Evening star., 1900-12-24
Court Lacked Jurisdiction.

Court Lacked Jurisdiction.
The court refused for want of jurisdiction
to take cognizanee of the habeas corpus
case Of the state of Arkansas agt. Chas.
A. M. Schlerholz. coming to this court on
appeal from the district court for the east
ern district of Arkansas. Schlierholz was
an agent for the government in the some
What famous contention between the In
terror Department. and citizens Of Arkan-
sas over the inspection and ownership of
timber alleged to have been cut from gov
ernment land in that state, some of which
was seized by him.
He was arrested for this act by the state
authorities. and being taken into custody,
he applied to the federal court for writ
of habeas corpus. This was granted and
Schlierholz discharged from custody. The
state appealed to the supreme court. This
court. held that the only appeal was to the
circuit court of appeals, and therefore dis
missed the case
Liability of a Municipality.
An opinion was rendered In the case Of
Robert w. Workman against the city Of
New York. The case involved the liability
of the city for damage done by the fireboat
New Yorker to the British barkentine Lin
da Park during a fire at wharf in the
East river in 1893 The district court held
the city liable, and the circuit court of ap-
peals for the second district reversed that
judgment.
The opinion of the Supreme Court was &C.
1vered by Justice White, and sustained
the District court, which held the city liable
on the ground that the accident to the
British steamer was due to the negligence
of the men on the freboat.
L nthe course of his opinion Justice White
said there was no doubt that uder the
New York state court decision municipal
lty Is not liable for damages inflicted by its
servants In such emergency as that of
fire, but he held that whatever the course
of the state courts the rule could not be
applied In an admiralty proceeding
1T results, he said, that in the mariti-
time law the public nature of the service
upon which vessel is engaged at the time
fords no immunity from liability in a court
Of admiralty, where the court has jurisdic-
ton. This being so, it follows that as the
municipal corporation of the city of New
YORK. unlike sovereign, subject to
the jurisdiction of the court, the claimed
exemption from liability asserted in the
case because of the public nature Of the
business upon which the boat was engaged,
was without foundation in the maritime
law, and therefore afforded no reason for
denying DEGREES in a court of admiralty for
the wrong which the courts below both
round to have been committed"
justices Gray, Brewer. Shras and Peck
nam united in a dissenting opinion, which
was read by Justice Gray. The opinion
was based on the theory, which Justice
Gray declared had become well establis he'd
that no private suit can be maintained
against city because of the negligence
or one of Its servants in time of emergency
like fire. Theq held that the duty of eX-
tinguishing fire in the harbor of a city
Is as pressing as that of extinguishng in
the city, and hence that the case was SUBJ
Ject to decision under municipal rather
than admiralty to. law.
The case was No. l on the Supreme Court
docket. and it has been before the court
since 1895.