The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-05-17
DECISIONS BY THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT
Ruling in the Case of Edwin E.
Bassette, Appealed from Circuit
Court of Indiana.
EMPLOYER NOT LIABLE.
Firemen and Telegraph Operators
Are observation-disclosures
ton of Anarchist Upheld.


found guilty of violating an injunction of
the Circuit Court for the district Of Indiana,
prohibiting interference with the printing
and publishing house of the w. p. Conkey
Company. Bassette appealed to the Court
of Appeals, which certified the matter of
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Justice
Brewer delivered the opinion, which held
that a person convicted and fined as in this
case and not a party to the original bill
as in the present case can take the case
to the Court of Appeals on writ of err
ror'' for review of matters Of law only,
but cannot take the case up on appeal,
which would involve a review of the de-
cision of the trial tribunal, court or jury
as TO the facts involved. AS the case came
up on appeal the alternate method indl-
Gated will have to be employed f the It'll
cation is TO be continued.
In an opinion by Chief Justice Fuller,
the court sustained the action of the immi-
grafton authorities at the port of New
York in ordering the deportation of the
Englishman. Turner, alleged to be an An
archist. The chief justice said in his opin-
ion that Turner did not himself deny that
he is an Anarchist. The opinion upheld the
law for the exclusion of Anarchists and
affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court
for the Southern district of New York.
which refused writ of habeus corpus to
Turner.
Chief Justice Fuller. in his opinion. first
reviewed the facts in the case, including
the claim of Turner that he is a lecturer
on sociological questions. and that his coun-
sci contended that he was an Anarchist in
theory merely. He then refers TO the fact
that Turner's counsel attacked the immi-
grafton law unconstitutional on the
ground that Ii is in contrayention of the
nrst, fifth and sixth amendments, and also
OF Section L of TIE Constitution, and be-
cause no power is delegated by the Constl-
tuition to the general government over alien
friends with reference TO their admission
into the United States or otherwise, or over
the beliefs of citizens, denizens, sOjourners
or aliens, over the freedom of speech or
of the press
All these contentious were negatived by
the decision OF Tie chief justice, who said.
among other things: Whether rested on
the accepted principle of international law
that every sovereign nation has the power,
as inherent in sovereignty and essential to
self-preservation, to forbid the entrance or
foreigners within its dominions or to ad-
nit them only I'm such cases and on such
conditions at II may see int to prescribe or
on the power to regulate foreign commerce
with foreign nations which includes the
entrance OF ships. the importation of goods
and the bringing of persons into the ports
of the United States, the act before US is
not open TO constitutional objection. Nor
is the manner in which Congress has exer-
cised the right, although when such case
arises the objection may be taken.
The chief justice also expressed the sur
prise of the court that exception should be
taken 10 the law on the ground that ii is
obnoxious to the constitutional provision
prohibiting the abridgment of freedom of
speech, the exercise of religious privileges,
etc. 1T has," he said, mo reference to an
establishment OF religion, nor does it pro-
hibit the free exercises thereof. nor abridge
the freedom of speech or of the press, nor
the right of the people to assemble and
petition the government for redress of
grievances Ii is, of course, true that IL an
alien Is not permitted to enter this country,
or, having entered contrary TO law is ex-
PEELED he is in fact cut off from worship
ping or speaking or publishing or petition
ing in the country, but that is merely be-
cause of his exclusion therefrom He is
not one of the people to whom these things
are secured, and cannot become such by
an attempt forbidden by law. To appeal to
the Constitution is TO concede that this is
land governed by that supreme law, and,
as under II the power to exclude has been
determined to exist. those who are excluded
cannot assert the rights in general obtain
ing in a land to which they do not belong
citizens subjects.
Deciding the plea that the law should
not be applicable to Turner because he was
not an active Anarchist, Chief Justice Full
Ter said: Even II Turner. though he did
not so state to the immigration board of
eminent as a political ideal. yet when he
sought TO attain ii by advocating. not SIM
ply for the benefit of workingmen. who
are Justly entitled to repel the charge of
desiring the destruction of law and order,
but at any rate Anarchist the uni
versal strike to which he referred, and by
discourses on what he called the legal muir
der OF 1877, referring to the Spies case, and
by addressing mass meetings on that sub
ject in association with Most, we cannot
say that the inference was unjustifiable.
her hot hn lot LEI
realization of his ideal by the use of force
or that his speeches were not indictments
to that end.
In concluding the chief justice said: 1--WE
are not to be understood as deprecating
the vital Importance of freedom of speech
and of the press, or suggesting futile linn
| itations on the spirit of liberty. in itself
uncomfortable, but this case does not in
| volve those considerations. The flaming
brand which guards the realm where no
human government is needed still bars the
| entrance. and as long as human govern
ments endure they cannot be denied the
power of self-preservation, and that ques-
| ton Is presented here"
l. There was dissenting opinion.
y =
The Supreme Court dismissed, for want
of jurisdiction. the case of Ferdinand Holz-
| endorf, which WAS an action to compel
Secretary Hay to prosecute with great
| vigor claim for $4,000 against the EN-
| peror of Germany The basis for the
claim was the confinement in a lunatic
| asylum in Germany of Holzendorf, who
although German by birth. is a natural.
i lied citizen of the United States. Upon his
| release a German court decided his con.
| finement to have been illegal Justice
| White in delivering the opinion stated
| that jurisdiction was granted the Supreme
Court of the United States by statute
when 100000 was involved but the sui
for that amount Of damages i'm this case
| did not involve that amount.
The court laid down the principle that a
| telegraph operator for a railroad compan,
and fireman on a railroad engine are
| fellow servants" and that the negligence
of the former, causing the death of the
| latter in the operation of trains was a risl
! the fireman assumed and was not a GROUND
for damages against the railroad company
| The was that of Alline A. Dixor
against the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company for damages for the death of he,
husband. c. A. Dixon. fireman on tn,
road. killed in collision caused by IN,
! negligence of telegraph operator
The opinion delivered by Justice Brewe,
answered two questions certified from IN,
United States Circuit Court of Appeal.
for the Eighth circuit follows: First
When a local telegraph Operator is called
upon specially by a train dispatcher I,
give information relative TO the arrival o.
train at his station, TO enable the dis
| patcher 10 formulate orders for the move
/ ment of other trains. does the local opera
! tor in the matter of giving such informa
tion act as fellow-servant of train op
4 In hat he