Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-12-03
IN THE U. 5. SUPREME COURT
SEVERAL DECISIONS HANDED
DOWN YESTERDAY.
Sweeping Action of Circuit Court
Of Appeals Afirmed-Claim for
Lobbying Decided.

The Supreme Court Of the United States
yesterday decided the case of the Louis
vile and Nashville Railroad Company
VS.. Marcus X. Bitterluan and others, in
! volving the right of the defendants to en-
gage in scalping the tickets of the rail-
read company. IN favor OF the company,
I the decision being handed down by JUS
! tfce White The suit was originally in
stituted by the railroad company in the
! United States circuit court for the eastern
1 district of Louisiana, which was asked to
enjoin Bitterman and other scaipors from
dealing in non-negotiable reduced-fare
Louisville and Nashville tickets That
court held the practice to be wrong, but
decided that relief could only be granted
in individual cases, thus recurring
separate action for every offense commit
ted. Both parties to the controversy
found the decision unsatisfactory, and
both appealed to the circuit court OF ap-
paals for the fifth circuit. The decision
of that tribunal was favorable to the
railroad company, the court holding that
the wrongdding was of continuing ma
ture and granting a permanent in1unc-
ton. The scalpels brought the case to
the federal Supreme Court, with the result
that they failed to secure relief there, and
succeeded only in getting the sweeping
action of the court OF appeals affirmed.
Claim for Lobbying.
The validity of a claim for lobbying
formed the subject Of consideration by
the Supreme Court of the United States
in deciding the case of Henry NJ. Earle,
administrator of the estate of the late
william E. Earle, a claim attorney in
Washington for some years, VS.. I. Percy
Myers and John ]. Hamilton, admins
traitors of the estate of the late James
II. Causten. Causten was the owner OF
a large number of French spoliation
claims, and his first administrator, thc
late Thomas E. Waggaman, entered into
an agreement with Earle regarding their
collection, under which Waggaman was
to have % per cent of the net proceeds
after the payment Of all expenses. One
Of the items of controversy was that of
$6, 800 paid by Earle as attorneys fees
but which tho courts OF the DISTRICT OF
Columbia disallowed because they were
declared to be the fees of lobbyists. The
Supreme Court failed, however, to ac-
cept this view. and allowed the item in
controversy. The opinion was by Justice
Peckham, and remanded the case to the
District courts with instructions to allow
the claim. Justice Peckham said they
had been thrown out on insufficient evil
dence.
Decision Against Bank.
The Supreme Court decided the case Of
the Bank of Kentucky, located in Louis
vile, against the state of Kentucky, in
volving the question of county taxation,
against the bank The bank claimed
perpetual contract, absolving it from the
payment of all except state taxes under
the old Hewitt law, but the contention
was made that this order had been
changed by the new state constitution.
and the Kentucky court of appeals sus-
tanned that view. The opinion of the Su-
preme Court was announced by Justice
Mckenna and affirmed the decision of the
state court.