Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-05-25

Alabama IN 1855. having been appointed III
1880. lie wrote a letter TO the President
refusing TO surrender the place, on the
ground that AS he had been appo.nleu
for a term OF four years. the iresideht
had no right 10 remove him before tne
expiration OF that time. lie has iought
the case through the various Fedefal
courts on this theory losing in the lower
courts. as he did to-day In the supreme
Court.
Parsons has. however, not been in pos
session OF the office during the contest.
On the day that he was removed tmint,
O'Ncil was appointed 20 succeed MN, anI
to him Parsons surrendered the Once
after an order was issued 70 nm Dy thS
Circuit Court 80 Go so. lie pi0secutcu
the case on another basis from thnt uilt'
Justice PeclSham. in delivering w
opinion quoted many precedents ron
the constitutional convention. IRON th'
impeachment trial OF President Johnson
and many other cases. TO show that tne
Presidents power Of removing oihCcis
without giving any reasons hau AcNct
been successfully questioned. Ihere was
no necessity he said Tor a provision lot
removal from office at pleasure when the
statute was enacted. because the Presl-
dent was then regarded as being ciotnel
with such power The tenure or once
act limited this power but IN lS69 that
act was modified by providing that APP
pointees should hold Office Tor thelr
terms. unless removed with the ADVICE
and consent Of the Senate or a successor
appointed. with the advice and consent
OF the Senate In 1857 this was repealed
and the Sugrerne Court holds that oii-
GERS appointed under the original sta
tute are not entitled TO hold LOT IouT
years. as against any power OF the
President TO remove. and in no event cam
thcv remain i'm Office longer than that
period without being reappointed.
a number OF other cases were Geciued,
several Of them involving the titles TO
large tracts Of land In the West.
BLYTHE CASE
The case Of Blythe against Hlnckley,
involving the estate Of the late mllon-
aire Blythe. OF California. was dismissed
for want Of Jurisdiction. The effect is 10
leave tho property i'm the possession or
Mrs. Hinckicy, daughter or the mlliloh-
aire.
In the case Of the city OF New Orleans,
appellants. against the Citizens Bank,
of Louisiana. the court found that the
decree OF the Circuit Court for the East
crn District of Louisiana was partly er-
rOncOus. and reversed IL. Instructions were
given that O. decree be entered eniOTc-
ing the nOu-liability of the bank TO taxa
tiOn on its capital stock and building,
and to tax on its shareholders, accom-
Danicd with "a legal Obligation on the
bank to pay the tax; rejecting the claim
OF the bank 10 nOn-liabiiity OF It's snare
holders for taxation. without prejudice
20 the rights of the shareholders to re-
Sist an assessment for taxation. unac-
cOmpanied by an obligation on the bank
10 pay. and rejecting the claim of the
bank 10 non-liablity TO taxation on pro-
perty acquired by il under foreclosure
OF mortgage without prejudice to the
right of state and municipal authorities
TO claim license tax.
This case involved the Louisiana law
that the shares Of capital stock of a
bank should be assessed at their value.
as shown by the books of the bank. the
taxes TO be paid by the bank. which
might collect them of the shareholders.