The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, November 17, 1896, Page 1

" preme Court to-day by Justice Peckham, ", Court found no difficulty, Justice Peckham B PRICE FIVE CENTS Five Years of Litigation Terminated at Last. Decision of the Supreme Court Sus- taining the Validity of the Vexed WASHINGTON, D. C., Nov. 16.—After | litigation extending over a perind of five or six years, the California statute locally known as the Wright irrigation law has been pronounced to be constitutional and valid by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the validity of $16,000,000 of bonds issued thereunder affirmed. The decision was announced in the Su- in the case of the Fallbrook irrigation | District et al. vs. Maria King Bradley and husband, appealing from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of California. There was another appeal before the court, also involving the same law, di: posed of at to-day’s session of the Supreme Court, which came from the Supreme Court of the State—William Tregea vs. the Modesto Irrigation Distriet. . The courts below entered diametrically opposite judg- ments, the Circuit Court hoiding that the | law was unconstitutional ana the Su-| preme Court of the State holding thatit | was constitutional. | The Tregea case bad been beforegthe | Supreme Court of the United States for more then two years, and after having been argued once was assigned for another | argument, in connection with the Fall- | brook case. The argument took place last Avpri!, ex-President Harrison supporting the law. The complainants in the two cases al-‘ tacked the Jaw on the ground that it was | -unconstitutional, violating both the State | and Federal constitutions, the latter in | - effect that it took away private property without due process of law. Judge McKenna of the Circut Court decided that the act did practically take the property | of the Bradleys, who are alien residents of | San Diego County, without due process of | law, and granted the injunction asked for. | In the opinion, disposing of the- case, | Justice Peckham refers to the vast extent of the ‘'arid regicn,” and the greatim- -portance to those residing in it, of the scheive to improve its condition by irriga- uon. Taking tbe California law as a model, he said seven or eight other States in the arid belt had passed similar laws 10 assess lands for the cost of constructing jrrigating works and condemning other lands for right of way of these works, proceedings under which were awaiting the result of the pending litigation. One ot the points made by the counsel was that the irrigation of arid lands was not & public purpose, and this was dis- cussed in the opinion at length in con- nection with the power of the Legisiature 10 passa luw proviging for the accom- plishment of that purpose. The Supreme said, in coming to the same conclusion reached by the California State Court— thau the irrigation of arid lands is a public purpose, that the water thus used is put to a public nse, and thatan act providing for irrigation 1sa valid exercise of the legislative power. . A second objection urged by the prop- erty-owners was that the operations of the act need not be and are not limited to arid, unproductive lands, but include witnin its possibilities all lands, no mat- | ter how fertile or productive, so long as they are susceptible ‘“n their natural state” to one mode of irrigation from a common source, the special point being that it was unlawfual to include the city of Modesto in an irrigation district. But the Supreme Court of California said it was undoubtedly intended by the Legislature that cities and towns in proper cases should ne included in such districts, and that the act thus construed did not violate the State constitution, and that view of the law the Supreme Court of the United States adopted. As to the construction of the act upon the third poiit raised the Supreme Court of the United States held that it provided for a hearing of the land-owner both as to the guestion whether his land would be benetited by the proposed irrigation, ana .when that had been decided in favor of the benefit then upon the question of valuation and assessment of and upon his land included in the aistrict. As to other matters the district could be ereated withe out notice to any one. “Qur conclusion,” says the decision, *is that the aet, as construed with reference to the objections considered under this third head, is unassailable.” The fourth and final objection was asto the basis of assessment upon the lands b-nefited, that it amounted to a taking of the property of the citizen without due process of law. Regarding this the opinion says: e “Tne method of assessment herd pro- vided for may not be the best which could have been adopted in order to accomplish the most equal and exact justice which the nature of the case permits. But none the less we are unable to say that it runs counter to any provision of the Federal constitu:ion, and we must, for that rea- son, hold the objection here considered to be untenable.’”’ The judgment of the Circuit Court was, therefore, overrnled, and the case re- manded for further proceeding not incon- sistent with tne opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. ) Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Field, 1t was aunounced, dissented from the opinion of the court. The decision of the court in the case of ihe Modesto district, which came from the Supreme Court of the State, was an- nouunced by Justice Brgwer. The consti- tutionality of the law, he said, had been settled by the decision in the Fallbrook case,and the Modesto case was disposed of briefly on the ground that it presented 10 question for the Supreme Court of the United States to decide. Tne proceedings irom which Tregea appealed simply gave Irrigation Law. the directors of the irrigation district authority to i<sue bond “*As no bonds were issued,” said Justice Brewer, “and the prceecding does not compel the issue of any, and they may not be issued at all, no such suit is pre- sented as culls for consideration and deci- sion by this court. For this reason the appeal will be aismiseed. “Justices Harlan, Gray and Brown, however.” he continued, “are of the opin- ion that as the judgment of the State court was against a right and privilege specially set up and claimed by the plain- tiff in error under the constitation of the United States, such judgment if not modi- fied or revised will include him if not all the holders of taxable property in the Modesto irrigation district in respect of the Federal right and privilege so alleged ; consequently it is the auty ol this court to determine upon its merits the Federal question so raised by the pleadings and determined by the judgment of the State court. 1hey are also of the opinion that the principlesannounced in the Falibrook case sustain the conclusions of the State court upon this Federal question and re- quire the affirmance of its judgment.” o MAJORITY OPINION. Reasons for Sustaining the Validity of the Wright Act. WASHINGTON, D. C., Nov. 16.—The majority opinion of the Supreme Courtin the Failbrook irrigation case is volumin- ous, comprising twenty-two printed pages. Justice Peckman, who delivered the opinion of the court, said: Weare confined in this case to the inquiry whether the act in question (Wright irrigation iaw), as it has been construed by the State courts, violates the Federal constitution. The assertion that it does is based upon that part of the fourteenth amendment of the constittu- tion which reads as follows: ‘*Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny 10 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In referring to the amendment above quoted the eppellees herein urge several objections to this act. They say: First—That thd use for which water is to be procured is not in any sense a public one, be- cause it is limited to iand-owners who may be such at the time when water is to be appor- tioned, and the interest of the public is noth- ing more than that indirect and collateral benefit that it derives from every improve- ment of useful character that is made in the State. Second—They assert that under the act in question the irrigation of lands need not be Jimited to those which are in fact unprodue- tive, byt that by its very terms the act in- clodes all 1ands which are susceptiblo of one mode of irrigation from a common source, and no matter how fertile or productive they may already be, and it is denied that the furnis h ing of a fertilizer for landsof individual pro- prietors which are already productive, in order to make them more productive, is in any legal sense public improvement. Third—It is also objected that under the act the land-owner hes no right to demand and no opportunity is given hym for a hearing on the question whether his land is or can be benelited by irrigation as proposed; also that he has noright to & hearing upon the ques- tion whether the statute hes been compiied with in preliminary and requisite to the tor- mation of a district. Fourth—That the basis of assessment for the cost of construction 1s not in accordance with and in proportion to benefit transferred by improvement, and finally, that lard which cannot, in fact, be b:nefited may yet under the act be placed in one of the irrigation dis- tricts and assessed upon its value to pay the cost of construction of works which benefit othersat his expense. These are the main ob- jections urged against the act. Coming to a review of tnese various objec- tions, we think the first—that the water Is not for public use—is not well founded. The question what constitutes public use has been before the courts of many of the States and their decisions have not been harmonious, the inclination of some of these courts being toward a narrower and more limited defini- tion of such use than those of dthers. There is no specific prohibition in the Fed- eral constitution which acts upon States to their taking private pronerty’ for any but public use. The fifth amendment, which pro- vides among other things that such property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, applies only to the Federai Government, as has many times been decided. In the fourteenth amendment provision re- garding the taking of private property is omitted, and prohibition against the State is confined toits depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due processof law. It is ciaimed, however, that a citizen is de- Pprived of his property without due process of lawif it be taken by or under State authority for any other than a public use, either under guise of taxation or by assumption of right of eminentdomain. In that way the question whether private property has been taken for any other than a public use becomes material in this court, even where the taking is under the authority of the State instead of the Fed- eral Government. The Supreme Court of Cali- fornia has heid in & number of cases that the irrigation act is in accordance with the con. stitution and that it does not deprive land. owners of any property without dne process of faw; that the use of water for irrigation purposes under the provisions of the act is public use, and corporations organized by virtue of the act for the purpose of irrigation are public municipal corporations organized for the promotion of prosperity and the wel- fare of the people. - We donot assume that these various state- ments— constitutional ana legislative — to- gether with decisions of the State courtare conciusive and bindaing upon this court upon the question as 10" what is a due process o1 law. As liere presented these are questions which also arise under. the Federal constitu- tion, and we must decide them in accordance with our views of constitutional law. It is obvious, however, that what is public use frequently and largely depends upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the particu- Inr subject matter in regard to which the character of use is questioned. To provide for irrigation of lands in States where there is no color. of necessity therefor within any fair meaning of the term ana simply for the purpose of gratifying the owner or his desire to enter gpon cultivation of an entirely new kiud of crop, not necessary for AR NP RS SF o3 s T MINERS The further investigation goes.in the question of establishing a mining bureau or department. in connection with the general administration of the executive department of the Federal Governmert the more conclusive is the evidence that miners are suffering from an inscequate administration, and that their vast and important interests are squandered and sacrificed becanse there is no proper un- derstanding of their business by the de- partments of government that have charge of the matter. R. M. McMurray, a well-known miner of Quray, Colo., is an enthusiastic advocate of the plan of a mining department in the Cabinet. In speaking of the matter yes- terday he said: “‘Our interests are surely of enough im- portance to attract attention, standing, as they do, second only to agriculture and manufactures. matters, and I am fally ripe for a plan that puts our affairs in basiness shape and in such a manner that there will be no de- lay in adjusting our important interests.’” William H. Ciary of stockton, owner of the Sheep Ranch mine—We ought to have | a Secretary of Mining beyond any doubt. The matter when urged at the California miners’ meeting received the approval of those who expressed themselves, and I do not doubt that it would meet with ap- proval among miners everywhere. We have waited alrsady too long without recognition for this great industry. There is too much business for the Secretary of the Interior to transact, so the work onght to be divided up and a new Cabinet officer appointed. The mining interests are very | large, extending over an enormous sec- tion, comprising many States. If we had a Secretary of Mining I think mining would be advanced. We could then get recognition, commensurate probably with tue importance of mining. We certainly need a man in the Cabinet to represent mining as much as we need a man in the Chair of Agriculture. Another reason why Iam for a Mining Secretary is be- cause I think California would probably get the place. This is the oldest and wealthiest of the mining States. It has Jed the way, and by right ought to be recoguized over all other States. I have experienced for | many years the inconvenience and injus- | tice of having to adjust my affairs through | a department that is ignorant of mining | DEMAND A CABINET PLACE George D. McLane, the widely known mine-owner and manager of Grass Valley— If we can get a man who is well. informed as to mining I would say yes, let us have a Secretary of Mining. I think there is no doubt that we could get a good man in the place and so Iam in favor of the depart. ment. Mining has been in recent years spreading out. ‘There is mining of some sort in nearly every State. In the West and on the Pacific Coast mining has grown enormously. More capital has been in- vested from year to year. Itisn’tshallow mining any more, but Jdeep mining, and this takes a great deal of capital. We cer- tainly deserve a Secretary of Mining if we have a Secretary of Agriculture. The con- flict between railroads and mining in- | terests, which occurred recently in Cali- fornia, has been settled, 1 believe, but the question is liable to come up again in some form; if not with us in other States. Then, as at present, the debris question is a matter of controversy, and this should be settled. The segregation of the mineral from the agricultural lands is another matter that needs carefu! attention. I think there is a great deal for a Secretary of Mining to do. As the Secretary famiharizes hiraself with his work he will find it growing in importance. It is cer- tain also to get more and more important as the country grows older. J.W. Bmith et Boulder, Colo., and an ex- tensive miner in Colorado—Of course we shonld have a Secretary of Mining. Take Georgia, North and South Carolina and all the Western States, the coal-mining States, the lead, $he zinc, the phosphate mines and the great quicksilver, copper, silver and gold mines, they would all be fostered, and should be. Mining is an in- dustry mcre important as a wealth pro- ducer than agriculture, and we have a Secretary of Agriculture. There is hardly a State in the Union that is not interested in some branch of the great mining in- dusfry. C. A. Judkins of Denver—The mining industry ought to be fostered. It isonly in 1ts infancy, especially here in Califor- nia and in Colorado, but there there is twice the enthusiasm that there is here. Mining in all its branches is an enormouns industry, and to foster it by some such means in all itsbranches would materially increase the wealth of the country, while THE MINING CINDERELLA AND THE CABINET SLIPPER. giving a great many more men employ- ment. E. J. Field of Denver—I believe it would be an exceedingly good thing. I believe it wonid advance the industry very materi- ally. Mining is looked upon by many Eastern people as a gambling scheme, and to put it before all the nation as an industry on a footing with agriculture would be a great help to the development of mines of all kinds, and would create a more general and saler interest among in- vestors. C. K. Colvin, a mining expert of Denver—I have thought of this matter a good deal, and I think the appotntment of a Government Becretary of Mining would be an excellent thing. The mining of precious metals is paramount to all other industries in furnishing the life. blood, the means by which others may be developed. 1 think it should be made a special department by itselt and have a head the same as agriculture, C. F. Gaffney of Butte, Mont., is one of the modest, old-time miners who blushes when he sees his name in priat as a rule, but he said: It strikes me that thisisa good scheme, and I am glad Tue CaLL advocates it. Of course if we take too active an interest in it we might get into trouble where we have claims pending, but the scheme is all right all the same.” Congressman Loud had not fully inves- tigated the plans; was a little afraid to commit himself fully, but said: “I cannot see any thing against the scheme, but 1 do not want to boom it too hard until I see whether we can possibly get the matter through. I domnot believe it can fail to be a good thing, but Ido not like to get in over my ears too soon.”’ 5 C. W. Wheeler, a well-known Colorado mining man, said: ) “I do not think a :ingle miner wko ?feelx that his soul is his own and who knows anything about the many incon- veniences of the present system can pos- sibly fall to object to it or its workings. We are harassed and delayed at every turn of the road. All who know much about the dilatory methods of the Interior Department must protest against them and long for tlhre day of better methods. Qur people have discussed this matter and they are a unit in favor of giving the miners a place in the Cabinet.” the purpose of rendering ordinary cultivation of the land reasonably remunerative, might be regarded by the couris as an mproper ex- ercise of legislative will, and the use might not be held to be public in any constitutionat absence, no matter NOW many owners were in- terested in the scheme. On the other hand, in a State like California, which confessedly embraces millions of acres of aridlands, an act of the Legislature pro- viding for their irrigation might well be re- garded as an act devoting water to public use, and, therefore, as & valid exercise of legisla- tive power. The people of California and members of ner Legisiature must in the nature of things be more lamiliar with the fscts and circumsiances which surround the subject, and with the necessaries and oceasion for irri- gation of lands than can any one be who is a stranger to her soil. Thisknowledge and familiarity must have their weight with State | courts which are to pass upon the question of public use in the sight of facts which surround the subject in their own State. For these reasons, while not regarding the matter as concluded by the various declarations and acts and decisions of the people and Legisla- ture and courts of California, we yet, in con- sideration of the subject, accord and treat tnem with very great respect, and we regard decisious as embodying deliberate judgment and matured thought of courts of that State on this question. Viewing the subject for ourselves and in the Jight of these consideratiions we have very littie difficulty in coming to thé same conelu- sion reached by the courts of California. The use must be regarded as public use, or else it would seem to follow that no general scheme of irrigation can be formed or carried inio effect. In general, water 1o be used must be carried for some distance dnd over or through private property, which cannot be taken in .mvitam if the use to which it is to be put be not public, and if there be no power to take property by condemnation it may be impossi- ble to acquire it at all. The usre for which private property is to be taken must be a pub- lic one, whetber the txking te by exercise of right or of eminent domsin or by that of taxa- tion, A private company or corporation without power to acquire land in invitam would be of 10 real benefit, and at any rate the costof the undertaking would beso greatly enbanced by the knowledge that land must be acquired by 'purchase that it woald be practically impossi- ble to build work€ or gbtain water. Individ- uai enterprise wounld be equally ineffectual. No one owner would find it possible to con. struct and maintain water works and canals | any better than private corporations or compa- nies, and unless they had power of eminent domain they could accomplish nothing. If that power could be conferred upon them it could only pe upon the ground that the prop- erty they took was to be taken for a public purpose. While the consideration that the work of irrigation must be abandoned if the use of water may not be held to be or constitute pub- lic uses not to be regarded as couclusive in favor of such use, yet that fact is in this case a most important consideration. " Milflons of acres of land, otherwise cultivable, must be left in their present arid and worthless condi- tion, and an effectusl obstacle will, therefore, remain in the way of the advance of a large portion of the State in material wealth and prosperity. To irrigate and thus to bring into possible cultivation these larger masses of otherwise worthless lands woald seem to be s public purpose and & matterof public interest, noi confined to land-owners, or even to any one section of the State. The fact that the use of water is iimited to land-owners Is not, there- fore, a fatal objection to this legislation. - Itis mnot essential that the entire community or even any considerable portion thereof should Continued on Second Page. USAL MURDER i CONFESSES : John Dodge Describes the Mudgett Killing. Burned the Rancher’s Dwelling to Destroy Evi Cri dence of the me. UKIAH, Car, Nov. 16.—Stowed away among the records in the Mendocino County courthouse is a document that de:cribes in detail the assassination of J. A. H. Mudgett, the well-to-do rancher whose charred body was found in the ashes of his cabin near Usal three weeks ago. It is a story of cold-blooded mur- | der, horrible in its frankness, though the time-worn plea of self-defense is put forward in extenuation of the tragedy. It tells of robbery and arson—the destruction of the victim’s home that the Hames might incinerate his corpse and destroy all evidence against his assassin. Thus goes the confession of John Dodge, who is now awaiting trial for taking Mudgett’s life. Dodge and his wife, Ida Dodge, after their arraignment at Usal, were brought to Ukiah and imprisoned. Deputy Sheriff Hart, who escorted them, wired to Dis- trict Attorney Sturtevant, who was at Fort Bragg, asking Sturtevant to meet the party at Willits. Sturtevant, after an all- night drive, arrived at Willits in time' to meet Hart and his prisoner. Dodge had made a full confession to Hart on the road and the latter desired that it be made known to the District Attorney at once. =« On Saturday evening at Lancland’s hotel at Willits, in the presence of Deputy Hart, District Attorney Sturtevant and Superior Court Reporter William Held, Dodge told of his complicity in the mur- der, and his confession was taken down by Reporter Held. Dodge stated that on Wednesday, Octo- ber 29, he had been out deer-hunting, and while on " his way home passed by Mudgett's place. The latter asked what he was doing in that vicinity. Dodge said he vas looking for some hozs he had left running thera. Mudgett then accused him of having already killed the hogs, and said he had no business running after otber - people’s hogs. e insisted that' Ye could prove by mum:-m-im Rube Nobles, that he had never killed the hogs; but Mudgett stated that Nobles was such a notorious liar that he would not believe him. Dodge declares that Mudgett then re- ferred to a bull that he had owned, claim- ing that Dodge and Nobles had strangled it to death. He said that Nobles had lied in that instance. Mudgett then went on to say thatit would be better that Dodge never again cross the river (meaning the South Fork of Ee! River, which separates Dodge’s place from Mudgett’s). 1f he did s0 he weuld be killed by some one. Dodge says that Mudgett began to abuse him. They were sitting opposite each other in Mudgett’s cabin. Mudgettraised his arm in a threatening manner. Just as he did so, Dodge, without taking aim, firea one barrel of his shotgun in Mud- gett's direction. Then he ran outside for fear that Mudgett might shoot at him in the dark. Not hearing the latter, he re- turned to the cabin and found the rancher lyingon the floor breathing heavily and evidently dying. Dodge then took a rifle from Mudgett and ran from there to his own home. There he met his wife and related what had transpired. They were living with Dodge Sr. at the time, and to divert sus- picion they retired to their. room and there pianned means of hiding traces of the crime. Finally they agreed to go to Mudgeit's cabin and set fire to it, destroy- ing the body and the contents of the cabin. Both donned overalis, and wrap- pmg their bare feet in grain sacks they went to Mudgett’s cabin. After arriving there Mudgett was found outside the cabin, some fifty feet from the building. They first cut a pocket out of his pantaloons, in which he carried his money, and which contained some $700. Then they carried him into the cabin by placing him on two pickets and deposited him on his bunk within. A can of coal oil standing near by was opened and the contents poured on the body and the bed- ding. They retired to the door of the builaing and from there threw burning wads of paper onto the body and when the fire was well under way left for their home. Dodge,when he made the confession, said thal he would have doneso at Usal, bug thet his fear of being lynched prevented. He gave as his reason for desiring to make it before he got to Ukiah that he did not want his wife to give the first statement of the case, and thereby have any bene- fit that might inure to her. To-day in the county jail both Dodge and his wife made another statement substantially con- forming to the first, with the exception that Dodge said he did not shoot Mudgett until the latter had discharged his xun at im, and claims that the buliet erazed his neck. Mrs. Dodge states that trace of the bullet was visibie when Dodge re- turned to the house. The generally prevailing opinion among the officers is that Dodge shot Mudgett outside of the cabin and carried his body inside, and that Mudget: died instantly afier being shot. Dodge claims he stole nothing but some money and some gun- lead, and says the provisions in the cabin were burned. Dodge accuses Deputy Constable Neison, who was guarding the prisoners, of having at Mrs, Dodge’s re- quest relieved her of a8 large bowe-knife with which the oilcan at Mudgett's had been opened, and which would have been a strong factor in proving the guilt of the Dodges. He also says that, although Nel- son was supposed to keep the prisoners separate so they might not commnnicate with each other, he carried notes between them. It is probable that information for mur- der in she first degree will be filed against | Dodge, and possibly one for arson and | Tobbery. Against his wife the charge will i in all probability be arsen and accessory | to murder. i FIGHTING THE STEEL POOL. | Cleveland Companies Will Have to @o | Into the Business Themselves in Or- der to Maintain Existence. NEW YORK, N. Y., Nov. 16.—The new agreement which has just been entered into by the companies lorming the great steel pool has practically driven those out- siders who have heretofore been custom- | ers of the pool into a combination to mnu- { facture their own steel. as the prioe charged these rolling-mills for the product is so high that they will either be forced to shut down or do their own manufac- turing. Itis therefore considerel more than likely the Cleveland companies will soon put up mills of their own, as under the change they are debarred from com- peting, The new agreement was entered into by the companies Friday nicht ata meeting at the Manhatian Hotel, and differs radically from the old. It takes in both billets and crude steel and the finished product. The former contract only deait with crude material. In sneaking of this agreement Charles Kerschoff, editor of the Iron Age, said to-day: I regard the proposition to put up mills by the Cleveland companies as more than possible, but it is from force of sheer ne- cessity that they do so. They are prac- tically forced into a fight for their exist- ence. The Lake Erie Iron Company is the one which started them, and I believe all but one of the manufacturing concerns have agreed to enter. The company will vut up another hearth plant. The Union Rolling-mill will also stop buying billets of the furnaces in the combination. “This matter has been in the wind ever since the old agreement was entered into, but it was delayed bec ause it was not be- Jieved the agreement would Jlast long. ‘There were too many weak spotsin it. It bas fallen apart as was expected, be- cause it was unjust to those who were in the pool and who were perforce customers of others in the pool because they did not make their own product. This injustice was that the allotment of production only dealt with crude steel in the form of billets. At the last meeting, however, the agreement was so changed as to take in the finished product only. Under the old system rolling-mills which had a plant capable of turning out finished stuff did it so cheaply that it crowded out the fin- ished products of those who had no steel plants. As the agreement exists at pres- ent everything is included except steel rails, which are in a pool of their own.”? pmdegil. s SPUTE DROWNED HIS FAMILY. | It Was Not an Accident That Caused the Death of a Wife and Five Children. DENVER, Coro., Nov. 16.—Andrew J. Spute, a well-known grocer of this ecity, with his family, consisting of his wife and five small childrer; went boating on Smiths Lake Sunday, October 26. The boat was capsized and Mrs. Spute and the children were drowned. Spute, apparently with a great effort, managed to cling to the boat until rescued. Although it was known at the time of the drowning that Mrs. Spute’s life, as well as the lives of the children, were insured for a sum aggreeating $12,000, Spute’s explanation of the cause of the accident secemed satisfactory. Spute claimed himself and family intended go- ing to the mountains for an outing, and that the insurance for three monihs only was taken out on this account. Detectives have been quietly at work on the case since the night of the drowning, and it is alleged have secured evidence that will convict Spute of the murder of his family for the purpose of securing the insurance on their lives. Spute was arrested at an early hour this morning, and shortly after Nellie Dayis, an inmate of a well-known Market-street resort, was Jlodged in jail. Spute, it is al- leged, has for a long time led a dual life and bhas lavished much money on the Davis woman, whom he informed of the large insurance on his wife’s life and to whom he prom- ised costly presents on her birthday—the 18th of December. The woman is beld as a witness by the police and it is not be- lieved that she was acquainted with Spute’s plan for the murder of his family. As Spute has always borne a good repu- tation, the facts developed in connectiou with the drowning which were made puo- lic to-day have created asensation ampng His many friends. A Sensational Elopement. ROME, Iracy, Nov. 16.—Newspapers here publish reports of a sensational elope- ment which has caused a great scandai in the highest society. Princess Elvira, daughter of Don Carlos, the pretender to the Spanish throne, recently came to Rome to visit her sister, Princess Massimo. She met Count Folchi, an artist, who isa married man with a family, and fell in love with him, with the result that they ran away together. Princess Elvira took with her her jewels, which are valued at $60,000. The whereabonts of the couple 1s unknown. LA e Knights of Labor. ROCHESTER, N. Y., Nov. 16 —At this morning’s session of the Knights of Labor the committee on the state of the order reported a proposition to obtain the pas- sare of laws restricting immisration to ?O'otood.p" year. The proposition was de- cate