The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-10-14
Supreme Court WiH ! Make New History
Ccontinued from Page l)

strengthen machine control enacted under the regime of the late Sena- tor Huey P. Long.
 Decided to hear appeal involving the Louisiana legislatures tax on newspaper advertising, described as involving freedom of the press.
 Decided to hear case under the Johnson act, designed to prevent utility companies from delaying or thwarting imposed rate reductions.
 Decided to hear case involving legislation passed by congress to permit states to bar prison-made goods of another state.
 Decided to interpret the Russian recognition agreement to permit strengthening out of rights of the United States in assets of old 1nl- perial Russian corporations which are on deposit in America.
 Denied the United States re- view of the court of claims ruling that excise taxes could not be i'm posed on motorcycles sold to muni- cipalities through agencies for use by the police department or for any other function of the municipal government.
 The ruling was made in suit by the Indian Motorcycle company of Springfield, Mass, which sought to collect $19,418 on machines sold in this manner.
 Refused to review the reorganiza- ton of the Van Sweringens Ale ghany corporation which is under attack by Thomas Campbell, New York lawyer and holder of $26,000 of the corporations 1850 bonds.
 Tom Mooney Case
 The courts action was understood only to indicate that it does not in tend to interrupt the California pro- ceedings. It does not prevent the Mooney lawyers from appealing from from the state courts decision on the direct question of his free dom when that decision finally is made.
 The court last term refused with out prejudice to hear similar plea. In so doing 1t handed down an op- tion sharply critical of California officials.
 The tone of the opnion was such that 1t caused the attorneys for the famous prisoner to file 8 petition for writ of habeas corpus with the California supreme court. Higher tribunal had indicated that it could not consider the Mooney case un- til every recourse to the state had been made.
 Proceedings recently were begun before a referee appointed by the California supreme court to take testimony. The hearing, reviving issues of the trial at which Mooney was convicted of the 1916 Prepared ness Day parade plot, became very bitter.
 Thomas J. Finnerty and Frank P. Walsh, Mooney's lawyers, then ap- pealed to the supreme court to take the case itself on the grounds the California proceedings were being prolonged for the purpose of ex- hausting Moneys funds.
 Huey Long Case | The supreme court today refused to enter the Louisiana political pic ture by announcing it will not con- slider an attack on one of the laws which the late Sen. Huey P. Long, the states slain democratic dictator, damned through the state legisla- ture in his attempt to wrest control of New Orleans from Mayor T. Semmes Walmsley.
 One of the briefs filed in the case in behalf of the board of commits sioners of the port of New Orleans and others who are opposing the appeal, was prepared by Long and bears his name. It is replete with his colloquialisms.
 The law itself set up different personnel for the control of the sewage and water board, set up in 1899 and changed by the legislation involved. The latetr was passed at the second extraordinary session of the Louisiana state legislature in 1884.
 The law changed the manner of appointing members of the board in a way to work against the Walmsley machine.
 Those opposing the law held that it violated the contract which hold CTS of the city's bonds had with the taxpayers of the city.
 Processing Tax Case
 The processing tax case is likely to be the most important case this term, involving as it does, levies taxes on such products as cotton, heat, rice, corn, hogs, sugar beets and sugar cane, paper, jute, peanuts and rye.
 From these taxes the new deal has raised the money withW hich to pay farmers bounties for not pro- ducing to the full extent of their ability. By June 30 1886, it is an- ticipated the government will have paid out $1,379,565,42l in such bounties.
 To June 30, 1885, collections from the processing taxes amounted to $893, ,3O2, ,994. Following the Hoosac Mills decision, collections fell off materially. More than 1000 cases are pending in the courts question ing the validity of the tax.
 These figures were cited by the government in asking an early re- view of the case. In the meantime the agriculture adjustment act has been amended in the hope of rem edying the defects found by the Boston court. Nevertheless, a large share of the processing taxes col lceted or in dispute might have to be returned.
 Blow at Lobbying
 Washington, Oct. 14-(UP)-The supreme court tacitly struck blow at lobbying by attorneys today when it refused to review a case involving the names of some of the leading