Justice PARKER, and this general statement was then made: "It seems to be well settled in most of the states that an objection to the qualification of grand jurors, or to the mode of summoning or impaneling them, must be made by a motion to quash or by a plea in abatement, before pleading in bar." The subject is also discussed in Bishop, Crim. Proc. c. 60, where the same general rule is laid down; though with a reservation of some doubt as to cases where the objection appears of record. Sections 887, 888. As before stated, we think that it is the nature of the objection, rather than the fact of its appearing or not appearing on the record, which should decide whether it ought to be taken by a plea in abatement, or whether it may also be taken by motion in arrest of judgment; though, of course, it cannot be taken by such a motion unless it does appear of record. Being satisfied that the defendants could not raise the question of the constitutionality of section 820 by motion in arrest of judgment, it is not necessary, as before observed, to express any opinion on that point. It may be proper, however, to call attention to the singular position of that section. It was originally enacted as section 1 of the act passed June 17, 1862, entitled "An act defining different causes of challenge, and prescribing an additional oath for grand and petit jurors in the United States courts." 12 St. 430. At that time (1862) it was no doubt a very proper and necessary law; but after the rehabilitation of the insurgent states, the proclamation of general amnesty, and the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, guarantying equal rights to all citizens of the United States, there would seem to have been no just reason for the continuance of the law, especially as by far the largest portion of white citizens in the states lately in rebellion would be disqualified under it. Accordingly, by the fifth section of the act, commonly called the "Enforcement Act," passed April 20, 1871, (17 St. 15,) congress, after providing that in prosecutions under that act no person should be a grand or petit juror who should, in the judgment of the court, be in complicity with any combination or conspiracy punishable by the provisions thereof, repeal the said first section of the act of 1862; and the law remained in this state until the adoption of the Revised Statutes. For some unexplained reason the revisors imported the section back again into the Revised Statutes, (as section 820,) although it had not been in force for over two years. It is probable that the fact of its repeal was overlooked by congress when the Revision was adopted, and it is to be hoped that their attention will be called to it. In conclusion, to the third and fourth questions, certified by the court below, the answer will be in the affirmative; and it is so ordered. (109 U. S. 63) POINDEXTER V. GREENHOW, Treasurer, etc. [In Error to the Hustings Court of the city of Richmond, Va.] WHITE V. GREENHOW. [In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.] CARTER V. GREENHOW. [In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.] (October 15, 1883.) PRACTICE-MOTION TO ADVANCE CASE ON CALENDAR-Court RULES 32 AND 26. Rule 32 and paragraph 4 of rule 26 of federal court rules, and section 949, Rev. St., providing for the advancement of certain cases for early hearing in preference to others, held not applicable to the cases at bar. Motion to advance denied. WAITE, C. J. These motions are denied. Rule 32 applies only to writs of error and appeals brought to this court under the provisions of section 5 of the act of March 3, 1875; that is to say, to writs of error and appeals from orders of the circuit courts remanding causes which have been removed from a state court, and from orders dismissing suits because they do not really and substantially involve disputes or controversies properly within the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, or because the parties to the suits have been improperly made or joined for the purpose of creating a case cognizable under that act. These are not such cases. That of Poindexter is a writ of error to a state court. In those of White and Carter, begun in a circuit court, the declarations were demurred to because not sufficient in law, and the judgments were in favor of the defendants on the demurrers. The cases as made by the declarations were disposed of on the merits, and the writs of error are for the review of such judgments. Neither are the parties entitled to a hearing in preference to others under the provisions of section 949 of the Revised Statutes. The state of Virginia is not a party to either of the suits, and the execution of the revenue laws has not been enjoined or stayed. A tax collector has been sued for alleged wrongs done the several plaintiffs while he was engaged in the collection of taxes due the state, but he is not restrained from discharging any of his official duties. Paragraph 4 of rule 26 relates only to revenue cases and cases in which the United States are concerned, which also involve or affect some matter of general public interest. Even these cannot be advanced except in the discretion of the court and on the motion of the attorney general. The questions involved may be of public importance, but that does not necessarily entitle the parties to a hearing in preference to others. Practically, every case advanced postpones another that has been on the docket three years awaiting its turn in the regular call. Under these circumstances we deem it our duty not to take up a case out of its order except for imperative reasons. (109 U. S. 63) UNITED STATES v. HAMILTON. (October 15, 1883.) INDICTMENT-MOTION TO QUASH-DECISION UPON, NOT ERROR-DIVISION OF OPINION. A motion to quash an indictment being addressed to the discretion of the court, & decision thereon is not subject to review on a writ of error. The supreme court cannot take cognizance of a division of opinion between the judges of a circuit court on a motion to quash an indictment. On Certificate of Division in Opinion between the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennes see. Sol. Gen. Phillips, for the United States. No counsel for Hamilton. BRADLEY, J. The certificate of division in this case was made on a division in opinion between the judges on a motion to quash the indictment. As a motion to quash is always addressed to the discretion of the court, a decision upon it is not error, and cannot be reviewed on a writ of error. In the case of U. S. v. Rosenburgh, 7 Wall. 580, we decided the precise point, that this court cannot take cognizance of a division of opinion between the judges of a circuit court upon a motion to quash an indictment. This decision was reaffirmed in U. S. v. Avery, 13 Wall. 251, and in U. S. v. Canda, deeided at the last term. The case not being properly before us, is dismissed. (108 U. S. 466) DOWNTON v. YAEGER MILLING CO.1 (May 7, 1883.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PRIOR PUBLICATIONS-FOREIGN PATENT-IMPROVE. MENT IN PROCESSES OF MANUFACTURING MIDDLINGS FLOUR. By section 24 of the act of 1870, it was provided that any person who had invented any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter not known or used by others in this country, "and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country before his invention or discovery thereof," might obtain a patent therefor. Patented inventions cannot be superseded by the mere introduction of a foreign publication of the kind, unless the description and drawings contain and exhibit a substantial representation of the patented improvements in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, to make, construct, and practice the invention as they would be enabled to do if the information was derived from a prior patent. Seymour v. Osborn, 11 Wall. 516. Letters patent issued to the appellant on April 20, 1875, for an “improvement in processes of manufacturing middlings flour," held superseded by an earlier foreign printed publication, describing the same process. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. The appellant was the complainant in the circuit court. He filed his bill to restrain the infringement by the appellee of certain letters patent, for which he made an application on March 20, 1875, and which were issued to him on April 20th following, for an "improvement in processes of manufacturing middlings flour." The state of the art, and the purpose of the improvement which the patent was intended to cover, are set forth in the specification, as follows: "This invention has for its aim the better working or manipulating of grain particles known as middlings, for their reduction into meal or flour. "To fully set forth the advantages that this process possesses over any of the various processes previously known and in use, it will be necessary to briefly describe the manufacture as now practiced. "It is customary, under the ordinary mode of milling, to separate and purify the middlings by the action of the air alone, or air and bolting-cloth combined; then to convey the purified product to millstones to be ground to a sufficient fineness to admit of the passage of the middlings flour through the meshes of the bolting-cloth, which is used as a finishing preparer between the stones and the flour barrels or sacks receiving the finished product. In some cases the middlings that are not sufficiently reduced to go through the meshes of the cloth, pass through the ends of the flour-bolts, and are brought back onto some of the various purifiers, and subjected to repurification. This process requires much careful manipulation, and even then the yellow germ and pellicle of the grain will be so torn and pulverized by the stones that loose portions of the same will pass through the meshes of the bolting-cloth into the flour with injurious effect. The reason why the germ and pellicle is so torn is that millstones are composed of two disks-one revolving, the other 1S. C. 1 Fed. Rep. 199. stationary receiving the material to be ground at the eye or center of the stones, and compelling it by centrifugal force to escape at the skirt or periphery of the stones, passing alternately over face and furrow until it reaches the periphery, where it is discharged. Such action comminutes the germs and forms specks that cannot be removed by the purifiers, and are, therefore, ground in with the flour. "In the manufacture of middlings flour the action of stones on the middlings is not different from their action on grain, but in the wheat-stones the germ ends and bran are not sufficiently comminuted by one grinding to pass through the meshes of the cloth used for the flour known to the trade as 'first run.' I propose to arrest and remove such germ matter and bran particles by my improved process before they reach the second grind on the middling stones, by placing between the purifiers or separators and middling stones one or more sets of rolls, which will operate to reduce the large middlings by a bruising or crushing action, while they simply flatten out the intermixed germs and bran. Any of the various purifiers or separators in public use may be employed. A second important advantage or result of this improved process is the production of a large yield of high-grade flower. The large middlings or glutinous particles of the grain require more grinding than do the finer and more starchy particles removed at the head or first part of the purifiers; and when ground together, as is generally the case with small mills, and frequently the case with large mills, the meal is considerably heated in the grinding, owing to the miller's requiring the middlings meal to be of uniform fineness. The disposition and fineness of the small middlings cause them to flour' quicker than the large middlings, therefore the grinding is unequal, as, in order for the large glutinous middlings to be ground enough, the small starch middlings must be ground too much. This impairs the quality of the flour by deadening it, as well as by reducing the germs and bran to such an extent as to cause them to pass through the cloth. Some mills, therefore, run the coarsest middlings to a lower grade of flour. "It is plain that with an intermediate reduction, by the flattening-rolls working on the large middlings as above set forth, the comminution of the middlings under the stones is rendered more equal, and a larger percentage of high-grade flour can be made. "I will now describe briefly my mode of milling, referring, for illustrations, to the accompanying drawing, in which— "Figure 1 is a general side view, partly in section, showing an apparatus, or a series of machines, comprising a section of my purifier, A; and fig. 2 is a like view of the same apparatus, in part, illustrating the employment of any other purifier, A2. Naturally the germs and bran are kept with the large and valuable middlings or particles of grain by the bolting-cloth of the purifying machines or flour-bolts till they reach certain parts, where the middlings are subjected to strong currents of air to remove light bran-flakes and fuzzy matter. The partially freed middlings are now passed from the purifier, A, or A2, between rolls or uniformly rotating surfaces, B, where the good middlings particles, being more brittle, are reduced to small granules, or to flour, while the germ and heavy bran matter, being of a soft, plastic nature, is flattened out, so that on passing it into a reciprocating or revolving bolt, C, clothed with suitable cloth, the flouring matter is thoroughly removed through the meshes of the cloth in a fit state of purity to pass to the stones, D, to be reground as usual, and the injurious germs and refuse matter are arrested, so as to be run off into suitable receptacles." The claim was stated as follows: "The following is claimed as new, namely: "The herein-described process of manufacturing middlings flour by passing |