Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-10-20
COURT NOT TO RULE
ON SENATE SUITS
Supreme Tribunal Refuses
Also to Hear $6,000,O00
Scripps Claim.
Rx the Associated Press.

BY the Associated Press.
Whether Senators are immune from
liability in damage suits for assertions
! made on the floor of the Senate will
not be decided at this time by the
Supreme Court.
! This was disclosed today when the
highest court refused to entertain q
washington, D. c., tax expert, against
| Senator Couzens of Michigan.
The court also refused to review a
Sc ,000, 900 suit against the estate Of
the late Edward w. Scripps, newspaper
publisher, brought by the widow of his
son, James G. Scripps.
Widow Claims Money.
The money was claimed by Josephine
S. Scripps, the widow, as compensation
for the management Of the newspaper
properties by her husband from 1908
| until the Summer CT 1920.
She commended that the father, Ed
ward W. Scripps, had entered into an
agreement with his two sons James and
John under which they were to receive
one-half of the actual increase in the
profits from the properties during their
management.
Robert P. Scripps as executor Of the
estate of Edward w. Scripps contested
the claim. The court also refused to
review a dispute, pending in the courts
for rs years, which involved valuable
lands and the Superstructure of the
power dam across the big Horn River
on the Wind River Reservation in
Wyoming.
The Chicago, Burlington g. Quincy
Railway and others were successful in
the tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in
asserting their claims to the land and
in obtaining an order for the removal
of the superStructure on the ground
that 1t caused low lands to be over
flowed. John T. Clarke and other
property owners asked the highest court
to reverse that ruling.
The appeal of James Hamilton Lewis,
candidate for Senator in Illinois, of his
claim to right as counsel to institute a
suit against the Canadian Pacific Rail
road was also refused a review.
The appeal of the Louisville g. Nash
vile and other railroads challenging an
order Of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission requiring railroads to charge
regular published rates for the trans
portation of private passenger cars OF
other companies win be reviewed by
the court.
Determination Is Ruled.
Asserting that for years railroads had
been authorized by law to issue free
transportation to their own employees
and their families and to exchange
passes with other railroads, the pro-
testing carriers contended they had
the right to haul free private cars Of
other companies when used by persons
holding passes.
The interstate Commerce Commits
sion held the free transportation of
such cars constituted unlawful dis
termination and ordered that they be
moved at regular published rates.
A three Judge Federal Court at
Louisville, KY, sustained the commits
sion, taking the position that, while
railroads were permitted to issue passes
under certain restrictions, the holders
of such passes could not be given undue
preference or advantage over paying
passengers.
1t announced, however, that a rail-
road could haul its own officers and
employees free over its own lines in pri-
vate cars when engaged in performing
their official duties.