The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-11-12
EDISON IS GIVEN CREDIT
For Making a Merchantable
lncandescent Light
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
That August Tribuna, Says That Beans
are Vegetables
Cases Relating to Taxation and to HON estead
Rights Decided-The Chen Yuen
Sing Case Advanced


AssOCldlel TeSS special wire.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1.-THE case OF
the Winona and St. Peter land case VS..
the state of Minnesota, which was decid-
ed today by the United States supreme
court, involves the question whether tine
state has. in disregard Of the cors it tit n
OF the United States, passed any law i'm
pairing the obligation CT contracts refer
ring to law providing for back taxes on
land which have escaped taxation. The
decision was rendered by Justice Brewer
and held the law to be valid.
Justice Brown delivered the opinion in
the case of G. W. Patton OF al VS.. the
Onitei States, Constituting the tariff law
o. 1883 as to whether wool tops broken up
into artificial waste could BIZ adm tilted at
the rate of duty provided in the law for
WOODEN waste. He held that they could
net be and that they must pay the higher
duty provided on wool tops.
The court decided officially that beans
ara vegetables. The question arose in the
case OF Lyman Sonn and others against
the collector of tns port OF New York.
The plaintiffs sought to recover duties
paid on beans under the vegetable classi-
hcation. claiming that they should be
L
Ter Rad the opinion Of the court, holding
that as beans are regarced as vege,a ples
by common usage. they should be so con-
sidered by customs officials.
The Chen Yuen Silg case, involving
the Chiness exclusion act, was advanced
and set for argument on the first Monday
in March.
In the case of John d. SILVER vs.. the
United States, the United States supreme
court decided in ansopinion handed down
ny Justice Brown tnat lands entered un-
der the homestead laws are not by the
mere act of entry SO segregated from the
public do.haln as to gyie the homesteader
a ripht to sell tim Der from his entry ana
that IN doing so he renders himself liza
BILE to criminal prosecution.
The case OF the Consolidated Electric
Light company against the McKeesport
Light company involves the claims of
Sawyer and Mann and Thomas A. Edison
to priority in application of the principle
OF incandescent carbon conductors made
OF hbrous or textile substances to electric
lighting. In 1887 the plaintiff company
hled bill in the United States circuit
court OF the western district of Pennsyl-
vania for an injunction to prevent the
Mckeesport corporation from using the
Edison lights on the ground that they
were interfering with the Sawyer-Mann
patenr. Judge Bradley IN an opinion de
livered October 5, 1888, refused to grant
tne restraining order. Justice Bradley, in
his opinion in the lower court, which the
decsIon today artirms, said that Sawyer
and Mann followed wrong principle IN
their work. The great discovery, he de-
clared, was the adoption of hi gh resist
enoe in the conductor with small illu-
mfnating surface and corresponding
dlminution of the strength of the current.
The credit for this discovery he gave to
Edison.
Chief Justics Fuller handed down the
courts opinion on motion of the Bell
Telsph one coE pany to dismiss the suit of
the United States against that company
and Emil Berliner, involving the inven-
ton OF the speaking machine. The case
was appealed from the decision of the
citrcuit court Of appeals for the first cir
cult, and the motion to dismiss was based
on the ground that the act creating the
court OF appeals in providing that these
courts should have final jur' 'sdiction in
patent cases had deprived the supreme
court of jurisdiction. The motion to dis
miss was denied. The decision was
Lengthy, concluding as follows:
I'VE cannot i'm pute to congress the inten-
tion of narrowing the appellate Jurisdic-
ton OF this court in suit brought by the
United States as a sovereign in respect OF
alleged miscarriage in the exercise of one
OF its functions, as such, deeply concern
ing the public interests and not fall
ing within the jurisdiction of the sct."