

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (THE SUPREME COURT.) 



685 



not subject to legacy tax under the act of June 

 13, 1898. 



The sections of that act (now repealed) impo- 

 sing a legacy tax did not apply to deceased per- 

 sons domiciled abroad who left property by will 

 executed in this country. 



Carrier's Liability. The Kensington, decided 

 Jan. 6, 1902. The Kensington, a steamer run- 

 ning between Antwerp and New York, took on 

 board at Antwerp as passengers Mrs. and Miss 

 Bleecker, the wife and daughter of a United 

 States naval officer. Their baggage was totally 

 destroyed on the voyage, on account of bad 

 storage. One of the conditions printed on the 

 ticket provided that the company should not be 

 liable for baggage beyond 250 francs for each 

 passenger, unless an increased value was declared 

 and an additional sum paid. It was held in the 

 United States District Court that the stipula- 

 tion as to the value of the baggage was valid, 

 and judgment was rendered against the company 

 for 250 francs in favor of each of the above-named 

 passengers, which was affirmed by the Circuit 

 Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, 

 and allowed actual damages with interest. Ex- 

 emptions limiting carriers' responsibility for the 

 negligence of themselves or their servants are 

 unjust and unreasonable, and such conditions are 

 in conflict with public policy. One of the con- 

 ditions provided that all questions arising were 

 to be settled according to the law of Belgium, 

 which authorized the conditions, the contract 

 having been made in that country; but such a 

 contract can not be enforced in this country in 

 violation of the rule of public policy adopted by 

 our courts. 



Bankruptcy Law. In the case of the Hanover 

 National Bank vs. Moyses, decided June 2, 1902, 

 the court, in an opinion delivered by .Chief-Jus- 

 tice Fuller, decided the national bankruptcy law 

 of 1898 to be constitutional. The court held 

 that to be valid a bankruptcy law must be uni- 

 form throughout the United States, and further, 

 that it is uniform " when the trustee takes in 

 each State whatever would have been available 

 to the creditors if the bankrupt law had not 

 been passed." The general operation of the law 

 is uniform, although it recognizes the local law 

 in the matter of exemptions. The opinion said: 

 " Congress may prescribe any regulations con- 

 cerning discharge in bankrupty that are not so 

 grossly unreasonable as to be incompatible with 

 fundamental law; and we can not find anything 

 in this act on that subject which would justify 

 us in overthrowing its action." 



Interstate Commerce Commission Overruled. 

 In the case of the Interstate Commerce Commis- 

 sion x vs. the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy 

 Railroad Company the right of the commission 

 to reduce the terminal rate made by the rail- 

 roads in Chicago on cars containing live stock 

 was involved. The opinion affirmed the decision 

 of the Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused 

 to carry into effect the order of the commission 

 reducing the rate from $2 to $1 per car. The 

 court said : " Being constrained to the conclu- 

 sion that the order of the commission was not 

 sustained by the facts upon which it was predi- 

 cated, we can not enter into an investigation of 

 , the facts, even if it be conceded the record is in a 

 condition to enable us to do so, in order that 

 ni'\v and substantive findings of fact may be 

 evolved upon which the order of the commission 

 may be sustained. It follows that the decree of 

 the Circuit Court of Appeals refusing to com- 



and compliance with the order of the commis- 

 on was right and must, therefore, be affirmed." 



Privacy of Telegrams. The case of the United 

 States vs. Edward A. Mosely, secretary of the 

 Interstate Commerce Commission, involving the 

 right of the commission to withhold from the 

 auditing officers of the Government copies of 

 telegrams sent by it, was decided in Mr. Mose- 

 ly's favor. The opinion was handed down by 

 Justice McKenna. 



Exclusion from the Mails. The case of the 

 American School of Magnetic Healing vs. McAn- 

 nulty, postmaster at Nevada, Mo., decided Nov. 

 17, 1902, involved the right of the Post-Office De- 

 partment to refuse to deliver mail to the school, 

 on the ground of fraud. The act of the Postmas- 

 ter-General was declared invalid. The statute 

 was only intended to cover cases of actual fraud 

 in fact. Justices White and McKenna dissented. 



Courts-Martial. In an opinion delivered in 

 the case of McClaughry vs. Deming, May 19, 

 1902, it was held that an officer in the volunteer 

 service can not be tried for a crime by a court- 

 martial composed of officers of the regular army. 

 The invalidity of the court-martial can be 

 raised on a hearing on habeas corpus. The Chief 

 Justice and Justice McKenna dissented. 



Stanton Carter vs. McClawjhry was a habeas 

 corpus proceeding, instituted to bring before the 

 court the case of Oberlin M. Carter, formerly a 

 captain in the Engineer Corps of the army, serv- 

 ing a term of imprisonment in the Leavenworth 

 Penitentiary under the sentence of a court-mar- 

 tial. Carter was tried and convicted and was 

 sentenced to be dismissed from the army and 

 pay a fine of $5,000, and to be imprisoned in the 

 penitentiary for five years. The principal point 

 made was that, having paid the fine and been 

 dismissed from the army, he could not be im- 

 prisoned in the penitentiary without punishing 

 him twice for the same offense. The court held 

 that he had been convicted under separate 

 charges of distinct offenses, for which the court- 

 martial was empowered to punish him. The rule 

 was reiterated, that civil tribunals will not re- 

 vise the proceedings of courts-martial, except for 

 the purpose of ascertaining whether they had 

 jurisdiction of the person and of the subject- 

 matter, and whether, though having such juris- 

 diction, they have exceeded their powers in the 

 sentences pronounced. 



Exclusion of Aliens. Fok-Yung-Yo vs. United 

 States, decided May 5, 1902. This case related 

 to the privilege of transit of Chinese persons 

 across the territory of the United States, and 

 raised an inquiry as to the power of the judiciary 

 to interfere with the action of the executive au- 

 thorities of the Government in such matters. 

 The conclusions of the court were as follow: 

 The power to exclude or expel aliens is vested 

 in the political departments of the Government, 

 to be regulated by treaty or by act of Congress, 

 and to be executed by the executive authority 

 according to such regulations, except so far as 

 the judicial department is authorized by treaty 

 or by statute, or is required by the Constitution, 

 to intervene. And this is true of the privilege 

 of transit. By the treaty between the United 

 States and China, of 1894, the privilege of tran- 

 sit across the territory of the United States could 

 only be enjoyed subject to such regulations of 

 the Government of the United States as might 

 be necessary to prevent the privilege from being 

 abused. Under existing regulations the action 

 of the collector of customs in refusing transit can 

 not be interfered with by the courts. Justices 

 Brewer and Peckham dissented. 



Taf on MerclHiiulixe Brokers. Stockard rs. 

 Morgan, decided April 7, 1902. This case raised 



