The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-10
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
Case Affecting the status of Porte
Rico Not Decided.

Rico Not Decided.
The Supreme Court reassembled yester-
day after fortnights recess. and estab-
lished a record for the year disposing Of
thirty-eight cases By opinion. The court
will not Go anything that may seem to al
feet the Porto Riean situation Ia Congress.
Although Il has the application OF Ramon
Baez for release from prison. where he Ia
serving out a thirty days sentence. I'M
posed BY the provisional court OF Porto
Rico. no decision was announced yester-
day. although Bsez's sentence Will expire
next week. Counsel for the petitioner were
greatly disappointed at the nou-aetion Of
the court
The court decided that the courts have
no supervisory power over executive de-
partments in the natter Ct discharging en-
ployes. even though the person discharged
be an honorably discharged soldier. Nor
ris Keim, an old soldier. passed the eiYh
service examination on May :. 1SSs. and
was appointed a clerk. On July 81. 1924. he
was discharged By the Secretary OF the IL
terror. upon the recOmme ndation Of Mr.
LOchren. Commissioner q Pensions for al
legged iucompetcncy. The Court OF Claims
refused to give Klein Judgment for money
] he claimed to be due him for services he
was not allowed. but was willing to per-
Z form. and he appealed Reviewing the
+ facts. Justice Brewer said;
I We are asked 20 decide whether The courts may
I supervise the action Of head % department IN
! Gisctarging one Of tie clerks therein. u has
been repeatedly adiudged that ike courts have no
I general supervising power over the proceedings
and action q the various administrative depart
mcuts Of Government.
In the absenec of specific provision 10 tie con
trafy the power Of removal is incident to tie
| power Of appointment
Mr.. Justice white handed down an opin-
/ ion in the l0ng-pendiHg case OF the Louis
| willie and Nashville Railroad Company vs..
/ Smith. The case involves the liability OF
I the Louisville and Nashville company for
| the interest on the bonds OF the Cumber-
| land and Ohio Railroad Company which
/ came into the possession Of the Louisville
and Nashville company through the seqni-
/ sition by the latter company OF the Gu
/ einnati and Lexington road. The case was
decided against the Louisville and Nash
/ vile. the court declaring that there was 40
| violation Of the Constitution in holding the
company responsible on the ground that the
I Louisville and Nashville had voluntarily
made itself a party to the case. and hold
| ing it responsible on the original proceed
! ing. which was against the Cincinnati and
/ Lexington company
| The State OF Kentucky prosecuted the
/ firm Of Block & Co. distillers, Of ksntOn
| County. 10 recover taxes alleged to be due
upon whisky held By them in the United
States bonded warehouses. In the course
OF the proceedings David y. Couning0re.
Collector OF Internal Revenue for that dis
trict. was subDoeHaed. and asked il the
firm did not make reports to him OF the
amount OF liquors they stored in the ware
house. and II those reports were not In his
possession. He answered Yes but when
ordered to produce the reports. declined to
do so, pleading in defence Of his refusal the
regulations Of the Secretary Of the Treas
ury that records CT the collectors Of in
ternal revenue we're in their custody and
control for purposes connected with the
revenue Of the United States and for moth
ing else This was not deemed sufficient by
the State court. and he was committed to
the custody Of the sheriff as in contempt OF
court.
On the collectors appealing to the Dis
triet Court OF the United States for re-
lease on a writ OF habeas corpus. he was
discharged. The State authorities appealed
to the Supreme Court and the district
judge was supported by its decision yes
terday. The regulations Of the Secretary
of the Treasury. Justice Harlan said, were
proper and reasonable.