Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-04-23
AGAINST HAzLETON
Supreme Courts Decision in
His Suit Against Miller.
SITE FOR RECORDS HALL
Controversy Over the Purchase
Money.
LAND CLAIMED BY OREGON
Ruling Against the State = Case Of
Idaho Labor Men
Advanced.

In the case Of Hazleton agt. Miller, the
Supreme Court of the United States decided
today that a contract which Is made contin-
gent upon the action of Congress In given
case cannot be enforced. In this instance
Miller agreed in 1902 to sell to Hazleton a
certain tract OF land In this city for 5000,
the option running until the expiration of
The then term of Congress. The land was
part of tract afterward purchased as a
site for a government hall OF records, the
price paid Miller being $14,39a Hazieton
brought suit for specific performance of
contract, claiming that he was entitled to
the advance over the price given in his OPP
tion because of the service he had rendered
in securing favorable consideration by Con-
gress of the site.
The court decided against him the
ground that the proceeding was contrary
to public policy. The opinion was by Justice
Holmes. who called attention to a previous
case, in which it had been held by the court
sale of supplies to the government could not
be enforced. and said: There is no real
difference in principle between agreements
to procure favors from legislative bodies
and agreements to procure favors in the
shape of contracts from the heads of de-
partments.'
Justice Holmes said that it was not neces-
sary to inuuire whether anything improper
was QoHe, IOT, In us inception, the 0ner In
tended necessarily invited and tended to in
duce improper solicitations. and it intensi-
fled the inducement by the contingency of
the reward"
Land Claimed by Oregon.
In an opinion by Justice Brewer the court
today dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the
case of the state of Oregon agt. Secretary
Hitchcock and Commissioner Richards, in
volving the right of the government to allot
In severalty to the klamath Indians the
lands comprised in their reservation. The
state claimed the lands under the swamp
land act of 1850 and asked the court to re-
strain the Secretary and the commissioner
from issuing patents to the Indians. The
officials met the allegations with a de-
murrer and this the court sustained.
The court held that Hitchcock and Rich
ards were simply nominal defendants; that
the real party in interest as defendant was
the United States. which cannot be sued
without its consent. and which has given
no consent; that If there be any other in
terest adverse to the claims Of the state of
Oregon that interest is vested in the Kla-
math Indians, who We're not made parties,
and the rule in equity is not to determine
a suit without the presence of the real
parties to be affected by the decree. 1t
was further held that the legal title to these
lands is still In the government, and the
rule is that the courts will not interfere
with the land department in its admins
tration of the lands of the United States.
1.-THE power of the court" said Justice
Brewer in his opinion, commences when
the legal title has passed away from the
government
Cases of Idaho Labor Men.
The court today advanced the hearing OF
the habeas corpus cases of Meyer, Haywood
and Pettfbone, charged with completely in
the murder of former Gov. Steunenberg OF
Idaho, naming the first Tuesday in October
as the date for their presentation.
New Jersey-Delaware Boundary.
In the boundary case between New Jer-
sey and Delaware the court today granted
the joint petition of the two states to sus-
pend further proceedings until the begin
ming of the next term of the court, on the
9th of October