UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



UNITED STATES WAE RKmiM). 777 



born in California of Chinese parents and returned 

 to China and was refused readinission to the United 

 States. The court held that he was a citizen by 

 the fourteenth amendment and should .be ad- 

 mitted. 



Indian Depredation Claims. In United States 

 and Comanche Indians vs. Kemp the judgment of 

 the Court of Claims was affirmed by a divided 

 court. The case turned on a question involving 

 the validity of several million dollars of claims 

 growing out of alleged Indian depredations. The 

 Government contended that these claims, under the 

 Indian treaties, should have been presented within 

 the proper time to the tribes. The Court of Claims 

 held that this was not necessary. 



l~>eath of Commissioner of Patents. In United 

 States ex rel. Bernardin vs. liutterworth il was held 

 that a suit in mandamus to compel the Commis- 

 sioner of Patents to issue a patent abates by the 

 death of the commissioner, and can not be revived 

 so as to bring in his successor, although the latter 

 gives his consent. 



Bequest to Smithsonian Institution. The case 

 of Smithsonian Institution vs. Meech involved the 

 right of a husband to devise property held as a 

 trust in his wife's name. Robert S. Avery, of 

 Washington, after giving in his will $1,000 to the 

 relatives of his wife, whose death had occurred 

 before his, left the residue of his property to the 

 Smithsonian Institution. The principal part of 

 this property was a lot of laud in Washington in 

 Mrs. Avery's name, and the will was attacked on 

 the ground that he could not dispose of property 

 whose title was in his wife's name. The Court did 

 not sustain this view. Justice Brewer said : " It is 

 true that when the consideration is paid by a hus- 

 band and the conveyance made to his wife there is 

 a presumption that such a conveyance was intended 

 for her benefit ; but this is not a presumption of 

 law but of fact, and can be overthrown by proof of 

 the real intent of the parties. 



The Antitrust Law. The case of United States 

 vs. Joint Traffic Association et al. was argued on 

 Feb. 24 and 25, 1898, and decided Oct. 24. It was 

 brought under the antitrust law to have the agree- 

 ment creating the Joint Traffic Association declared 

 illegal and its further execution enjoined. The 

 joint traffic agreement went into effect Jan. 1, 1896. 

 Under it 31 railroad companies, constituting 9 

 trunk line systems, practically controlling the 

 business of railroad transportation between Chi- 

 cago and the Atlantic coast, entered into an agree- 

 ment, for the purpose of maintaining rates and 

 fares on all competitive traffic. The court held, 

 Justice Peckham delivering the opinion, following 

 the Trans-Missouri case, that the joint traffic agree- 

 ment was in violation of the antitrust law, and 

 therefore void ; and it further held that Congress, 

 in dealing with interstate commerce, and in the 

 course of regulating it in the case of railroad cor- 

 porations, has the power to say that no contract or 

 combination shall be legal which shall restrain trade 

 and commerce by shutting out the operation of the 

 general law of competition. Justices Gray, Shiras, 

 and White dissented ; Justice McKenna took no 

 part in the case. 



Live Stock Exchange. The case of Hopkins vs. 

 United States (the Kansas City Live Stock Ex- 

 change) was a prosecution under the antitrust act of 

 July 2, 1890. The court held that the association 

 did" not come within the terms of the law, because 

 it did not appear that the defendants were engaged 

 in interstate commerce or that their agreements 

 were in restraint of any such commerce. Justice 

 Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion. 



Alaskan Seal Fisheries. Among the more im- 

 portant litigation concluded during the year was 



that of the United States vs. The North American 

 Commercial Company. By an indenture, bearing 

 date March 12, 1890, made by the Secretary of the 

 Treasury with this company, it bi.-caim- tlic 1. 

 of the seal fisheries on the Pribylov Inlands of St. 

 George and St. Paul, in Alaska, for twenty years, at 

 an annual rental of $60,000, in addition to which 

 the company agreed to pay a revenue tax or duty 

 of $2 upon each fur-seal skin taken and shipped, and 

 also the further sum of $7.62^ for each fur-sealskin 

 so taken and shipped. The right of the company 

 to engage in the business of taking fur seals on 

 these islands was exclusive. An action was brought 

 by the United States against the company in tin- 

 United States circuit court at New York city to 

 recover the annual rental, as defined in the lease, 

 for the year ending April 1, 1894. which amounted, 

 according to the claim of the Government, to $132.- 

 187.50. The company disputed its obligation to 

 pay this rental upon the ground that by the. con- 

 vention or agreement between the United States 

 and the Government of Great Britain, commonly 

 called the modus vivendi, established during the 

 pendency of the arbitration between those two gov- 

 ernments relating to the Bering Sea controversy 

 and the preservation of the seals resorting to those 

 waters, the United States prohibited the company 

 from taking in excess of 7,500 seals in the year 

 mentioned. The company further set up a claim 

 for specific damages against the United States by 

 reason of its interference with its alleged right 

 under the lease, the amount of said counterclaim 

 amounting to $287,725 for the skins it could have 

 taken during the season of 1893 had not the United 

 States, under the modus vivendi, prevented it from 

 so doing. The case having been tried in the circuit 

 court without a jury, that court awarded to the 

 United States the sum of $94,687.50, with interest. 

 The said court, as to the counterclaim of the com- 

 pany, decided that by reason of the breach of the 

 lease by the United States prohibiting the defend- 

 ant from taking any seal skins during 1893. the 

 United States was liable to the company for the 

 sum of $142,187.50. but that on account of the fail- 

 ure of the company to present its claim and have 

 it disallowed by the accounting officers of the 

 Treasury, it could not be allowed as a counterclaim 

 or credit in that suit, and was accordingly dis- 

 missed, but not on the merits, and without prejudice 

 to the right of the company to enforce its claim by 

 any other proper legal proceeding. The case hav- 

 ing been appealed and removed to the Supreme 

 Court, it was decided substantially in favor of the 

 Government, the amount of the judgment in the 

 case pending being reduced, however, to $76,687.50. 



UNITED STATES WAR RECORD. In..,,- 

 nection with the details given in the article im- 

 mediately preceding as to the extent of military 

 and naval operations during the war with Spain, it 

 is of interest to note the record of each organiza- 

 tion, both Federal and State. The State reeords. 

 with the exception of Idaho, Kentucky, and Nevada, 

 are complete. This is due to tin- promnt and ef- 

 fective responses made by Governors and members 

 of their military staffs. In the case of States not 

 represented, live appeals were made for the n 

 sary information, which, up to time of going to t 

 has not been forthcoming. In numerous instanees. 

 among the most populous States, much time and 

 labor has been cheerfully expended by adjutants- 

 general in order that a fair showing of the record 

 might be made. 



The fullness of the record given below for Fed- 

 eral troops has been made possible by prompt and 

 effective action on the part of Adjutant-General 

 Henry C. Corbin and Assistant-Adjutant-General 

 W. H. Carter, both of whom have cheerfully placed 



