The times., 1901-04-09
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
Another Delay i'm the Delaware
River Fishing Ca~e

1
The case of the State of New Jersey
against the State of Delaware involving
the jurisdiction Of those two States over
! 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 a further period Of
| six months. Attorney General Grey, of
! New Jersey, assented to this motion. but
| wished an 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. 1871. 1t 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. Freiinghuysen and John p.
Stockton. Of New Jersey and Thomas F.
Bayard. of Delaware. Ex-senator George
Grey. now United States Judge was 1T
one time of counsel for the State of Della
ware
The controversy really began in 1871,
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 it's fishermen, which required those
from other States who fished in Della
ware waters to take OUT yearly license,
costing $50, under penalty of heavy fine
and confiscation of nets and boats. The
fight ragged for two years. New Jersey fish
ermen caught within the so-caled twelve
mile circle" being jailed and their appa-
ratus impounded
Considerable ill-feeling was engendered,
and a 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 counseIing moderation. In
1873 a truce was declared. the Delaware
Legislature suspending the obnoxious law
and agreeing to the settlement of the con-
troversy by a 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.
So in 1919, when the Delaware members
of the commission had apparently fin
ished their labors and were discharged,
the conflict was renewed, and the seiZing
of boats resumed Ii continued until March
13, 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
have the case disposed of, and II has re-
NAMED at the head of the docket twenty
four years, through perennial postpone
ments requested by one or the other par
ties 70 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 &, 500. 900 from the Government
while in charge of the harbor improve
ments at Savannah, Ga. made a 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 a writ of habeas 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.
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
of Appeals of the District of Columbia,
and involves the possession of the prop
erty situated at 1872 CorcOran Street
northwest. The court sustained the de
cision of the lower court. which holds
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
a greement entered into by Mr. Hay and !
Mr.. Piper. whereby the former was to |
give the latter and his wife a home for |
the balance of their days, to care for !
them and ciothe them. in consideration /
OF which Mr.. Piper was to give Mr.. Hay !
the COrcoran Street property at his death. {
After the agreement had been made and !
Mr. Piper had lived with Mr. Hay for I
many years, the former made d will in i
which he conveyed the Corcoran Street /
property to his niece, Anna V. Whitney, |
then a resident of Newport. Me.
When Mr.. Piper died. Mr. Hay con- /
tested the will, holding that mis- 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. The 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-
ginia and Georgia Railroad Company VS..
the Interstate Commerce Commission, in |
yolving the violation of the interstate
commerce laws, was decided against the
company, and the findings of the /