The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-02-16
MUST SERVE HIS TERM
SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED
AGAINST JOSEPH IL. DUNLOP.
Chicago Publisher to spend Two
Years i'm Prison for Printing Oh
scene Advertisements.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 15.-The Supreme
Court to-day decided the case of Joseph X.
Dunlop, of Chicago, charged with sending
obscene matter through the mails. The
verdict of the District Court. which was
against Dunlop, was affirmed. The opin-
ion vas delivered for the court by Justice
Brown. and there was dissent. Justice
Brown said that the law had been correctly
construed in Mr.. Dunlop's case, and that
no error had been committed in the judg
ment. Dunlop is the publisher of the Chi
cago Dispatch, and the matter sent through
the mails and charged TO be obscene was
published as advertising matter in that
paper. He was sentenced to two years i'm
prisonment in the court below, which SEN
tence the action of the Supreme Court to-
day has the effect of confirming.
The court decided all the exceptions to
the rulings Of the District Court against
Dunlop. Referring to one of these. adjur-
ing the jury TO the exercise of common
sense the court said: Their sound COM
mon sense brought to bear upon the con-
to rules laid down by the court is the most
valuable feature of the jury system and
has done more to preserve its popularity
than any apprehension that a bench of
judges will willfully misuse their power"
Referring to another exception. Justice
Brown said: 1T is not the charge given
by the court that was too broad. but the
&C instruction put on ii by counsel The al
legged obscene and indecent matter consisted
of advertisements by women soliciting
Offering inducements for the visits of men
to their rooms sometimes under the guise
OF baths and massage. and often for the
mere purpose of acquaintance. Ii was i'm,
this connection that the court charged the
jury that If the publications were such
were calculated to deprave the morals
they were within the statute There could
have been no possible misapprehension on
their part as to what was meant" Sum-
ming up. the court said: "On a careful con-
sideration of the record in this case are
OF opinion that there was no error of which
the defendant was justly entitled to COM
plain.
An opinion was handed down by Justice
Brown in the of the Atlantic & Pacific
Railroad Company VS.. Robert Mingus, ap-
pealed from the decision of the Supreme
Court of New Mexico. The case was an ac-
ton Of ejectment brought by the railroad
company to recover a parcel of land TO
which the company claimed title under its
grant of 1863 The decision of the New
Mexico court was against the railroad com
pany, and this decision was affirmed by the
Supreme Court to-day on the ground that
the grant had been forfeited. The case
Pacific grant by the completion of the
read up to that date. The effected part is
that that. portion of the grant from SepuPa in
and from Moiave to the Pacific ocean.
In the case of James NJ Deweese VS.
Jacob Reinhard and others (opinion by
Justice Brewery the court sustained the
contention of the State Of Nebraska i'm re-
gard to the validity of the State land grant
as against that of the Burlington Railroad
Company. Justice Brewer also read the
opinion of the court in the cases of the
United States VS.. the Winona az st. Peter
Railroad Company and the Winona & ST
VS.. the ST Paul & Sioux City Railroad
Company. involving the validity of the land
grants of these companies. The decisions
in the court below had all been in favor of
the companies and the Supreme Court af-
tirmed them all in one opinion. The court
In another opinion in a case involving
claims fled anterior to the company's
claims were valid.
The court, in opinion by Justice Peck
ham. reversed the decision of the District
Court for the Northern district of Iowa in
the case of Rufus +. Groves and gave in
structions for new trial. Groves was con-
victed of making false entries in reports in
regard to the condition of the Commercial
National Bank. of Dubuque of which he
was president.
In the case of John Chetwood. jr., of CAL
ifornia, the court decided to issue a writ of
error to the District Court of California
holding that the judge of the court has ex-
ceeded his jurisdiction in threatening ar
rest for contempt of court The case Is one
tional bank of San Francisco. and for a
time aroused considerable interest because
of the dispute to the respective rights
of jurisdiction of the State and federal
courts.
The court heard argument in the case
of the United States steamer Three Friends
the motion of the attorney general
for p certiorari to the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth district to bring the case to
the Supreme Court the steamer having
been libled for condemnation on the charge
of violating the neutrality laws controlling
the relations between the United States
and Spain. Attorney General Harmon
closed for the government. He said that
while the Cuban instruction had not
shown itself to be strong enough to war
rant tho recognition of beligerency, still
there had been sufficient recognition that
a state of war existed. 50 far formal
recognition was concerned he clair,ed that
the insurgents We're better off without il.
He closed with an appeal for an observ-
Gnce of the neutrality laws ard urged that
Congress had provided abundant means for
their enforcement. At the conclusion of
Mr.. HarmonS argument the court add
Journed without announcing any opinion
until the first Monday in March