The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-05-25
PIT ICE I;'S u y 81 9, j,

cents per 100 pounds between Cincinnati.
and Pittsburs. The Panhandle road had
n side track at Bruening's place OF busi-
ness. so that It could unload shipments
into his premises, while 1t cost him three
ana q half cents per hufdred pounds
TO haul the goods from the Baltimore
and Ohio station. re sec,ire the busi-
ness the Baltimore and Ohio made an
arrangement to deliver the goods to the
bruening warehouse, and nfterward
Bruening offered to do the hauling him
self for three md a half cents per httn-
dred. paving the railroad Is cents per
hundred FOR freight, and presenting Il
monthly bill for tltea and Il half cents
per hundred weight to the railroad conf
Dany, which was paid. Henry WOLFE an
other dealer, paid the same freight rates
and also paid for his hauling, the dis
tance being nearly as great as Mr.. Brueri-
lng's goods were hauled. Complaint
was made that the arrangement was in
violation OF section 9 or the Interstate
Commerce act, prohlbing rebates, draw,
backs. etc, and first Tie Circuit Court
and to-day the Supreme Court sustained
this contention. @
IN the ease OF l.. lI. Parsons late dis
trict attorney for the Northern district
or Alabama, appealed from the Court
or Claims. Justice Peckham handed
down the decision Of the court.
TENURE or OFFICE
The decision was adverse 10 Parsons
claim that he was entitled, under section
I69 or the revised statutes. to hold his
olllce Tor Tour years, Notwithstanding the
Presidents order OF removal, Justlca
Pecllham said that while the appoIrlt-
lnent was for four years It might be
terminated earlier, at the discretion OF
the President. The Judgment OF THE
Court OF Claims was affirmed.
The determination Of this case has
been lOOl{pl f0i.yvn ri n n i,,t 4 -,
cause Of It's possible effect upon The re-
moval Of Office holders incident to the
change OF administration. |#
PARSONS was removed from the office Of
United States district attorney in Ala
bamu In 1893. having been aDOointed In
1890. He wrote letter to the PRECEDENT.
refusing to surrender the place, OH the
ground that as he had been appointed
ior 4 term of four yenrs, the President
hnd no right to remove him before the
expiration or that time. He has fought
his case through the various Federal
courts on this theory losing in the lower
court, as he did to-day in the Supreme
Court.
QUOTED MANY PRECEDENTS.
Parsons has. however, not been in pos.
session OF the OttlceydtringHth the contest
On the day that he was removed f1fYlfhei
O'Nelll Wn5 O ppointed to, succeed, lfi11i
ss Ie1 issta SIT
HHl at teTS wa iSstfeG tS aIitE
by the Circuit Court fo.Io SO. a He ip1rrdses
cuted the case OH another basis from
that time. sll
Justice Pcckham. In delivering the
opinion. quoted many precedents from
the debates from the Constitutional Con-
vention, from the impeachment trial of
PRESIDENT Johnson and many court de-
cis!ons to show that the Preside en- t &
power Of renewing officers without Civ
ing any reasons had never been success
fully questioned. There was no necessi-
~, he said, for a 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
office act limited this power, but in 1865
| that act was modified by providing tina
appointees should hold office for their
terms unless removed with the advice
and consent OF the Senate or successo,
| appointed with the advice and consent
! Of the Senate. In 1887 this was repealed
and the Supreme Court held that officers
appointed under the original statute are
not entitled to hold for four years as
against any power of the President to
| remove and IN no event can they remain
| IN office longer than that period with
OUT being re-appointed.