U S. Supreme Court Decisions

'l'O THE EdITORS OF THE AEOÜ8 : I deslíe to be allowed a few words of exphvnation in your columns, as to the abuse which the editor of the Courier took the unjuatih'able liberty of throwing upon me, in his last issue, about a somewhat recent decisión oí the Sujireme Court of the U. S. ün the Uth of Nov. there wore filed in that Court in Washington, the following short synopses of tlioso decisions, which were published in the Dotroit Post, on the lOth - the ncxt day aftor underthe head of Washington items: "THE SUrilKME COUKT. In tlio Supreme Oourt the case of the Home Iusunuico Company vs. Morse and another, error to Supreme Court of Wisconsin, waa taken up. In this case tho Home Insurance Company, of New York, complied in writing with tho statutes of Wiscoiimn, by which, among other tliings, it agreod not to remove any case commenced against it in the State Court to the Federal Court, but on tho commencemont of tho present caso it, nevortheless moved for a transfer to the Federal Court. The Court below regardod the statuto and agreement as ground for a denial of the motion. This Court reversed this judgment haaed on that theory, and holds that neither a private citizen nor a corporatc body may barter away tieir riffhts, and that the company was cntitled to a removal notwithstanding the State Uw and the contract. Justice Hunt delivered the opinión. The Chief Justice has delivered a dissenting opinión, in which Justico Davis concurred, holding that tho State had power to enact a law placing foreign and local business and corporations in the same position as to State authority, and to mako uil doitig business in the State amenable to the samo tribunals. " CASE OF 8PBATT VS. THB UXITKD STATES. In the case of Spratt vs. the Uuited States the Supreme Court to-day affirmed the judgment of the Court of Claims, holding that the claimant, a Confedérate citizen, gained no title to certain cotton by a purchase from an agent of the Confedérate States, because these States were without corporate power to take, hold or covey a valid title to auy property whatever, and that the claimant was chargeable with a notice of treasonable intent of sale by the Confedérate Grovernment, to wit : to raise money for the purpose of buying munitions of war. Justice Miller delivered the opinión, Justice Field dissenting, taking tho view that the pardon of the claimant reinstated him in all his civil rights, and gave him assurance that he should stand in the courts of the country in as good a condition as any of his fellow-citizens who had never sinned against the authority of the Government." On Saturday, the 7th of Dec, the Evening News published a synopsis of the last, or " cotton case," but made no reference to the flrsti which rather surprised me, from the fact that if a paper attempts, or represente to give the current news of the day, it looked to me, and, no doubt would to the people geuerally, that if one was given the other should haye been given also, whereupon I wroto to the editor of the News, and requested the tirst or restraint case to be also published. For this, the editor of the Courier runs on with a triade of abuse against me, claimiug that I desired unjust and unreasonable advautages over him, otherwise I " would uot have feit the necessity of making an argument,"' apparently forgetting that he had published in the summer past, with a flourish of trumpets, the decisión oí the same Court in what is called the " California steamboat case," which he considered as helping his side of the question in our controversy ; but the above " insurance case," not favoring his side, he did not choose to publish it ; yet all these things in the eyes of the editor of the Courier leave me no reason why I should dosire " to make an argument," as he terms it, fair play being a jewel that the weak side counot see a reason for using or allowing to be UBed by its opponents. To be sure, I might have foregone the " gument" from the fact that even the California case, when analyzed even " by a distinguished medical man of this county, who kuows just about as much about law aud common sense (the italics are his own) as a dog does about lus father," is seen to be wholly againat him. The facts were as follows : A steamboat company owniDg a number of steamboats, and navigating the waters of California, sold one oí their boats to a similar company of Oregon, which was navigating the waters of Oregou, takiug a contract of them that that particular boat should not be run upon the waters of California for the term of ten years ; and after three years use of this boat, the Oregon company sold it to a similar company of Washington "Territory, owuing boats aud navigating the waters of that Territory, taking a similar contract from them that they - the Washington Territory company - should not run that particular boat on the waters of Oregon or California for ten years - extending, it will be observed, three yeara after the tirst contract would have expired. Thia contract was held void by the State Courts, as against public policy, but on an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court, it was reversed, held good, from the fact that each corporation was a Citizen of a dinerent State or Territory ; and as it had ref erence to only one of the boats owned by either of the contracting parties, they could run all their other boats on the specified waters without violating their contract to each other, nor would they hare to change their citizenship to carry on their business - but even in this case the extra three years, against the last named company, was not held good, because it would do the plaintiff - the Oregon company - no good after the römaining seven years of their contract with the California company had expired - the Courts always holding that a party must not cover more time or territory, than is necessary for his protection. And now, if this exceedingly fair-dealing man (?) - the editor of the Courier had published this case, was he not, in fairness, bound to publish the insurance case also ; but, more especially, had 1 not a good reason to ask its publication by an other paper that had published the cotton case which was placed on Ule the same day '( The people, to whom he appeals, shall be the judges. There is one sentence, however, in the report as sent to the Post which was not fairly reported. I refer to the sontence in italics, in their report given above. The whole decisión was published Dec. 5th in the Chicago Legal News, and in place of the sentence referred to it reads as follows : " A man may not barter away his life or freedom, or his substantial rights." Certainly this is a strong case - henee the squirming. But, if this ia good law for insurance men, I would ask, is it it not good law for men in the more general oceupations of life? - t'or instance printers and publishers - and, if the right to work or carry on business in the State of which a man is a citizen, is uot one of the " substantial rights" in every State of this Uuion, no matter what the " clap-trap" plan may have been to induce a person to consent not to do it, Uien, of courso, 1 am all in the wrong ; but so long as all the the decisions in England and the United States from more than three hundred years ago down to the ninth of November, 187 go to sustain this right and to inako it plam, even to " a distinguished medical man," perhaps I ought to have been satisfied to have let the Courier-ma.n publish what he considered would show his side of the question, and also to have withheld the other side, without an opposing " argument" - this also shall rest with the people. But, again, if a party to a contract ín restruint of trade or business may not cover more time or territory " than is nocessary for his protection," why should a man be lestrained from business as long as the purchaser shall (live) carry on business ? and why shall he be restrained from business thorughout the whole State P covering an area of over 56,000 square miles while the area of all the counties from which he received a job of work covers a little less than 8,000 square miles - seven times as much as are " required for protection." The Cowrter-man closes his great remonstrance in the following words: " We are no lawyer nor the eon of one, but we cannot help saying that we do not believe that there is a law to be found on the statute books anywhere that will deprive a purchaser of property of any kind for which he has given a fair equivalent, and to which the tittle is good. I simply say to this what the people already know, that he has fu 11 and entire possession of all the proper ty which he ever paid for ; and it ia only an imaginativa property, for whiah he never paid a cent, that there is any coutroversy about ; and to show whether he has any reasonable grouud for his belief, I must give an incident in relation to what one of the Detroit lawyers - one that he employed in tho case before Judge Higby - told me that he had told this Coitrier-ma,u, before he commenced the present suit between us. I had been told that this gentleman had said to him " that his contract was not worth the paper it was written upon ;" henee, as I sat by the side of this gentleman at the dinner table in Lansing not long since, and the C'owter-man, I believe, also sitting at the same table, I aahed him - the Detroit lawyer, who, by the way, is one of tho best if he had made such a declaration to him 't " No," says he, " I uid not teil him 80, but I told him this- the difficulty would be to qet the courts to set aside all their previoui decisions, notwithstanding I thought in ome cases they ought to be." Is not this the bable reason why this gentleman was not continued as counsel in the case ; but it inakus no difference, the general opinión of lawyers everywhere, the feed ones of Ann Arbor excepted, that a contract in restraint of trarle, covering tho wliole Stuto camiot be niaintamed. Now tho people can judgo understandmgly whether he has any roason to conplain of my requeat to tho Evening News to publish that decisión, aud they will also be able to judge if he has any " substantial" reason lor his bombastic assurance of auccess - but, rather on the other hand, it the company, at least, has not a good foundation tor damagoa Y It must not bo supposed that this is done for the purpose oí influencíng the Court, before which the controversy is now ponding, as instructions had been given before writing to the editor of the News, for counsel to take the necessary legal steps to bring this decisión to the attention of tho Judges ; and if the proper papera have not been already delivered, they will be in a day or two. I will closo the " argument" as nearly in hia owu words as posaible : " But we cannot help saying that wo do not believe that" the court will decide thia case contrary to all the " law on the statute books," and coutrary to all the previous decisions, everywhere, " that will deprive a person of any one of his substantial nghts, for which" no " fair equivalent" was ever " given," and to which the title is" not " good." But, if the court ahall aee fit to make a " new departure" (wherein hia friend, the Detroit lawyer, conaidered the difficulty would lay), and to begin it upon me, I ahall probably make as little complaiut as most persons would. Ilcspectfully.