice directed that it be dismissed under
the nineteenth rule. which authorizes the
dismissal of cases in the second term at
which they are called for argument, coun-
sci then not being ready to proceed.