text: Talk:Overton v. Cheek/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1455

 1404 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CI-18- 368, 369. 1929 . Sworn statement of SEC. 4. The grantees and their assigns shall, within ninety days construction costs, etc ., to be filed, after com- afte r the co mpletion of such bridge, file wit h the Se cretary of War, pletion. and w ith the Hi ghway Depar tment of the State of Washingt on, a sworn itemized statement showing the actual original cost of con- structing the bridge and its approaches, the actual cost of acquiring Examination by See- fia n interest in real nancng and promotion o costs. necessary Secretary of War the actual ret ary ry of War. at the request of the Highway Department of the State of Washing- ton shall, at any time within three years after the completion of such bridge, investigate such costs and determine the accuracy and the reasonableness of the costs alleged in the statement of costs so filed, and shall make a finding of the actual and reasonable costs of constructing, financing, and promoting su ch bridge. For the purpose of such investigation the said grantees and their assigns shall make available all records in connection with the construction, conclusive. Findings of financing, and promotion thereof. The findings of the Secretary of ive . War as to the reasonable costs of the construction, financing, and promotion of the bridge shall be conclusive for the purposes men- tioned in section 2 of this Act, subject only to review in a court of equity for fraud or gross mistake. Right conferred. to sell, etc., SEC. 5. The right to sell, assign, transfer, and mortgage all the rights, powers, and privileges conferred by this Act is hereby granted to the grantees and their assigns ; and any corporation to which or any person to whom such rights, powers, and privi leges may be sold, ass igned, or t ransf erred, or who shall acquire the same by mortgage foreclosure or otherwise, is hereby authorized and empow- ered to exercise the same as fully as though conferred herein directly upon such corporation or person. Constructio n co n- SEC. 6. All contr acts made in connection with the cons tructi on tracts bidder. «be Jett olow est lowest of the bridge authorized by this Act and which shall invo lve th e expenditure of more than $5,000, shall be let by competitive bidding. Adver tisin g, e tc. Such cont racts shall be advertised for a reason able time in some news paper of ge neral circulation published in the State in which the bridge is located and in the vicinity thereof ; sealed bids shall be requ ired and the con tracts s hall be awarded to the l owest re spon- sible bidder. Verified copies or abstracts of all bids received and of the bid or bids accepted shall be promptly furnished to the Contracts void for hig hw ay de par tm ent of the State in whi ch su ch bridge is located. violations. A failure to comply in good faith with the provisions of this section shall render null and void any contract made in violation thereof, and the Secretary of, War may, after hearings, order the suspension of all work upon such bridge until the provisions of this section shall have been fully complied with. Amendment. SEC. 7. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby express ly reser ved. Approved, February 28, 1929 . February 28, 1929. [S. 5350 .]	CHAP. 389.-An Act To amend the Air Commerce Act of 1926 with reference [Public, No. 846 .1 to the examination and rating of schools giving instruction in flying. Air Commerc e Act, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 1926 . United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 3 (d) ed. .ol.44,p .569,amend- of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 is amended by striking out the Rating of civilian period at the end thereof and adding a semicolon and the following schools giving instruc- " and pro vi de for the examination and rating of civilian sc ho ols tion in flying' giving instruction in flying, as to the adequacy of the course of instruction, as to the suitability and airworthiness of the equipment, and as to the competency of the ,instructors . The exam inat ions and

�

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu/87

 Art. 16. If a vessel approaching a blockaded port has no knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade, the notification must be made to the vessel itself by an officer of one of the ships of the blockading force. This notification should be entered in the vessel’s logbook, and must state the day and hour, and the geographical position of the vessel at the time. If through the negligence of the officer commanding the blockading force no declaration of blockade has been notified to the local authorities, or if in the declaration, as notified, no period has been mentioned within which neutral vessels may come out, a neutral vessel coming out of the blockaded port must be allowed to pass free.

Art. 17. Neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective.

Art. 18. The blockading forces must not bar access to neutral ports or coasts.

Art. 19. Whatever may be the ulterior destination of a vessel or of her cargo, she cannot be captured for breach of blockade, if, at the moment, she is on her way to a non-blockaded port.

Art. 20. A vessel which has broken blockade outwards, or which has attempted to break blockade inwards, is liable to capture so long as she is pursued by a ship of the blockading force. If the pursuit is abandoned, or if the blockade is raised, her capture can no longer be effected.

Art. 21. A vessel found guilty of breach of blockade is liable to condemnation. The cargo is also condemned, unless it is proved that at the time of the shipment of the goods the shipper neither knew nor could have known of the intention to break the blockade.

 BLOCKHOUSE, in fortification, a small roofed work serving as a fortified post for a small garrison. The word, common since 1500, is of uncertain origin, and was applied to what is now called a fort d’arrêt, a detached fort blocking the access to a landing, channel, pass, bridge or defile. The modern blockhouse is a building, sometimes of two storeys, which is loopholed on all sides, and not infrequently, in the case of two-storey blockhouses, provided with a mâchicoulis gallery. Blockhouses are built of wood, brick, stone, corrugated iron or any material available. During the South African War (1899–1902) they were often sent from England to the front in ready-made sections.  BLOEMAERT, ABRAHAM (1564–1651), Dutch painter and engraver, was born at Gorinchem, the son of an architect. He was first a pupil of Gerrit Splinter (pupil of Frans Floris) and of Joos de Beer, at Utrecht. He then spent three years in Paris, studying under several masters, and on his return to his native country received further training from Hieronymus Francken. In 1591 he went to Amsterdam, and four years later settled finally at Utrecht, where he became dean of the Gild of St Luke. He excelled more as a colourist than as a draughtsman, was extremely productive, and painted and etched historical and allegorical pictures, landscapes, still-life, animal pictures and flower pieces. Among his pupils are his four sons, Hendrick, Frederick, Cornelis and Adriaan (all of whom achieved considerable reputation as painters or engravers), the two Honthorsts and Jacob G. Cuyp.

 BLOEMEN, JAN FRANS VAN (1662–1740), Flemish painter, was born at Antwerp, and studied and lived in Italy. At Rome he was styled Orizonte, on account of his painting of distance in his landscapes, which are reminiscent of Gaspard Poussin and much admired. His brothers Pieter (1657–1719), styled Standaart (from his military pictures), and Norbert (1670–1746), were also well-known painters.

 BLOEMFONTEIN, capital of the Orange Free State, in 29° 8′ S., 26° 18′ E. It is situated on the open veld, surrounded by a few low kopjes, 4518 ft. above the sea, 105 m. by rail E. by S. of Kimberley, 750 N.E. by E. of Cape Town, 450 N. by E. of Port Elizabeth, and 257 S.W. of Johannesburg.

Bloemfontein is a very pleasant town, regularly laid out with streets running at right angles and a large central market square. Many of the houses are surrounded by large wooded gardens. Through the town runs the Bloemspruit. After a disastrous flood in 1904 the course of this spring was straightened and six stone bridges placed across it. There are several fine public buildings, mostly built of red brick and a fine-grained white stone quarried in the neighbourhood. The Raadzaal, a building in the Renaissance style, faces Market Square. Formerly the meeting-place of the Orange Free State Raad, it is now the seat of the provincial council. In front of the old Raadzaal (used as law courts) is a statue of President Brand. In Douglas Street is an unpretentious building used in turn as a church, a raadzaal, a court-house and a museum. In it was signed (1854) the convention which recognized the independence of the Free State Boers (see : History). Among the churches the most important, architecturally, are the Dutch Reformed, a building with two spires, and the Anglican cathedral, which has a fine interior. The chief educational establishment is Grey University College, built 1906–1908 at a cost of £125,000. It stands in grounds of 300 acres, a mile and a half from the town. In the town is the original Grey College, founded in 1856 by Sir George Grey, when governor of Cape Colony. The post and telegraph office in Market Square is one of the finest buildings in the town. The public library is housed in a handsome building in Warden Street. Opposite it is the new national museum.

Bloemfontein possesses few manufactures, but is the trading centre of the province. Having a dry healthy climate, it is a favourite residential town and a resort for invalids, being recommended especially for pulmonary disease. The mean maximum temperature is 76.7° Fahr., the mean minimum 45.8°; the mean annual rainfall about 24 in. There is an excellent water-supply, obtained partly from Bloemspruit, but principally from the Modder river at Sanna’s Post, 22 m. to the east, and from reservoirs at Moches Dam and Magdepoort.

The population in 1904 was 33,883, of whom, including the garrison of 3487, 15,501 were white, compared with a white population of 2077 in 1890. The coloured inhabitants are mostly Bechuana and Basuto. Most of the whites are of British origin, and English is the common language of all, including the Dutch.

The spruit or spring which gives its name to the town was called after one of the emigrant farmers, Jan Bloem. The town dates from 1846, in which year Major H. D. Warden, then British resident north of the Orange, selected the site as the seat of his administration. When in 1854 independence was conferred on the country the town was chosen by the Boers as the seat of government. It became noted for the intelligence of its citizens, and for the educational advantages it offered at the time when education among the Boers was thought of very lightly. In 1892 the railway connecting it with Cape Town and Johannesburg was completed. During the Anglo-Boer War of 1899–1902 it was occupied by the British under Lord Roberts without resistance (13th of March 1900), fourteen days after the surrender of General Cronje at Paardeberg. In Market Square on the 28th of the following May the annexation of the Orange Free State to the British dominions was proclaimed. In 1907 the first session of the first parliament elected under the constitution granting the colony self-government was held in Bloemfontein. In 1910 when the colony became a province of the Union of South Africa under its old designation of Orange Free State, Bloemfontein was chosen as the seat of the Supreme Court of South Africa. Its growth as a business centre after the close of the war in 1902 was very marked. The rateable value increased from £709,000 in 1901 to £2,400,000 in 1905.

 BLOET, ROBERT (d. 1123), English bishop, was chancellor to William I. and Rufus. From the latter he received the see of Lincoln (1093) in succession to Remigius. His private character was indifferent; but he administered his see with skill and prudence, built largely, and kept a magnificent household, which served as a training-school even for the sons of nobles. Bloet was active in assisting Henry I. during the rebellion of 1102, and became that monarch’s justiciar. Latterly, however, he fell out of favour, and, although he had been very rich, was impoverished by the fines which the king extorted from him. Perhaps his wealth was his chief offence in the king’s eyes; for he was in attendance on Henry when seized with his last illness. He was the patron of the chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, whom he advanced to an archdeaconry.

Henry of Huntingdon and W. Malmesbury (De Gestis Pontificum) are original authorities. See E. A. Freeman’s William Rufus; Sir James Ramsay, The Foundations of England, vol. ii.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu/87


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1456

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHs. 369-372 . 1929 . 1405 ratings provided for in this paragraph shall only be made upon request of the owners or representatives of the air navigation facil- ities or schools." Approved, Feb ru ary 28, 1929 . February 28, 1929 . C H AP . 37 0 .-An Act To amend section 1, rule 3, subdivision (e), of an Act	[S.5095.] to regulate navigation on the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters, enacted February 8, 1895, as amended May 17, 1928 . Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Great Lakes, etc. United States o f America in Congress assembled, That rule 3, sub- Lig hts req uired on ves selso nthe . division (e), o an et entitled "An et to r egulate navigati on on Reference correction. the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters," enacted Vol . 28,p.646,amend- February 8, 1895, and being chapter 64, Twenty-eighth Statutes at e~ ame nd- d. p . 592. Large, section 645, as amended May 17, 1928 (U. S. C. title 33, sec- tion 252), be amended by substituting the letter " a " in parentheses for th e second letter " e, in parentheses in the seventh line thereof. Approved, Feb ru ary 28, 1929 . [Public, No. 847.] U. S. Code, p. 1061. February 28, 1929. [S. 5014.] [Public, No. 848 .] CH A P. 3 71 .-An Act Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to issue to the city of Bozeman, Montana, a patent to certain public lands. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary Paentl ands. wm an, of the Interior is authorized and directed to issue to the city of Mont. Bozeman, Montana, a patent in fee to lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, section 21, township 1 south, range 6 east, Montana principal meridia n, upon payment therefor by the city at the rate of $1 .25 an acre subject to valid existing rights : Provided, That there shall be reserved to the Mineral deposits re. United States' all oil, coal, or other mineral deposits, and the right to served. prospect for, mine, and remove the same under such rules, regula- tions, and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior shal l prescribe. Approved, February 28, 1929 . February 28, 1929 . CH A P. 37 2 .-An Act To include in the credit for time served allowed sub- 	 [s .4s 81 .] stitute clerks in first and second class post offices and letter carriers in the City [Public, No. 849.] Del ivery Service time s erved as spec ial-del ivery messeng ers. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the second Postal Service. Reclassification of proviso of section 4 of the Act entitled "An Act reclassifying salaries salaries, etc . of postmasters and employees of the Postal Service, readjusting their ae nl ded .3, p. 1059, salaries and compensations on an equitable basis, increasing postal U.S. Code, p. 1042. rat es to provi de fo r such read justm ent, and for other purposes," approved February 28, 19 25 (Forty-third Statutes at Large, page 1059; United States Code, title 39, section 10 8), is ame nded to read as f ollows That hereafter substitute clerks in first and second class post offices and substitute letter carriers in the City Delivery Service when appointed regular clerks or carriers shall have credit for actual time served, including time served as special-delivery messengers, on a basis of one year for each three hundred and six days of eight hours served as substitute or messenger, and shall be appointed to the grade to which such clerk or carrier would have progressed had his original appointment as substitute been to grade 1. Approved, February 28, 1929 . Substit utes,when ap. poi nted regu lar clerk s, etc ., credited for time served, including as special-delivery mes . sengers.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1457

 1406 CHAP. 373 .-An Act To extend the provisions of section 18a of an Act approved February 25, 1920 (Forty-first Statutes, page 437), to certain lands in Utah, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Utah. United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the period Mining of nonmetal- lic minerals extended of twelve months from and after the approval of this Act, the pro .- for 12 months to with- drawn visions of section 18a of an Act entitled "An Act to promote the 41, ps in. mining of coal, phosphate, oil, oil shale, gas, and sodium on the public domain," approved February 25, 1920 (Forty-first Statutes, page 437), be, and the same are hereby, extended to land in Utah embraced in the Executive order of withdrawal issued October 4, 1909 : Provided, That noth ing h erein sha ll be cons true d as other - wise enlarging, continuing, o r extending the provisions of the aforesaid section 18a of the Act approved February 25, 1920 (Forty- first Sta tutes, pa ge 437). Approved, February 28, 1929. February 28, 1929. [S. 4691 .] [Public, No . 850 .] Proviso. L imita tion. February 28, 1929. [S .4 528 .1	CHAP. 374.-An Act Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to employ engineers and economists for consultation purposes on important reclamation work. [Public, No. 851 .] Reclamation service. Employing engineers etc ., for consultation on important work of. Provisos. Compensation li m- ited. Re tired Army and Navy officers may be eriployed. Employing engineers, on irrigation dams, re- pealed. Vol. 44, p. 77 6, repealed. February 28, 1929. [S .4 451 .1 CHAP. 375 .-An Act To amend the Act entitled "An Act authorizing [Public, No. 852.] Roy Clippinger, Ulys Pyle, Edgar Leathers, Groves K . Flescher, Carmen Flescher, their heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Wabash River at or n ear McGregors Ferry i n White County, Illinois," approved May 1, 1928. Wa bash River. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Location of bridge United States o f America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of across, pa480,lamend- the Act entitled "An Act authorizing Roy Clippinger, Ulys Pyle, ed. Edgar Leathers, Groves K . Flescher, Carmen Flescher, their heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Wabash Ri ver at or near McGregors Ferry in White County, Illinois," approved May 1, 1928, is amended by striking out the words " at or near McGregors Ferry in White County, Illin ois, a nd a p oint i n Pose y Count y, Ind iana," and i nsert- ing in lieu thereof " at or near New Harmony in Posey County, In diana, and a point in Wh ite Co unty, Illinoi s . " Approved, February 28, 1929. SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cus. 373-375 . 1929 . Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secre- tary of the Interior is authorized, in his judgment and discretion, to employ for consultation purposes on important reclamation work fi ve con sultin g engi neers, geolo gists, and ec onomis ts, at rates of compensation to be fixed by him, but not to exceed $50 per day for any engineer, geologist, or economist so employed : Provi ded, That the total compensation paid to any engineer, geologist, or economist during any fiscal year shall not exceed $5,000 : Provided further, That not with stan ding th e pr ovis ions of any oth er A ct, retired officers of the Army or Navy may be employed by the Secretary of the Interior as consulting engineers in accordance with the provisions of this Act. SEC. 2 . The joint resolution approved June 28, 1926, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to employ engineers for consultation in conn ection with the co nstruc tion o f dams for ir rigati on pur poses, is here by rep ealed. Approved, February 28, 1929.

�


text:
Nelson v. Leland

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, sitting in admiralty.

It was a case of collision between the steamboat Brigadier General R. H. Stokes and a flat-boat called 'Clear the Track,' which occurred upon the Yazoo river, 200 miles above its mouth where it empties into the Mississippi, twelve miles above Vicksburg, and wholly within the State of Mississippi. Its waters are fresh, and there are no tides in it. The libel was filed by Nelson & Co., the consignees of the flat-boat, and of 366 bales of cotton shipped on board of it.

The District Court gave judgment in favor of the libellants for the sum reported by the commissioners, viz: $7,616.44. The Circuit Court was of opinion that the exception taken to the jurisdiction of the court was well founded, annulled the decree of the District Court, and dismissed the libel with costs. The libellants appealed to this court.

At December term, 1857, Mr. Gillet, of counsel for the appellees, moved the court to dismiss this appeal, 'upon the ground of a want of jurisdiction originally in the District Court.' Upon which motion, Mr. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the court, that the question of jurisdiction in the lower court is a proper one for appeal to this court, and for argument when the case is regularly reached, and that this court have jurisdiction on such appeal. The motion to dismiss the appeal on that ground was therefore overruled.

At that term, Mr. Gillet and Mr. Cushing filed an elaborate brief against the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in this case; but at that term the court decided the case of Jackson v. Steamboat Magnolia, which is reported in 20 Howard, 292. The points and authorities referred to in the brief were examined and ruled in that case, and therefore it is not necessary to state them in the present report.

The case was argued upon the facts as they appeared in evidence by Mr. Pike for the appellants, and Mr. Gillet for the appellees. Each party accused the other of negligence and want of skill in several particulars, which points would be of little interest to the general reader, and are therefore passed over.

Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Nelson v. Leland


text: Talk:Nelson v. Leland

title: Talk:Nelson v. Leland


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1458

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cxs. 376, 377. 1929 . CHAP. 376 .-An Act To authorize the improvement of the Oregon Caves in the Siskiyou National Forest, Oregon. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to construct and maintain such impro vement s with in an d near the O regon Caves in th e Sisk iyou National Forest, Oregon, as are necessary for the comfort and con- venience of the visiting public, including the purchase of materials and equipm ent fo r lig hting the ca ves an d was hing t he int erior thereof, and providing easier accessibility and traversibility thereof, and providing an additional exit or entrance, and for installing such materials and equipment; and for the aforesaid purposes the sum of not more tha n $35,000 is hereby author ized to be app ropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Approved, February 28, 1929. 1407 February 28, 1929. [S. 3162.1 [Public, No. 853 .] Oregon Caves, in Siskiyou Forest, Ore- gon. Improvements au- thorized in, for visiting public . Sum authorized. February 28 1929. CHAP. 377 .-An Act Conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to 	[S. 710 .5 hear, adjudicate, and render judgment in claims which the northwestern bands [Public, No. 854.] of Shoshone In dians may have again st the United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That jurisdiction be, and hereby is, conferred upon the Court of Claims, notwithstand- ing lapse of time or statutes of limitations, to hear, adjudicate, and render judgment in any and all claims which the northwestern bands of Shoshone Indians may have against the United States arising Vol. 18, p. 685; vol. under or growing out of the treaty of July 2, 1863 (Eighteenth 13,p .663 . Statutes page 685-2 Kap pler, 848); tre aty of J uly 30, 1863 (Th ir- teenth Statutes, page 863-2 Kappler, 850); Act of Congres s approved December 15, 1874 (Eighteenth Statutes, page 291), and any subsequent treaty Act of Congress, or Executive order, which clai ms hav e not heret ofore been d etermi ned a nd adj udicat ed on their merits by the Court of Claims or the Supreme Court of the United States. SEC. 2. That any and all claims against the United States within the purview of this Act shall be forever barred unless suit be insti- tuted or petition filed as herein pr ovided in the Court of Clai ms within fi ve years from the date of t he approval o f this Act; a nd such suit shall make the northwestern bands of Shoshone Indians party pla intiff and the United State s party defen dant. Th e peti - tion shall be verified by the attorney or attorneys employed to prose- cute such claims under contract with the northwestern bands of Shoshone Indians, approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior as provided by law. Official let- ters, papers, documents, and records, or certified copies thereof, may be used in evidence, and the departments of the Government shall give acce ss to the atto rney or attor neys for said Indians to su ch treaties, papers, correspondence, or records as may be needed by the attorney or attorneys for said Indians. ad- SEC. 3 . That in said suit the Court of Claims shall also hear, mi«red nt erclaim s examine, consider, and adjudicate all claims which the United States may have against the sa id northweste rn bands of S hoshone Indian s. Any payment which may have been made by the United States, including gratuities fo r the benefit of any band or bands of sa id Indians or for their support and civilization, shall not operate as an estoppel, but may be pleaded as a set-off in said suit. SEc. 4. That from the decision of the Court of Claims in any suit prosecuted under the authority of this Act an appeal may be Shoshone Indians. Claims of northwest- ern bands of, submitted to Court of Claims . Vol. 18, p. 291. Time for flling. Verification . Evidence admitted . Set-offs, etc . Appeals allowed .

�


text:
Nelson v. Leland/Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal in admiralty from the Circuit Court of the United States of the eastern district of Louisiana.

The libellants allege that they were the consignees of a certain flat-boat called 'Clear the Track,' and of three hundred and sixty-six bales of cotton, which were shipped to them by various persons by said flat-boat; that said boat left Sardinia, on Yakana river, in the State of Mississippi, on the 19th February, 1853, bound for New Orleans; that on the 2d March ensuing, on said voyage, descending the Yazoo river, about eight miles below the head of Honey Island, and within the admiralty jurisdiction, about four o'clock on the morning of said day, the flat-boat, being a stanch, tight, and well-built vessel, completely rigged and well provided with tackle, apparel, and furniture, and having on board a full complement of men to navigate the boat, being about the middle of the said Yazoo river, leaving sufficient space on either side for a steamboat or other large vessel to pass, and having a light upon the flat-boat, the captain and crew of the boat being up, the steamboat Brigadier General R. H. Stokes, ascending the said river, struck the flat-boat 'Clear the Track' in the bows, which caused her to fill with water, and become a complete wreck; that the steamboat rung her bell, recognising the light of the flat-boat, but continuing to run up the middle of the river.

In their answers, the respondents say that the collision set forth in the libel occurred on the Yazoo river, about fifty miles above the foot of said island, and more than two hundred miles above the mouth of the Yazoo, where it falls into the Mississippi river; and that the entire length of the Yazoo river is within the State of Mississippi; and they allege that the District Court has not jurisdiction of the matters and things, or the claim alleged in the libel against the respondent. And the respondent denies that the collision was caused or did happen by any fault, negligence, or want of skill, in the officers or crew of the steamboat; and they say it was caused by the unskilful management of the flat-boat; and the proper place for the flat-boat, it is said, was at the shore at night; and that there was not sufficient space for the steamboat to pass between the flat-boat and the shore.

D. B. Miller says: I have seen the flat-boat; she seemed to have a sufficient number of hands on board, and to be well managed. From the size of the boat, witness thinks she was suitable for the navigation of the Yazoo and Mississippi rivers, and from her size she would carry three hundred and fifty bales of cotton and more.

Jackson Harris is of the same opinion. James D. Bell examined the boat well, and considered her strong and well built. Saw her loaded with three hundred and forty bales of cotton, and says she would have carried fifty more bales safely. Capt. Williams was captain of the flat-boat 'Clear the Track' when the collision occurred. Besides himself, he had five hands and one passenger, who also worked. Witness began his trip at Sardinia, on the Yakana river. The flat-boat had three hundred and seventy-one bales of cotton on board. Nothing of importance occurred until the morning of the second of March, 1853, when a steamer was heard coming up the river, which afterwards proved to be the Brigadier General R. H. Stokes. Witness had laid down about twelve o'clock that night, but was shortly afterwards awaked by Johnson, one of his hands, who informed him a steamboat was approaching, and he desired witness to be on deck. Witness saw the steamer approaching, at a distance of about half a mile. A light on deck was immediately prepared. At this time, the steamboat was about four or five hundred yards out of sight round the point. The witness ordered his men, four of whom were on deck at the time, to throw the boat out from the point, so as to give the steamer room to pass. Continued efforts were made for this purpose, until the collision occurred.

When the boats came together, all hands were at the oars, except Mr. Johnson, who held the light. The steamboat could be seen across the point. It was some fifteen minutes, the steamboat being in full view, before the boats came into collision. The flat-boat was struck on the first stanchion from the corner of the bow nearest the point of the nosing, about three feet from the jackstaff of the steamer. The collision was very severe-so great as to knock every one down on the flat-boat. Witness was knocked down senseless by the crane-neck of the oar, but he saw all the others fall before he fell. When witness recovered from the effect of the blow, he perceived the steamer had passed out of his view. Every effort was made to stop the hole made in the flat-boat by the steamer, and, by working the pump, to keep the boat from sinking. The boat floated down some twenty-five miles before they could land her. In less than an hour after the collision, the boat sank six feet deeper in the water, and became unmanageable; and a landing was made, with great difficulty, at some three or four o'clock in the afternoon.

The steamer Stacey came down the river the next day, and she took on two hundred bales of the cotton, including the thirty-five on shore. Before the arrival of the Stacey, witness had engaged the steamboat McLean to go up and take up the cotton that could be saved.

Witness has been engaged in flat-boating on the Yazoo river for the last eighteen years. He does not consider the place where the collision happened as unsafe to run a flat-boat at night, and that it is not usual to tie up flat-boats in that part of the river.

The witness says the flat-boat had a torch made of split pine boards, as usual on such occasions. The Stacey met the flat-boat in a very narrow part of the river, much narrower than where the flat-boat met the Stokes. The Stacey was much nearer the flat-boat when she rang her bell than the Stokes, but she backed out of the way. The Stacey is double the size of the Stokes, it being the largest boat that runs up the Yazoo.

Mr. Johnson is corroborated by others in his statement. Thomas Barnes says the steamer did not change her course after seeing the flat-boat. The steamer was not hurt. Her jackstaff was knocked off, which was replaced. Did not hear Captain Williams offer any assistance to the flat-boat. At the time the steamer struck the flat-boat, she was nearly in full headway.

Witness thinks there was time enough for the steamer to get out of the way of the flat-boat. The master of the boat entered a regular protest against the steamer. A number of witnesses referred to facts which have no material bearing in the case.

On the part of the respondent, it was proved by William F. Mouldin, the pilot on the Yazoo since 1845, and was so acting on the Stokes when the collision occurred, eight miles from the head of Honey Island: The bell was rung to stop at Hall's Landing. Directly after ringing the large bell to land, saw a light, as he supposed, at the landing. The river was narrow and the current swift. After running a short distance, and rounding the point, saw the flat-boat about three hundred yards above the steamer. He immediately rang the bell to stop the engines, and then to back her, which was done. When she had made about six revolutions, the collision took place. The steamboat was nearly at a stand. The flat-boat was floating nearly broadside down the river. There was no possible means by which a collision could be avoided. The steamboat could not pass on either side of the flat-boat. This, however, is controverted by other witnesses, who say that there was space on each side of the flat-boat for the steamer to pass up the river.

That the light on the flat-boat was seen some two or three hundred yards by the steamer approaching the flat-boat, is admitted; but it is urged that a steady light should have appeared on the flat-boat; that a waving lighted torch often misleads an ascending boat, on the supposition that it is on shore, and designates a landing-place. Several of the witnesses say, that on observing the approach of the flat-boat, the wheel of the steamer was reversed, and some five or six revolutions had been performed when the collision occurred. Some of the witnesses think that the force of the steamer was checked, so that its movement up the river could scarcely be perceived when the steamer struck the flat-boat.

It has happened in this case, as in all other cases of collision, that the witnesses on board of their respective boats, from the circumstances which surrounded them, and the favorable impressions naturally felt in regard to the efforts made by their respective crews to save the property and lives under their charge, differ widely in their opinions. The steamboat received but little or no injury by the collision; but the flat-boat, in its structure and cargo, received material injury. The evidence fully proves this, not only in regard to the flat-boat and cargo, but also as to the expense and loss to which the owner was subjected.

It is unnecessary to go into detail to show the facts proved. It is enough to know the character of the transaction, and the responsibilities incurred by the respective parties.

The general rule is, where two vessels meet each other, one propelled by steam and the other by the winds, the steamer must give way, and avoid a collision. To this no one can object; but, like other general rules, it may be subject to exceptions.

The Yazoo extends, from its junction with the Mississippi river, some two hundred miles and upwards into the State of Mississippi, and in some parts its navigation requires care and experience. Its channel widens and deepens as the volume of water increases; but it is a narrow river, and its course is crooked-but the Stacey and other boats, of a large class for inland boats, navigate it with success.

Several of the steamboat witnesses think that a flat-boat, laden with three hundred and seventy bales of cotton, ought not to run on a dark night, but should be tied up, where the channel is narrow, and have fixed lights, which distinguish it from a place of landing. Other witnesses differ from the above, and say that an inland navigation so long and important as this, ought to be left free to the enterprise of its inhabitants. This is more congenial to the spirit of our people than a regulation which would retard commerce, without any adequate beneficial results. No measure of this character could well be adopted, without an accurate survey of the river, in which the points of danger should be designated. Until this shall be done, it would seem most judicious not to go beyond a regulation for boats, passing each other in ascending and descending this river, having lights, and giving notice of their approach. There are regulations which apply to our internal navigation, embracing our rivers and other waters. Under these, every master of a boat should act with a presumed knowledge of his duty, and be held responsible accordingly.

We think, in several particulars, the captain of the flat-boat was in fault. He should have had one or more steady and fixed lights on one or more conspicuous parts of his boat. He should have been careful, by having the upper and lower end sweeps or oars so worked as to have occupied near the shore of the river, giving a sufficient passage to the ascending steamboat. Especially he should have so guided his boat as to have kept it on a straight line of the water, and not on a diagonal course. It is easily perceived that, from the position of the flat-boat, it was difficult, if not impracticable, to ascend the river by the steamer without striking the flat-boat, in the position it occupied.

But we think there was also fault in the steamer. In rounding the point, it is admitted, the steamer was at least three hundred yards below the flat-boat. Seeing the light ahead, the master, in the use of ordinary caution, should have stopped his boat at once, and reversed her wheels, until the locality of the light was clearly ascertained. It is no excuse, that he mistook the light for a place of landing. The commander cannot lessen his responsibility by alleging his mistake. He is bound to make no mistake, for it is his duty to stop his boat where he doubts, until he ascertains the facts. Had this been done, the collision could not have occurred. He could have backed his boat, until he avoided the flat-boat. In not having done this, the steamer was in fault, and the damages must be divided between the two boats, and also the costs.

Some doubts have been suggested whether, in the exercise of the admiralty jurisdiction, some limit may not be interposed.

Under the English system, the ebb and flow of the tide, with few if any exceptions, established the fact of navigability; and this was the course of decision in this country, until recently.

The vast extent of our fertile country, its increasing commerce, its inland seas, bays, and rivers, open to us a commercial prosperity in the future which no nation ever enjoyed. Our contracted views of the English admiralty, which was limited by the ebb and flow of the tide, were discarded, and the more liberal principles of the civil law, equally embraced by the Constitution, were adopted.

This law is commercial in its character, and applies to all navigable waters, except to a commerce exclusively within a State. Many of our leading rivers are sometimes unnavigable; but this cannot affect their navigability at other times. A commerce carried on between two or more States is subject to the laws and regulations of Congress, and to the admiralty jurisdiction.

Upon the whole, the decree of the Circuit Court is reversed; and the cause is remanded, under the above order of this Court.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL dissented, and Mr. Justice CATRON concurred for the reason stated by him.

The decree in the Circuit Court, dismissing the libel in this cause, was rendered before the judgment in this court in the case of Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How., 292, was given. There is no material difference in the cases. The reasons for the judgment of the Circuit Court in this case are contained in the opinion filed by me in that case. I do not consider it necessary or proper to repeat them here. I concur in the judgment of the court upon the merits of the cause.

Mr. Justice CATRON concurs with the opinion of the court, because the question of jurisdiction, involved in this cause, was ruled in the case of the Magnolia, referred to by Mr. Justice Campbell.

title: Nelson v. Leland/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1459

 1408 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CHs. 377-379 . 1929 . taken by either party, as in other cases, to the Supreme Court of the United States. Issue of process. SEC. 5 . The Court of Claims shall have full authority by proper process and orders to bring in and make parties to such suit any and all perso ns dee med by it ne cessar y or pr oper t o the final deter- mination of the matters in controversy. ney General eof ar- SEC. 6. A copy of the petition shall, in such case, be served upon the Attorney General of the United States, and he or some attorney from the Department of Justice to be designated by him is hereby directed to appear and defend the interests of the United States in such case. Fees, etc., to be in- SEC. 7. Upon final determination of such suit or suits the Court eluded in decree. of Claims shall have jurisdiction to fix and determine a reasonable fee, not to exceed 10 per centum of the recovery, together with all n ecess ary a nd p roper expe nses incu rred in pr epar ation and pros e- cution of the suit, to, be paid to the attorney or attorneys employed by said northwestern bands of Shoshone Indians, or any of them, and the same shall be included in the decree and shall be paid out of any sum or sums found to be due said bands. A mou nts recovered SE C. 8. The balance of the proceeds of all amounts, if any, be deposited to credit > y~ of the Indians. Bred for said northwestern bands of Shoshone Indians shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Indians decre ed by said c ourt t o be e ntitled there to, an d shal l draw interest at the rate of 4 per centum per annum from the date of the Use limited, judgment or decree and shall be subject to appropriation by Con- gress only for the health, education, and industrial advancement of said Indians. Approved, February 28, 1929. February 28, 1929. [H. R. 16661.1 CHAP. 378 .-An Act To amend the Act entitled "An Act authorizing the [Publ ic, No. 8 55 .] paving of the Federal strip known as International Street adjacent to Nogales, Arizona," approved May 16, 1928. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the In terna tion al St reet , United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the Act Nogales, Ariz . Ante, p. 589, amend- entitled "An Act authorizing the paving of the Federal strip known ed . as International Street adjacent to Nogales, Arizona," approved May 16, 1928, be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows dP avin g, etc ., of, "That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to cause the grading and paving of the Federal st rip of land known as Int ernati onal S treet, belong ing to the U nited States, along the international boundary line between Mexico and the Unite d Stat es and adjac ent to the c ity of Nogale s, Ari zona, said paving to extend from the east side of Nelson Avenue to the top of the hill beyond West Street, with the necessary fence, retaining walls, Limi t of cost in- st orm se wers, the in stalla tion o f an o rnament al lig hting system, and creased . other items necessary in connection therewith, at a limit of cost of $70,000 ." cape s available until SEC. 2 . All sums heretofore or hereafter appropriated under such Ante, p. 925. Act of May 16, 1928, or such Act as amended, shall remain avail- Post, p. 1663. able for the purposes authorized by such Act until expended. Approved, February 28, 1929. February 28, 1929 . [H. R. 16274 .1 CHAP. 379 .-An Act To provide for the establishment of a municipal [Publ ic, No. 8 56 .] center in the District of Columbia. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the District of Columbia. United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Commis- sioners of the District of Columbia be, and they are hereby, author-

�


text: Talk:Nelson v. Leland/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1460

 SEV ENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHs. 379-381 . 1929 . 1409 ized and directed to acquire b ~urcliase condemnation, or other- Acquiring des ignated y1 7 squares, etc ., as site for wise, all of squares numbered 490, 491, 533, and reservation 10, in a municipal center, and the District of Columbia, including buildings and other structures Censtrnet'on of, au- thorized. thereon, as a site for a municipal center, and to construct thereon Provisos. necessary buildings to house municipal activities : Provided, That the vacation of streets Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby authorized to and alleys, close and vacate such portions of streets and alleys as lie between or within such squares, as in the judgment of said commissioners may be necessary, and the portions of such streets and alleys so closed and vacated shall thereupon become parts of such sites : Pro- vided further, That if this property or any part thereof shall be con- Iminediatep ossession demned, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall be ofcon demne dprop ertyd entitled to enter immediately into the possession of any such property for which an award shall have been made by aying the amount of such award into the registry of the Supreme Curt of the District of Columbia. SEC. 2. That there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, pay- t Appropr iation au- able in like man ner as o ther app ropr iati ons for the expe nses of the government of the District of Columbia, such sums as may be neces- sary to carry out the provisions of this Act, includingg not to exceed Employment of pro- $10,000 for the employment, by contract or otherwise, of architectural fessianal services. and other pr ofessional se rvices, as ap proved by the commissioners and with out refe renc e to the Cla ssif icat ion Act of 1 923, as amen ded. Approved, February 28, 1929. February 28, 1929. CHAP. 380 .-An Act To provide for the appointment of two additional 	[H. R 14659 .1 judges of the Distric t Court of t he United Sta tes for the Eastern Dist rict of New [Public, No. 857.] York. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representativ es of t h e United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two additional judges of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York, who shall reside in said district and who shall possess the same powers, perform the same duties, and receive the same com- pensation as the present district judges of said district. Approved, February 28, 1929. New York eastern judicial district. Two additional judges to be appointed for. Vol. 36, p. 1037, amended. U.S. Code, p. 863. February 28, 1920. CHAP. 381 .-An Act To recognize the high public service rendered by Major	[H. R. 13060 .] Walter Reed and those associated with him in the discovery of the cause and [Public, No. 858 .] means of transmission of yellow fever. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in special ~ w fever roll of recognition of the high public service rendered and disabilities honor. contracted in the interest of humanity and science as voluntary subjects for the experimentations during the yellow-fever investi- gations in Cuba, the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to publish annually in the Army Register a Names to be carried roll of honor on which shall be carried the following names : Walter on Army Register. Reed, James Carroll, Jesse W. Lazear, Aristides Agramonte, James A. Andrus, John R. Bullard, A. W. Covington, William H. Dean, Wallace W. Forbes, Levi E. Folk, Paul Hamann, James F. Han- berry, Warren G. Jernegan John R. Kissinger, John J. Moran, William Olsen, Charles G. ~onntag, Clyde L. West, Doctor R. P. Cooke, Thomas M. England, James Hildebrand, and Edward

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1461

 1410 De scriptive e ntry the reon. Go ld medals to be presented to each . Sum authorized. A nnual pay ment s to designated persons in lieu of pensions. February 28, 1929 [H. R.11360.] [Public, No. 859.] Boise irrigation proj- ect. D esign ated Gov ern- ment water rights re- li nqui shed to Arrow- rock division thereof . Distributionofwater. SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cns. 381-383. 1929 . Weatherwalks, and to define in appropriate language the part which each of these persons played in the experimentations during the yellow-fever investigations in Cuba; and in further recognition of the high public service so rendered by the persons hereinbefore named, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to cause to be struck for each of said persons a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasu ry, and to pr esent the same to each of said persons as shall be living and posthumously to such re pre- sentatives of each of such persons as shall have died, as shall be design ated b y the Secre tary of the Treasu ry. Fo r this purpo se there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $5,000; and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasur y not otherwi se appropriat ed, such amoun ts annually as may be necessary in order to pay to the following-named persons during the remainder of their natural lives the sum of $125 per month, and such amount shall be in lieu of any and all pensions authorized by law for the following-named persons : Private Paul Hamann; Private John R. Kissinger; Private William Olsen, Hos- pital Corps; Private Charles G. Sonntag, Hospital Corps; Private Clyde L. West, Hospital Corps; Private James Hildebrand, Hos- B ital Corps; Private James A. Andrus, Hospital Corps; Mr. John . Bullard; Doctor Aristides Agramonte; Private A. W. Covington, Twenty-third Battery, Coast Artillery Corps; Private Wallace W. Forbes, Hospital Corps; Private Levi E. Folk, Hospital Corps; Private James F. Hanberry, Hospital Corps; Doctor R. P. Cooke; Private Thomas M. England; Mr. John J. Moran; and the widow of Pri vate E dward Weath erwalk s, Approved, February 28, 1929. CHAP. 382.-An Act To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey or transfer certain water rights in connection with the Boise reclamation project. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to relinquish to the board of control of the Arrowrock division, Boise irrigation project, all the right, title, and int erest of the United States in or to cert ain Ri den- baugh or Nampa and Meridian irrigation d istrict water rights, not heretofore dis posed of, obt ained when la nd with appurt enant water rights was purchased by the United States for the Deer Flat Reservoir. SEC. 2 . The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to permit the water to which the United States is entitled under the said Riden- baugh rights to be taken into and distributed through the canal system of the Arrowrock division of the Boise project by the board of control and used or disposed of by the said board of control for the benefit of the said Arrowrock division. Approved, February 28, 1929. February 28, 1929. [H. R. 10657.] CHAP. 383 .-An Act To authorize the assessment of levee, road, drainage, [Public, No. 860 .1 and other improvement-di strict benefits agai nst certain lands, and for other purp oses. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the saint Francis Levee United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the consent district, Ark . C onsen t given to of the Government of the United States to the levy of special assess- assessments of benefits to local districts. ments, based upon benefits estimated to be derived from local levee and drainage districts within the boundaries of the Saint Francis

�


text: Springfield v. Quick

title: Springfield v. Quick


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1462

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHs. 383, 384 . 1929 . Levee d istrict of Arkan sas, wit hin the State of Arkansas, is hereby expressed and given. The laws of the State of Arkansas levying said special assessments and providing for the enforcement of such levy and the establishment of a lien and of all remedies pertaining thereto are exp ressly m ade appl icable t o the la nds desc ribed in this Act : Provided, That no levy, assessment, or collection of any special assessment shall attach or be applicable to any lands of the United States, nor per mit the collecti on of an y specia l assess ment for such tax from the United States Government, nor from any entryman or person as to any such lands until the date when the entryman or purchaser shall become entitled to a patent from the United States for such land. Such levy, special assessment, or tax shall not operate against the Government of the United States, and shall only operate and take effect and be in force when and if the equitable title to any particular tract of land involved shall have passed from the United States to such entryman or purchaser, and such entryman or pur- chaser shall have become entitled to patent therefor. SEC. 2. That all the Acts, levies, assessments, and proceedings in substan tial acc ordance with the laws of Arkansa s, and a ll levie s and assessments of benefits against lands, the equitable title to which had passed as provided in section 1 of this Act, are hereby cured and confirm ed, and the same shall n ot be se t aside, vacated, or ann ulled by any court for want of jurisdiction or any irregularity in the proceedings based upon the want of authority now conferred by this Act. SEC. 3. That this Act shall be available to the Saint Francis Levee district of Arkansas, and to any drainage district within the bounda- ries of the Saint Francis Levee distr ict h eretof ore o r her eafter created, as expressing the consent of the Government to the special assessments fixed subst antially in accordance wit h the laws of Ark an sas and th is Act. SEC. 4. That in all cases where there has been a foreclosure of the liens o f any im provemen t distri ct and s aid land s have b een purc hased by the said districts, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, upon proof of such sale and purchase and upon the payment of the sum of $5 per acre, together with the usual fees and commissions ch ar ged entry of la nds under the homestead laws, where such payment has not heretofore been made, to execute to said district or districts a patent to said lands ; and in all cases of future foreclosures and purchases by said districts it shall be the dut y of the Com miss ione r of the Gen eral Lan d Of fice , up on the payment ofa like sum and proof of the foreclosure and purchase by the sai d distri cts, to execute to them patents for the lands so pur- chased upon the expiration of the period of redemption in the areas in Mis sissippi and Poi nsett Co unties d escribed in the Act of J anuary 17, 1920. SEC. 5 . If any portion of this Act be held unc onstituti onal, su ch decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of the Act. SEC. 6. This Act shall repeal all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith and shall take effect forthwith. Approved, Feb rua ry 28, 1929 . CHAP. 384 .-An Act Amending the Act approved May 4, 1926, providing for the construction and maintenance of bathing pools or beaches in the District of Columbia. Be it en act ed by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer ica in Co ngre ss a sse mble d, That the Act entitled "An Act for the establishment of artificial bathing pools or beac hes in the D istr ict of C olum bia, " ap prov ed May 4, 19 26 1411 Sta te laws applica- ble. Proviso. Not ap pli cab le to Government lands, etc. Acts, etc ., in accord. an ce with Arkansas laws, confirmed, etc. Consent of the Gov- ernment to the special asse ssme nts f ixed by State laws and this Act. Lands purchased by districts under fore- closure of liens, to be patented thereto on payment foe, etc. Similar action for lands in Mis sis si ppi and Poinsett Counties on exempt ion of re- demption periods . Vol.41,p.392. Invalidity of any por- tion not to affect re- mainder of Act. Effective forthwith and conflicting laws repealed. February 28, 1929. [H. R.5758.] [Public, No. 861 .] District of Columbia. Bathing pools

�


text: Talk:Springfield v. Quick

title: Talk:Springfield v. Quick


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1463

 1412 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SEss. IL Cns. 384, 385. 1929 . Vol. 44,p.394,amend- (Forty-fourth Statutes at Large, page 394), is hereby amended and ed. reenacted so as to read as follows Con struction au thor- SECTION 1. That the Director of Public Buildings and Public ized of six artificial bathing pools. Parks of the National Capital be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to locate and construct in the District of Columbia, subject to the approval of the National Capital Park and Planning Com- mission, and a fter consulta tion with the Commission of Fine Arts, as appropriations shall be provided therefor, artificial bathing pools Buildings, filtered or beaches, not exceeding 6 in number, with suitable buildings, water, etc' shower baths, lockers, provisions for the use of filtered water, puri- fication of the water, and all things necessary for the proper conduct of such pools or beaches, and to conduct, and maintain the same. Limit of cost. Sums authorized. The cost of construction of any of these pools or beaches, with build- ings and equipment, shall not exceed $150,000 each, and the appro- priation of the sums necessary for the purposes named is hereby authorized to be paid in like manner as other appropriations for the expenses of the government of the District of Columbia. tra nsferred Con tro l, t etc .,the Di s- be SEC. 2. The Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the trict Commissioners . National Capital may, in the interest of economy and good admin- istration, with the consent of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, transfer for such period as he shall determine, to said commissioners the possession, control, and maintenance of any of said bathing pools or beaches. Otherwise they shall be operated and maintained by the said Director of Public Buildings and Public Operation, etc., other- wise, by Dir ector of Parks, and in either case the official conducting any bathing pool Public Buildin gs, etc ƒ or beach is hereby authorized to charge and collect a reasona"ille fee Fee s authorized, for for the use and enjoyment of such pool or beach, such fees to be credit of the District. paid weekly to the collector of taxes of the District of Columbia for deposit in the Treasury to the credit of the District of Columbia . Approved, February 28, 1929 . February 28, 1929 . CHAP . 385 .-An Act To amend an Act entitled "An Act to authorize the col - [S. 1168 .]	[Public, No. 862.] lection and editing of official papers of the Territories of the United States now in the national archives," approved March 3, 1925 . Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives o f the Official papers of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of Territories . p 1104, the Act entitled "An Act to authorize the collection and editing of amended. official papers of the Territories of the United States now in the national archives," approved March 3, 1925, be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows Continuance of col- " SEC. 2. That the Secretary of State be ordered to continue the forting, editing, Govern- work of collecting, copying, arranging, and editing of the official for issue as a Gov- ment publication, papers relating to the Territories of the United States and to have them issued as a Government publication ." Employment of hi s- SEC. 3 . For defraying the expenses to be incurred in carrying out torical experts . the provisions of section 2 of this Act, including the employment, either in or outside of the District of Columbia, of not to exceed five historical experts, especially informed on the various phases of the territorial history of the United States, without regard to the Edition to be printed Classification Act of 1923 and the civil service rules, and for the and bound. and binding of an edition of 1,950 copies for the Distribution by De- partment printing of State. Department of State, of which 6 copies shall be delivered to each Senator and 2 copies to each Representative, and 8 copies for each State or Territory to be distributed to historical associa- tions, commissions, museums or libraries and to other nondepository libraries therein designated by the Governor of each State or Terri- tory, 4 copies for the library of the Department of the Interior, and the remainder of said 1,950 shall be for the use of the Department of State, and a sufficient number of copies for distribution by the

�


text:
Springfield v. Quick/Opinion of the Court

THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana by a writ of error, issued under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act.

It originated in the county of Franklin, before the judge of the fourth judicial circuit of the State of Indiana, and was called a civil action. Springfield township filed a complaint against Quick, the auditor, and Robeson, the treasurer, of Franklin county, alleging that they had in their hands a certain sum of money, which they were about to distribute erroneously, and praying for an injunction to prohibit them from making the distribution in the mode which they proposed.

On the 21st of May, 1855, an injunction was issued by the clerk of the court, according to the prayer of the bill. In August, 1855, the defendants demurred to the bill, upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court overruled the demurrer, and ordered the defendants to answer; which being declined, the injunction was made perpetual. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment, and Springfield township brought the case up to this court.

The reservation by Congress of the sixteenth section of the public lands in each township in all the new States, and its appropriation to school purposes for the benefit of the inhabitants of the township, is so well known to all readers of American history, that a brief reference to the legislation of Indiana will be sufficient to explain the point involved in the present case.

Under the authority of an act of Congress, Springfield township sold the sixteenth section, in 1836, for the sum of $7,423.36; which was invested, and the interest applied to the support of schools within the township. It was conceded, in the argument of this case, that the township was still entitled to the use of this money, and to receive it; but the claim was for an additional amount, from a fund which accrued under the State laws of Indiana.

In 1851, Indiana adopted a new Constitution, the eighth article of which established a school fund, derived from several sources, which were directed to be consolidated into one fund. The first of these sources was the Congressional township fund and the lands belonging thereto. Then followed an enumeration of ten different sources from which revenue was derived, all of which were united into one common fund. This was directed, by an act of the Legislature, to be apportioned amongst the several counties of the State, according to the enumeration of scholars therein, without taking into consideration the Congressional township fund in such distribution.

But the Constitution also contained the following section, being section seven, in the eighth article, viz:

'All trust funds held by the State shall remain inviolate, and be faithfully and exclusively applied to the purposes for which the trust was created.'

It is evident that, under this act of the Legislature, Springfield township might have received less than the interest of the sum for which section sixteen had been sold, the proceeds of which had been invested. Therefore a suit was brought against the auditor, treasurer, and board of commissioners, of Franklin county, to test the constitutionality of the law; and at November term, 1854, the Supreme Court of the State decided that the act of the Legislature was a violation of the seventh section of the eighth article of the Constitution just quoted, and was consequently null and void. The case is reported in 6 Indiana Reports, page 84.

In March, 1855, the Legislature passed another act, providing for the distribution of the fund, but inserting the following proviso at the end of the one hundred and first section:

'Provided, however, that in no case shall the Congressional township fund, & c., be diminished by such distribution, and diverted to any other township.'

Springfield township filed the complaint now in question, alleging that they were entitled to $435.17, being the interest of the sum for which section sixteen had been sold, and also to $437.76, being its distributive share, making in the aggregate $872.93, to be distributed in said Springfield township; or, in other words, that the State had no right to charge them, in estimating their distributive share, with what they had received under the Congressional township fund.

The history of this suit has been given in the early part of this statement, by which it will be seen that the Supreme Court of Indiana decided against the claim of Springfield township. The case is reported in 7 Indiana Reports, page 636.

It was submitted on printed argument by Mr. Barbour for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Jones for the defendant.

Mr. Barbour enumerated the acts of Congress which bore upon the case, and also the Constitution and laws of Indiana. The point which he made resulted from this examination, and was stated in the following manner:

The eighth article of that Constitution contains the following provisions on the subject of education:

'SEC. 1. Knowledge and learning, generally diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement; and to provide by law for a general uniform system of common schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all.

'SEC. 2. The common school fund shall consist of the Congressional township fund, and the lands belonging thereto, the surplus revenue fund, and the other funds named.'

The third, fourth, and fifth sections provide for the funding, investment, and distribution thereof.

Sec. 6 makes the several counties liable for the preservation of the fund, and payment of the interest thereon.

'SEC. 7. All trust funds, held by the State, shall remain inviolate, and be faithfully applied to the purposes for which the trust was created.'Sec. 8 provides for the election of a State superintendent of public instruction.

Pursuant to the provisions of this article of the Constitution, the first Indiana Legislature convened after its adoption, by an act approved June 14, 1852, and found in the Revised Code of 1852, (vol. 1, page 439,) undertook to consolidate the school funds of 1852, and to distribute generally over the State the proceeds of the sixteenth section in each township, reserved by Congress to the inhabitants of the respective townships in which the sections are situate, for the use of schools therein.

This distribution was controverted by the present plaintiffs in the State courts, and their power and right to the exclusive control of this sixteenth section and its proceeds fully established by the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, in the case of the State of Indiana and others v. Springfield Township, reported in 6 Indiana Reports, page 84, &c., and which is especially referred to the attention of this court, as containing a true statement and history of the legislation of Indiana on this subject, and a full vindication of the right of the plaintiffs in this case to the relief sought.

Shortly after this judgment was pronounced by the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, which was at the November term, 1854, the Legislature of Indiana, to avoid its force and effect, and indirectly to accomplish that which the court determined could not be done, passed an act, approved March 5, 1855, entitled 'An act to provide for a general system of common schools, the officers thereof, and their respective duties, and matters properly connected therewith, and to establish township libraries, and for the regulation thereof.'

See Acts of Indiana for 1855, page 161.

The following is the ninety-seventh section of that act:

'The State superintendent shall annually, by the fourth Monday in April in each year, make out a statement showing the number of scholars in each county of the State, the amount of the income of the common school fund in each county for distribution, and the amount of taxes collected for school purposes, and shall apportion the same to the several counties of the State, according to the enumeration of scholars therein, without taking into consideration the Congressional township funds in such distribution.'

After having in this manner furnished the basis for the distribution of the income of the common school fund and amount of the school tax for the current year amongst the several counties, the act prescribes, in its 101st section, the method of distributing, in each county, the sum so apportioned to it. It is as follows:

'The treasurer of the several counties shall annually, on the third Monday of May, make distribution of the income of the common school fund to which his county is entitled (upon the warrant of the county auditor) to the several townships and incorporated cities and towns of the county, which payment shall be made to the treasurer of each township; and in making the said distribution, the auditor shall ascertain the amount of the Congressional township fund belonging to each city, town, and township, and shall so apportion the income of the common school fund as to equalize the amount of available funds in each city, town, and township, as near as may be, according to the number of scholars therein: Provided, however, That in no case shall the Congressional township fund be diminished by such distribution, and diverted to any other township.'

To controvert the right of distribution under these sections, the plaintiffs in error filed their complaints in the court below. Issue was joined, and the cases went to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, where the judgment was finally against the plaintiffs in error, and to reverse which, these writs of error are prosecuted under the act of Congress.

The plaintiffs in error insist that the eighth article of the Constitution of 1851 of the State of Indiana, and the legislation of said statute of March 4, 1855, above referred to, are both in violation of the ordinance and acts of Congress, vesting these said sixteenth sections in the inhabitants of the respective townships in which they are situated, and consequently void.

It cannot be disguised that this legislation of 1855 was a palpable evasion of the judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court of Indiana, in 6 Indiana Reports, page 84. And this high court will certainly not tolerate this petty subterfuge, but will hold as they did in Trustees for Vincennes University v. the State of Indiana, (14 Howard's Supreme Court Reports, page 268,) that the rights of parties cannot thus be trifled with, but will be held sacred from all improper legislation.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Indiana in the case at bar, (7 Indiana Reports, page 636,) pronounced by Judge Gookins, we think is a very lame attempt to justify the eighth article of the Constitution of 1851 and the act of 1855, and cannot be sustained by reason or authority. With all due respect for the opinion of that court, it is a mere ad captandum argument, and, as will be seen, was the opinion of a divided court.

What rights are saored which can be spirited away in this manner, or what respect can such legislation or judicial construction command, when it is conceded that the same effect is produced indirectly, which, it is solemnly pronounced, cannot be done directly.

The plaintiffs in error appeal to this honorable court to protect their rights and interests, vested under these acts of Congress, against this unjust State legislation, and against this void provision of the State Constitution.

The rights of the plaintiffs in error appear to them so plain and self-evident, that it is difficult to frame an argument to support them, and they are submitted to the court on their own intrinsic merits.

1. Is the act in question constitutional?

2. Does it violate the act of Congress making the grant of the sixteenth section of lands in the several Congressional townships of the State of Indiana, 'to the inhabitants thereof, for the use of schools?'

In arriving at the merits of this case, it may not be improper to view it with reference to a general question, as to whether it is in contravention of any provision of the Constitution of the United States. The appellees insist it is not, as that instrument is but a charter of privileges and powers ceded and delegated by the people of the Union to the General Government, as restrictions and concessions of inherent sovereignty, necessary to be made in order to create, give efficiency to, and perpetuate, a parent government. And that the right exercised by the State of Indiana, as claimed by her in the law in question, is not a ceded nor a delegated right, and that its exercise is not, by reasonable construction, within any prohibitive feature of the Federal Constitution. On the contrary, this right is conceived to be within the reasonable limits of the rights specially reserved to the States or to the people-the true source of all political power by the tenth amendment to that instrument, that 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.'

Does it contravene any provision of the Constitution of the State of Indiana? It is insisted that it does not, as the Constitution of the State is but an organic rule, originating in and restrictive of the unlimited powers of a sovereignty. Not defining what alone the Legislature may do, in its capacity as the law-making power of the State, but positively prohibiting certain acts of legislation; denying that branch of the State Government the privilege of interfering with certain defined rights, reserved by the people, and pointing out the mode in which legislation shall be conducted. It does not withhold from the State the right to prescribe, through the agency of her Legislature, a rule for the taxation of her people and their property, within her limits, for educational purposes. Nor does it prohibit any distribution the Legislature may see proper to direct of such taxes so collected, whether that distribution be per capita, or with reference to existing educational advantages one locality may have over another; and whether donations from the General Government, or other sources, shall be taken into consideration in the mode of distribution, is conceived to be an untrammelled power of the Legislature of the State, the exercise of which is unforbidden by any provision of either the State or the Federal Constitution.

The very features of the law complained of are component parts of the State Constitution; and, if not repugnant to other subsequent provisions of that instrument, their validity is coequal with the Constitution itself. These provisions are contained in the eighth article of the Constitution of the State.

Vide R. S. of Ind., 1852, vol. 1, page 62.

The sections of the law held to be exceptionable by the appellant are clearly within the directory provisions of the eighth article of the Constitution of Indiana; and section one eighth article of the Constitution of Indiana; and section one hundred and one, so far from diverting or diminishing the Congressional township fund, expressly provides, 'that in no case shall the income of the Congressional township fund belonging to any township, or part of such township, be diminished by such distribution, and diverted to any other township.'

Laws of the State of Indiana, 1855, page 176.

It is insisted by the appellant that the act is contraventive of that provision of the State Constitution which requires all laws of the State to be of uniform operation throughout the State, which position the appellees deem to have been properly held untenable by the Supreme Court of the State in this same case. That court says: 'It does not conflict with the twenty-third section of the fourth article, (of the Constitution of the State of Indiana,) which requires all laws to be of uniform operation throughout the State, for the act is not only uniform in itself, but it produces uniformity in the subjects upon which it operates.'

It is submitted, whether the same rule of construction which applies to a statute does not apply to a Constitution. That where the proviso of an act (or Constitution) is directly repugnant to the purview of it, the proviso will not stand as speaking the last intention of the maker. Or, in other words, is not the subsequent constitutional provision of the eighth article of the Constitution of the State of Indiana an exception to the prohibition of the fourth article of that instrument?

Nor can it be brought within the prohibitions enumerated in the twenty-second section of the fourth article of the State Constitution, as the only mention there made of the subject as a restriction of the State, forbidding the passage of local or special laws 'providing for supporting common schools, and for the preservation of the school fund'-the law itself being made to operate generally and uniformly throughout the entire State.

It is an unquestioned duty of the State to preserve, in good faith, the trust funds held by her for the benefit of her citizens. In the same article of her Constitution containing the educational provisions, which the act in question was framed to carry into effective practice, she solemnly acknowledges that obligation by providing that 'All trust funds held by the State shall remain inviolate, and be faithfully and exclusively applied to the purposes for which the trust was created.' And the appellees insist that it is not inconsistent with her good faith in that respect for her, in the untrammelled exercise of State sovereignty, in making provisions for the education of her people, to take into consideration these donations made for educational purposes, and to so distribute all other funds as to equalize the educational facilities of the whole State.

The entire subject matter upon which the act in question proposes to operate is within the limits of the State of Indiana. She does not propose, by this legislative enactment, to assume control of any foreign matter whatever. And it has been held, 'That a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits as any foreign nation, when that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty, of a State to advance the safety, happiness, and prosperity, of its people, and to provide for its general welfare by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends, when the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise, is not surrendered or restrained in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or which may more properly be called internal police, are not surrendered or restrained; and consequently, in relation to them, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.'

Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of City of New York v. George Miln, 11 Peters, 102.

Inasmuch as the act does not propose to divert the Congressional township fund, but expressly provides against its diversion and diminution, and for its faithful preservation and application to the specified use for which it was granted, it most certainly does not violate the act of Congress granting the lands to the several townships of the State. Such construction can only be given to the act in question, by imputing to the State Legislature an ignorance or duplicity inconsistent with common intelligence and common honesty.

It being unquestionably the duty of all Christian legislators to exercise, in sound discretion, those attributes of sovereignty called into requisition in providing means for the cultivation of the intelligence and morality of the people, it is insisted that the widest scope of power is vested in the Legislature of the State of Indiana, to provide means for the education of the masses within her limits. If it be not competent for her Legislature to take into consideration advantages already enjoyed by favored sections of the State, and a sufficient tax were levied to insure a competent school fund in all parts of the State, on a basis of uniform taxation, the consequence would be, that in wealthy localities, with but few proper subjects to receive the intended benefit, an unnecessary tax would have to be levied and collected, and an unemployed surplus hoarded up, to become a bone of contention, and an inducement to legislative folly and extravagance, as all past history has ever proven plethoric treasuries to have been, as well as a monument of a want of that proper appreciation of sovereignty which would deny discretionary power, in a sovereign State, to equalize and render uniform the operation of her laws, and the benefits to her people arising therefrom, by exercising inherent powers consistent with the public welfare, and not prohibited by any higher law.

It being a well-settled principle that the power of a State to levy taxes, to create a revenue for any specified object, is an incident of sovereignty, and only restricted by constitutional inhibitions; and there being no such constitutional prohibition the sense of honor, justice, and equity, of a State alone defining the limits within which that power shall be exercised-what feature of the law in question can be said to exceed the authority of the State? In the Constitution of the State of Indiana, there is no feature, the appellees insist, prohibiting the levying and collecting of taxes such as contemplated by the school law in question. And that a necessary incident to the power to create a revenue is the power to disburse it; to apply it to the wants of the community in which it was raised. The Constitution of the State being silent as to the mode of distributing the common school fund, that burden was necessarily cast upon the Legislature. In the exercise of this necessary, incidental power, that body directs that all the funds raised, to constitute a common school revenue, be so distributed, taking into consideration the Congressional township fund, as to insure an equality of educational facilities throughout the State. The law implicitly complying with the directory provisions of the State Constitution as to the benefits to be conferred, if there be serious error, or an invasion of right in it, it remains to be demonstrated by some hypothesis not yet tangibly exposed to inspection.

The very law which, in good faith, and with no attempt at secrecy, takes into consideration the Congressional township fund, in providing a mode for the distribution of the school funds of the State, also takes from the county seats, throughout the State, their hitherto exclusive school fund, known as the seminary fund, and intermingles it with the funds from other sources, of which the educational fund of the State is composed. This consolidation is not complained of as an unwarranted assumption of power, nor is it pretended that it is not clearly within the legitimate scope of legislative authority. The same power that can rightly divert a revenue enjoyed by peculiar localities, and disburse it throughout an entire State, most certainly possesses a sufficient authority, over her own internal affairs, to take into consideration other funds, in her efforts at placing all upon a uniform basis as it respects the means of educating her people.

The idea of attaching to the Congressional township fund a degree of sacredness that renders its very contemplation by the State an unpardonable offence, is a creature of imagination, unsupported by any authority whatever. Indiana honorably acknowledges her trust, and provides strict rules for its most sacred observance. She feels the obligation resting upon her, and throws all needful restrictions, checks, and guards, around that fund, for its preservation and appropriation to the use for which it has been granted by the Federal Government, and intrusted to her as the trustee of her people. And at the same time, it is insisted, she justly appreciates her sovereignty in so distributing other funds as to advance, by her own contributions, such localities and recipients of her favors as have not the same educational facilities enjoyed by those who possess considerable Congressional township funds, in order that the educational advantages enjoyed by her people shall be equalized and uniform throughout her entire limits. And these powers, it is insisted, are rightfully exercised by her in the law in question, and it is conceived that the Supreme Court of the State did not err in sustaining the validity of the law.

Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.

The twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act declares, that where is drawn in question the construction of any statute of the United States, and the decision is against the right set up or claimed by either party under the act of Congress, such decision may be re-examined, and reversed or affirmed, in the Supreme Court, on writ of error.

Here it is claimed, for the inhabitants of the township, that the fund arising from the proceeds of the sixteenth section shall not be estimated in distributing the general school fund of the State derived from taxes paid into the State treasury. The acts of the Legislature equalize the amount that shall be appropriated for the education of each scholar throughout the State, taking into the estimate the moneys derived from the proceeds of the sixteenth section, with the proviso, that the whole of the proceeds shall be expended in the township. If it be more, then an equal portion to each scholar elsewhere furnished by the State fund-still, the township has the benefit of such excess, but receives nothing from the treasury; and if it be less, then the deficiency is made up, so as to equalize according to the general provision.

And the question here is, whether the State laws violate the acts of Congress providing that the proceeds of the sixteenth section shall be for the use of schools in the township. And our opinion is, that expending the proceeds of the sixteenth section for the exclusive use of schools 'in the township' where the section exists, is a compliance with the legislation of Congress on the subject; nor is the State bound to provide any additional fund for a township receiving the bounty of Congress, no matter to what extent other parts of the State are supplied from the treasury.

The law is a perfectly just one; but if it were otherwise, and the school fund was distributed partially, nevertheless those receiving the bounty from Congress have no right to call on this court to interfere with the power exercised by the State Legislature in laying and collecting taxes, and in appropriating them for educational purposes, at its discretion.

We hold, that a true construction was given to the acts of Congress referred to, and order that the judgment be affirmed.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1464

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHs. 385-388 . 1929 . 1413 Superintendent of Documents to depository libraries, and for all other purposes relevant to the carrying out of the provisions of section 2 of this Act, salaries for personnel, printing and binding, cont inge nt e xpen ses and trav elin g ex pens es, ther e is her eby auth or- ized to be appropriated, out of the money in the Treasury not other- wise appropriated, not more than the sum of $125,000, and under this authorization not more than $50,000 shall be appropriated for any one year. SEC. 4. The w ork of copy r eading and ind ex making for this pub- d 0 ngybythee D ep ar tƒ lication shall be done by the regular editorial staff of the Depart- ment editorial staff. ment of State, and the cost of this work (prorated each month according to the number of hours spent and the annual salaries of the clerks employed, shall be charged against such annual appro- priations as may be made under the provisions of section 3 . Approved, February 28, 1929 . CHAP. 386 .-An Act For the relief of the San Francisco, Napa, and Calistoga Railway . Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized, empowered, and directed to pay, out of any funds in the Treasury of the United States of America not otherwise appropriated, and in full settlement against the Government, the sum of $126 .70 to the San Francisco, Napa, and Calistoga Railway for repairs to freight cars damaged while on Mare Island Navy Yard in charge of the Navy Department . Approved, February 28, 1929. 0 All other expenses. Sum authori zed for. Prorating of cost, etc. February 28, 1929. [H. R . 2474.] [Public, No. 863.] San Francisco, Napa, and Calistoga Railway. Payment to, f or dam- ages at Mare Island Navy Yard. February 28, 1929. [S.J. Res. 206.] [Pub. Res., No.94.] C H A P. 3 87 .-Joint R esolution To authorize t he President of the Unite d States to appoint a Yellowstone National Park Boundary Commission to inspect the areas involved in the proposed adjustment of the southeast, south, and southwest boundaries of the Yellowstone National Park. Resolved by the Senate and House o f Representatives o f the United States o f Ameri ca in Co ngress a ssembled , That th e President of the rYe Bo• aaNati nal United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to ap- mis sion. point a commission, consisting of five members, to be known as the ins Appointment of, to ~ pect and report on Yellowstone National Park Boundary Commission, whose duty it adjustment e ofrk o`m- shall be to inspect the areas involved in the proposed adjustment of the southeast, south, and southwest boundaries of the Yellowstone National Park, and report to the President its recommendations con- cerning such adjustment. The necessary expenses of such inspection shall be paid from any appropriation available for Yellowstone National Park : Provided, That said commission shall make a final report to the Congress on or before January 1, 1931. Approved, February 28, 1929. Post, p. 1644. Proviso. Date of final report . CHAP. 388 .-Joint Resolution Authorizing the acceptance of title to certain lands iii the counties of Benton and Walla Walla, Washington, adjacent to the Columbia River bird refuge in said State established in accordance with the authority contained in Executive Order Numbered 4501, dated August 28, 1926. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary ref« uowb i a River bird of Agriculture be, and he is hereby, authorized to accept, on behalf Gift of lands, ad]a of and without expense to the United States from the Northern cent to, accepted from Northern Pacific Rail- P acific Railw ay Com pany, a cor porati on or ganize d and existi ng way Company. February 28, 1929. [S. J.Res. 111.] [Pub. Res., No. 95.]

�


text: Talk:Springfield v. Quick/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1465

 1414 Description. SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cns. 388, 413, 414 . 1929 . under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, or its authorized agents, a gift of certai n lands situa te in the cou nties of Bento n and Walla Walla, State of Washington, described as lot 8, section 21, and lot 5, section 3 3, all in tow nship 7 north, range 31 eas t, Willamette principal meridian, containing six and ninety-seven hundredths acres, more or less, including all the buildings and improvements thereon, and all righ ts, ease ment s, a nd a ppur tena nces the reun to a pper tain ing Proviso. Provided, That upon the acceptance of the title to the lands above To huge o on a part accept- the refuge t- described by the United States they shall become a part of the Colum- ance of the title. bia River bird refuge established pursuant to the authority contained in Executive Order Numbered 4501, dated August 28, 1926, and shall be subject to any laws governing the administration and protection of said refuge. Approved, February 28, 1929. March 1, 1929. [H. R. 8295.] [Public, No. 864.] United States courts. Addit ional judge for ni nth circu it, to be appointed. Vol. 36, p. 1131, amended. Ante, p.1347. Vacancy due to death, etc., of present senior judge, not to be filled. March 1, 1929. [H. R .12409 .]_ CHAP. 414 .-An Act To grant to the city of Fort W ayne, Indi ana, an [Public, No. 865.] easement over certain Government property. Fort Wayne, Ind . Be it enacted by the Senate oared House of Representatives of the Easement post office to, United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary o ver of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to grant to the cit y of Fort Way ne, Indiana, an easement ov er the wester n portion of lot 113 (original plat of such city), being a strip of land ten feet wide and one tundred and fifty feet long, extending along the east side of Clinton Street south from the corner of Berry Street, such ten-foot strip being a portion of the present post-office site; su ch easement to continue so long as the land shall be used exclusively for street purposes : Provided, however, That the United States shall retain the right to have that portion of the base of the present tower which encroaches approximately one foot and three inches on the aforesaid ten-foot str ip, remain in place, undist urbed, as though such grant had never been made : And p rovide d furt her, That the city of Fort Wayne, as a consideration for such grant, shall perform all necessary work incident to the relocation of the steps, changes in entrance, approaches, and the grounds of the said post- office site; such work shall be performed under the direction and to the satisfaction of the Treasury Department, all without expense to the United St ates. Approved, March 1, 1929. Provisos. Portion retained. City to perform nec- ess ary work. No Government ex- pense. CHAP. 413 .-An Act For the appointment of an additional circuit judge for the ninth judicial circuit. j Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President be, and is hereby, authorized to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an additional circuit judge for the ninth udicial circuit. SEC. 2. When a vacancy shall occur due to the death, resignation, or reti rement of the presen t senio r circu it jud ge of s aid cir cuit, such vacancy shall not be filled unless authorized by Congress. App roved, March 1, 19 29.

�