684 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (THE SUPREME COURT.) 



insolvent national banking association. The 

 court held that several assessments could be le- 

 gitimately made if necessary. 



Statutory Construction. Rodgers vs. United 

 States, decided April 7, 1902. This was a suit 

 brought by Admiral Rodgers of the navy to re- 

 cover money claimed to be due under the law 

 known as the navy personnel act, approved 

 March 3, 1899. The Court of Claims decided the 

 case in favor of the United States, and the Su- 

 preme Court affirmed that decision. Section 7 of 

 the act referred to abolished the rank of commo- 

 dore, at least as far as respects the active list of 

 the line of the navy, and lifted those in that 

 rank to that of rear-admiral. It is a canon of 

 statutory construction that a later statute, gen- 

 eral in its terms and not expressly repealing a 

 prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the 

 special provision of such earlier statute. 



Patent Cases. In the case of Excelsior Wooden 

 Pipe Company vs. Pacific Bridge Company, de- 

 cided May 5, 1902, the question of jurisdiction 

 was involved, and interesting dictums were pro- 

 nounced. If a suit is brought to enforce or set 

 aside a contract, though such contract be con- 

 nected with a patent, it is not a suit under the 

 patent laws, and jurisdiction of the Circuit Court 

 can only be maintained upon the ground of di- 

 versity of citizenship. It is sometimes difficult 

 to determine whether the action be upon the 

 patent or upon a contract. 



The case of the Carnegie Steel Company vs. 

 Cambria Iron Company was for recovery of dam- 

 ages for infringement of a patent for a " method 

 of mixing molten pig metal." The decision was 

 in favor of the Carnegie Company, but a dissent- 

 ing opinion was delivered by Mr. Justice White, 

 in which the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Harlan, 

 and Mr. Justice Brewer united. Their judgment 

 was that the decision of the court tended " to put 

 the patentee in a position where, without inven- 

 tion on his part, and without the possession by 

 him of lawful letters patent, he is allowed to 

 exact tribute from the steel and iron making in- 

 dustry, whenever those engaged in such industry 

 desire to increase their plants or to more con- 

 veniently and satisfactorily conduct their opera- 

 tions, so as to keep pace with the natural evolu- 

 tion of modern industrial development." 



Extradition Treaty with Prussia, The case of 

 Terlinden vs. Ames was an extradition proceed- 

 ing involving the status of the Kingdom of Prus- 

 sia since its incorporation into the Empire of 

 Germany. Terlinden, a citizen of Prussia, was 

 apprehended in Chicago, where the German au- 

 thorities made application under our treaty with 

 Prussia of 1852 for extradition for an offense 

 committed in Prussia. The proceeding was re- 

 sisted on the ground that the absorption of Prus- 

 sia had had the effect of nullifying the treaty. 

 Application was made for a writ of habeas 

 corpus, which was denied by the lower courts. 

 The Supreme Court sustained the lower courts 

 in their action. Treaties may be terminated by 

 the absorption of powers into other nationalties 

 and the loss of separate existence; but as the 

 German Government had recognized this treaty, 

 and the Executive Department of our Govern- 

 ment had acted in the same direction, it was 

 held not to be within the province of our courts 

 to interfere. 



Treaty with Russia. Tucker vs. Alexandroff, 

 decided Jan. 6, 1902. This case presented an im- 

 portant international question. Alexandroff, as- 

 sistant physician in the Russian navy, came to 

 this country from Russia as a member of the 

 crew of the Variag, a Russian cruiser under con- 



struction at Philadelphia. He deserted, renoun- 

 cing his allegiance to the Emperor, and declared 

 his intention of becoming a citizen of the United 

 States. He was arrested, charged with desertion, 

 and committed to prison, subject to orders of 

 the Russian vice-consul or commander of the 

 cruiser. The United States District Court, upon 

 a hearing on a writ of habeas corpus, ordered 

 his discharge, and the Circuit Court of Appeals 

 affirmed the decision. The Russian vice-consul 

 at Philadelphia appealed the case, and the Su- 

 preme Court decided that, under the treaty with 

 Russia, Alexandroff should be surrendered to the 

 Russian Government. Although the Variag was 

 still upon the stocks when Alexandroff arrived 

 in Philadelphia, before he deserted she had been 

 launched, and thereby became a ship in the legal 

 sense. Chief-Justice Fuller and Justices Harlan,. 

 White, and Gray dissented. They held that the 

 Variag was not, at the time Alexandroff deserted,, 

 a Russian ship of war in the sense that the au- 

 thorities could take affirmative action to en- 

 force the jurisdiction of that country over the 

 men intended to become part of her crew. 



New York Transfer Tax. Orr vs. Gilman, de- 

 cided Jan. 6, 1902. This was the case of a trans- 

 fer tax imposed under the laws of the State of 

 New York, under the following circumstances: 

 David Dows, Sr., died in 1890, leaving a will con- 

 taining a power of appointment to his son, David 

 Dows, Jr., which will was duly admitted to pro- 

 bate. David Dows, Jr., died in 1899, leaving a 

 will, in which he exercised the power of appoint- 

 ment given to him in the will of his father, and 

 appropriated the property, which was the subject 

 of the power, among his 3 sons. The New York 

 State law of 1897 provided that when a per- 

 son exercised a power of appointment derived 

 from any disposition of property, such ap- 

 pointment, when made, shall be deemed a. 

 transfer taxable in the same manner as though 

 the property to which such appointment related 

 belonged absolutely to the donee of the power. 

 It was argued that the grandchildren acquired 

 vested rights under the will of David Dows, Sr.,. 

 and that it was not competent for the State, by 

 an enactment passed in 1897, to exact a tax on 

 the property that passed to the grandchildren 

 under the will. The court held that the subject 

 was one of State law, and must follow the con- 

 struction put upon the law by the State courts; 

 and that it was not in conflict with the provisions- 

 of the federal Constitution. 



Federal Legacy Tax. In Eidman, collector, tt- 

 Martinez, administrator, decided March 17, I'.xt'J, 

 a test case on the application of the federal leg- 

 acy tax law to estates of persons domiciled 

 abroad, it was held that no tax is imposed upon 

 the passing of any legacy or distributive share 

 arising out of the personal property of a non- 

 resident alien, who dies without the United 

 States, leaving a will made and executed at his 

 foreign domicile pursuant to the laws thereof, by 

 which he gives his property to a non-resident 

 alien legatee; or, in case of an intestate whose 

 property, by the laws of his foreign domicile, 

 passes to his son. also a non-resident alien, and 

 who leaves certain property within the United 

 States exceeding $10,000 in value. 



In Moore, collector, rs. Ruckgaber, executor,, 

 decided on the same date, it was held that the 

 personal property of a non-resident testatrix, ac- 

 tually located within the United States at tin' 

 time of her death, is deemed not to have a situf 

 in the United States for the purpose of levying 

 a tax. The transmission or receipt of personal 

 property of the non-resident testatrix was held 



