New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-05-25
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
DUTIES OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
COMMISSION DEFINED.
THE PRESIDENTS POWER OF REMOVAL AT
FIRMED-soME IMPORTANT LAND
GRANT CASES DECIDED

FrRMED-soME IMPORTANT LAND
GRANT CASES DECIDED
| Washington May 24-After rendering maj oec'-
| sions In thirty-six cases and giving at'e""o" ~
other business incident to the last sitting OF '"e
| term the United States Supreme Court ad)ourneu
| to-day until next October. When the court crier
| announced the final adjournment TOT the u.'
| there were apparently $50 cases on the ooeNe'
undisposed of but there were actuaiiy "o' e"'.''
twenty-onc ha wing already been argued ana suo-
mitted This Is n smaller number than the rccoI"S
of the Court have shown for thirty years Az inc
| close of the term a year ago there were @'S caSe'
undisposed OF, and since then 2sf have peeh "a"eu,
making a total of Sl1 contained In the uoche' ,o'
| the year or this number ~ have been many u'S
| posed Of and the principal work done III '"e"''
| one others. Included IN the twenty-ohe c"se.
/ argued but In which no opinion has been rendered.
| are several CT considerable importance. Among
| them are the Nebraska maximum rreis". '
| case, the controversy between the Boyneh io"e'
Brake and Westinghouse Air Brake companies az
10 the validity Of the latter's invention, the Aa-
bama Midland case involving the validity Vi .no
long short haul clause OF the Interstate COM
merce act; the Southern Pacific land case ana t"o
| or three important private land grant cases
| Tic Cour. decided two to-day, holding that
| the United States Interstate Commerce Commission
has no power TO prescribe rates on railroads winch
may control In the future. The cases were tnose
| OF the Commission against the Cincinnati New
| Orleans and Texas Pacific Railroad Company anu
| the Florida and Western Company
| In the Cincinnati, New-Orleans ana leAas IA
cifc case various railroads were concerned. ana Tue
| case was originally Instituted by the Ire's"' "
| reaus Of Chicago and the Cincinnati ChaHper vi
! Cor,mcrce The question involved was whether
| Congress intended to confer upon the Interstate
| Commerce Commission power to fix rates. i"e
opinion was rendered by Justice Brewer The gis'
of the opinion is found In the following paragraph
| Under the Interstate Commerce act Inc oo'".
| mission has no power 10 prescribe the 'ariH Oh
rates which shall control in the future, ana mere
| fore cannot invoke a judgment in mandamus from
! tho courts TO enforce any such tarin by IL
| prescribed"
| Continuing Justice Brewer asked: HAS the
| Commission functions to perform IN respeo. "
the matter Of rates?" Replying to his own question
| be said. Enthusiastically 1t has, and most I'M
| por,ant duties In respect to this matter IL Is
| charged with the general duty OF nqu'ring as 70
| the management Of the business OF railroad COM
| panies and has tho right 10 compel fuli ana COM
| pcte Information 20 the manner IN "hich suci,
| companies are transactng their business ana
with this information II IL charged with inc du'y
of seeing that there is no violation OF the iohs anu
short haul clause that there Is no discrimination
| between individual shippers. and that nothiEg i
done by rebate or otherwise to give preference 70
| one against another that no undue preference -
given to one place against another. but that In all
|
| purpose Of the Interstate Commerce act shah DC
| secured TO shippers
| The opinion rendered on questions ceruned
nv the United States Circuit Court OF Appeals lot
| the With Circuit There was no prepared opinion
in the Florida case the conclusions being inc same
as in the above. Justice Harlan dissented IN Doth
| cases.
| The Court affirmed the decision OF the court be-
| low in the case OF c. S. Wright. OF Pittsburs
charged with violation Of the portion OF the In
| terstate Commerce law prohibiting discrimination
Wright granted rebates on beer TO pay for drayage
This action was held TO be in violation OF the law
| Justice Peckham handed down the opinion OF tho
| Court In the case OF L. r. Parsons. late District
| Attorney for the Northern District OF Aiaoafnh
| appealed from the Court Of Claims. The decision
| was averse TO Parsonss claim that he was entitled
| under Section 10 OF the Revised Statutes to held
his office for four years. Notwithstanding the Pres
| ident's order of removal. Justice Peckham sa,h
| that while the appointment for four years. II
might be terminated earlier at the discretion OF the
| President. The Judgment OF the Court OF CLAIMS
| was affirmed The determination Of this case mas
been looked forward with interest because OF ts
possible effect the removal OF oricehoioers III
| cdcnt 10 the change Of Administration
| The questions whether the statutes relating 10
| National banks prohibit them from purchasing or
| subscribing to the stock OF another corporation
| and whether the want of authority can be urged
| by the bauk TO defeat attempt to enforce
against 1t the liability OF stockholder were passed
on in the of the Cafornia Nationa! Ba Bank
holds that a National bank has right to dea! In
stocks although II may accept them MS securities,
IN nS t ease II like H he P, one in question
| Several important cases were decided Oh appeatt
these. In which the opinion was rendered by MEL
Justice Fuller. involved the title to the San Miguel
land grant including $1,000 acres in New Mexico;
Two cases were included In one DECISION, one al
0ron ass fnq the ne ned at The Original
petition was filed in the case by Sandovai. ana SUD
who asked for confirmation "a successor TO one 10.
rcnzo The Supreme Court held that at the date OF
the treaty OF Guadalupe Hldago neither the set
tiers nor the town on the grant could have de-
manded the legal title 10 such lands or inc foTne,
Goyernmen ana mat ,nr io ,n p o, the title TO
either The de In the Morton case was there
fore affirmed. while that In the SandoVai case was
Another case tnvoytng the Interstate commerce
law WAS That Of F. ~ parso1s Nh p po aS
Iowa shipper sued FOR 81 $50 account OF alleged
IN re n9n On GGrn
The court in the Judgment given by Justice Brewer
clded in favor of the railroad company.
The Of Blythe against iiinSkey, involving
tn ne esS wes o. e %If for wan Of The
effect is to leave the property In the possession of
Hncey f.nTh nr Of nf nEans James
Reed. involving the ability Of the United states
ns Ter5 nna SiSnc one or c pnc States at
York decided favorably 10 Reed
Mcr gGGs,on a p National Bank
| OF Pittsburg against the CoinmonWeaith OF f"nh-
t on gOI in Respect TO the Of
The Court denied the petitions for rehcaring IN
Company against wilkins and others. and Of sen
tell against the New Orleans and Carrollton Rail
road Company The latter case was the one in
~, SO s,;.sl The world contains nc