New-York tribune., 1903-05-19
OTHER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Attorneys Ordered Released-A Railroads
Citizenship.

Washington, May 1S.-Chief Justice Fuller in the
United States Supreme Court to-day ordered the
permanent release of the Louisville attorneys,
W. w. Watts and David A. Sachs, who were COM
mitted jail in indianapolis last February on the
charge of contempt of court connection with the
bankruptcy proceedings against NJ. Zier & Co, of
NeW-Albany. The two attorneys were charged by
Judge Anderson of the Federal District Court with
obstructing by advice his orders for the transfer
of the property of the bankrupt firm from the Gus
tody of the State Court to the Federal Court, and
ordered their Imprisonment for sixty days for con-
tempt The case came up on habeas corpus pro-
ceedings. Chief Justice Fuller said that the charge
by the Federal Court amounted to a charge OF con-
spiracy between the attorneys and the State court.
and that such charge could not be tolerated
The record showed. he said that the order made by
the State made alone on the motion or
the court itself.
Chief Justice Fuller reviewed the circumstances
leading up tC the sentence of Watts and Sachs at
great length, and said there could be reasonable
doubt that the judge of the State court and Watts
and Sachs entertained the conviction In good 1alth
that the custody Of that court could not be law
fully nterfered with by the bankruptcy court by
summary proceedings. Their view was" said he,
that the Jurisdiction of the State court having
attached that court in all circumstances en-
titled to exercise it until voluntarily surrendered
He thought however, there should have been no
question to the surrender of the property 10 the
bankruptcy Taking up the question of the
imprisonment of the attorneys because of the ad-
NAiiNA S1|N-oN SSN-~'
in the ordinary case of advice clients, If at
torney acts in good faith and in the honest belief
that his advice Is well founded and in the Just IN
for error in Judgment The preservation of the In
ton OF justice to allow of the application of any
other general rule
The court decided the case of the Cosmos Ex-
ploratlon Company against the Gray Eagle Oil Com
pany and that of the Pacific Land Company against
the Elwood Oil Company. both cases involving title
,ha Ito Inn
fornia. The opinion affirmed the decision OF the
Circuit & cGDTt DToed Se tR Question as to the
validity OF location made on mineral lands In lieu
Of forest reser, atons. The Pacific Company and
the Cosmos Company claimed under IocaGnS ea
claiming the lands under the placer mining laws:
did not contain facts sufficient to justify the relief
asked for and accordingly decided in favor OF the the
Supreme Court. The court also decided proceed
taTv aT hitchcock. involving practically the same
questions This first r, h9aTd by 5d ths ps sp
effort to coPe Pc the the 6 TO
to & lands T oS to to issue an order and
that decision affirmed to-day.
The court decided the cases of Wilkes County
IN c. against Coer and others, involving the
validity of railroad bonds issued by the county in
aid Of railroad CONSTRUCTION IN Iagor OF IN Iee xaoy
In the case of the Republic of Colombia against
the Cauca Company. the court modded decree OF
the Circuit Court OF Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
It involved a controversy TO claim on the part
of the company against the Colombian Govern
ment on account of contract for the construction
of a railroad under award made 10 one Cherry
in 1890 The OF the United States secured
Jurisdiction through the fact that the company was
Incorporated in West Virginia; The courts below
recognized the full 6 claim OF the COMPANY ineqd, I'd
transfer OF his charter and of Ss 600 to one of the
arbitrators IN the The opinion rendered to-
day dsaliows these two claims. but recognizes the
claim of the company for compensation Tor ro,mng
stock for salaries fits officers and for travelling
expenses the total allowance being S932O4
The court reversed the opinion OF the Supreme
Court of the State of North Carolina in the case OF
the Southern Railway Company against Allison
This was a proceeding for damages on account OF
an accident but the point Of interest involved was
the question to whether the railroad company
had secured citizenship in North Carolina oy ming
its charter in that State when IL had been moor
porated In Virginia The State court had neio tnat
Il ala hecome a citizen by that proceedlng Inc
opinion to-day took the opposite view holdlng tnat
ciiizenshp was confined to the state IN ~nich tne
charter was granted. The decision was therefore