The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-05-25

the railroad company, which was paid.
Henry Wolf, another dealer, paid the same
freight rates and also paid for his haul
ing, the distance being nearly as great as
Mr. Bruening's goods were hauled Com
plant was made that the ARRANGEMENT
was in violation of section of the inter
state commerce act, prohibiting rebates,
drawbacks etc. and first the circuit court
and to-day the supreme court sustained
this contention
In the case of L. e. Parsons, late dis
trict attorney for the northern district
OF Alabama. appealed from the court of
Claims Justice Peckham handed down the
decision of the court. The decision was
adverse to Parsons claim that he was en-
titled, under section 769 of the Revised
Statutes, TO hold his Office for four years,
Notwithstanding the Presidents order of
removal. Justice Peckham said that,
while the appointment was for four years,
II might be terminated earlier at the dis
cretlon OF the President. The Judgment
OF the court of claims was affirmed The
determination of this case has been look
ed forward to with interest because of its
possible effect upon the removal of Office
holders incident to the change of admin
istration. Parsons was removed from the
once OF United States district attorney
IN Alabama in 1893, having been appointed
Tor a term of four years; he holding that
the President had no right to remove him
Iought the case through the various fed
eral courts on this theory losing in the
lower court, as he did to-day in the su-
preme court.
Parsons has, however. not been in pos
session of the Office during the contest
On the day that he was removed Emmett
y Nell was appointed 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.
Justice Peckham, in delivering the opin-
ION, quoted many precedents from the de-
pate in the constitutional convention
from the impeachment trial of President
Johnson, and many court decisions to
snow that the Presidents power of re-
moving officers without giving any rea-
sons had never been successfully uues-
toned There was no necessity. he said
FOR provision for removal from office at
pleasure when the statute was enacted
1t is held, because the President was then
regarded as being clothed with
such power. The tenure of Of
nee act limited this power. but
in 1869 that act was modified bv pro-
Hdlng that appointees should hold office
Tor their term, unless removed with the
advice and consent of the Senate. or A
successor appointed with the consent of
the Senate. In 1887. this was repealed
and the supreme court holds that officers
appointed under the original statute are
not entitled to hold for four years as
against any power of the President 10
remove and in no event can they remain
in office longer than that period without
being reappointed.
A number of other cases were decided.
several of them involving the titles to large
tracts of land in the west
The case of Blythe, agent of Hinckley.
involving the estate of the late Millionaire
Blythe of California. was dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. The effect is to leave
the property in possession of Mrs Hinck-
ley, daughter of the millionaire.
In the case of the city of New Orleans.
appellants, against the Citizens Bank of
Louisiana, the court found that the de-
cree OF the circuit court of the eastern dis
trict of Louisiana was partly erroneous
and reversed it. Instructions were given
that a decree be entered, enforcing the
non-liability of the bank to taxation on
its capital stock and building and on a fax
on its shareholders, accompanied with a
legal obligation on the bank to nav the
tax; rejecting the claim of the bank to
non-liability of its shareholders for taxa
ton, without prejudice to the rights of the
shareholders to resist an assessment for
taxation unaccompanied by an obligation
on the bank to pay; rejecting the claim of
the bank to non-liability to taxation on the
property acquired by it under foreclosure
of mortgage without prejudice to state and
municipal authorities to claim and license
tax.
This case involved the Louisiana law
that taxes the capital stock of a bank. the
taxes to be paid by the bank, which might
collect them of the shareholders.