The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-09
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
Another Delay I'm the Delaware
River Fishing Ca.e.

river ffsntnE Cuse.
The case of the State of New Jersey
against the State of Delaware involving
the jurisdiction of those two States over
! their fishing rights in Delaware River and
| Bay. which has headed the docket of the
Supreme Court for twenty-four years.
came up yesterday on a motion made by
Attorney General Ward. of Delaware. to
continue the case for further period OF
six months. Attorney General Grey. of
New Jersey, assented to this motion. but
wished order issued requiring Della
ware to answer directly on the merits of
the case. which would cut off the right to
demur. Chief Justice Fuller declined to
make the order. saying that could be
done after the case was given a hearing.
He then fixed the first Monday in the
October term for the hearing of argu-
ment.
The controversy first appeared in the
Supreme Court on March 13. 1877. IL has
since dragged along by continuance from
time to time, and bids fair to rival the
celebrated case of Jarndyce VS.. Jarndyce.
All the original counsel have died. among
them F. T. Frelinghuysen and John p.
Stockton. Of New Jersey. and Thomas F.
Bayard. of Delaware. Ex-senator George
Grey. now United States judge, was ut
one time of counsel for the State of Della
ware.
The controversy really began In 1911,
when a Legislature of Delaware. claiming
the right under the original grant to the
State to exclusive jurisdiction of the river
over to low water mark on the New Jer-
sey shore. passed an act for the protec-
ton of its fishermen, which required those
from other States who fished in Della
ware waters to take out yearly license,
costing $50 under penalty of a heavy fine
and confseation of nets and boats. The
fight ragged for two years. New Jersey fish
ermen caught within the so-called twelve
mile circle being jailed ard their appa-
ratus impounded.
Considerable ill-feeling was engendered
and bloody battle between the Delaware
officers and the armed fishermen from
New Jersey was only averted by proc
lamation issued by the Governor of the
latter State, counseling moderation. In
1873 a truce was declared, the Delaware
Legislature suspending the obnoxious law
and agreeing to the settlement of the con-
troversy by commission composed of
three members from each State. The
commissioners were appointed, but If they
ever settled anything beyond their sal
aries it does not appear in the record.
of the commission had apparently fin
ished their labors and We're discharged,
the conflict was renewed. and the seizing
of boats resumed. 1t continued until March
-, 1877, when. upon the order of the New
Jersey Legislature, the case was brought
to the Supreme Court of the United States
for adjudication, another truce being
agreed TO by the officials of the two States.
No argument has ever been had. despite
the efforts of successive Chief Justices TO
bs4x he n ii o.
manned al the head of the docket twenty
four years, through perennial postpone
ments requested by one or the other par
ties to the controversy.
jeremiah NJ. Wilson. counsel for Oberlin
NJ. Carter, the former captain in the En-
.gineer Corps who is now serving term
in the Leavenworth prison for misappro-
priating s., 100000 from the Government
while in charge of the harbor improve
ments at Savannah, Ga. made motion
that Carter be discharged from custody
on bail. pending hearing before the Sp-
preme Court of his appeal from the lower
court refusing him writ OF haheas cor
pus.
Solicitor General Richards opposed the
motion and asked for five days in which
to file the objections of the Government.
This was granted by Chief Justice Fuller
and the matter went over.
A decision was handed down in the case
of Anna V. Whitney against Edwin B.
Hay. both of the District of Columbia. !
This case was brought up from the Court
VI Appears VI the tiSAIitt VI '~O2uiiiDietr
and involves the possession of the prop
erty situated at 1512 Corcoran Street |
northwest. The court sustained the de- |
that the property in dispute is by right |
that of Edwin B. Hay, having been given |
to him under an agreement with Richard |
L. Piper.
The case involves the genuineness of an |
agreement entered into by Mr.. Hay and |
Mr. Piper. whereby the former to |
give the latter and his wife home for |
the balance OF their days. to care for |
them and clothe them. in consideration /
OF which Mr.. Piper was to give Mr.. Hay |
the Corcoran Street property at his death 4
After the agreement had been made and I
Mr.. Piper had lived with Mr.. Hay for !
many years. the former made d will in
which he conveyed the Corcoran Street
property 10 his niece, Anna V. Whitney,
then a resident of Newport. Me.
When Mr.. Piper died. Mr.. Hay con-
tested the will, holding that his agree
ment antedated the document and that it
was not valid. The Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia sustained this con-
tention and the case Went to the Court
of Appeals, which also decided in Mr..
Hays favor. Inc matter then went to
the Supreme Court.
The case of Lombard VS.. the West Chi
cago Park Commissioners was dismissed
for want of Jurisdiction.
The case of the East Tennessee. Vir-
GINA and Georgia Railroad Company VS.. |
the Interstate Commerce Commission. in
volving the violation of the interstate |
commerce laws. was decided against the
railway company, and the findings of the