The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-03-20

plaintiff in error required them TO buy OF
it. exclusively from il and from no other
source or buy exclusively from plaintiff in
error and not to sell to any person handling
competing oils, or to hdy exclusively from
plaintiff in error and to sell at price fixed
by it. The statutes he continued. "must
be considered in reference to these con-
tracts. In any other aspect they are not
subject to our review on this record, except
the power of the State court to restrict
their regulation to local commerce upon
which contention is raised
Justice McKenna said the propositions
raised by the State Courts had been broad
ly discussed, and many considerations
transcending them had been presented re-
lating to grievances, which do not enter
into the case as affecting the oil company.
The court felt constrained to confine itself
to this particular grievance. Stating this
grievance, he said it was that the statutes
of Texas limit its right to make contracts
and take away the liberty assured by the
fourteenth amendment to the Constitution
of the United States. Beside. 1t was as
serted that the statutes made many dis
ordinations between persons and classes
did not feel called upon to pass The oil
company is a foreign corporation. and its
right to contract in the State of Texas
was the only subject OF inquiry On this
point the opinion held that 1.-THE State pre-
scribes the purposes Of corporation and
the means of executing these purposes"
In this case the oil company could not
claim an exemption from the principle ION
the ground that the permit of the company
was a contract inviolable against subse-
quent legislation by the State The stat
ute of 1889 was a condition on the plaintiff
in error within the power of the State to
impose, and, whatever it's limitations were
upon the power of contracting. whatever
its determinations were, they became con-
ditions of the permit and were accepted
with it. The statute was not repealed by
the act of 1896. The only substantial addi-
tion made by the latter act was to exclude
from its provisions organizations of labor
ers for the purpose of maintaining a stand
ard of wages"
Further. as TO the act of 1895, Justice Nc
Kenna said: ''It is either constitutional or
| unconstitutional. If it is constitutional
the plaintiff in error has no legal cause to
complain of ii. If unconstitutional 1t does
not affect the act of 1882 and that, as we
have seen. imposes valid conditions on the
plaintiff in error. and their violation SUBJ
jected its permit to do business in the
State to forfeiture" Justice Harlan dis
sented from the opinion.
Justice Gray rendered an opinion In the
case of John r. Laidley VS.. C. p Hunt
ington, involving title to part of the town
site of the town of Huntington, w. Va.
| The Circuit Court for West Virginia de-
cided that it had no jurisdiction In the case,
but to-day's opinion reverses this decision
! and sends the case back to the Circuit
Court for further proceedings.
| The court denied the petition of the
| Westinghouse Airbrake Company for a
| writ of certiorari I'm its suit against the
| New York Airbrako Company. The case
| was originally instituted by the Westing-
house Company, all, ging violation on the
| part os the New V rlc somDa.,y of the
| Westinghouse patents. The decision of the
Court of Appeals for the Second circuit
was opposed to the prayer of the Westing-
house Company and the effect of to-day
action is to refuse to review that decision.
| Chief Justice Fuller handed down an
| opinion in the claim of Commander John
| N. Quackenbush, of the United States
| navy, to recover pay for services from
| 1888 to 1897 The case involves a complica-
| ted story of effort at dismissal and at re-
| instatement to rank in the navy. The
court held that Quackenbush was not en-
| titled to back pay and also that the United
| States could not recover money paid him.
| Quackenbush was succeeded as commander
| in 1874 by Admiral Schley.