The record-union., 1897-05-25
Involving Title to a Large Tract in
New Mexico.
A Decision Rendered in the Case of
L. E. Parsons, Removed From the
Office of United States District
Attorney for the Northern District
of Alabama, Being Adverse to
Parsons Claim-Other Decisions.

ish land grant involving the title to
421, ,I63 acres in Rio Ariba County, N.
NJ. The decision of the Court of Pri-
vate Land Claims was favorable to the
contention of the Government, and is
sustained.
The Supreme Court refused to reverse
the decision of the United States Cir
cult Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit in the case of Daniel H. Cam
field VS.. the United States. Camfeld
and William Drury We're charged with
inclosing in a fence 10000 acres of pub
lie domain in Colorado. They We're or
dered to remove the fence, but refused
to obey the order.
1t appears they purchased odd sec
tiOns of land from the Union Pacific
Railroad Company. and inclosing their
land, practically fenced the Govern
ment land as WELL The decisions of the
court below were against the claims.
Justice Brown held them valid.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by
Justice Brown reversed the opinion OF
the Court of Private Land Claims in
the case of Joel Parker Whitney VS..
the United States, involving the title
to Gambia de Cochiti, Bernalillo County,
n. NJ, containing 10000 acres.
The difficulty in dealing with the case
was found in the fact that there was
doubt as to the location of the north
and west boundaries. The court decid
ed holding that the court below as to
the northern boundary line was correct,
but as to the western boundary it was
not. 1t was on this account that the
case was reversed. The reversal was
comparatively unimportant in point,
and the tract is materially reduced by
the decision.
PARSONS REMOVAL LEGAL.
The Supreme Court to-day. through
Justice Peckham, handed down an
opinion in the case of L. E. Parsons,
late District Attorney of the Northern
District of Alabama, appealed from the
decision of the Court of Claims. The
decision was adverse to Parsons claim
that he was entitled, under Section 169
of the Revised Statutes, to hold office
for four years notwithstanding the
Presidents order of removal.
Justice Peckham said that while the
appointment was for four years it
might be terminated earlier at the dis
erection of the President The judgment
Of the Court of Claims was affirmed.
The determination of this case has
been looked forward to with interest
because of its possible effect upon the
removal of office holders incident to the
change of administration. Parsons
was removed from the office of United
States District Attorney in Alabama in
1898, having been appointed in 1890.
He wrote a letter to the President re-
fusing to surrender the place on the
ground that as he had been appointed
for a term of four years, the President
had no right to remove him before the
expiration of that time He has fought
the case through the various Federal
Courts on this theory, losing in the
lower courts, as he did to-day in the
Supreme Court. Parsons has, however,
not been in possession of the office
during the contest. On the day he was
removed, Emmett O'Neil was appoint
ed to succeed him, and to him Parsons
surrendered the office, after an order
was issued to him by the Circuit Court
to do so. He prosecuted the case on
another basis from that time.
POWERS OF INTERSTATE COM
MERGE COMMISSION.
The court decided two other cases to-
day. holding that the United States In
terstate Commerce Commission has no
power to prescribe rates on railroads
which may operate in the future The
cases were those of the Commission VS.
the Cincinnati and New Orleans Rail-
road Company and the Florida and
Western Company.
This decision is construed to mean
that the Interstate Commerce Com
mission has no power to pass upon
rates before they are put into effect.
In the Cincinnati, New Orleans and
Texas case, various railroads were con-
cerned. and the case was originally in
stituted by the freight bureaus of Chi
cago and the Cincinnati Chamber of
Commerce. The question involved
was whether Congress intended to con-
fer upon the Interstate Commerce Com
mission power to fix rates. The opin-
ion was rendered by Justice Brewer.
The gist of the opinion is found in the
following paragraph:
Under the Interstate Commerce Act
the commission has no power to pre-
scribe the tariff of rates which shall
control in the future, and therefore
cannot invoke judgment in the man
damus courts to force any such tariff
by it prescribed.
Continuing, Justice Brewer asked:
"Has the commission no function to
perform in respect to matter of rates?''
Replying to his own question, he said:
'Unquestionably it has, and most i'm
portant duties in respect to this mat
ter. 1t is charged with the general
duty of inquiring as to the manage
ment of the business of railroad com
panies, and has the right to compel full
and complete information as to the
manner in which the said companies
are transacting their business And
with this information it is charged with
the duty of seeing that there is no vi
olation of the long and short haul
clause: that there is no discrimination
between individual shippers, and that
nothing is done by rebate or otherwise
to give preference to one against an