The times., 1898-12-13
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
several Dissenting Opinions {.
Those Handed Dawn.

several Dissenting Opinions to
Those Handed Dawn.
| Ihe supreme Court yesterday furnished
an unusual amount of entertainment To
the members of the bar who gathered to
hear the weekly announcement Of deci-
sions the three principal opinions Offering
opportunity for vigorous d.ssents. which
were set forth with as much detail az the
| opinions of the majority.
| Mr.. Justice Brown stated the opinion OF
the court in the case of the United States
vs. Charles Loughery ct al. suit to re-
cover the value Of timber cut by the de-
PENDANTS on certain lands in Michigan.
granted to the statesin 1856. in aid of GER
tain. railroads. the construction of which.
| within the period OF ten years was con-
cition of the grant. The roads were not
constructed and the right Of forfeiture of
the lands resulted in Congress in 1866. but
was not exercised until lSsa when the
| forfeiture act was passed.
| The timber was cut before that date
and afterwari the United States sought
| TO recover its value The court below
! found for the defendants on the ground
| that the United States had no title to tn.
| land at the time the timber was cut This
| view was also taken BY the Supreme
Court ard the judgment Of the court be-
'og sustained The dissent from this Opir-
| ion was made by Mr. Justice White. with
| whom Chief Justice Fuller and Mr.. JUS
| tiee Harlan concurred
In the case OF c. G. Blake ct al. vs. CAL
win McCiurg ct al. appealed from the Su-
prene Court of Tennessee, there was
| quite an elaborate discussion of the mean
ing and scope of the phrase in the Con-
stitution which forbds a State from de-
nying to the citizens OF other States the
privileges and inlmunities enjoyed BY It's
own- The case grew out of the enforce
rent of a statute OF Tennessee which gave
to the residents of that State preference
| in the distribution within the State of the
| assets of the corporation of another State
or foreign country doing business in Ten
nessee.
/ The plaintiffs, private citizens of Ohio
and a corporation of Virginia. who were
| creditors of a failed English mining conn
psny operating in Tennessee, attacked the
validity of the statute because II shut
| them out of share of the proceeds OF the
! estate until after the Tennessee citizens
| had been paid in full They contended
that this was in violation Of the second
| section of the fourth act of the four
/ teenth amendment to the Constitution
The court Justice Harlan said. had never
attempted to define the full scope OF the
| privileges ard immunlties clause. but ex-
| amfning the case at barFin the ESht or
| previous decisions. the court was OF the
opinion that the statute involved was n
! valid as far as IL attempted to. protect its
I citizens at the expense of citizens of other
J States also creditors of the defunct cor
| pora;ion. whose claims had accrued pur-
suant to lawful trafficwit h II.
| The court must be understood, he con-
I tIuued. as deciding that State must con-
! fer upon the Citizens of another state
/ every right and privilege enjoyed by us
own citizens under its laws. and he point
| ed out several things that State could
require OF citizens of other States not
asked of its own.
/ As to the virginia corporation how
/ ever. Justice Harlan said. it eOuld not
invoke the constitutional provision IN its
behalf The judgment Of the court 50
far as it affected the Ohio plaintiffs.
/ therefore. was reversed. and as to the
I Virginia corporation affirmed
Mr. Justice Brown dissented, being
/ Joined by Chief Justice Fuller, holding
that the statute was entirely WITHIN the
I competency of the State Legislature. and
/ that its provisions were not ci'fe-ent In
principle from other statutes, the cor
7 stitutionaiity and validity pf which We're
everywhere recognized and IN force IN all
Z the states. IL 10
between citizens of Tenn eSsee- and ether
States, but OF residents, which was an
entirely different class.
In the case of the village OK Norwood,
Hamilton County. Ohio. VS. Ellen K
Baker. 4 question involving the validity
of an assessment of benefits against
Baker for the opening of a street through
her land Justices Harlan and Brown
came into conflict. The damages in this
case amounted to s2,1lS. and the tereHts
amounting TO the same sum, w'.re as
sessed against Mrs Baker. Justice Har-
Ian said that this action eiuit not stand.
being in violation OF the rule recurring
that such benefits must be assessed
equally upon all the people benefited
Justice Brown. in dissenting, said that
the court had time and again lecIded that
| the matter of fixing the area of a taxing
/ district was the work of the Legislative
! powers and must not be disturbed ny the
courts That was all that had been done
in this case. Justices Gray and Shiras
joined in the dissent