The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-02-24
SUPREME COURT HANDS
DOWN A LARGE NUMBER
OF IMPORTANT RULINGS
Louisville Stockyards Case De
cided in Favor of the Louisville
& Nashville Railroad.
OHIO RIVER JURISDICTION
Decision in the Al Adams Case, In
volving Constitutional Rights
Chicago Filled Cheese Case.
Special to the indianapolis Journal.

Special to the indianapolis Journal.
WASHINGTON, Feb. pa number OF
important decisions were handed down in
the United States Supreme Court to-day,
among them being the Indiana Kentucky
case involving jurisdiction over the Ohio
river. the Louisville stockyards case.
the Al Adams policy case. from New
York, the Chicago filled cheese case and
case from Alabama involving negro suf-
frage. as affected by the registration clause
of the Alabama Constitution.
The famous litigation concerning the
jurisdiction over the Ohio river was brought
to a close to-day when the court sustained
Indiana's contention that Indiana and Ken
lucky have concurrent jurisdiction from
shore to shore of the river. Deputy Attor-
ney General c. c. Hadley was here to file
motion that the opinion be dated back to
the time of the oral argument, about three
weeks ago.
Tomorrow Mr.. Hadley will represent In
diana in the oral argument on the tax case
of the American Express Company VS.. The
State of Indiana.
Justice Holmes wrote the courts decision
in the controversy between the Central
Stockyards Company and the Louisville &
Nashville Railroad Company as to whether
the railroad company could be compelled
to accept live stock assigned for shipment
to the Central stockyards, located just out
side the limits of the city of Louisville,
KY The railroad company controls the
| Bourbon stockyards, in that city, and had
declined to accept consignments to any
other stockyards. The case was decided
in favor of the railroad company by the
| Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth cir
cult and to-day's opinion upheld that de-
| cision.
| In delivering his opinion Justice Holmes
| said that there is nothing in either the acts
| OF Congress the Constitution of the
| United States compelling the railroad COM
parry TO deliver stock to the stockyard of a
competing company.
The opinion in the case Of AL Adams, the
so-called policy king of New York, was by
Justice Day. 1t was against Adams. Justice
| Day said: I'VE think there was no unlaw-
full search or seizure or compelling of this
man to testify against himself in the giving
in evidence of what the police officer found
in executing the search warrant for the
| policy tickets
Justice Day took up the contentious set
| forth in the petition that the statute was
| unconstitutional because it made these
| tickets, when found in the possession of
| man, prima facie evidence against him,
| the claim being made that they might be
| given TO a blind man or an innocent man.
| In giving his conclusions this subject,
/ Justice Day said:
I'VE think the possession of these tickets
| may well be prima facie evidence against
| a man in order to give him full right and
| opportunity to show how he came into pos
session of them. and in any event. it is
| within the power of the State in cases of
| this character to say what shall be prima
| facie evidence in its courts. We find no
error IN the Judgment of the Court of APP
| peals or New York, and the same is af-
| firmed."
Justice Day also handed down the opin-
ion in the case of Jackson Giles VS. the
Board of Registration of Montgomery
county, Alabama, dismissing the case for
want of jurisdiction. no federal question
being involved. Justice Harlan dissented.
The case involved the suffrage clause of
| the new Constitution of Alabama This
provision was attacked on a discrimina-
| ton against the colored race of which
Giles is a member. The effect of the d.
cision is against Giles. Justice Day said
| NOW IT Is perfectly settled that unless
federal right has been set up and denied in
the State court, we have no right 10 review
| Its decision, and after a very careful ex-
|
citation of the gravity of the charge made
as 10 the political action of State we see
no ground to distinguish it from the uni
versal rule as applied In this court affect
ing Wrlts or error of this kind"
The court affirmed the decision of the
| lower courts in the case of Cornell VS..
Coyne, late collector of the port at Chicago,
which is known as the filled cheese case.
Cornell is a manufacturer of filled cheese
for export only. He refused TO pay the
federal tax on this product, on the ground
that such tax was a tax on exports and
therefore in violation Of the Constitution.
Justice Brewer, who delivered the opinion
Of the court, did not sustain this view,
holding that the Constitution intended to
prohibit the taxation Of exports as such, but
not to discriminate in favor of articles in
tended for export in the way of ordinary
taxation as against other articles The chief
justice and Justice Harlan united In a dis
senting opinion, which was delivered by
Justice Harlan.
Justice Day handed down an opinion af-
firming the judgment of the Supreme Court
of Nebraska in the case of Alvin p Leigh
VS.. Henry S. Green, involving tax sales
OF property. The court held that the owner
of a tax lien may foreclose the lien upon
notice of publication. which shall bring in
anybody and everybody intended. and that
In the exercise of the taxing power the
ity, and this was done in this case TO the
purchaser at the tax sale. and that such
procedure is not violative of the rights
guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment OF
| the Constitution.
In an opinion by Justice Day the court
affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court
of Appeals in the North Carolina Circuit
Court in the case of David r. Julian VS. the
Central Trust Company, involving the pos
session of the Western North Carolina
Railroad, which was sold to the Southern
Railway Company under a decree of fore
closure issued in 1894. The court holds
that this property in the hands of the
| Southern Railway Company could not be
taken by a proceeding against the Western
| Company, which has been dissolved and
whose property had been sold out four
| years after the Southern Railway Company
was decreed to be the owner of the prop
erty by the decree of the Federal Court. -
The question TO whether a passenger on
railroad train riding on a free pass, who
loses his life on account of an act Of care
lessness on the part of the railroad com
pany, stands on the same footing as that
passenger who pays his fare decided
by the court against the free passenger. The
case in which the opinion was rendered was
, that of the Northern Pacific Railway Com
pany VS.. Louise III. Adams and Frank II
Adams. heirs OF Jay II. Adams. an attorney
| Of In lfy ALL wa