The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-10-08
PAPER TRUST CASE
ON EARLY DOCKET
United States Supreme Court May
Decide to Advance It Before
Other Now on Appeal.
BY w. w. Jermane.
Special to- The journal.

Special to- The Journal. 8
Washington, Oct. During the regu-
lar term of the supreme court, which
begins Monday, a number Of cases Of
great Importance to the northwest will
be argued and decided.
Probably the most Important from
a national standpoint are the cases of
the, recalcitrant witnesses in the paper
trust suit. This case originated in Mil
waukee and the parties to it are Lewis
w. Alexander, George A. Whitney, Viii
liam r. Stuarat, the General Paper
company, E. T. Harmon and others. Tn
the examination in the United States
district court for the eastern district
Of Wisconsin they refused to answer
certain questions put by counsel for
the government, Notwithstanding they
were directed to do so by the court.
The case came to. the supreme court
on an appeal from this decision Of the
district judge. The attorney general
has already given notice that he will
move to have these cases advanced
on the docket, SO that they may be
argued early in the term, and it is
probable that the court. will direct an
early hearing.
Congress and Indian Property.
Joseph Naganab, who attacked the
Morris law in the courts Of the District
OF Columbia and sought to restrain Sec
rotary Hitchcock from selling the tim
Der on the coded Chippewa reservation
under the terms of that act, has APP
pealed to the supreme court for re-
,yersal Of the judgment Of the court
In it's regular order, this case will not
! be argued until some time in March,
and decision is not likely to be handed
down until near the end Of the term,
IN May. The court below decided that
it had no power to interfere with acts
of an administrative officer, and on a
| question Of constitutionality Of the law,
followed the, decision in the Lone Wolf
case, in which it was held that con-
gross had power to dispose of the prop.
erty of Indians, even tho no consent
was given. Counsel for the govern
. ment is confident that the supreme
court will uphold this decision.
"Virginia Silver'' Case to Be Consid.
| The tFVirginia Silver'' case will also
be heard late in the term. It came up
on appeal Of Pearl H. Smith, who at:
tackled the Mabel Evans lease in the dis.
trict court. E:ls - ~"
Judge Morris who presided in the
lower court. did not decide the merits
Of the case, but dismissed State Auditor
Iverson as party to the suit, and the
appeal is from that decision. The case
as it comes before the supreme court
is one as to the jurisdiction of the fed
eral courts and should the higher court
decide that it has no jurisdiction, Mr.
Smith s effort to upset the Evans lease
thru federal agencies, will fail -
The court will also be called upon
to- construe the Michigan railroad taxa
10 oh io lxv1o 111r 90
ad valorem tax cases. Two cases in
volving a. construction of this act have
been decided in the lower courts, one
against the state and one for it. It il
possible that an effort will be made tc
advance, these eases owing to their i'm
. portance, and that the court may con
sent, to hear them ahead of their regu
lar turn. ...--@ &. ot
The city Of Des Moines is trying K
tax the banks Of that city; and sew
eral cases are on: the docket, in which
the banks are appellants, the decisions
Of the lower courts having been against
them. ~-@'.' ~. Si"-:H -.
Other Gases on Supreme Court Docket
Several cases of minor Importance
coming from Minnesota are also to- bt
: heard Two are the Brake & Stratto1
company VS.. Anderson & Senese, in
VOlVlng Inability Tor personal INJURY
Other cases are Gustav E. Hafeman VS.
Fred A. Gross. suit on contract fol
purchase of lands; Minnesota Iron com
pany VS.. Mark M. Kline, personal in
juries; Hugh P. Stron VS.. Buffalo Lane
and Exploration company, involving tt
tie to land in the northern part of sthe
state. -~ --.'--::sst, r,..5t:,551ss
On the original docket, that is, case
in which the court has original .juris
diction, are the suits Of the state o:
Wisconsin against the secretary Of tn,
school land granting act, and ni' the I Unit
ed States against the state of Michigan
in vi ich the federal government is SUI
ing for certain funds alleged to be du,
on account of the 500 canal, and which
remained in the possession Of the stat
after it had passed into the hands O
, the federal government.