Volume 197 — United States Reports

Held: that the effect of the statute was merely to take away the remedy, and did not bind the estate, or transfer the title.’ ” 25 Washington, 388.

<p>This'case is governed by the'decision in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267, and. Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Ely, ante, p. 1.</p>

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state. Jacobson has been invoked in numerous other Supreme Court cases as an example of a baseline exercise of the police power.

The plaintiff in error seeks by this writ to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia (not yet reported), affirming the decree of .the Supreme Court of that District, sitting as a court of probate, admitting the will of George W. Utermehle to probate as a will of real estate, by virtue of the jurisdiction conferred upon the court by the act-of Congress of June 8, 1898. 30 Stat. 434.

Held: however, that when the' business of the company which is wholly within the State, is but (not) a mere incident to its interstate business, such fact would furnish any obstacle to the valid taxation by the State of the business of the company which is entirely local.

Held: a mere difference in the methods of state and national bank taxation is not repugnant to the act of Congress. The balance of the paragraph is substantially a charge of a discrimination by reason of a failure to deduct debts. . But that, it is conceded in the

This suit was brought under the Anti-Trust Acts of the State of Texas,, to forfeit the license of the National Cotton Oil Company to do business in the State of Texas, for violating those acts. The defense is that the acts are repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment of' the Constitution of the United States.

<p>Decided on the authority of .National Cotton Oil Company v. Texas, ante, p. 115.</p>

<p>CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

The action now appealed was brought under the act of June 16, 1880, known as the District of Columbia Claims Act. 21 Stat. 284. The original petition was filed August 4, 1880. At subsequent stages of the case amended petitions were filed. On October 1, 1887, the Court of Claims decided the case in favor of the District of Columbia, giving judgment against the claimant for the sum of $11,074.11. 22 C. Cl. 366.

Held: in Grew v. Breed, 10 Met. 569 , that administrators of deceased stockholders were chargeable in equity, as for other debts of their intestate, in their representative capacity.” In Matteson v. Dent the evidence showed that at the time of the death of Matteson he was the owner of ten shares of stock in a national bank, a going concern.

Held: the mere fact that he was arrested by a person not authorized to do so does not entitle him to his discharge.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The iacts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

This suit was commenced in thé Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin on February 25, 1895, to set aside the patents for fourteen quarter sections of land, charged to have been fraudulently acquired by the. defendant James Stinson. The lands were entered under the preemption laws in 1854, 1855, by different individuals, and immediately thereafter conveyed by them to James Stinson.

Held: by them, the said Clyatt & Tift,, to work out a debt claimed to be due to them, the said Clyatt & Tift, by.the said Will Gordon and Mose Ridley; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity Of the United States.” The. second count differs only in charging that defendant caused and aided in returning Gordon and Ridley.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims in favor of the appellee. The question relates to the amount of compensation payable to him under the acts of May 26, 1900, and March 2, 1901, making appropriations for the Army. The particular provisions of these acts are set forth in the margin.1</p> <p>The court gave judgment in favor of appellee upon the authority of its opinion in Irwin v. United States, 38 C. Cl. 87.</p> <p>The facts found by the court are as follows:</p> <p>“The claimant, Stephen C. Mills, entered the military service of the United States as a cadet at the Military Academy, July 1, 1873, was commissioned second lieutenant June 15, 1877, and by successive promotions became major and inspector-general July 25, 1888, and lieutenant-colonel and inspector-general February 2, 1901, and still holds the last-named rank and office.</p> <p>. “The claimant was, by proper military orders, on duty with the Army of the United States in the Philippine Islands from a date prior to May 26, 1900, continuously until April 15, 1902, when, in accordance with orders, he arrived at San Francisco, California, on his return from said Philippine Islands. . During all of that period he was serving in the Philippine Islands and beyond the limits of the States comprising the Union and the Territories of the United States contiguous thereto.</p> <p>“During the entire period from May 26, 1900, to April 15, 1902, named in the next preceding finding, the claimant while holding the rank of major was paid at the rate of $2,500 a year, the minimum pay of the grade of major established by section 1261 of the Revised Statutes; $1,000 longevity increase established by section 1262 of the Revised Statutes, and $250 a year as the increase of ten per cent, upon his pay proper provided by the act of May 26, 1900, 31 Stat. 211, but calculated only upon the minimum or grade pay fixed by said section 1261.</p> <p>"While holding the rank of lieutenant-colonel during said period the claimant was paid at the rate of $3,000 a year, the minimum pay of that grade as provided by section 1261 of the Revised Statutes, $1,000 longevity increase provided by section 1262, and $300 a year as ten per cent, increase on his pay proper as provided by the acts of May 26, 1900, and March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. 211, 903), but computed only on the minimum pay of the grade.</p> <p>"If said ten per cent, increase should be calculated upon the total pay of $3,500 received by the claimant while in the rank of major, his increase would be at the rate of $350 a, year instead of $250, and-if so calculated while he was in the rank of lieutenant-colonel the increase would be at the rate of $400 a year instead of $300, making a difference of $100 a year for the period covered by the claim, and aggregating-for the entire period $188.87.”</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' FOR THE THIRD> SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.</p> <p>The facts are stated in- the opinion.</p>

Held: that: Where the decreé of the Circuit Court of Appeals in an action in equity, only reverses an order of the Circuit Court granting an injunction, but the court, the record presenting the whole case, practically disposes of the entire controversy on the merits, certiorari may issue from this court and , this court may finally dispose of it by its direction to the Circuit Court.

Held: that the writ of error must be dismissed.

-ERROR TO, AND APPEAL FROM, THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP OKLAHOMA. The facts in this case may be summarized as follows: On April 23, April 24 and May 1, .1889, White, Blanchard and Cook, respectively and in the order named, applied, at the United States Land Office in Guthrie, Oklahoma' Territory, to make a homestead entry on certain lands, being part of the Southwest of Section 27, Township 12, north of range 3 west.

• This was an action in the Superior Court of Fresno County, California, to quiet title to certain lands in that county. The complaint by Miller and The Home Oil Company was filed. October 14, 1898. The case was tried by the court without a jury, findings of fact were made, and a decree entered in favor of the plaintiffs below. On appeal to the 'Supreme ■Court of the State this decree was affirmed (September 13, 1903). 140 California, 440.

<p>Words in the Constitution of■ the United States do not ordinarily receive a narrow and contracted meaning, but are presumed to have been used in a broad sense with a view, of covering all contingencies.</p> <p>The word “charged” in Art. IV,- § 2, Subd. 2, was used in its broad signifi- • cation to cover any proceeding which a State might see fit to adopt for a formal accusation against an alleged criminal.</p> <p>Extradition, or rendition, is but one step in securing the presence of the • accused in the court in which he may be tried and in no manner determines the question of guilt, and while courts will always endeavor to prevent any wrong in the extradition of a person to answer a charge of crime ignorantly .or wantonly made, the possibility cannot always be guarded against and the process of extradition must not be so burdened as to make it practically valueless. .</p> <p>The extradition of an alleged fugitive from justice against.whom a charge of the crime of securing property by false pretences has been made and is pending before a justice of the peace of Ohio, having jurisdiction conferred .upon him' by the laws o.f that State to examine and bind over for trial in a superior court, is authorized by Art. IV, § 2, Subd. 2 of the Constitution of the United States, and section 5278, Rev. Stat.</p>

Held: that: ■Parr*1205, Naval 'Regulations of 1865, providing thaUthe arrest and discharge of a person in the Navy for an' offense shall be a bar to further martial proceedings against him for. that .offense, does not apply to an .arrest and temporary- confinement not intended as a punishment but as a reasonable precaution for the maintenance of good order and discipline aboard.

By this writ of error it is sought to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado, affirming a judgment of the District Court of Lake County in favor of the Ferrum Mining Company in a proceeding brought by the plaintiffs in error under Rev. Stat. sec. 2326 to determine the right of possession to certain mining grounds, plaintiffs claiming title as owners of the Eulalia lode mining claim and the defendant claiming title to the same ground as the Golden Rod lode mining…

<p>The statutes of 1892 of the Territory of Hawaii purporting to confer upon the judges of the several courts, at chambers, within their respective jurisdictions, judicial power not incident or ancillary to some cause pending before a court, are not in conflict with § 81 of the Organic Act of the Territory, approved April 30, 1900, 31 Stat. 141, 157, and the'power of the judges to act at chambers was expressly saved by the provision in § 81 continuing the law of Hawaii theretofore in force concerning courts and their jurisdiction until the legislature otherwise ordered, except as otherwise provided in the Organic Act.</p> <p>In construing the organic act of a Territory the whole act must be considered in order to obtain a comprehensive view of the intention of ’ Congress, and no single section should be segregated and given undue prominence where other sections bear upon the same subject. Whether a petition in a probate proceeding to a court acting as a probate court shall be addressed to, and passed upon by the judge, while sitting in court or at chambers is more a matter of form than of substance.</p>

Charles A. Goetz became a‘voluntary bankrupt on October 12, 1900. George B. Keppel, the trustee, sued the Tiffin Savings Bank in an Ohio court to cancel two real estate mortgages executed by Goetz, one to secure a note for four and the other a note for two thousand dollars. The mortgage to secure the four thousand-dollar note was made more than four months before the adjudication in bankruptcy.

On May 26, 1899, John Smith was serving under enlistment as a fireman of the first class on board the United States naval vessel Yorktown, then at anchor in Iloilo harbor, Philippine Islands.

This case comes here by virtue of a certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Which sets forth the following facts: The -case came before the Circuit Court of Appeals by appeal from the decree of the United States Circuit' Court for the Southern District of New York, sustaining demurrers to the bill of complaint and dismissing the bill.

<p>The order of the President of July 12, 1898, directing the levying of duties on goods landed in the Philippine Islands, was a regulation for and during the then existing war with Spain, referred to as definitely as if it had been named, and was not a power for any other military occasion. The right to levy duties thereunder on goods brought from the United States ceased on the termination of the war by the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace with Spain on April 11, 1899. Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S. 222.</p> <p>After the title to the Philippine Islands passed to the United States by the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace, there was nothing in the Philippine insurrection of sufficient gravity to give to the islands the character of foreign countries within the meaning of a tariff act. Fourteen Diamond Rings, 183 U. S. 176.</p> <p>Under the act of Congress of .July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691, ratifying the action of the President and the authorities of the government- of the Philippine Islands, the ratification is confined to those acts which were in accordance with the provisions of the order of July 12, 1898, and not to the collection of duties after April 11, 1899, which were within such provisions.</p>

<p>In determining whether an improvement does, or does not, benefit property within the assessment district, the land should be considered simply in its general relations and apart from its. particular use at the time; and an assessment, otherwise legal, for grading, paving and curbing an adjoining street is not void under the Fourteenth Amendment because the lot is not benefited by the improvement owing to its present particular use.</p> <p>A system of delusive exactness should not be extracted from the very general language ■ of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to destroy methods of taxation which were well known when the Amendment was adopted, and which no one then supposed would be disturbed.</p>

This case is here on writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to review a judgment of that court, affirming a judgment of the District Court for the District of Hawaii, in which the petitioner, Ilackfeld and Company, was adjudged guilty of a violation of section 10 of the act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1084, and to pay a fine of $600, for neglecting to return to the port from whence, they came, Yokohama, Japan, two certain Japanese immigrants…

Held: among other things, that the lease to the Pioneer Iron Company and the rights acquired thereby were appurtenant to the furnaces then existing upon the lands, and that it acquired no right to mine more ore than was necessary to supply such furnaces.

<p>Section 939 of the District of Columbia Code, providing that if any person charged with a criminal offense shall have been committed or held to bail to await the action of the grand jury, and the grand jury does not act within nine months the prosecution on the charge shall be deemed to be abandoned and the accused set free or his bail discharged, is not a statute of limitations, and does not repeal or affect the general statute of limitations in force in the District, § 1044 Rev. Stat., and a person, who in this case had not made any application under § 939 to be released from bail, may be held to answer upon an indictment found more than nine months after he was arrested and held to bail.</p> <p>It wo.Jd require clear and specif:-' language to indicate a legislative intent to bar the prosecution of all offenses for the failure of the grand jury to act within nine months of the arrest of the accused when the latter is at large under bail.</p>

Held: that this court has no original jurisdiction and as the controversy was not one between a State and citizens of another State, and under the act of February 9, 1893, 27 Stat. 434 , estab- ■ lishing -the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, this court has no appellate jurisdiction as it cannot review judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the District directly by appeal or writ of error.

<p>ORIGINAL.</p> <p>On October 15, 1904, petitioner was-convicted in the District Court of the United States, District of Kansas, under an indictment charging that he did “unlawfully sell, give away and dispose of certain malt, spirituous and vinous liquors, at' the town of Horton, in the county of 'Brown, in the State and District of Kansas, to John Butler, to wit, two quarts of beer, more or less, and he, the said John Butler,- being then- and there an Indian, a member of the Kickapoo tribe of Indians and a ward of the Government, under the 'charge of O. C. Edwards,an Indian superintendent, contrary to the form of the statute in such ease made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States, of A-merica.” Upon such conviction he was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail of Shawnee County, Kansas, for a period of four months, and to pay a fine in the sum of two hundred dollars and the costs of the prosecution. The Court .of Appeals of tire Eighth Circuit having decided the question involved, Farrell v. United, States, 110 Fed. Rep. 942, adversely to his contention, he presented this application for a writ of habeas corpus directly to this court.</p> <p>The act of Congress, January 30,1897, 29 Stat. 506, provides:</p> <p>“.That any person who shall sell, give away, dispose of, exchange, or barter any malt, spirituous, or vinous liquor,, including beer, ale, and wine, or any ardent or other intoxicating liquor of any kind whatsoever, or . any essence, extract, bitters, preparation, compound, composition, or any article whatsoever, under any name, label, or brand, which produces intoxication, to any Indian-to whom allotment of land has been made while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the Government, or to any Indian a ward of the Government under charge op any Indian superintendent, or agent, or any Indian, including mixed bloods, over whom the Government, through sits departments, exercises guardianship, ... - shall be ^punished by imprisonment for not less than sixty days, .and by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars for the first offense and not Jess than two hundred dollars for each offense thereafter.” :</p> <p>The act of Congress, February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, is entitled “An act t(j> provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations, and to extend the protection of the laws of the United States and the Territories over the Indians, and for other purposes.” Section 1 of that act provides:</p> <p>“That in all cases where any tribe or band of Indians has been, or shall hereafter be, located upon any reservation created for their use, either by treaty stipulation or by virtue of an act of Congress or executive order setting apart the same for their use, the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized, whenever in his opinion any reservation or any part thereof of such Indians is advantageous for agricultural and grazing purposes, to cause said reservation, or any. part .thereof, to be surveyed, or resurveyed if necessary, and to allot the lands in said reservation in severalty to any Indian located thereon in quantities as follows: . . . ”</p> <p>“ Sec. 4. That where any Indian not residing upon a reservation, or for whose tribe no reservation has been provided by treaty, act of Congress, or executive order, shall make settlement upon any surveyed or unsurveyed lands of the United States not otherwise appropriated, he or she shall be entitled, upon application to the local land office for the district in which the lands are located, to have the same allotted to him or her, and to his or her children, in quantities and manner as provided in this act for Indians, residing upon, reservations; and when such settlement is made upon unsurveyed lands, the grant to such Indians shall be adjusted upon the survey of the lands so as to conform thereto; and patents shall be issued to them for such lands in the manner and with the restrictions as herein provided.' . . .”</p> <p>Section 5 reads:</p> <p>“That upon the approval of the allotments provided for in this act by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall cause patents to issue therefor in the name of the allottees, which patents shall be of the legal effect, and declare that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted, for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian .to whom such allotment shall have been made, or, in case of his decease, of his heirs according to the laws of the St^te or Territory where such land is located, and that at the expiration of said period the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian, or his heirs as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever; Provided, That the President of the United States may in any case in his discretion extend the period. And. if any conveyance shall be made of the lands set apart and allotted as herein provided, or any contract made touching the same, before the expiration of the time above mentioned, such conveyance.orcontractsha.il be absolutely null and void. . .</p> <p>Section 6 is as follows: “That upon the completion of said allotments and the patenting of .the lands to said allottees, each and every member of j;he respective bands or tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to the daws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside; and no Territory shall pass or enforce any law denying any such Indian within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. And every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States to whom allotments Shall have been made under the provisions of this act, or under any law or treaty, and every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States who has voluntarily taken up, within said limits, his residence.separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein,, and has adopted the habits ' of civilized life, is hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States; and is entitled to' all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such citizens, whether said Indian has been or not, by birth or otherwise, a member of any tribe of Indians within the territorial limits of the United States without in any manmer impairing or. otherwise affecting the right of any such Indian t<b tribal or other property.”</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA.</p> <p>This was an action commenced on June 27, 1898, in the District Court of' Buffalo County, Nebraska, and terminated by a decision of the Supreme Court of the State. 65 Nebraska, 137. The facts found by the District Court are that McBride and Killgore were respectively the owners and in possession of tracts of land bordering on the Platte River, one on the north and the other on the south side thereof. Between these two tracts and in the main channel of the Platte River is an island, containing about twenty-two acres. This island had been in the possession of McBride and Killgore for more than ten years prior to the bringing of the action, but during that time they were contending as to how much of the land.each was entitled to. It had never been surveyed by the Government. , • -</p> <p>It appeared in evidence that Whitaker, in 1897, settled on the island, claiming the right to enter the same as a homestead; that application to the Land Department of the Government to haye the island surveyed was in 1897-refused, the Department declining to take any action in the matter. . These lands were a part- of the Fort Kearney Military Reservation, which was surveyed and sold under a special act of Congress, dated July 21, 1876, 19 Stat. 94; the patent to McBride, who had entered his tract as a homestead, bearing date March 28, 1885. There was testimony tending to show that the- island was.at the time of the survey of the reservation frequently covered, with water, and that since then — perhaps owing to the construction of bridges and dykes — overflows had been less frequent and the land better adapted to occupation and cultivation. The decree directed by the-Supreme Court was adverse to Whitaker, and quieted the title of McBride and Killgore to the island, giving-to each one-half.</p>

Held: as the Philippine Islands are held, under the sovereignty of the United States as a possession or dependency. ' Concerning the test to be applied to determine whether in a particular case acquired territory has been incorporated into and forms a part o£ the United States,' we do not deem it necessary to review the general subject, again contenting ourselves by quoting a brief passage from the opinion in Dorr v.…

<p>The Circuit Court of the United States' has no original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus at the instance of . the Interstate Commerce Commission against a railroad company to compel it to make a report of the matters and things specified in § 20 of the act of Congress to regulate commerce.</p>

This cause coming on for final decree, in pursuance of the opinion of this court filed herein on December 19, 1904, and the stipulation of the respective parties by their counsel filed herein on January 30, 1905, which said stipulation is in words •and figures as follows, to wit:

<p>Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.</p>