Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-11-29
IN THE SUPREME COURT
RECENT DECISIONS OF INTEREST
HANDED DOWN.
Baltimore Company Must Pay Taxes on
Its Dock Facilities-Texas Pilot
age Law Sustained.

The Supreme Court of the United States
has affirmed the decision of the court of ap-
peals of the state of Maryland in the case
Of the Baltimore Ship Building and Dry
Dock Company of the city of Baltimore in
volving the liability of the company to pay
tax on the land on which its docks are To-
Gated. The land in question was original
ly part of the Fort McHenry tract, and
when 1t passed from the ownership of the
United States the condition was made that
the government should have the free use
of the docks, and that in case of Its being
put to other title should revert to the
United States.
This condition was pleaded as reason for
exemption from taxation but both the state
and the federal courts failed to accept that
view, and held the company liable for taxes
on the land. Justice Holmes delivered the
courts opinion
State Pilotage Law Upheld.
An opinion in the state pilot law case Of
Otto Olsen agt. A. D. Smith and others was
rendered in the Supreme Court of the
United States yesterday by Justice White.
Smith Is a pilot of Galveston, Texas, IL
censed under the state laws, and he brought
suit in the Texas courts to recover damages
alleged to have been caused by the action
of Olsen, who Is unlicensed, in offering his
services to pilot vessels in and out of the
harbor of Galveston. The points involved
In the case are the following: Whether
the state had power to enact laws regulat-
Ing pilotage in the ports of that state, and
whether If that power existed the state
laws are void because they conflict with
acts of Congress and the Constitution of
the United States forbidding combinations
In restraint of trade. The court upheld the
state pilotage law as construed by the
court of civil appeals for the fourth SUI
preme judicial district of Texas. On the
constitutional point Justice White said:
'The contention that because the
commissioned pilots have a monopoly
of the business and by combining
among themselves exclude all others
is unconstitutional and is but a denial of
the authority of the state to regulate. The
contention that no monopoly or combina-
ton in legal sense can arise save from
the fact that the duly authorized agents of
the state are alone allowed to perform the
duties devolving upon them by law con-
sidered in its ultimate aspect amount simply
to the contention not that the Texas laws
are unwise. If an analysis of the laws JUS
titled this conclusion the remedy is in Con-
greSs and cannot be Judfcially afforded by
denying the power of the state to exercise
Its authority over subject concerning
which 1t has plenary power until Congress
has seen fit to act in the premises"
Suburbanites Oppose Annexation.
cen. Ga. has filed motion to dismiss or
affirm the case of T. w. Toney and others
as the mayor and council of the city of
Macon. The case grows out of the resist
ance of the citizens of the town of Vine
vile, suburb of Macon, to it's annexa-
ton to the city, under a recent enactment
OF the state legislature. The state supreme
court upheld the law and it is this decision
that Mr.. Wimberly asks to have affirmed.
In his motion Mr.. Wimberly says: 1.-THE
complaints of plaintiffs in error are merely
inia ginary. in that there has been no depri-
walton of any of the rights guaranteed to
them by the Constitution of the United
States or the amendments thereof, and
the case is moot cause and should be
dismissed
The motion was opposed by John Ran
dolph Cooper, who says the motions cannot
be properly considered until the case is
reached on its merits Among other things
he said: Appellants are not fighting for
delay In this case, but they are fighting for
their constitutional rights. There is no
reason on earth why they should fight for
delay. and the contention of the defend
ants counsel that this writ of error is
sued out for delay only is absolutely with
out merit whatever"
Case Against Southern Railway.
In the case Of Maggie A. Bradford agt.
the Southern Railway Company the court
answered In the negative the following
questions certified from the circuit court of
appeals of the sixth circuit:
First. Does the act of July %, 1892,
providing when a plaintiff may sue as
poor person apply to the prosecution of a
writ of error from this court
Second. If that act of Congress does
not apply to appellate proceedings, has this
court any authority to permit the prosecu-
ton OF writ OF error In forma pauperis?'
Other Decisions.
In an opinion by Chief Justice Fuller the
Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error
in the case of John T. New of Washita
county. Okla, who Is under sentence Of life
imprisonment for murder. The discussion
was based on the fact that there is no stat
ute giving appellate Jurisdiction to this
court over judgments Of the Oklahoma sue
preme court In capital cases.
The court granted an order for the adj
vancement Of the case of Mckenzie against
the Chicago h0ard'of trade so as to have Il
follow the Christie case. Both cases In