The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-05-20
ILLEGAL MARTIAL
SUPREME JUSTICES DECISION IN FA-
FOR OF CAPT. p. c. DEMING.
Volunteer Officer Who Was Tried by q
Court Composed Wholly of Regu-
lar Army Officers.

WASHINGTON, May 19.-In an opinion
delivered to-day by Judge peckham, the
United States Supreme Court decided the
case of Captain Peter c. Deming in that
officers favor. The case involved the right
Of a court-martial composed entirely of the
officers of the regular army to pass on a
case involving the right of volunteers. The
effect of the opinion is that such a trial is
illegal
Justice Peckham reviewed briefly the cir
cumstances of the case saying that Dem
ing had pleaded guilty to the charge of en-
bezzlement and of other conduct unbe-
coming an officer during his trial and that
the court-martial had been ordered by the
major general in command; that he had
been found guilty and sentenced TO dis
missal from the army and to imprisonment.
He then told how Deming had been i'm
prisoned in Fort Leavenworth and had
sued out writ of habeas corpus to the
United States District Court of Kansas on
the ground that the members of the court
were the representatives Of other forces,
contrary to the requirement of the articles
of war and asking for his discharge. That
court refused to grant the discharge. but
when the case was taken to the Circuit
court of Appeals for the eighth circuit the
appeal was allowed and the writ granted.
The warden of the Fort Leavenworth peni-
tertiary Appealed the case to the Supreme
Court of the United States, and to-day 5
opinion affirming the decision of the Circuit
! Court of Appeals was the result. In deliver
ing his opinion Justice Peckham said:
1--WE hold that the court-martial was a
wholly illegal body and that ii had no
! jurisdiction whatever" The chief justice
! and Justice McKenna dissented and
Justices Gray and Brewer took no part in
| the case.
The Supreme Court dismissed, for want
Of jurisdiction, the case of Lee Lung VS..
]. L. Patterson, United States collector of
! customs at Portland, Ore. Lee Lung is a
Chinese merchant, who. after a short resi-
dence In the United States, returned 10
! China and brought back with him one OF
! his wives, of which he had more than one
| and daughter by another wife. The
/ party was denied admission and sued out a
writ of habeas corpus to the District Court
for the District of Oregon. The court re-
fused to entertain the writ on the ground
that II could not review the order of the
| Executive Department. To-day's opinion
affirms that decision. Justices Brewer and
! Peckham dissented
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision
York in the case o. z. Bement & Sons,
concern of Michigan VS.. the National Har.
row Company, a New Jersey corporation
The proceeding was instituted by the har
row company to collect damages on a con
tract for the manufacture Of patent har
rows owned by the company. The suit was
resisted on the ground that the harrow
company is a member OF a combination I,
rio - ha~r In fr1 fffra n
/ the Sherman antitrust laws. The New
York court held that this contention wal
not justified. and the opinion delivered to
| day supported that view Of the case.
Justice Peckham delivered the opinion
| of the court. saying that a careful exami
nation of the contract had failed TO reVea
any reason for declaring the contract void
| The contracts had served, he said, to pre-
vent much litigation for violation OF con
tract, and ii also was appropriate for th'
owners of the patent TO make conditions
as TO the price in their licenses to submanu
| facturers On this point he said 4
tended 10 keep up the price OF Implement
manufactured and sold, but that was onll
recognizing the nature Of the propert,
dealt in and providing for its value as IA
as possible. This the parties were legal,
entitled to do" With reference 10 the OBJ
lection 10 the clause in the contract pro
hibiting Bement & Sons from manufactuT
ing other similar harrows Justice Peckhan
said: The plain purpose was TO proven
the defendant from infringing on the right
of others under other patents. and IL ha'
no purpose 10 stifle competition"
The decision OF the Circuit Court Of Ap
peaIs for the Ninth Circuit Court in tn
case of Frederick williams vs.. Georg
c. GAYLORD. involving the validity OF tn
statute of California prohibiting the iii
rectors of corporations from mortgaginl
the property Of such corporations withou
the consent of the stockholders was ar
hrmed. The decision sustains the law.
The court. through Justice Brewer, an
swered questions submitted TO il in the cas-
OF Emanuel Felsenheld VS.. the Unite'
States by the United States Circuit Cour
of Appeals for the Fourth district. The ques
ton related 10 the validity OF the fedora
law prohibiting attaching to tobacco pack