The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-22
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Opinions Rendered i'm Land Claim
Anfi-Trusf md Other Cases.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21.-Justice Brown
handed down the opinion of the United
States Supreme Court to-day IN the case
of Elizabeth Wetzel and others against the
Minnesota Railway and Transfer Company.
involving title to 100 acres of land within
the limits of the city of st. Paul. The land
in controversy was located on land war
rant issued in 1347 to Mrs. Wetzel and
minor children as the widow and heirs Of
a man named Remsen, who served in the
Mexican war. This warrant was sold to a
man named Taylor who located the land
1t appears, however, that when Mrs.
Wetzel, then Mrs. Remsen, made the
sale of the warrant she did not
have the consent of orphans court
to dispose of interest of her children. 1t
appearing, however, that the title of
present owners had not been attached un-
til forty years after the transfer was
made the court held that ii was now too
late to attack it. Justice Brown said that
when the transfer was first made the land
involved was not worth to exceed $500, but
that now. being covered with buildings and
other improvements, it was valued at not
less than a million dollars The purchas-
ers from Taylor had bought under his pat
ent from the government and the court,
and especially because of the laches of the
heirs, the title should not be disturbed. The
case was appealed from the Circuit Court
of Appeals for the Eighth circuit. The de-
csion of that court was against Mrs. Wet
eel and its opinion was affirmed by to-day's
decision.
In the case of William G. Rice and
others, under indictment in Texas for vio-
lating the antitrust law OF that State, the
United States Supreme Court to-day held
that the Federal Circuit Court had inter-
fered in granting writ of habeas corpus
when no proper ex1gency arose Tor such in
terTerence and therefore reversed the de-
ciSOn, remanding the prisoners to the GUS
tody of the state officials. The court did
not enter on the merits of the antitrust
law. Grice and others engaged as agents
for the Standard Oil Company were in
dicted in McLennon county Texas on the
charge of conspiracy against the antitrust
law, and he appealed TO the Federal Cir
cult Court for a writ Of habeas corpus be-
fore his trial. In deciding the case Justice
Peckham said that while the Circuit Court
has jurisdiction in cases such as this, never
theleSs circuit courts ought not to exer-
else that ju isdiction by the discharge OF
prisoner unless in cases of peculiar urg-
they should leave prisoners to be dealt with
by the courts of the State, and that after
q hnal determination of the case by the
State court the federal courts will even then
generally leave the petitioner to his rem
edy by writ of error from this court"
The court proceeds to say that the juris-
diction is an exceedingly delicate one for
the federal courts and should not be en-
couraged unless in most exceptional cases.
After reviewing the case at some length
the justice adds: This whole case is
clearly nothing but attempt TO obtain
the interference of a court of the United
States when no extraordinary or peculiar
circumstances exist in favor OF such inter-
ference. Upon the facts we think no suf-
ficient case was made out for the exercise
of jurisdiction. We come to this decision r-
respective of the question of the validity Of
the state statute and without passing upon
the same expressing any opinion in re-
gard thereto" He adds that IL Grices APP
peal had been after conviction a different
question would have been presented, but
that under tho circumstances no other
course than that taken possible, and
hence the merits of the state law cannot be
entered upon. Directions were given there
fore for the setting aside OF the habeas
corpus and the order discharging the pris-
oner and TO enter an order remandng the
prisoner TO the custody of the state Off
cials The effect of the decision is TO re-
quire the completion OF action by the state
courts before the intervention Of the federal
courts.
In deciding the case of Charles II. Bar
rett VS. the United States to-day Chief JUS
tice Fuller held that there were not two
judicial districts in the State of South Caro-
lima but only one district of two divisions.
The point arose over an exception In Bar
rett's case to the effect that whereas the