The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-05-25
i nann ', CLAIMS ArriR vpnl "
TWO REYERsESD.
BANKS MUST NOT DEAL IN STOCKS
Right Of the President to Remove
Omceholders Affirmed In the
Parsons Case.

parently $50 cases on the docket undis-
posed of, but there were actually 359
cases, 81 having already been argued
and submitted This is {, smaller num-
Der than the records of the court have
shown for thirty years. At the con-
clusion of the term ending a year ago,
there were 533 cases undisposed Of,
and since then 2S4 have been added,
making total Of S17 contained in
the docket for the year. OF this num-
Der 437 have been finally disposed of
and the principal labor done in 81 9TH
ers.
Included In the twenty-one cases
which have bene argued, but in which
no opinions have been rendered, are
several of considerable Importance.
Among them are: The Nebraska max
imum freight rate case; the controversy
between the hayden Power Brake and
the Westinghouse Air Brake companies
as to the validity Of the latter's in
vention; the Alabama Midland case, in
volving the validity of the long and
short-haul clause of the interstate COM
merce acts; the Southern Pacific land
case, and two or three important pri-
vate land grant cases.
Among the decisions handed down
today were findings in several impor-
tant actions 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 Miguel Del Bado land grant,
including $4,000 acres of land in New
Mexico. Two cases were. included in
one decision, one of these being an APP
peal in the United States VS.. Julias
Sandoval, and the other an appeal by
Hon. Levi P. Morton VS., the United
States. The court held that at the
date Of the treaty of Guadalupe Hi
dalgo, neither the settlers nor the town
on the grant could have demanded the
legal title of such lands of the former
government, and that the court of pri-
vate land claims was not empowered
to pass the title to either, remarking
that 1t was for the political department
to deal with the equitable rights in
volved. The decision in the Morton
case was therefore affirmed, while that
In the Sandoval case was reversed.
The supreme court in another case
affirmed the decision Of the court Of
private land claims Involving title to
472. 563 acres in Rio Ariba county, New
Mexico. The decision of the court Of
private lands was favorable to the
contention of the government and the
opinion Is sustained. The supreme court
refused to reverse the decision of the
United States circuit court of appeals,
for the Eighth circuit, in the case of
Daniel H. Camfield, VS.. the United
States. Camfield and one William H.
Drury were charged with enclosing,
with fence. 10000 acres Of the public
domain in Colorado. They were or
dered to remove the fence, but con-
tested the order. 1t appears that they
had purchased odd sections of the land
enclosed from the Union Pacific Rail-
road company, and in enclosing their
land, had practically fenced the gov
eminent land as well. The decisions
of the courts below were against the
claims. Justice Brown held them valid.
The court, in an opinion by Justice
Brown, reversed the opinion of the
court Of private land claims in
Joel Parker Whitney against the Unit
ed States, involving title to the Can
adam Decochiti, in Bernallio county,
New Mexico, containing 100000 acres
The difficulty in dealing with the case
was found in the fact that there was
doubt as to the location of the north
and west boundaries. The court de-
cided the holding of the court below,
as to the northern bounary line, was
correct, but that the western boundary
was not. It was on this account that
the case was reversed. The reversal
was on a comparatively unimportanr
point, and the 100000 acre tract is ma
terially reduced by the decision.
RIGHTS OF BANKS.
The questions whether the statutes
relating to national banks prohibit
them from purchasing or subscribing
to the stock Of another corpora ton or
whether the want of authority can be
urged by the bank to defeat an at
tempt to enforce against it the liability
of stakeholder, were passed on by
the supreme court in the case of the
California National bank, plaintiff in
error, versus Nat Kennedy. 1t was
shown that the California National
bank, of San Diego, held $50 shares OF
stock Of the California Savings bank,
the former having suspended on Nov.
IL, 1891, and the latter, Dec. 80, 1891.
The superior court Of San Diego county
held that the national bank was re-
sponsible to the creditors Of the saw
ings bank to the amount of $1S,5O7, the
former making the defense indicated
above. The court holds that national
bank has no right to deal in stocks.
although it may accept them as securi-
ties, and that 1t may plead its want
of power in defense in the case like
the one at present. The transaction in
the stock Of the savings bank is held
to have been void, and the judgment
Of the supreme court of California
against the national bank is reversed.
Justice Peckham handed down the
opinion Of the court In the case Of L.
E. Parsons, the district attorney for the
northern district of Alabama, appealed
from the court of claims. The decision
was adverse to Parsons claim that he
was entitled, under section 769 of the
revised statutes, to hold his office for
four years, Notwithstanding the presi-
dents order of removal. Justice Peck
ham said that, while the appointment
was for four years, 1t might be termi-
mated earlier at the discretion Of the
president. The judgment Of the court
of claims was affirmed.
The determination Of this case has
been looked forward to with interest
because Of its possible effect upon the
removal Of office-holders; incident to
the change Of administration. Parsons
was removed from the office Of United
States district attorney tn7 Alabama in
1893, having been appointed in 1890. He
wrote 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 ex.
piration 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 removed, Emmett O'NeH was APP
pointed to succeed him, and to him Par