The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1914-10-16
Every Owner Of Railroad Stocks
Affected by West Virginia
Litigation
TITLE TO OIL LANDS
HANGS IN BALANCE
Pullman Co. VS.. State Of Flor
ida OF Interest to Rail-
&ay Men

\ which will affect virtually every man,
woman and child IN the United States
are now being heard before Tie
= United States supreme court As an
Illustration, every owner OF railroad
4 stocks or bonds in the country. and
! every person interested In state taxa
ton questions. and every person who
pays to ride on trains. Is interested
\ = the case OF the Norfolk 4 Western
Railroad Co. against the state of West
y Virginia. This Is one OF the cases set
\ for early argument by the supreme
\ court and Is the first on the list.
While barking back To the question
4 OF confiscatory rates, the argument
y In this case rests OH rte point whetil-
= er any one ,lie can be confiscatocy.
! unless the entire rate system OF which
y II Is part Is confiscatory. Assam
Ing the contention OF the railroad at
n torneys thar the two-cent fare law re-
> suits In the company not receiving
y passenger traffic to yield II profit
y to be correct. and this Is virtually
= conceded by the attorneys for tho
! state, the question Is put up to the
i COURTS that sufficient to declare the
y rate confscatory?
4 The state III West Virginia holds
! that II Is not. The state contends
3 that all Of the business of the Nor
I folk and Western within the state OF
4 West Virginia Is profitable. and that
y II Is beside the point to pick out the
y passenger traffic, and say that this
I particular line of business does not
!, pay. incidentally The figures OF the
nv aRl n a n
:! lower courts, show that the revenue
y from the two-cent tickets gives the
y company Just about operating ex-
y penses, SO that q clear case Is es-
tablished. as this would yield no re-
turn on the investment The com
n pany's experts figure that II does not
u even pay them to haul the business at
N the two-cent rate. but that II is not
n the question which is put up to the
n supreme court
NJ This question Is made Of more inter.
! est because OF the recent five-cent
81 rate decision OF the Interstate Com
4 merce Commission. which suggested
Il 10 the railroads, In denying the full
4 measure Of increases In freight rates
Al asked for, to raise their passenger
Y rates, as many Of them were unprofit-
u able.
u Another case set FOR early argument
u Of great interest to railroad men IL
d that OF the Pullman Co. versus w. ".
Il Knott, as comptroller OF the. state Of
il Florida. This case concerns the valid
81 tty Of the state act taxing the gross
b earnings OF all sleeping and dining
4 cars within the limits OF the state.
D. One and one-half per cent. In addition
q to advalorum and license taxes.
II Argument ON the so-called Book
81 Trust case will also be begun at
4 once. This 10 the case Of l. and u.
u Straus Or. H. Macy q Coz against
d the American Publishers association.
d Because Macy & Co. refused to agree
d TO maintain fixed retail price for
d copyrighted books sold to II by mem
q beers OF the association. II Ia charged
d that all its members refused to sell
O their books and publications to the
|J department store, causing II loss Of
j $4,000. The suit IN under the anti
d trust law and u to recover treble
d damages.
Title to valuable oil lands In Cali
Ij f0rnia hangs on tho arguments In the
| case Of Antonio Maria Peralta and
Il others against the state Of Califor-
U MIA In patents issued prior to 1877
d Il IL alleged, fraudulent surveys were
d inserted. The title to this enormously
y valuable land dates back to an orig
q Inal grant by the governor Of Alta to
d Luis Peralta. In 1920.
A most interesting case to the white
4 people of the South set for early argu-
j ment Is that OF Carl Oliver against the
i state OF Texas. Oliver IL q Negro and
was indicted for the murder Of Rob
/ ert D. Stanley In June. 1910. Since
then the case has been dragging It's
4 way through the courts. The ques-
1 ton which WIN be put up to the SUI
| preme court for decision, however. IL
! the fact that all Negroes were ex-
4 cluded from the grand jury, and only
. white men were permitted to serve.
! The effectiveness OF the meat In
spection act 10 thought by govern
ment officials to hang upon the de-
| cision of the case OF the u. 8. versus
l Charles Lewis, Lewis Howard. Fred
/ williams, and James McBee. These
! men were charged with violation Of
/ the meat inspection law by destroy
l ing government seals on freight cars
l containing meat and meat products.
! Their guilt II not the question which
/ u put mp to the supreme court, but
! whether the law exempted persons
/ other than those engaged In the bus
l mess of preparing meats for trans
/ portation" or In carrying or assist
| ing In the carrying OF such meats In
l interstate transportation" The gov
ernment comedies that these men can
/ not be convicted n II 70 held that
1 these two classes are alone affected
l by the law
A somewhat similar question win
! be argued before the supreme court
l in the case OF the United States yer.
l sus william G. Nixon, w, B. Biddle,
and Thomas II. West. receivers for
l the St Louis and San Francisco Rail-
l road Co. The receivers were indicted
. FOR failure to plscard their cars and
| 70 stamp the words Southern CATTLE
| mon waybills. manifests and bills Of
. lsding. The lower, court quashed the
. Indictment on the ground that the act
| ala not include receivers Of railroad
companies. va.
who should bear the expense Of
| maintaining an immigrant while he
| A. under suspicion OF having some
disease. and sSra result II detained
"A quarantine after being allowed 70
leave the ship on which he came 20
. this country II the point to be argued
| Al the case Of the II. s. versus the
~ 49, 49, - - 49,. ------