The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-27
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Efforts of the state of Texas to Re.
cover x673,pOO Fail.

| cover s673.p0O Fail.
The effort OF the State OF Texas, prose
cuted by the then Attorney General, now
| United States Senator, c. A. Culberson
under the direction of the Governor, to re-
cover s67S,o00 from the Houston and Texas
| Central Railroad Company for loans from
| the school fund of the State prior to the
civil war and which the company claimed
to have paid, met with failure in the Su-
| preme Court yesterday The payments in
question were made by the company in
| Treasury warrants issued by the State I'M
| der authority of acts passed in 1865 and
| 1854
The State officials In 1895. the last Of the
| loans having been repaid in 1873, brought
| suit to recover the amount repaid in
| Treasury warrants. alleging that the pay
| ments were void having been made in
warrants that were issued in violation of
the provision of the Federal Constitution
that no State should emit bills of credit;
that they were in violation of the provi-
sion of the Texas Constitution which for
| babe the issue of warrants to circulate as
money. and that they We're issued in aid
of the rebellion and therefore illegal. The
State courts sustained the State officials in
all except the contention that the war
rants were issfsd in aid of the rebellion I;
but on review the Supreme Court, as an
nounced by Justice Shiras. found that the
warrants were not issued in violation OF
the Federal and State Constitutions, and
that the payments of the railroad company
in them were valid.
Mr.. Justice Brown, concurring in the
judgment Of the Court, dissented from that
part which said the warrants were not
bills of credit and used as money. But it
was too late now, he said. for the State to
repudiate them. To do so. in his estima-
ton, would be plain violation of public
faith. If the State could collrc' from the
defendant company the amount 1t had paid
on its loan in these warrants Justice
Brown said he could see no reason why the
State could not collect from all of its tax
payers the amounts they had severaliy
paid for taxes in them.
The same judgment was rendered in the
case of the Galveston, Harrisburg and San
Antonio Railroad Company from which
the State officials claimed SAT- $50.
The Court through Justice Shras. de-
cided the case of the Farmers Loan and
Trust Company VS.. the Lake Street Ele-
waited Railroad Company of Chicago. The
case involves the mortgage Indebtedness
of the railroad company, amounting TO
s7.I54,000 Justice Shiras held that the
State courts erred and accordingly their
judgment was reversed and the case re-
manded to the State Supreme Court for
further proceedings not inconsistent with
yesterdays opinion.
The petition of the American Sugar Re
fiDing Company for a writ OF certiorari to
the Court Of Appeals for the Second Cir
cult was granted. 1t will bring up for de-
termination whether the collector OF Gus
toms is obliged to assess q cargo of sugar
for duty according to the weight at the
date it was shipped or that on the date OF
its arrival at destination.
Chief Justice Fuller announced that the
Kansas City Stock Yards case and that Of
Mitchell Governor of Florida VS.. Furman
ct al, involving title to large tract of
land in that State. had been restored to
the docket for reargument next term.
In the matter OF ex Parte case OF Orange
Fuller, assignee CT Butler Bros. in the
Indian Territory rule was issued. re-
turnable April lG, requiring Judge Clay
ton, of the Central district, Indian Ter
ritory, to show cause why writ OF man
damus should not issue against him. Full
Ter charges that he has refused to enforce
the mandate Of the Supreme Court, based
upon decision affirming a judgment for
$500 in favor OF Butler Bros. against the
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Company. and
has ordered a new trial of the case upon
application OF the company