The morning times., 1896-10-27

involved in a case pending in the Supreme
Court of the United States, wherein the
United States yesterday asked leave To
file brief, because Of its concern in
tie questions presented. The title of the
case is the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad
Company VS.. Robert Mingus, and IL comes
from the supreme couIt of the Territory
Of New Mexico.
The litigation was over the title of
tract Of land situated within the limits OF
tfat part of the grant originally made IN
1866 10 the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad
Company, and declared to be forfeited to
tie United states by the act Of 1856, be
cause tie read cotcrminOus herewith had
not been contributed in accordance with
the conditions OF the grant. The supreme
court of the Territory affirmed MinguS'
title to the land, and the railroad com
pauy appealed tu the Supreme Court of
the United States.
THE POINTS INVOLVED.
1t is claimed by the railroad that by
an act passed in 1871 Congress expressly
authorized tie company to mortgage the
land grant. and that having been done
Congress could not forfeit the land, at
least until alter the time when that mort
gage became due, which time has not yet
arrived.
Mr. Joseph II. Call, assistant counsel for
the United States, in his brief states that
the land IN question comprises all that
part or the grant lying between Isleta
Junction and Springfield, Mo, and be-
tween the Colorado RIVER and the Pacific
ocean forty out of the fifty millions of
acres contained IN tie original grant.
If the claims of the railroad company
should be sustained, all of the patents
issued by the United States and entries
allowed 10 settlers Tor parts of such lands
since 1856 would tie nullificd. He con
tends that tie forfeiture act must be up
leld and TIE judgment of the Territorial
court III favor Of M!ngus' title affirmed.
The appeal of the United States from the
judgment Of the court of claims, in favor
of Charles &. Gil!iat, administrator, etc,
for S;i5, $40. upona French spoliation claim,
WAS dismissed iii the Supreme Court of the
United States yesterday.
DECISION Is FINAL.
Mr.. Justice Peckham i'll the opinion on
| the motion to dismiss said that Congress
| clearly intended that the decision of the
court of Claims in these cases should be
| final, and that the Secretary OF the Treas
| ury should pay upon receipt OF the Ger
! tificate provided for in the act rcferr.. :
those claims to that court.
a certificate of division Of opinion be
| tween the judges of the circuit court for
the Southern district Of New York in a
! Justice upon the authority of the case nf
the United States against Ri;.r, dc, id:d
| at the last term of court.
| Henry Hewicker was indicted March
| 10, 1896, for murder Committed on an
American slip in the harbor Of Havana,
January II, 1892 Upon tie trial Of the
| case Hewickcr pleaded the statutes of
| Limitations. Upon this plea Circuit Judge
Lacombc and District Judge Brown divided,
| and NJ the request Of the United States
| the question at issue was certified to the
Supreme Court or the United States.
| The chief justice announced that under
! the act of 1891 the Supreme Court could
not thus obtain jurisdiction Of criminal
case and dismi ssed tie certificates.
| IMPORTANT CUSTOMS DECISIONS.
The government Contention in the some
| what famous case of SalionStall, col
| lector of the port of Boston, Mass, VS.
| Birtwell, WIS overthrown by the ceCision
| OF the Supreme Court yesterday, and i'm
porters, who have paid customs dues under
| similar conditions to those obtaining in
| this case, will now be enabled TO recover
! them from the Treasury 10 a sum total
| OF several millions of dollars
| Birtwell, an importer of Boston, sued the
collector for the recovery of dues paid.
/ prOtcstof which was not made at thctiInc of
| payment. The government contcrded that
| in the absence of protest at the time the
| money was paid, tie right Of recovery was
lost. The circuit court for Massachusetts
| and the Courtof appeals for the first circuit,
| suCceSsively, ruled against the Unit
| States. and Mr. Justice ShiraS, announcing
the iudg:.ient of the Supreme Court. said
il took the same view of the question as
did the courts below, anu affirmed their
judgments.
l. WAS held that effective protest might
be made at any time within ten days after
| the final adjudication and assessment oi
the duties.
This was the second hearing Of the case
in the Supreme Court of the United States
| and Chief Justice Fuller stated that him
self and Justices Field. Harlan ard Brewer
| disSented from the ma jorily of the court