New-York tribune., 1902-10-28
SUPREME COURT BUSINESS
AN ECHO OF THE SCHLEY CONTRo
VERSY-DUSS WINS A SUIT.

Washington oct 27-There was brief reminder
OF the Sampson-Schley controversy in the United
States Supreme Court to-day when the case OF
.'The United States agt ". T. Sampson, Rear
Admiral. ct al" was called for argument 1t in
wolves distribution Of prize money because OF the
capture OF the Spanish cruiser Infanta Maria Te-
resa IN the battle of Santiago.
Chief Justice Fuller suggested the necessity OF
substituting some other name for that OF Admiral
Sampson in view OF the Admrals death.
Assistant Attorney General Hoyt, for the govern
rnent responded that the parties 10 the controversy
had supposed that the court might make a sug-
sestion later in the case. and said that for the
present the argument could proceed under the pres
ent title. Chief Justice Fuller manifested dis
position demur TO this suggestion urging that
the name OF some other officer could be used,
-that" he said. ''of Admiral schley or some one
else"
The name OF Admiral schley did not appear 70
meet the approval OF the attorneys representing
the naval officers one OF them. James H. Hay
den, replied that there would be some difficulty
about making a substitution. If" he said there
is to be a substitution. there remains but one man
who was an officer OF the feet. and that is Cap
tain Chadwick. who was Admiral Sampson's chief
OF stan. Admiral schey's duties were limited TO
the command Of a division OF the fleet"
Il had thought ii possible" said the Chief Jus
sice. that 1t might be question OF rank title"
To this suggestion Mr. Hayden replied: IF
Admiral Sampson had not been present and IN
command there. Admiral schley would have been
IN command OF the neet but as ne was present and
1n command
The sentence was not completed. Justice Harlan
interrupted; Present where?"
The Chief Justice seemed greatly Interested In
me turn the case had taken. His hands We're
raised. was also his voice slightly, when he
asked rs that point involved in this case?"
He was assured that it was not. and counsel took
the matter OF naming litigant under advise
ment.
Justice McKenna delivered the opinion IN the
case OF Christian Schwartz and others against
John 5. Duss. involving the property held by the
Harmony Cooperative Society. OF Pennsylvania.
Schwartz and his associates claim TO be descend
ants Of former members OF the society. and
brought the suit for the purpose OF securing dis
tribution OF the societys property, alleging that
the organization has ceased exist: that there
ere no% only eight persons who pretend 20 be mem
bers or The society, that they either old men
or women, and that the management Of the prop
eity, which amounts in the aggregate 20 about
SAuo.eo IS IN the hands OF Mr.. Duss, the senior
trustee. and that he is rapidly wreckng the prop
ertN. The court decided that Schwartz and his
associates have NOT such proprietary interest in
the property would entitle them. upon a dis
SolutOn OF the society. 10 share in the
The opinion affirmed the judgment Of the Circuit
Court OF Appeals for the Third Circuit Mr. Duss
The defendant in the case. is the Well known band
master. The Chief Justice and Justice Brewer
united In a dissenting opinion.