are matters known to many and they will be ascertained by testimony in the usual way. The question was left open in Ex parte Savin, 131 U. S. 267, with a visible leaning toward the conclusion to which we come, and that conclusion has been adopted by state courts in decisions entitled to respect. Huntington v. McMahon, 48 Connecticut, 174, 200, 201; State v. Matthews, 37 N. H. 450, 455; Bates's case, 55 N. H. 325, 327; Matter of Snyder, 103 N. Y. 178, 181; Crow v. State, 24 Texas, 12, 14; State v. Harper's Ferry Bridge Co., 16 W. Va. 864, 873. See Wartman v. Wartman, Taney, 362, 370; Cartwright's case, 114 Massachusetts, 230; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31. Whether or not Rev. Stat. § 725 applies to this court, it embodies the law so far as it goes. We see no reason for emasculating the power given by that section, and making it so nearly futile as it would be if it were construed to mean that all contemnors willing to run the slight risk of a conviction for perjury can escape. The question was touched, in argument, whether the acts charged constitute a contempt. We are of opinion that they do, and that their character does not depend upon a nice inquiry, whether, after the order made by this court, the sheriff was to be regarded as bailee of the United States or still held the prisoner in the name of the State alone. Either way, the order suspended further proceedings by the State against the prisoner and required that he should be forthcoming to abide the further order of this court. It may be found that what created the mob and led to the crime was the unwillingness of its members to submit to the delay required for the trial of the appeal. From that to the intent to prevent that delay and the hearing of the appeal is a short step. If that step is taken the contempt is proved. These preliminaries being settled the trial of the case will proceed. MR. JUSTICE MOODY took no part in the decision. 203 U.S. Opinions Per Curiam, Etc. OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM OCTOBER 8 TO DECEMBER 24, 1906. No., Original. Ex parte: IN THE MATTER OF THE SENECA NATION ET AL., PETITIONERS. Submitted October 9, 1906. Decided October 15, 1906. Per Curiam. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus denied. Mr. Chester Howe for petitioners. Mr. W. H. Robeson, Mr. J. J. Hemphill, Mr. A. B. Browne and Mr. Alexander Britton for respondents. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Van Orsdel for the United States. No. 297. FRANK D. ZELL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Motions to dismiss or affirm, etc., submitted May 21, 1906. Decided October 15, 1906. Per Curiam. Order affirmed with costs. Mr. Charles L. Frailey, Mr. Reynolds D. Brown, Mr. Malcolm Lloyd, Jr., Mr. A. S. Worthington and Mr. Charles H. Burr for plaintiff in error. Mr. D. Lawrence Groner, Mr. Tazewell Taylor and Mr. Hampton L. Carson for defendants in error. No. 339. THE GRAHAM AND MORTON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. CRAIG SHIPBUILDING COMPANY. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Submitted October 9, 1906. Decided October 15, 1906. Per Curiam. Per Curiam. Decree affirmed with costs, on the authority of People's Ferry Company v. Beers, 20 How. 393; Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17, and cases cited. VOL. CCIII-37 Opinions Per Curiam, Etc. 203 U.S. Mr. Charles E. Kremer for appellant. Mr. Harvey D. Goulder, Mr. S. H. Holding and Mr. Frank S. Masten for appellee. No. 19. JOSEPH J. WATERS, ADMINISTRATOR OF ROBERT JACKSON, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. GEORGE E. EMMONS AND J. PAUL SMITH. In error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Submitted October 11, 1906. Decided October-22, 1906. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs. See 19 App. D. C. 250; 25 App. D. C. 146. Mr. Joseph J. Waters for plaintiff in error. Mr. William F. Mattingly for defendants in error. No. 26. J. A. AXTELL ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. CYRUS WEBBER. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. Argued October 16, 1906. Decided October 22, 1906. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Beaupre v. Noyes, 138 U. S. 397; National Life Insurance Company v. Scheffer, 131 U. S. App. C. C. III. Mr. Albert R. Allen, Mr. C. M. O'Neil and Mr. George E. Clarke for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Thomas J. Knox and Mr. Andrew C. Dunn for defendant in error. No. 29. DANIEL SULLIVAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE AND MEXICO RAILWAY COMPANY. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Texas. Argued October 16, 1906. Decided October 22, 1906. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs. Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U. S. 450; Knapp v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, 197 U. S. 541. Mr. Floyd McGown and Mr. L. G. Denman for plaintiff in error. 203 U.S. Opinions Per Curiam, Etc. Mr. Reagan Houston and Mr. A. W. Houston for defendant in error. No. 35. NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION AND TRADING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. W. B. GILL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Submitted for plaintiff in error October 18, 1906. Decided October 22, 1906. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs. Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185; American Steamboat Company v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522; The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17, 36. Mr. Frederick Bausman for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. No. 38. W. J. LAFFOON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. J. F. KERNER ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. Submitted for plaintiff in error October 18, 1906. Decided October 22, 1906. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. California Consolidated Mining Company v. Manley, Sheriff, et al., post, and cases cited. Mr. Louis M. Swink for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error. No. 148. CALIFORNIA CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. CHARLES MANLEY, SHERIFF OF SHOSHONE COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO, ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho. Motion to dismiss submitted October 15, 1906. Decided October 22, 1906. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Green v. Van Buskirk, 3 Wall. 448; Union Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374; Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield, Mo. (No. 1), 183 U. S. 130; Schlosser v. Hemphill, |