New-York tribune., 1907-01-08
CANAL. PAYMENT VALID
BUIT4GAINST SHAWFAILS
Supreme Court Upholds Purchase
from Ne1c Panama Company.

Washington. Jan. THE action of the Secre
tary of the Treasury in paying out S50000O00
on account Of the purchase Of the Panama Canal
property to the New Panama Canal Company of
France, directed by the act of Congress of
1902, was valid and regular It officially de-
cided to-day by the Supreme Court of the
United States. The decision was announced by
Justice Brewer and was handed down in the
case OF Warren B. Wilson against Secretary
Shaw.
TIE case was in the nature Of an Injunction
suit by Mr.. Wilson TO restrain the payment of
the money, and it originated in the local courts
OF the District Of Columbia before the money
had been paid. The decision of both the District
Supreme Court and the District Court OF Ap-
peals unfavorable to Mr.. Wilson's conten-
ton that the action of Congress was unconsti-
tutonal but neither these decisions nor the fact
that the Secretary had made the payment as di-
rected was sufficient to deter Mr.. Wilson, who is
q lawyer and a property holder living in Chi
cago. and he prosecuted the case to the court of
last resort
He argued his own case before all the courts,
and when he appeared before the Supreme Court
be held the attention of that tribunal for two
hours. The government was represented in the
case by Solicitor General Hoyt, but he did not
think the case of sufficient Importance to make
United States government has dominion and
control over the canal zone, and therefore has
authority TO appropriate money TO construct the
canal
Justice Brewer characterized Mr.. Wilson's de-
1and for an injunction startling" and after
prleny tracing the history of the canal said:
since then Panama has seeded from the Re-
plouc OF colombia and established new republic
which has been recognized by the different nations
eo 70 le United States rights territorial and other
wise Acts of Congress have been passed pro-
ways the executive and legislative departments Of
Inc government have committed the United States
&c this work, and IL is progressing. For the
courts TO interfere and at the Instance of q citi-
terest. stay the work OF construction by stopping
me payment OF money from the Treasury OF the
United States therefor. would be an exercise Of
2uq.oas power which to say the least, is novel and
In the case at bar It is clear not onIv tha. the
ftaintin is not entitled TO injunction but also
snai ne presents no ground for any relief He con-
Ssnos mat whatever title the government has was
Got acquired az provided in the Of June g. 1909
by treaty with the Republic OF Colombia. A short
put sdfncent answer is that subsequent ratification
what may be called the isthmian or canal zone
Wnlcn at the date Of the act was in the Republic
or Solon1bis passed by act of secession to the
newly formed Republic of Panama, The latter
ratified 'Ae eiSA @ohe' was ouiy
These show a full ratification by Congress Of
what has been done by the Executive. Their con-
current action Is conclusive upon the courts we
have no supervising control over the political
tn3rsncn or the government in its action within the
history OF the United States question the right
or acquiring territory by treaty.