New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-02-22
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
NONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CASES ACTED
oN-ATToRNEY- GENERAL oRIoGsn
INTRODUCED.

Washington Feb. n.-Attorney General Griggs to-
day was presented to the United States Supreme
Court for the first time but not being member Of
the bar OF that court he first admitted to prac
ticc- This done motion Of Solicitor-Genera
( hards who said that Mr.. Griggs a member
Of the bar OF New-Jersey and otherwise qualified
under the rules of the court The solicitor-Genera
also presented Mr. Griggs TO the Court. The cere-
mony was brief and informal the Chief Justice
merely remarking that the Court was happy to meet
Mr.. Griggs.
The Court delivered an opinion in the case Of the
United States against Alexander Murphy Co. The
involved the construction Of the Tariff act OF
1850 in relation to worsteds Murphy Co. i'm
ported certain merchandise consisting OF women's
and chil1rens dress goods composed OF worsteds
The collector classified It and assessed It for duty
under Paragraph 995 of that law. the rate being II
cents yard and so per cent ad vslorem. The i'm
porters protested. claiming the merchandise to be
dutiabie at the rate OF 40 30 per ad vaorem
porters protested and Board Of Appraisers over
ruled the protest. The Circuit Court reversed this
Appeals for the I'D Circuit Thus both courts de-
cided in favor Of the importers for the lower rate
the Board Of Appraisers, making worsteds dutable
at the higher raIe The effect of the opinion is to
the hair OF the camel" etc.
case of Elizabeth Wetze and others against the
MINI ssota Railway and Transfer Company. invov
within the limits of St. Paul The land in
versy was located upon land warrant issued in
1S47 to Mrs Wetzel and minor children the widow
and heirs OF man named Remsen. who had served
man named Taylor. who located the land. Ii ap-
pears. however that when Mrs Wetzel. then Mrs
Remsen. sold the warrant she did not have the con-
sent OF an orphans court dispose OF the interest
OF her children II appearing, however. that the
title OF the present owner should not be attacked
until forty years after the transfer was made the
Court neld that II was now TOO late to attack II.
Justice Brown said that when the transfer was first
N
$500 but that now. being covered with buildings and
other improvements. 1t valued at not less than
Go00.cO. The purchasers from Taylor had bought
under his patent from the Government and the
especially because OF the laches OF the heirs the
title should not be disturbed. The case was APP
pealed from the Circuit Court OF Appeals for the
With Circuit. The decision OF that court was
by to-days decision.
In the of William Grice and others under
indictment in Texas for violating the Antitrust
law OF that State, the Court held that the Federal
habeas corpus when no proper exigency arose for
such interference, and therefore reversed the de-
cision and remanded the prisoners to the custody OF
tne STATE ofncals The Court did not discuss the
In Inc case or the Richmond and Allegheny Rail-
road company against the r. A. Patterson Com
Yany tne supreme Court, in opinion handed
pie Tor freight, even when shipped beyond its own
lines. when II accepted the freight without Sour
IN, ing. WAIVER from the shipper. The law was at
the Interstate Commerce law but the Jnstics saiS
II was merely state regulation. and a nroner 49,
~ making the new allotment OF Justices fba
70 the xth Circuit. He sucoseds Justice Fied ia
this circuit. ''ou LII