The Indianapolis journal., 1896-03-24

could exercise the function Of pardoning.
He contended that the constitutional pro-
vision was intended as much for the purpose
or preventing the infamy and disgrace man
might bring on himself by discriminating
himself while on the witness stand as for his
protection against prosecution. He contend
ed that the law in question did not abrogate
the Constitution: First. because the statute
could not abrogate or in any respect dmin-
ish the protection conferred by the consti-
tutional amendment, and. second. because
the statute does not purport 10 abrogate the
offense. but only provides protection against
any to pnns FSr II and
said he, cannot be thus dealt with. They
must stand as the Constitution has described
them. They cannot be set aside and re-
placed by something else on the ground that
the substitute will probably answer the same
purpose. The citizen is entitled to the very
thing which the language OF the Consul
tuition assures him."
In rendering an opinion in the case OF
Gen. David Stanley and others VS.. Mary A.
Schwalby and others. Justice Gray took oc-
casion to reprimand the Court OF Civil APP
peals for the Fourth supreme judicial dis
trict Of Texas and to assert in very flrm
tones the dignity and jurisdiction Of the
United States Court in cases involving the
interests Of the government. The case in
the title to lot IN the san b1
Mrs. Schwalby a deed made TO her father,
in 1860, fifteen years before this land was in
not recorded until 1889 The original suit
was brought against General Stanley. who
was the custodian of the reservation in the
District Court for Bexar county, and the
United States was brought into the
contrary to the rule that the United States
cannot be sued in State court. The case
went through the Supreme Court. where
the decision was in favor of Mrs. Schwalby.
In the United States Supreme Court the de-
eision was reversed and the case remanded.
court and this time appealed from that
court to the Court of Appeals. Here the
United States was continued a party 70 the
suit, Notwithstanding the direction OF the
United States Supreme Court The decision
was for Mrs Schwalby and the costs were
taxed against the national government.
Furthermore. the court refused an abplica-
ton of the United States for rehearing
and 1t was only possible TO get the case
into the Supreme Court by a mandatory Or
der der from Justice ,n White who 10 PresideS over
tice Gray recited all these facts in his opin-
ion to-day and said it was necessary for
the Supreme Court in such cases to assert
and maintain Its jurisdiction and authority
he intimated that more summary methods
might be pursued, but said the court would
content itself with judgment reversing the
| manding the case. but this time with or
ders to dismiss the case as TO the United
United States and enter judgment in favor
of the individual defendants.
Chief Justice Fuller announced to-day that
the pension case of Judge Long, which has
once been argued, had been restored to the
docket for argument before the full bench
| OF the Supreme Court, and that 1t would be
heard on the second Monday of the next
term after the other cases already set for
| The case of Wong Kim Ark, to test the
citizenship of a person born in this country
OF Chinese parents. was set for the same
The Chief Justice announced that on Thurs
day, April z, the court would take recess
until Monday, April l3, and that the call of
the docket for the present term would be
suspended on May s. The court will adjourn
finally for the term May 25.