Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1896-12-01
MUST PAY AND co TO JAIL
Supreme Court So Decides in
Chapman's Case
IN THE SUGAR TRUST DEAL
Which Cam Scout /" the Tariff Fight in
" 1893.
HAvE5ssfER AND SEARLEs COME uExT
.,
Ot Important Decisions Among Them
~ Question of the Constitutionality
of the Alabama Insur-
ance Law.
| IN THE SUGAR TRUST DEAL
iE1,SfER AND SEARLES COME next

Washington, Nov. 30.-By its unani-
nous decision today, announced by Chief
Justice Fuller, the supreme court of the
United States practically affirmed the
judgment of the court of appeals of the
District of Columbia, in the case of Ell
verton r. Chapman, the stock broker,
who declined to answer certain questions
propounded by the senate committee in
vestigating the famous sugar trust ru-
mors in connection with the consldera-
tion of the tariff bill in 1898. The effect
of the decision is that Mr.. Chapman
must surrender himself to serve the term
Of imprisonment of thirty days adjudged
against him upon conviction in the dis
trict court, and pay fine of 500. A
collateral effect is that Messrs Have
meyer and Scales of the sugar trust, and
Messrs. Edwards and Shriver, newspaper
correspondents, who also declined to an
swer the questions propounded by the
senate committee, will have to submit
themselves for trial in the district court
upon indictments similar to that in the
Chapman case.
There yet remains to Chapman how
ever the right to apply for his release,
after he shall have been placed in the
custody of the marshal, under the SEN.
tence of the district court upon writ Of
habeas corpus and the whole case will
then come up for review. He may file
his petition in the district court, but
inasmuch as that court has already prac-
tically decided against him, he will be
more likely to go to the supreme court
of the United States direct, with an orgi-
nal edtct. A number of cases were dis
posed of the supreme court today.
Among them were the following:
The claim Of w. A. Wright comptroller
of Georgia, against the Central Railroad
and Banking company, of that state. for
certain taxes assessed against the rail-
road property for 1891, was sustained I'M
accordance with the Judgment Of the
supreme court of the state. The court
held that tax on the property of q rail-
road company may be q tax on its capi-
tai stock in some instances, 1t was not
such tax when the distribution between
the two wa made by the statute ss was
done In the charter of the railroad COM
pany in this case.
A decision adverse to the claims of the
New Orleans Water Works company was
rendered in the case of the company vs.
the city of New Orleans, sustaining the
action Of the circuit court for the eastern
district of Louisiana. The corporation
asked for a decree annullng licenses
granted by the council of New Orleans
to certain persons to lay water mains In
the streets of the city in violation of the
company's alleged exclusive right there
to, and also directing the council not to
issue such licenses in the future. Such
DEGREES, 1t was pointed out, even II grant
ed, would be imperative against persons
not brought into court.
The Citizens Bank of Louisiana
brought suit in the United States court
for the Western district of Louisiana to
prevent the sheriffs of certain parishes
of the state from seizing and selling prop
erty of the bank and the several parishes
for taxes alleged to be due. To give the
court jurisdiction of the case the bank
aggregated the various sums claimed to
be due, but this, the court said, could not
be done and dismissed the bill. The SUI
preme court of the United States said
that the view of the law was correct, but
reversed the judgment of the district
court for the reason OF not having juris-
diction, the lower court gave judgment
for costs and made certain allowances of
percentages to attorneys and others. Tho
cause was remanded without instruc-
| tions.
The constitutionallty Of the laws of
Alabama, regulating the conduct of in
surance business in the state. was sus-
| tanned by the decision of the supreme
| court Of the United States confirming
| the Judgment of the supreme court Of the
| state in the case of Noble e. Ware vs. s.
| M. Mitchell.