The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-05-25


Texas Railroad Company and W. the Flor
Ida & Western Company This decision is
construed to mean that the interstate COM
merce commission has no power 70 pass
upon rates before they are put into effect.
In the Cincinnati. New Orleans & Texas
case, various railroads were concerned and
The case was originally Instituted by the
freight bureaus of Chicago and tae c!nCll-
natl Chamber OF Commerce. The question
involved was whether congress intended 10
carfs- upon the interstate commerce com
mission power TO Tx rates. The opinion
WAS rendered by Justice Brewer. The gist
OF the opinion IS found in the following
paragraph:
Under the interstate commerce set the
commission has no power ID prescribe tho
tariff o. rates which shall control in the
future and therefore cannot invoke judg-
msnt in the ulanaamas courts TO force any
such 'arid by ii prescribed
Continuing. Justice Brewer asked: Has
the commission no function TO perform IN
Respect % matters Of ratese"
Replying TO his own question, ne said:
"Lnquestiona IL has. and most impor-
tant duties IN respect 70 this matter. Ii -
charged with the general duty OF Inauir-
ing as TO the management OF the business
OF railroad companies and has the riSht
10 compel full and complete Information
as to the manner in which said companies
are transactsng their business. And with
this informa tton Ii Is charged with the
duty Of seeing that there is 10 violation or
the long and short haul clause; tnat there
Is no discrimination between indiyiduai
shippers. and that nothing IS done by re-
bate or otherwise TO give preference 20 one
against another: that no UNDUE preference
Is given to one place against another. nut
in all things that &c uaiity or right which
is the great purpose OF the interstate coH-
merce act shall be secured 10 shippers
Justice Peckham handed down en- opin-
ion in the case Of L. <. Parsons, late dis
trict attorney for the northern district of
Alabama, appealed from the court OF
claims. The decision was adverse to Par
sons claim that he was entitled, under Sec
tion s69 of the revised statutes TO hold OF
fee four years. Notwithstanding the presi-
dent order of removal. Justice Peckham
said that while the appointment was for
four years. 1t might be terminated earlier
at the discretion of the president The
Judgment of the court of claims was az
firmed.
The determination OF this case has been
looked forward TO with interest because
Of its possible effect upon the removal
of officeholders incident to the change or
administration. Parsons was removed
from the office OF United States district
attorney in Alabama in 1898. having been
appointed in 1880. He wrote a letter TO
the president refusing to surrender the
place on the ground that as he had been
appointed for term OF four years. the
president had no right to remove him De-
fore the expiration or that time. he has
fought the case through the various Fed
erai courts ON this theory, losing In the
lower courts, as he did today in the SUI
preme court. Parsons has. however, not
been in possession Of the Office during the
contest On the day he was removed
Emmett OfNeill was appointed 10 succeed
him. and to him Parsons surrendered the
Office after an order was issued to him
by the circuit court to do so.
The court affirmed the decision OF the
court below in the case OF c. s. Wright, of
Pittsburg. charged with violation of that
portion of the interstate commerce law
prohibiting discrimination Wright grant
ed rebates on beer to pay for irawage.
This action was held 20 be IL violation of
the law.
The case of Blythe VS.. Hinckicy. involv-
ing thu estate of the late millionaire
Blythe. OF California, was dismissed for
wtnt of Jurisdiction. The effect is to leave
the property In possession of Mrs. Hlnck-
ley, q daughter OF the millionaire.
Several important eases were decided by
the court on appeal from the court OF pri-
yate land claims. One OF these. In which
the opinion was rendered by Chief Justice
Fuller involved title TO the San Miguel
Del Bado land grant including $4,000 acres
In Now Mexico Two cases were included
in the decision. one being an appeal by the
United StateS vs.. JuitdU tAe
other an appeal by Levi +. Morton VIZ. the
United States.
The original petition was fled In the
case OF Sandoval and subsequently an
ether was introduced by Morton, who
asked for confirmation as successor TO
one Lorenzo. Both claim that Marquee
took the title 10 the entire grant. as the
old 81 were named in the grant. The
court of private land claims held that un
81. @F
tees were rendered certain. and dismissed
the petitions of Morton. confirming the
grant in the name OF Marquee. and all
other persons who might have settled on
the land prior to 1sis- The contention on
behalf OF tho United States Is that the
land court had no power to confirm lands
not allotted prior to the date of the treaty
because, under the laws OF Spain and
Mexico all such lands remained in the
government and passed 10 the United
States. The supreme court held that 4
the date OF the treaty Of Guadalupe Hi
daigo neither the settlers nor the town
on the grant could have demanded the
legal title 10 such lands from the former
government. and that the court OF private
land claims was not empowered 10 pass
The title 10 either rsFnarking that il was
for the political department 10 deal With
the equitable rights involved. The de-
cree In the Morton cstv~ ~-~~ .t-~r' r'.@
affirmed while that In the sandovai case
was reversed
The court affirmed tho decision % the
court or private lard claims IL the ga $50
OF the Chama Spanish land grant. Ia
vaivins title 10 ~ 80 acres IN Rio Ariba
county. New Mexico. The decision below
vas favorable To the Conteation OF the
government. and is sustained.
The supreme court refused n reverse
The decision Of the United SiageS circuit
court az appeais for the eighth circuit in
the ease % Daniel II. Camfe'd -. the
United States and william Drury. which
charged them with enclosing IL fences
~ n,o acres of the public domain in Colo
raao They acre ordered 30 remove the
ferre i,1t refused 10 Obey tae order. II
appears they purchased odd sections az
land from the Union Pacific railroad COM
pany and in enclosing their land prac-
tioally fenced government land IS well
Decisions ~ the court eslcw acre ssaiDst
the claimants. Justice Brown held them
valid.
TIE supreme court ir1 an op.nlon by
Justice Brown reversed the opinion OF the
court 81 private land claims ia the case
q jed Parker Whitley vs. United States.
involving tttsa IN Canada &c Cosri,i B@r-
natnlo county. New Mexico. containing
lfa ns8 acres DsslcuIey tn dealing wffh
the - So was found Is tine fact that there
was doubt as 20 the Iosstfon o. The north
and w'ets boundaries. The coE1r- decided
yhe hosti3g % the cuurr below ~ the
rsrfAs.rt boundary nEe was correct. tgsss
that Il - western boundary was not.
On this account s7a case wss reversed.
Most Excellent.