Opinion of the Court.

judge of probate, the county auditor, the county treasurer, the sheriff and the register of deeds. Minnesota Gen. Stat. 1878, c. 8, § 102, 129, 148, 174, 195, 220, 227, 258.

The legislature of the State may well treat it, as one important object of establishing a railroad within the State, that public officers, parties to actions, jurors, witnesses and citizens generally, should be enabled the more promptly to reach and leave the centres to which their duties or business may call them. To require every regular passenger train, running wholly within the limits of the State, to stop at all stations at county seats, directly in its course, for the few minutes, and at the trifling expense, needed to take on and discharge passengers with safety, is a reasonable exercise of the police power of the State, and cannot be considered a taking of property of the company without due process of law, nor an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce or with the transportation of the mails of the United States.

The recent case of Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142, cited by the plaintiff in error, was essentially different from the present case.

In that case, the statute of the State of Illinois, as construed and applied by the Supreme Court of the State, required a fast train, carrying interstate passengers and the United States mail from Chicago in the State of Illinois to places in other States south of the Ohio River, over an interstate highway established by authority of Congress, to delay the transportation of such passengers and mails, by turning aside from the direct interstate route, and running to a station three miles. and a half away from a point on that route, and back again to the same point, and thus travelling seven miles which formed no part of its course, before proceeding on its way; and, as the court observed, the question whether a statute which merely required interstate railroad trains, without going out of their course, to stop at county seats, would be within the constitutional power of the State, was not presented, and could not be decided, upon the record in that case. 163 U. S. 153, 154.

But, in the case at bar, the train in question ran wholly

Opinion of the Court.

within the State of Minnesota, and could have stopped at the county seat of Pine county without deviating from its course; and the statute of Minnesota expressly provides that "this act shall not apply to through railroad trains entering this State from any other State, or to transcontinental trains of any railroad."

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER did not hear the argument and took no part in the decision of this case.

In re HIEN, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL.

No. 16. Original. Argued March 22, 1897. - Decided April 12, 1897.

The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia was duly authorized by § 6 of the act creating the court, as well as by § 6 as amended by the act of July 30, 1894, to make rules limiting the time of taking appeals to the court from the decisions of the Commissioner of Patents; and there was no restriction on this power by reason of Rev. Stat. § 4894.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. W. II. Singleton for petitioner. Mr. F. W. Ritter was on his brief.

Mr. W. A. Megrath, by special leave, opposing.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the

court.

The Commissioner of Patents, in an interference proceeding between Philip Hien and one William A. Pungs, awarded priority of the invention in controversy to Pungs, June 9, 1894. Hien gave notice to the Commissioner, March 12, 1896, of an appeal from his decision, under § 4912 of the Revised Statutes, to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and filed his petition of appeal in that court,

Opinion of the Court.

June 2, 1896, which was dismissed on the third day of the following December because the appeal was not taken within the time prescribed by the rules of the court. 24 Wash. Law Rep. 827. December 12, 1896, Hien moved that his appeal be reinstated on the ground that the Court of Appeals had no authority to make the rules in question, which was denied. 25 Wash. Law Rep. 8. Hien then applied to this court for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus; leave was granted; the petition filed; and a rule to show cause entered, to which return was duly made.

Section 780 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia, approved June 22, 1874, reads:

"SEC. 780. The Supreme Court, sitting in banc, shall have jurisdiction of and shall hear and determine all appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Patents, in accordance with the provisions of sections forty-nine hundred and eleven to section forty-nine hundred and fifteen, inclusive, of chapter one, Title LX, of the Revised Statutes, PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPY-RIGHTS.'"

The sections of the Revised Statutes thus referred to are as follows:

"SEC. 4911. If such party, except a party to an interference, is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, he may appeal to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting in banc.

"SEC. 4912. When an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court. of the District of Columbia, the appellant shall give notice thereof to the Commissioner, and file in the Patent Office, within such time as the Commissioner shall appoint, his reasons of appeal, specifically set forth in writing.

"SEC. 4913. The court shall, before hearing such appeal, give notice to the Commissioner of the time and place of the hearing, and on receiving such notice the Commissioner shall give notice of such time and place in such manner as the court may prescribe, to all parties who appear to be interested therein. The party appealing shall lay before the court certified copies of all the original papers and evidence in the case, and the Commissioner shall furnish the court with the

VOL. CLXVI-28

Opinion of the Court.

grounds of his decision, fully set forth in writing, touching all the points involved by the reasons of appeal. And at the request of any party interested, or of the court, the Commissioner and the examiners may be examined under oath, in explanation of the principles of the thing for which a patent is demanded.

"SEC. 4914. The court, on petition, shall hear and determine such appeal, and revise the decision appealed from in a summary way, upon the evidence produced before the Commissioner, at such early and convenient time as the court may appoint; and the revision shall be confined to the points set forth in the reasons of appeal. After hearing the case the court shall return to the Commissioner a certificate of its proceedings and decision, which shall be entered of record in the Patent Office, and shall govern the further proceedings in the case. But no opinion or decision of the court in any such case shall preclude any person interested from the right to contest the validity of such patent in any court wherein the same may be called in question.

"SEC. 4915. Whenever a patent on application is refused, either by the Commissioner of Patents or by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon appeal from the Commissioner, the applicant may have remedy by bill in equity; and the court having cognizance thereof, on notice to adverse parties and other due proceedings had, may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in his claim, or for any part thereof, as the facts in the case may appear. And such adjudication, if it be in favor of the right of the applicant, shall authorize the Commissioner to issue such patent on the applicant filing in the Patent Office a copy of the adjudication, and otherwise complying with the requirements of law. In all cases, where there is no op posing party, a copy of the bill shall be served on the Commissioner; and all the expenses of the proceeding shall be paid by the applicant, whether the final decision is in his favor or not."

Sections 6 and 9 of the act to establish the Court of Appeals

Opinion of the Court.

for the District of Columbia, approved February 9, 1893, c. 74, 27 Stat. 434, provided:

"SEC. 6. That the said Court of Appeals shall establish a term of the court during each and every month in each year excepting the months of July and August, and it shall make such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for the transaction of the business to be brought before it, and for the time and method of the entry of appeals and for giving notice of appeals thereto from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and such other rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper in the premises."

"SEC. 9. That the determination of appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, now vested in the general term of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in pursuance of the provisions of section seven hundred and eighty of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to the District of Columbia, shall hereafter be and the same is hereby vested in the Court of Appeals created by this act; and in addition, any party aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in any interference case may appeal therefrom to said Court of Appeals."

By the act of July 30, 1894, c. 172, 28 Stat. 160, section six was amended so as to read as follows:

"SEC. 6. That said Court of Appeals shall establish by rule of court such terms of the court in each year as to it may scem necessary: Provided, however, That there shall be at least three terms in each year, and it shall make such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for the transaction of its business and the taking of appeals to said court."

The Court of Appeals, June 5, 1893, promulgated a set of rules, among which were these:

"Rule IX-1. No order, judgment or decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or of any justice thereof, shall be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, unless the appeal shall be taken within twenty days, Sundays excluded, after the order, judgment or decree complained of shall have been made or pronounced."