Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-04-04
IN PHILIPPINE WATERS
SUPREME COURT DEFINES AU-
THoRITY OF NAVAL OFFICERS.
When Preferences May Be Made by a
Debtor-Other Constitutional
Questions Decided.

A naval commander of the United States
may convene a court-martial In Philippine
waters without authority from the Pres
ident, regardless of the Revised Statutes.
which provide that mo commander of
feet or squadron In the waters of the
United States shall convene such a court
without express authority from the Pres
ident"
Such is the point of a decision handed
down by Justice White In the Supreme
Court of the United States yesterday after
noon John Smith, a fireman on the York
town, on a charge of refusing to do duty
while the vessel was at Iloio in 1899. was
sentenced to a years confinement, with ex-
ira work and loss of pay. He filed a claim
for his salary for the year In the Court OF
Claims and in that court sustained the
claim. The United States appealed the
case to the Supreme Court and yesterday
secured a reversal. Counsel for Smith con-
tended that as the court-martal was held
after the perfection of the Spanish treaty
the Philippines were then in the waters or
the United States and that as the Pres
idents authority was wanting the trial was
Illegal This contention Justice White pro-
nounced to be without merit.
Enacted in 1862.
1.-The clause in question" he said. was
OiiSllldIy eHdCleu Ill low, Ueloic even tiiS
acquisition of Alaska, and was intended, we
think, to apply to those waters within what
was termed by Congress in the act Of
March g. 1901, the continental limits of the
United States In other words, the pro-
vision in question did not take into view the
dominion or sovereignty of the United
States over territory beyond the seas and
far removed from the seat of government,
but contemplated waters within the United
States In the stricter and popular sense of
the term. Looking to the language used In
the light of the surrounding circumstances
and the purpose which 1t was intended to
accomplish, it is manifested that the pro-
hibition against the convocation by the
commander of a fleet or squadron Of gen.
eral court-martial without the previous au-
thorlzation of the President was intended to
be operative only when the fleet or squad
ron was in a home part as above defined"
Creditor May Be Preferred.
Justice White yesterday handed down the
opinion OF the court In the case of Gull
ford r. Keppel. trustee in bankruptcy
for Charles A. Goetz agt. the Tiffin (Ohio)
Savings Bank. The case involved the con-
struction of the preference and "surren-
der clauses of the bankruptcy law. The
decision was rendered in reply to ques-
ton certified from the United States cir
cult court of appeals for the sixth circuit.
In the course of his opinion Justice White
expressed the opinion that 1.-THE preference
clauses of the present bankruptcy law in
clude preferences where the creditor receiv-
ing the same acted without knowledge OF
any wrongful intent on the part of the
debtor and in the utmost good faith. Hav-
ing thus broadened the preference clauses
50 as to make them include acts never be-
fore declared by Congress to be Illegal. it
may well be presumed that Congress, when
1t enacted the surrender clause in the pres
ent act. could not have contemplated that
that clause should he construed as inflicting
1tI-, To- .t,.--
scope of the enlarged preference clauses of
the act of 1898. thereby entailing an unjust
and unprecedented result"
Justices Harlan. Brewer Brown and Day
united In a dissenting opinion.
Liability Of Stockholders.
The court answered in the negative a
question certified from the United States
circuit court of appeals for the seconi. cir
cult in the case of the Middletown New
York; National Bank against the Toledo
Ann Arbor and Northern Michigan Rail-
road Company ana others. The case in
volved the liability of stockholders In cor
porations in Ohio for twice the stock held
by them. 1t was contended on behalf of
the bank, which was creator of the rail-
road company, that the constitutional pro-
vision is self-executing and that the liabil-
ity OF stockholders IN the railroad company
may be enforced by the courts of another
Jurisdiction without compliance with the
have been passed by the legislature of Ohio
in regard to the enforcement of the liability
provided for in the constitution. This view
the Supreme Court failed to accept, holding
that action should have been begun In the
Ohio courts and not in the courts of New
York. as was done. The case represents a
large number of a similar character. The
opinion was by Justice Peckham.
Fire Insurance Risks.
In the case of the Pennsylvania Lumber
mems Mutual Fire Insurance Company
against Charles c. Meyer the court decided
adversely to the contentious Of the insur-
ance company. The case involved the liabil-
ity of the company. which is Pennsylvania
corporation. to pay damages amounting to
5000 caused by a fire in Rochester, N. Y.
1t was contended on behalf OF the company
that the United States circuit court for
the western district of New York was
without Jurisdiction in the case because the
, summons in the case was served upon a
director Of the company residing In New
York. whose only service to the company
consisted in occasional attendance on its
meetings. 1t further proved that the COM
pany has neither officers nor agents within
the state. but 1t was shown that business
there had been solicited by the officers OF
it's total risks are held In that state. The
court therefore held that the procedure
was regular and that the federal courts of
New York state have jurisdiction.
Shipowners and Immigrants.
In an opinion by Justice Day the court
reversed the decision Of the circuit court
| of appeals for the ninth circuit in the case
| of Hackfeld & Company against the United
| States. The case involved a construction
| of the law holding shipowners responsible
for neglect to return immigrants when re-
| quired so to do. In this case the immigrants
| were Japanese. who escaped from a locked
| room on shipboard. The government took
the position that the statute requires the
| return of rejected immigrants under all cir
| cumstances. and the circuit court of APP
| peals took that view. The Supreme Court,
| however. took the view that shipowners
| are required only to exercise due diligence
\ In such cases. and failed to hold the ship
owners responsible for the escape of the
| immigrants.
| The contention between the New Orleans
| Gas Light Company and the drainage COM
! mission of that city as to whether the gas
| company should be required to pay the
| expense of the removal Of It's pipes, made
/ taxrt