Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1897-05-26
MAY MAKE REMOVALS.
Federal Appointees Not Neces-
sariIy Entitled to Serve
Out Their Terms.


Washington, D. c., May 2i.-I +sa
Supreme court today Justice P A..ehau
handed down the opinion of tb rs,nrt in
the case of L. e. Parsons, ,.tx, aist,.;ct
attorney for the norther ,s;S+r;c4 of
Alabama, appealed fror- NJ, .o,,r+ of
claims. The decision u,oS ~od, arse 70
Parsons claim that - 800 o,,+;+Iod nm.
der section 100 of f ' $3.50 +at1,tas 70
hold his Office fC e., 49, ,,o+v1r;+b,
sIanuins rne residents order of re-
nova. Iustr e Peckham said that
W ny appointment was for four
, ears - light be terminated earlier at
; ;nd VS. elton of the President. The
s IS mt OF the court of claims was af-
Ae determination of this case has been
AZ liked forward to with interest because
IF its possible effect upon the removal
of o4tice-holders incident TO the change
of adminiStra ton. Parsons was removed
from the Office of United States district
attorney in Alabama in 1893, having been
appointed in 1890. He wrote a letter to
the President refusing 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 today in the
Supreme court, Parsons has, however.
not been in possession of the office during
the contest On the day that he was re-
moved Emmett O'Neil was appointed to
succeed him. and to him Parsons sur
| rendered the Office after an order was IS
sued to him by the circuit court to do so.
He prosecuted the case on another basis
from that time.
Commerce Commission Decisions.
The Supreme court affirmed decision
of the court below in the case Of Z. >.
Wright of Pittsburg, Pa, charged with
violation of the portion of the inter
state commerce law prohibiting diScrlml-
nation Wright granted rebates on beer
to pay for drayage. This action was
held to be in violation of the law.
The United States Supreme court also
decided two cases holding that the
United States interstate commerce COM
on railroads which it might control i'll
the future. The cases were those of the
commission VS.. the Cincinnati and New
Orleans Railroad company and the Flor
ida & Western company.
The decision of the court is construed
to mean that the interstate commerce
commission has no power TO pass upon
rates before they are put into effect.
In regard to the Cincinnati, New Or
leans & Texas case, various railroads
were concerned and the case was 0rlSl-
nally instituted by the freight bureaus of
Chicago and the Cincinnati chamber of
commerce. The question involved was
whether Congress intended TO confer
upon the Interstate commerce commission
power to fix rates. The opinion was rem
dered by Justice Brewer. The gist of the
opinion is found in the following para
graph:
Under the interstate commerce act the
tariff of rates which shall control in the fu-
ture and therefore cannot invoke u judg-
ment in mandamus from the courts TO force
any such tariff by it prescribed.
Continuing, Justice Brewer asked:
HAS the commission no function to per-
form in respect to matter of rates?'
Replying to his own question, he said:
PROFESSIONALLY it has and most impor-
tant duties in respect to this matter. 1t is
charged with the general duty of inquiring
as to the management of the business of
railroad companies and has the right to com
| pei full and complete information as to the
| manner in which such companies are trans
acting their business. And with this infor-
nation it is charged with the duty of seeing
that there is no violation of the long and
short haul clause; that there is no discrimi-
nation between individual shippers and that
nothing is done by rebate or otherwise to
give preference to one against another; that
no undue preference is given TO one place
against another, but that in all things that
equality of right which is the great purpose
of interstate commerce act shall be secured
to shippers.
Several important cases were decided
in the United States Supreme court to-
day on appeal from the court of private
land claims One of these in which the
opinion was rendered by Chief Justice
Fuller involved the title to the San Migu-
ell Gel Bado land grant, including 315,-
600 acres Of land in New Mexico.
Two cases were included in one de-
cision, one of these being an appeal by
the United States VS.. Julian Sandoval,
and the other an appeal by Levi P. Nor
ton VS.. the United States. The decision
in the latter cases were favorable to
Morton and in the former in favor of
Sandoval, and therefore against the Unit
ed States in both instances.
The Supreme court today affirmed the
decision of the court of private land
claims in the case of Chama Spanish
land grant involving title to 472, 1853 acres
in Rio Ariba county, New Mexico The
decision of the court of private lands was
favorable to the contention of the gov
eminent and the opinion is sustained.
The expected decision of the Supreme
court in what is known as the Nebraska
maximum freight rate case was not rem
dered today and as the court adjourned
for the term a decision cannot be an
nounced before next autumn.