New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-01-04
SUPREME COTRT DECISIONS.
APPEAL OF A RAILROAD RIOTER DENIED
CASES POSTPONED TO BE HEARD
BENCH.


Washington. jar ain the Supreme Court OF
the United States to-day the appeal of George ID.
Grossly from the decision Of the Circuit Court Tor
the Northern District Of California. denying
writ Of habeas corpus. was dismissed Grossly
was one OF the railroad rioters in California In the
summer Of 1905. and was charged with being re-
sponsibe for the death Of an engineer, caused by
the throwing of a train from the track on trial
IN the State court he was found guilty and sem
fenced. II sought TO bring the case into the
United States courts the ground that the train
was a mail train bu, the Court held that there
was no statute under which the could have
been tried In the United States courts and that
the application for habeas corpus was properly
denied by the Circuit Court.
Practically all the cases on the docket involving
title TO private land grants in the Territory OF
Arizona were reassened to be heard on the first
Monday IN March. The application was made on
behalf of the claimants by James G. Carter, who
said II was their desire 70 have these cases heard
by a full bench. and especially TO have them de-
Iayed until Attorney General McKenna could take
his seat az a member of the court. This desire.
Mr. Carter said was due to the fact that Mr. Nc
Kenna IS from the Pacific Coast, and IS familiar
with the questions involved. The grants affected
are the Sonoita. ~ 900 acres: the AgondoneZ. a.
coo acres; the Csmoa 10000 acres the San Rafael
: del Vale. 1900 acres; the Babacomo-. $1,000
acres and the Calabasas or Tumocacor Mission
Grant. G2. 900 acres
chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion Of the
Court I'm the case OF the United States, appellants,
against Frederick s Passavant and others. In
reply TO the following questions certified from the
United States Circuit Cour, Of Appeals for the
lid Circuit:
First-In proceedings brought before the Board
of General Appraisers by protests under Section
II of the act OF June 10 1890 10 review the Col
4ctors decisions upon the entries In this case. had
tho Board Jurisdiction to inquire into and impcach
the dutable valuation reported 10 the Collector
by the appraiser. and upon which the Collector
assessed the rate of duty TO which the merchan-
disc was lawfully subject?
Second-If the first question is answered in the
affirmative was the German duty lawfully in
cluded by the appraiser IN his estimate Of dutable
value?
Both questions answered in the affirmative.
The article involved in the controversy was lot
of cotton velvets Imported into the United States
from Germany. where it had been in bond. The
German duty" referred 10 In the second question
mont on merchandise when sold by Its manufact-
nrers for consumption or sale IN the German mar
bond for expectation to foreign country this duty
is RENTED by the German Government and IS
called bonhcatiOn tax as distinguished from
beng refunded rebate.
Justice Peckham handed down the opinion OF
In p,,e9 s,atcs Circuit Court Of Appeals for The
and oihTs against Lore Afford and others. The
case involves The right of the State and county
T5eSG n G the GoyernnDn land grant to the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company and grew out
of
TO levy such a tax under the State law. The land
OF the railroad company was sold for taxes, and
tho receiver brought suit 10 set aside the saleS
IN the ground Of irregularity and invalidy. There
uaro six questions certified by the lower court, but
the supreme Court held that three OF them did
nor fail within the rules Of the court. The other
three questions 70 which the Court made reply
Firsf|Was il The purpose of Chapter 30 of the
lave of Dakota for iSU 10 exempt from taxation
Inc land grants of the Northern Pacific which are
our slde of rights Of way ana are not shown 20
he used IN IT'S business us "a common carrier
SrcOud-If such was the purpose of the act, was
the act void IN whole or In part as transgTcssing
the limitations placed upon the power OF the Terri
tOral LcgishtuTef
have been subject 10 taxation for 1SSs. were the
anncllans bv reason Of ~ the alleged irregli-
larifics or defects in the mode of assessment en-
titled 10 equitable relief without first Offering TO
pay the taxes properly chargeablc against said
The first ana third Of these questions were
swered in the affirmative, and the second was an
swered in the negative.
the decision Of the Tinted states Circuit Court
fnr me Western District of Texas ia the of
The Pcunsvlyana Mutual Life Insurance Company
against the city OF Austin. Tex The insurance
company sought 20 cnJOn tho city from the opera
ton of water works built by the corporation "A
c,muauV had "A prior contract to construct the
works The Court aid not 20 into thr merits OF the
case bat decided against tho company because OF
its lachos There had been effort II said 10
prevcui the construction Of the works to Inter-
fra with the city until they were In readiness
oueraton The court held that the effort then made
Was begun at too late date 10 become effective.