Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2007 witii funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation littp://www.arcliive.org/details/constitutionofunOObryaricli THE Constitution of the United States WITH notes of the decisions of the supreme court Thereon, from the Organization of THE Court till October, 1900. BY EDWIN E. BRYANT, Dean of the Law Faculty, University of Wisconsin, XJNIVERSITT ■SCCALIFO!^ madison, wis.: The Democrat Printing Company, 1 901. ^\ Copyright, 1901, By EDWIN E. BRYANT. PREFACE. This book is not a treatise. It merely gives the text of the Constitution of the United States, and under each article and clause a brief statement of what has been decided by the Supreme Court in expounding the same. "No attempt is made at analysis of the Constitu- tion or elaborate classification of the cases. The aim is to enable the student readily to find the cases in which the Court has interpreted the Constitution, indicating concisely the points decided in the cases cited. E. E. B. Madison, March 4, 1901. 87362 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Preamble. Object of the union 1 Constitution ordained by the people 1 Nature of the union 6 Its relation to the States 5 ARTICLE I. Section 1. Legislative power, where vested 8 Section 2. The House of Representatives 8 Who may be Representatives 9 Representatives, how apportioned, chosen, etc 9 House to choose Speaker and oflBcers 10 Notes of decisions as to direct taxes, etc 10 Section 3. The Senate, how composed 13 Senators, how chosen and classified; vacancies, how filled; who eligible; Senate, how constituted; Vice- President to preside 13 Impeachment of President or officers 14 Section 4. Election of Senators and Representatives; by States, but Congress may regulate 15 Meeting of Congress 16 Section 5. Each house to judge of election, qualifications, etc., of members 17 And determine rules, punish and expel members 17 Each, to keep journal; yeas and nays to be entered; adjournments 19 Section 6. Compensation; privilege from arrest; disability to hold other offices 19, 20, 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Preamble. Object of the union 1 Constitution ordained by the people 1 Nature of the union 6 Its relation to the States 5 ARTICLE I. Section 1. Legislative power, where vested 8 Section 2. The House of Representatives 8 Who may be Representatives 9 Representatives, how apportioned, chosen, etc 9 House to choose Speaker and officers 10 Notes of decisions as to direct taxes, etc 10 Section 3. The Senate, how composed 13 Senators, how chosen and classified; vacancies, how filled; who eligible; Senate, how constituted; Vice- President to preside 13 Impeachment of President or officers 14 Section 4. Election of Senators and Representatives; by States, but Congress may regulate 15 Meeting of Congress 16 Section 5. Each house to judge of election, qualifications, etc., of members 17 And determine rules, punish and expel members 17 Each, to keep journal; yeas and nays to be entered; adjournments 19 Section 6. Compensation; privilege from arrest; disability to hold other offices 19, 20, 21 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Section 7. Revenue bills to originate in House of Repre- sentatives 21 Approval or veto of bills 22 Passage of same over veto 23 *^ Section 8. Powers of Congress 24 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises; same to be uniform; decisions 24 To borrow money 34 To regulate commerce 37 To establish uniform rule of naturalization 9S To establish uniform bankruptcy laws 100 To coin money, regulate value, etc 101 To fix standard of weights and measures 101 To punish counterfeiting 102 To establish postoffices and post roads 103 To authorize patents and copyrights 107 To constitute inferior courts 110 To define and punish piracy, etc Ill To declare war, grant letters of marque, and make rules as to captures 113 To raise and support armies 118 To provide and maintain a navy 119 To make rules, etc., for land and nava 1 forces 120 To provide for calling out the militia 121 • And organizing, arming, etc., the same 124 To exercise exclusive legislation over seat of govern- ment — District of Columbia 124 To make all laws necessary to carry powers granted into effect 128 ^/8ection 9. The slave trade, when may be prohibited 132 Habeas corpus not to be suspended, except, when. . 133 No bill of attainder or ex post facto law to be passed 134 Capitation or direct taxes to be laid according to census 140 No tax or duty to be laid on exports 141 No preference of ports of States; vessels to enter and clear free 142 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Vll Page. Money to be drawn only on appropriation 143 No titles of nobility permitted Hi No titles, presents or offices to be accepted from for- eign States, etc., without consent of Congress 144 ^ Section 10. States prohibited from entering into treaties, alliances, etc 144 Granting letters of marque, coining money, making legal tender, etc., passing bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, impairing contracts or granting letters of nobility 144 Decisions on section 144-200 No State to lay tonnage tax, keep troops or ships, enter into compact with other States or foreign powers, or engage in war unless, etc 201 ARTICLE II. Section 1. Executive power vested in President 206 Electors of President, how appointed 206 Electors of President, when appointed 209 Electors to meet, election, how held 207 Who eligible as President 211 Devolution of office, compensation, oath 212 Section 2. Powers of President, commander-in-chief 213 Treaty-making, diplomatic and official appointments. . 217 Filling vacancies 219 Section 3. Duties and powers as to Congress 220 Section 4. Removal on impeachment 221 ARTICLE III. ^ Section 1. Judicial power, how vested 221 In Supreme and inferior courts 221 Section 2. Extent of judicial power 222 Trial of crimes to be by jury; place of trial 223 Decisions as to judicial power, etc 223 — 241 Section 3. Treason defined and how proved 241 Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS. ARTICLE IV. Page. Section 1. Full faith and credit to be giveja to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of States 243 Congress to provide for proving same 243 Decisions as to same 243-252 Section 2. Privileges and immunities- of citizens in the sev- eral States 252 Decisions as to same 252-260 Fugitives from justice, how delivered up 261 Fugitive slaves to be delivered up, when 264 Section 3. New States may be admitted 266 Congress to dispose of and regulate territories and property 26& Decisions as to same 269-27& Section 4. Guaranty to States of republican form of govern- ment 27^ Protect them against invasion 279 And against domestic violence 279 ARTICLE V. X/onstitution, how amended , ARTICLE VI. Debts of confederation assumed 283 Constitution, laws and treaties supreme 283 Oath to support, to be taken 283 No religious test required 283 ARTICLE VII. Eatification of Constitution 291 TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX AMENDMENTS. Page. Article I. Freedom of religion, speech and press; right of petition and to assemble 292 Article II. Right to keep and bear arms 295 Article III. No quartering of soldiers in time of peace without consent of owner of house 296 Article IV. Security against unreasonable searches and seizures; warrants to issue only on oath, etc 297 ^Article V. Safeguards to accused; to be charged for infamous crimes only in indictment; not to be put twice in jeopardy; nor compelled to be witness against self; nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law 299 Private property not to be taken for public use without . compensation 299 y Article VI. Right to trial by jury; to be informed of ac- cusation; confront witnesses; have process for their attendance and aid of counsel 310 Article VII. Trial by jury in cases at common law 312 Verdict, when conclusive 312 Article VIII. Excessive bail or fines, and cruel, unusual punishments prohibited 346 Article IX. Rights enumerated not construed as denial, etc., of others retained by people 347 i Article X. Powers not delegated, reserved to States and people 318 Article XI. Judicial power not to extend to suits against State by citizens of another, or citizens or subjects of a foreign State 321 Article XII. Amending clause as to election of Presi- dent, etc 207 Article XIII. Slavery prohibited 327 Decisions as to 327-330 X TABLE OF COI^TENTS. Page. ^ Article XIV. Section 1. Citizenship and civil rights.... 330 Section 1. Who are citizens; no State to abridge privileges and immunities; nordepriveof life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws 330 Section 2. Representation, how apportioned; when to be reduced 331 Section 3. Disabilities for participation in rebellion; how to be removed 331 Section 4. Validity of public debt not to be questioned., . 332 Confederate debts not to be assumed by nation or State 332 Section 5. Power of Congress to enforce Article 332 Decisions as to this article 333-382 Article XV. Right of suffrage 383 Section 1. Right to vote not to be denied or abridged for color, race, etc 383 Section 2. Congress empowered to enforce Article 383 Decisions under 383-386 Addendum — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court over writ of habeas corpus 387 Index 393 TABLE OF CASES. Abbott V. Bank, 175 U. S., 409 367 Ableman v. Booth, 21 How., 506 235, 265, 319 Achison v. Huddleson, 12 How., 292 151 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S., 96 372 Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S., 194. . . 53 Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v. United States, 175 U. S., 211 84 Adirondack R. Co. v. New York, 176 U. S., 335 192 Aldrich v. Ins. Co., 8 Wall., 491 23& Allen V. Georgia, 166 U. S., 138 37L Allen V. McVeigh, 107 U. S., 433 240' Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S., 578 363 Almy V. California, 24 How., 169 200 Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet, 511, 542 241, 269 Am. Pub. Co. V. Pisher, 166 U. S., 464 277, 315 Am. Sugar Ref. Co. v. Louisiana (1900) 390 Amy V. Shelby Co. Taxing District, 114 U. S., 387 184, 185 Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat, 204 17 Anderson v. United States, 171 U. S., 604 84 Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S., 272 371 Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S., 769 164 Armstrong v. Foundry, 6 Wall., 766 217 Armstrong v. Treasurer of Athens Co., 16 Pet, 281 176,238 Armstrong v. United States, 13 Wall., 154 216 Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U. S., 194 364, 366 Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S., 129 45 Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S., 436 72 Xii TABLE OF CASES. Aspinwall v. Comm'rs, 22 How., 377 153, 180 Austin V. Tennessee (1900) 391 Ayres, In re, 123 U. S., 143 230 B. Backus V. Depot Co., 169 U. S., 557, 556 374 Bain, ex parte, 121 U. S., 1 300 Baiz, I/^re, 135 U. S., 403 226 Baker's Ex'rs v. Kilgore, 145 U. S., 487 191 Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall., 223 101, 195 Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall., 456 55, 65 Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Nesbit, 10 How., 395 178 Baltzer v. North Carolina, 161 U. S., 240 187, 196 Bank v. Erie, 13 Pet, 579 74 Bank v. McVeigh, 98 U. S., 332 240 "'Bank Tax Case," 2 Wall., 200 28 Bank of Alabama v. Walton, 9 How., 522 248 Bank of Alexandria v. Dyer, 14 Pet., 141 126 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet, 519 260 Bank of Columbia v. Oakley, 4 Wheat., 235 313 Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall., 353 129 Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Pet., 318 229 Bank of Redemption v. Boston, 125 U. S., 60 358 Bank of United States v. Plumbers' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat, 904 229 Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61, 86 260 Banks v. The Mayor, 7 Wall., 16 27,36 Banks v. Supervisors, 7 Wall., 27 36 Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S., 27 342 Barings v. Dabney, 19 Wall., 1 158 Barnitz v. Beverly, 163 U. S., 118 159 Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet, 243 4, 292, 306, 307, 308 Barron v. Burnside, 121 U. S., 186 224 Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall., 129 67, 69, 258 TABLE OF CASES. XIU Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S., 548 381 Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S., 25 69 Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How., 527 ,. 179 Beers v. Haughton, 9 Pet., 329 174 Belfast, The, 7 Wall., 624 90 Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S., 10 ' 108 Bell V. Hearne, 19 How., 252 239 Bellingham Bay, etc., Co. v. New Whatcom, 172 U. S., 320. . 380 Bell's Gap R'y Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S., 232 358 Benner v. Porter, 9 How., 235 241, 268 Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S., 655 371 Bertgold v. McDonald, 22 How., 334. 239 Bier v. McGehee, 148 U. S., 137 170 Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall., 51 151, 152 Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S., 248 .252, 254, 255, 338 Blake v. United States, 103 U. S., 227 214 Bloomer v. Stolley, 5 McLean, 156 107 Blouchard's Factory v. Warner, 1 Blatch., 258 107 Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S., 531 325 Boggs V. Mining Co., 3 W^all., 304 236 Bohannan v. Nebraska, 125 U. S., 692 235 Bollman, ex parte, 4 Cranch, 75 241, 287 Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U. S., 592.. 249 Bors V. Preston, 111 U. S., 260 225 Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S., 238 286, 287 Bowman v. Chicago, 125 U. S., 506 41, 49 Boyd V. Nebraska, 143 U. S., 135 99, 267, 281 Boyd V. United States, 116 U. S., 616 297 Boyd V. United States, 116 U. S., 634 300, 305 ' Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U. S., 291 295 Bradley v. People, 4 Wall., 459 36 Bradwell v. The State, 16 Wall., 130 258 Brass v. Stroeser, 153 U. S., 391 73, 350 Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S., 289 46 Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S., 78 79 XIV TABLE OF CASES. Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall., 116 181 Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet, 324 229 Bristol V. Washington Co., 177 U. S., 133 380 Boom Co. V. Boom Co., 110 U. S., 57 ^38 Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How., 311 154, 117 Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How., 183 108 Brown's Case, 135 U. S., 662 168 Brown v. Colorado, 106 U. S., 95 '. 238 Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S., 622 64, 197, 258 Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat., 419 48, 197 Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S., 172 365, 367 Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch, 110 114 Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S., 591 304 Bryan v. Board of Education, 151 U. S., 639 186 Byrne v. State of Missouri, 8 Pet, 40 144 Budd V. New York, 143 U. S., 517 55, 72, 350 Burford's Case, 3 Cranch, 348 387 Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U. S., 381 139, 147 Burrows-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S., 53... 108 Butler V. Gorely, 146 U. S., 303 101 Butler V. Pennsylvania, 10 How., 402 178 Butterworth v. Hoe, 112 U. S., 59 109 Butz V. City of Muscatine, 8 Wall., 575 157 C. Cairo, etc., R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 U. S., 168 171 Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S., 692 370 •Calder v. Bull, 3 Ball. (U. S.), 386 136 California v. Railroad Co., 127 U. S., 1 32 Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S., 540 277 Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S., 578 131 Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U. S., 225 108 Campbell v. HoU, 115 U. S., 620 373 Campbell v. Wade, 132 U. S., 34. 186 TABLE OF CASES. XV Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall., 577 202 Cannon v. United States, 116 U. S., 55 294 Cardwell v. Am. Bridge Co., 113 U. S., 205 50, 94, 268 Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall., 147 216, 243 Carney v. Iowa, 5 Wall., 480 69 Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How., 456 136 Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U. S., 87 250 Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S., 442 330, 337 Catlett V. Morton, 4 Lit. (Ky.), 122 20 Cent. Loan & Trust Co. v. Campbell Com. Co., 173 U. S., 84. . 372 Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S., 581 99 Chapman, In re, 166 U. S., 661 18 Charleston v. Branch, 15 Wall., 470 150 Charles Riv. Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet., 420. .152, 153, 176 Charlotte, etc., Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S., 386 340 Chase v. Curtis, 113 U. S., 452 251 Chemung Canal Co. v. Lowery, 93 U. S., 72 259 Chenango, etc., Co. v. Binghamton Bridge Co., 3 Wall., 51. . 156 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet, 15 228, 230 Cherokee Nation v. So. Kans. Ry., 135 U. S., 641 43, 97 C, M. & St. Paul R'y Co. v. Ackley, 94 U. S., 179 353 Chic, B. & Q. R'y Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S., 226 292, 314, 315, 363, 365 C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. V. Iowa, 94 U. S., 164 183, 352 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S., 418 55 Chic, B. & Q. R'y Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S., 57 363 Chicago, etc., R'y Co. v. Pontius, 157 U. S., 209 346 Chic, etc, R'y Co. v. Wiggins, 119 U. S., 615 246, 250 Chic, etc, R'y Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S., 710. 251 Chicago V. Sheldon, 9 Wall., 50 170 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall., 419 224, 227, 230 Chinese Exclusion Cases, 130 U. S., 581 6, 132, 286 Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat., 259 290 Church V. Kelsey, 121 U. S., 282 171, 366 Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall., 290 246, 247 XVL TABLE OF CASES. Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S., 275 77 Citizens' Bank of Owensboro, 173 U. S., 651. . . .150, 160, 192, 341 Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3 327, 334 Claflin V. Houseman, 93 U. S., 130 320 Clay V. Smith, 3 Pet., 411. 196 Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 177 U. S., 514 73 Clinton Bridge, The, 10 Wall., 454 93 Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall., 434 241, 276 Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S., 517 142, 200 CofEey v. United States, 116 U. S., 436 300 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264 5, 126, 224, 227, 230 Cole V. Cunningham, 133 U. S., 107 • 249 Cole V. La Grange, 113 U. S., 1 308 Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S., 509 115 Collector v. Day, 11 Wall., 113 5, 32, 319 Collins V. New Hampshire, 171 U. S., 30 82 Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall., 92 216 Connor v. Elliott, 18 How., 591 252, 258 Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S., 183, 190, 192 259 Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S., 571 41, 44, 49, 197 Cook v. Moffatt, 5 How., 205 100, 195, 284 Cook V. Unites States, 138 U. S., 157 139 Cooley V. Wardins Port of Phila., 12 How., 299 34, 39, 50, 71 Cooper, ex parte, 143 U. S., 472 267, 285 Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S., 727 74 Cooper V. Telfair, 4 Dall., 14 135 Converse, In re, 137 U. S., 624 369 Conway v. Taylor's Ex'r, 1 Black., 603 95, 96 Corsen v. Maryland, 120 U. S., 502 45 Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S., 648 305 Coupon Cases, 114 U. S., 269 325 Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S., 204 95 Coxe V. McClenechan, 3 Dall., 478 21 Craig V. Missouri, 4 Pet, 410 144 TABLE OF CASES. XVll Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How., 201 236 Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall., 40 41, 57, 115, 159, 199, 256 Crawford v. Branch Bank of Mobile, 7 How., 279 177 Crawley v. Christenson, 137 U. S., 86 68, 69 Cross V. Harrison, 16 How., 193 . , 210, 278 Cross V. North Carolina, 132 U. S., 132 309 Crowell V. Randell, 10 Pet, 368 238 Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S., 47 46 Cumming v. Richmond Co. Board of Education, 175 U. S. 528 337 Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall., 277 136, 146 Cunningham v. R. R. Co., 109 U. S., 452 325 Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How., 304 155, 229, 230, 323 Curtis, ex parte, 106 U. S., 371 130 Curtis V. Whitney, 13 Wall., 68 182 Cuthbert v. Virginia, 135 U. S., 662 168 D. D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How., 165 243, 244 Daggs V. Orient Ins. Co., 172 U. S., 557 78 Dainese v. Kendall, 119 U. S., 53 236 Daniel Ball, The, 10 Wall., 557 52, 87 Danton v. Halstead, 2 Clark (Pa.) , 450 20 Darby's Lessee v. Mayer, 10 Wheat., 465 247 Darrington v. State Bank of Alabama, 13 How., 12 •• 145,229,230 Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat, 518 147, 153, 192 Davenport Bank v. Davenport, 123 U. S., 83 258 Davies v. Beason, 133 U. S., 333 294 Davis V. Gray, 16 Wall., 203 143, 151, 170, 229, 330, 323 Davis V. Massachusetts, 167 U. S., 43 351 Davis V. Texas, 139 U. S., 651 292 Dawson v. Godfrey, 4 Cranch, 321 211 De Geofrey v. Riggs, 133 U. S., 258 287, 289 XVlll TABLE OF CASES. Debs, In re, 158 U. S., 564 86 Denny v. Bennett, 128 U. S., 495 150, 169, 195 Dent V. West Virginia, 129 U. S., 114 843 Delaware v. R. R. Tax Case, 18 Wall., 206 76, 188 Delmas v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Wall., 661 170 Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S., 193 362 Dewhurst v. Coulthard, 3 Dall. (U. S.) , 409 Ill District of Columbia v. B. & P. R. R. Co., 114 U. S., 453. .. . 127 Dobbins v. Erie Co., 16 Pet., 435 29 Dodge V. Woolsey, 18 How., 331 149,151,179 Dooley v. Smith, 13 Wall., 604 102 Doty V. Strong, 1 Pin. Wis., 84 20 Dow V. Beidelman, 125 U. S., 680 340,353 Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S., 658, 666 241 Downham v. Alexandria, 10 Wall., 173 67, 69, 254 Doyle V. Ins. Co., 94 U. S., 535 74, 78, 224 Dred Scott Case, 19 How., 411 132,253,256,265,268,273 Drehman v. Stifle, 8 Wall., 595 137 Ducat V. Chicago, 10 Wall., 410 14, 260 Dugan V. United States, 3 Wheat, 173, 179, 180 132 Duluth, etc., R. Co. v. St. Louis Co. (1900) 389 Duncan v. Missouri, 512 U. S., 377 138, 364 Durkee v. Board of Liquidation, 103 U. S., 646 Ill, 154 Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How., 65 120, 301 E. East Hartford v. Bridge Co., 10 How., 536 152, 163 Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall., 532 90, 292 Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S., 595 171, 195 Edye v. Robertson, 112 U. S., 580 286 Effinger v. Kenney, 115 U. S., 566 159 Eilenbecker v. Dist. Court, 134 U. S., 31 292 Eilenbecker v. Plymouth Co., 134 U. S., 31 366 Eldridge v. Trezevant, 160 U. S., 462 259, 375 TABLE OF CASES. XIX Elk V. Wilkins, 112 U. S., 94 332 Ellett V. Virginia, 135 U. S., 662 " 168 Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S., 296 157, 188 Erb V. Merash, 177 U. S., 584 74 Erie Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall., 498 157, 188 Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 L. S., 678 94, 267 Eustis V. Bolles, 150 U. S., 361 173, 241 Evans v. Eaton, Pet. C. C, 322 107 Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S., 1 300 Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75 242, 387 Cooper, 143 U. S., 472, 501 267, 285 Curtis, 106 U. S., 371 130 Fisk, 113 U. S., 713 388 Fonda, 117 U. S., 516 389 Garland, 4 Wall., 333 136 Hung Hang, 108 U. S., 522 387 Kearney, 7 Wheat, 38 311 Jackson, 96 U. S., 727 105, 298 Lange, 18 How., 163 309, 387, 388 Milligan, 4 Wall., 1 114, 133, 134, 237, 266, 301 John Merryman, Taney, 246 133 Parks, 93 U. S., 18 387 Rapier, 143 U. S., 110 106 Reggel, 114 U. S., 261 298, 365 Reed, 100 U. S., 13 120 Rowland, 104 U. S., 604 388 Terry, 128 U. S., 289 366 Siebold, 100 U. S., 371, 390 ; 309, 371 Yallandingham, 1 Wall., 242 134 Wilson, 114 U. S., 415 300 Yarbrough, 110 U. S., 651 385, 386 Yerger, 8 Wall., 85 134, 388 Virginia, 100 U. S., 330 328,329 XX TABLE OF CASES. F. May & Co. > . New Orleans, 178 U. S., 496 49, 50 Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S., 158, 175, 176 .350, 35& Fanning & Gregoire, 16 How., 524 96 Fargo V. Michigan, 121 U. S., 230 41, 56, 59, 66 Farmers', etc.. Bank v. Smith, 6 Wheat, 131 194 Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S., 679 149, 151 Fellows V. Blacksmith, 19 How., 366 28» Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S., 196 50 Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S., 659 153 Ficklin v. Shelby Co. Taxing Dist, 145 U. S., 1 47 Fielden v. Illinois, 143 U. S., 452 371 Fish V. Jefferson Police Jury, 116 U. S., 131 174 Fisk, ex 'parte, 113 U. S., 713 388 Fisk V. Police Jury, 116 U. S., 131 170 Fitts V. McGhee, 172 U. S., 516 325 Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87 135, 136, 154 Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S., 667 229 Florida v. Georgia, 17 How., 478 231 Fonda, ex parte, 117 U. S., 516 389 Fong Yon Tung v. United States, 130 U. S., 228 99,287,350 Forgay v. Contad, 6 How., 201 2^6 Forsythe v. United States, 9 How., 571 241 Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S., 525 127 Foster v. Com'rs, etv-., of Mobile, 22 How., 244 284 Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S., 205 69, 281 Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet, 253 218, 288 Foster v. Master, etc., Port of New Orleans, 94 U. S., 246. . . 48 Fowler v. Lindsay, 3 Dall., 411 228 Fox V. State of Ohio, 5 "How., 433 103, 292, 309, 320 Franklin Bk. v. Ohio, 1 Black, 474 149, 151 French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S., 524 235 Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S., 405 186, 192, 303, 368 TABLE OF CASES. XXI Fullerton v. Bank U. S., 1 Pet., 604 171 Furman v. Nichol, 8 Wall., 44 149 G. Galena v. Amy, 5 Wall., 705 172 Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall., 350 .244, 245 Garland, Ex parte, 4 W^all., 333 21S Gardner v. The Collector, 6 Wall, 499 23 Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet., 761 260 Gerr v. Connecticut, 161 U. S., 533 78 Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall., 175 160, 170 General Scott, The, 4 Wheat, 438 90 Gentry v. Griffith, 27 Tex., 461 20 Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How., 443 91 Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 12 Pet., 91 126 Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall., 1 228, 230 Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet, 110 230 Georgia, etc., Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S., 174 153 Georgia V. Stanton, 6 Wall, 50 223 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat, 1 38, 39, 40, 86, 199, 287 Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S., 565 138, 285, 330 Gilman v. Lockwood, 4 Wall., 409 101, 196 Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall., 713 39, 86, 93, 94 Gilman v. Sheboygan, 2 Black., 510 180 Giozza V. Tiernan, 148 U. S., 657 67, 69, 364 Githings v. Crawford, Taney, 9 225 Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S., 427 73 Glenn v. Garth, 147 U. S., 360 249 Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Penn., 114 U. S., 196 39, 95 Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S., 518 244 Good V. Martin, 95 U. S., 90 241 Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How., 133 148, 151, 189 Governor of Georgia v. Madrazzo, 1 Pet, 110 228 Grand Lodge v. New Orleans, 166 U. S., 146 151, 187 XXll TABLE OF CASES. Gratiot v. United States, 4 How., 80 120 Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U. S., 74 67 Grapeshot, Tlie, 9 Wall, 129 210 Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Ball., 320 227 Great West. Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S., 329 248 Green Bay, etc., Co. v. Kaukauna, etc., Co., 142 U. S., 254. . . 378 Green Bay, etc., Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U. S., 58 379 Green, 7n re, 134 U. S., 377 9, 207 Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat, 1 153, 203 Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall., 139 249 Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S., 22 153 Gregory v. McVeigh, 23 Wall., 306 237 Grover, etc., Mch. Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U. S., 287 246 Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S., 98 59, 283 Gunn V. Barry, 15 Wall., 610 ; 157, 170 Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S., 183 351 Gut V. The State, 9 Wall., 35 146 H. Hagner v. Kurtz, 94 U. S., 773 98 Hagood V. Southern, 117 U. S., 52 324 Hagar v. Reclamation Dist, 111 U. S., 701 361, 362, 381 Hall V. De Cuir, 95 U. S., 516 41, 51 Hall V. Jordan, 15 Wall., 393 235 Hall V. Lanning, 91 U. S., 160 243, 245 Hall V. Wisconsin, 103 U. S., 5 178 Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U. S., 256 373 Hamilton v. Dillon, 21 Wall., 73 114, 116, 130, 214 Hamilton v. Vicksburg, etc., Co., 119 U. S., 280 94, 267 Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wheat., 234 248 Hancock Nat. Bk. v. Farnum, 176 U. S., 640 252 Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S., 1 244, 248 Hans V. Louisiana, 134 U. S., 11 185, 230, 322, 323 Hart V. Lampshire, 3 Pet, 280 240 TABLE OF CASES. XXlll Hart V. Lampshire, 5 Pet., 457 193 Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S., 672 163 Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S., 483 287, 290 Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall., 294 170 Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S., 201 137, 184 Hawkins v. Barney, 5 Pet, 457 193 Hawthorne v. Calef, 2 Wall., 10 156 Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S., 68 370, 374 Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall., 409 8 Head Money Cases, 112 U. S., 580 43 Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 173 U. S., 592, 624 355 Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S., 269 41 Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S., 299 73 Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445 125, 228 Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wall., 603 36, 102, 128 Herman v. Phalen, 14 How., 79 171 Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall., 148 67, 197 Hill V. Merchants, etc., Co., 134 U. S., 515 170 Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S., 366 349, 362 Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall., 211 219 Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. (U. S.), 378 322 Hollister v. Benedict, etc., Co., 113 U. S., 59 108 Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet, 564 237, 263 Holyoke Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall., 500 188 Home of the Friendless v. Rouse, 8 Wall., 430 149, 151, 157 Hooper v. California, 155 U. S., 648 74, 78 Hopkins v. United States, 171 U. S., 578 84 Hoppens v. Jenches, 8 R. I., 453 20 Hopt V. Utah, 110 U. S., 574 138 Horn Silver Mining Co. v. New York, 143 U. S., 305 55 Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall., 648 241 Horher v. United States, 143 U. S., 207, 570 106, 287 Houston V. Moore, 5 Wheat., 1 121 Houston V. Texas, 177 U. S., 66 145, 172, 173 Harvard v. Citizens', etc., Co., 12 App. D. C, 222 20 Xxiv TABLE OF CASES. Hoyt V. Sheldon, 1 Black., 518 238 Hucless V. Childrey, 135 U. S., 662 168 Huling V. Kaw Valley Ry. Co., 130 U. S., 559 307, 376 Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall., 244 149, 151, 158 Hung-Hang, Ex parte, 108 U. S., 522 387 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S., 657 .• . .249, 252 Hunt V. Hunt, 131 U. S., clxv.. Appendix 184, 192 Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S., 516 361 Huse V. Glover, 119 U. S., 543 89, 91, 202, 267, 351 Hylton V. United States, 3 Dall., 171 11, 24 I. Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S., 479 231 Indianapolis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S., 291 225 Inglis V. Trustees Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet, 99 211 Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S., 238 201, 261, 319 Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall., 56 655 Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall., 450 78,224 Interstate Commerce Com. v. Brimson, 154 U. S., 447 . .124, 223 In re Ayres, 123 U. S., 443 167, 324 Converse, 137 U. S., 624 3b.^ Debs, 158 U. S., 564, 581 106, 124, 284, 366 Jackson, 96 U. S., 727 130 Kemmler, 136 U. S., 436 : 316 Lockwood, 154 U. S., 116 256, 364 Manning, 139 U. S., 504 369 Metzger, 5 How., 176 286, 387 Milligan, 4 Wall., 2 297 Oliver, 17 Wis., 681 133 Quarles, 158 U. S., 507 130 Sawyer, 124 U. S., 200 292 Iowa V. Illinois, 147 U. S., 1 331 Iowa V. Illinois, 151 U. S., 238 231 Iowa Cent. Ry. v. Iowa, 160 U. S., 889 255, 292, 365, 372 TABLE OF CASES. XXV J- Jackson, Ex parte, 96 U. S., 737 105, 298 Jackson v. Lampshire, 3 Pet, 280 175 James v. Campbell, 104 U. S., 356 108 Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly,! Black., 436. 147, 151 Johnson v. OfCutt, 4 Met. (Ky.) , 20 20 Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U. S., 109 300 Jones V. Brim, 165 U. S., 180 344 Jones V. United States, 137 U. S., 202 274 Jones V. Van Zandt, 5 How., 215 264 Juillard v. Greenman, 110 U. S., 421 37, 102 K. Kauffman v. Wootters, 138 U. S., 285 '. 373 Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 142 U. S., 254 360 Kearned, Ex parte, 7 Wheat., 38 311 Kelley v. Hedden, 124 U. S., 196 286 Kemmler, Zn re, 136 U. S., 436 316 Kemp's Case, 16 Wis., 359 133 Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet., 524 2.09,224 Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S., 480 281, 362 Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How., 66 224, 228, 261 Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S., 321, 331 375,382 Ker V. niinois, 119 U. S., 436 259 Keyes v. United States, 109 U. S., 336 214 Kidd V. Pearson, 128 U. S., 1 68, 343 Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S., 168 18 Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U. S.r 217 77, 258 King V. Mullins, 171 U. S., 404 341 Kirby v. Lake Shore, etc.. Railroad, 120 U. S., 130, 138 110 Kirtland & Hotchkiss, 100 U. S., 491 356 Knole V. United States, 95 U. S., 149 216 XXVi TABLE OF CASES. Knowles v. Gas Light Coke Co., 19 Wall., 58 243, 244 Knowlton v. Moore, 179 U. S., — 13, 29 Knox V. Lee, 12 Wall., 457 6, 36, 307 Knox V. United States, 95 U. S., 149 216 Kohl V. United States, 91 U. S., 367 130, 237, 308 Kollock, J?i re, 165 U. S., 526 82 Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U- S., 668 193 Kring v. Missouri, 107 U. S., 221 146 L. Laing v. Rigney, 160 U. S., 531 251 Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S., 285 74 : Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S., 684 338 Lamar v. prowne, 92 U. S., 187 114, 116 Lambert v. Barrett, 159 U. S., 660 Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall., 71 5 Lange, Ex parte, 18 How., 163 309, 387, 388 Laramie Co. v. Albany Co., 92 U. S., 307 381 Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U. S., 537 261,262 Lattimer v. Poteet, 14 Pet., 4 290 Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S., 132 347 League v. DeYoung, 11 How., 185 171 Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S., 462 364 Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall., 467 36, 102, 128 Lehigh Valley Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S., 192 65 Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton, 121 U. S., 388 171 Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S., 100 41, 44, 70 Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How., 176 210 Leloup V. Mobile, 127 U. S., 641 62 Lent V. Tillson, 140 U. S., 316, 325 374 Leon V. Galceran, 11 Wall., 185 90 L'Hote V. New Orleans, 177 U. S., 587 351 Lewis V. Femendorf, 2 Johns Cases 20 License Tax Cases, 5 Wall., 462 33, 70, 140, 32a TABLE OF CASES. XXVll Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S., 529 228, 230, 322 Lindsay & Phelps Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S., 126 352 Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Mass., 10 Wall., 566 78,260 Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Com'rs of Emigration, 113 U. S., 33. . 226 Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet, 469 292, 318 Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet., 632 110 Loaker v. Maynard, 179 U. S., — 150 Locke V. New Orleans, 4 Wall., 172 136 Lockwood, 7/1 re, 154 U. S., 116 356, 364 Logan V. United States, 114 U. S., 283 130 Loney, Z/i re, 134 U. S., 372 17 Looker v. Maynard (1900) 390 Long Island, etc., Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. S., 691 153 Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. S., 685. . 375 Lord V. Goodall, etc., Co., 102 U. S., 541 87 Lottowanna, The, 21 Wall., 558 9a Loughborough v. Lake, 5 Wheat, 317 125, 140, 275, Louisiana v. Mayor of New Orleans, 109 U. S., 285 349. Louisiana v. St Martin's Parish, 111 U. S., 716 172; Louisiana ex rel., Nelson v. St Martin's Parish, 111 U. S., 716 15S Louisiana v. Pillsbury, 105 U. S., 278 169 Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S., 1 205, 228, 326 Louisville Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gas Co., 115 U. S., 683 169 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Schmidt 177 U. S., 230 255, 367 Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Mississippi, 133 U. S., 587 ' 60 Low V. Austin, 13 Wall., 29 49^ 198 Lowe V. Kansas, 163 U. S., 81 37I Luther v. Borden, 7 How., 1 209, 280 Luxton V. North River Bridge Co., 153 U. S., 525 91 Lyng V. Michigan, 135 U. S., 161 70 XXViii TABLE OF CASES. M. McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S., 174 274 McCall V. California, 136 U. S., 104 46 McClurg V. Kingsland, 1 How., 202, 206 107 McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat, 192 110 McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How., 608 155 McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S., 391 254 McCullough V. Maryland, 4 Wheat, 416 . .3, 24, 104, 1:^8, 272, 284 McCullough V. Virginia, 172 U. S., 102 160, 161) M'Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet, 312, 325 : . .246, 247 McFarland v. Jackson, 137 U. S., 258 193 McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S., 662 167,324 McGee v. Mathis, 4 Wall., 143 151 McGlynn v. Magran, 8 Wall., 639 102 McGuire v. Massachusetts, 3 Wall., 387 70 McHenry v. Alford, 168 U. S., 651 52 McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S., 684, 687 260, 371 McLanahan v. Ins. Co., 1 Pet, 182 301 McMillan v. McNeill, 4 Wheat, 212 100, 195 McNulty V. California, 149 U. S., 654 372 McNulty V. Batty, 10 How., 72 268 McNeil, Ex parte, 13 Wall., 236 71 McPherson v. Blocher, 146 U. S., 1 9, 206, 207 Mechanics' B'k v. Un. B'k, 22 Wall., 676 Ii5 Mackey v. Coxe, 18 How., 100 274 Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S., 348 300 Mager v. Grima, 8 How., 492 357 Magoun v. 111. Trust & Savings Bk., 18 Sup. Ct Rep., 594. . 357 Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S., 700 259, 320 Mame v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 142 U. S., 217 52 Manning, In re, 139 U. S., 504 369 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137 209, 221, 224 Merchant v. Penn. R. Co., 153 U. S., 380 377 TABLE OF CASES. XXIX Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat, 304 4, 235 Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat, 19 122 Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S., 325 165 Maryland v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 3 How., 534 177 Mason v. Haile, 12 Wheat, 373 174 Mason v. Missouri (1900) 390 Massachusetts v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 141 U. S., 40 53 Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S., 581 .257, 317 May & Co. v. New Orleans, 178 U. S., 496 49, 50 Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheat, 129 247 Mechanics', etc.. Bank v. DeboU, 18 How., 380 151 Mech. & Traders' Bk. v. Shelly, 1 Black., 436 149 Mech. & Traders' Bk. v. Thomas, 18 How., 384 170 Mechanics', etc., Bank v. Union Bank, 22 Wall., 276 211, 214 Medbery v. Ohio, 24 How., 413 240 Memphis v. Brown, 97 U. S., 300 172 Memphis Gas Light Co. v. Shelby Co. Taxing Dist, 109 U. S., 398 190 Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Gaines, 97 U. S., 697 150, 189 Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Loftin, 105 U. S., 258 189 Memphis v. United States, 97 U. S., 293 170, 171 Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U. S., 138 358 Merchants', etc., Bank v. Penn., 167 U. S., 461 382 Merrick v. Giddings, 8 Mo., 55 20 Merryman, Ex parte, Taney, 246 • 133 Meyer v. Richmond, 172 U. S., 83 ' 376 Meyer v. Tupper, 1 Black., 522 90 Mills V. Brown, 16 Pet, 525 235 Mills V. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481 247 Mills V. St Clair Co., 8 How., 569 96 Miller v. New York, 109 U. S., 385 93 Miller v. State, 15 Wall., 493 150 Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S., 535 258, 292 Miller v. United States, 11 Wall., 268 113, 115, 307 Milligan, Ex parte, 4 Wall., 1 133, 134, 237, 266, 301 XXX TABLE OF CASES. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Solon, 169 U. S., 133 75 Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S., 314 79 Minn. Ry. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S., 26 342, 346 Minnesota, etc., Ry. Co. v. Emmons, 149 U. S., 364 71, 345 Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall., 162 :333, 385 Minneapolis, etc., Co. v. Herrick, 127 U. S., 210 346, 364 Minneapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Nelson, 149 U. S., 368 345 Miner & Markham, 28 Fed. Rep., 387 20 Mississippi, v. Johnson, 4 Wall., 475 223 Miss., etc., R. Co. v. McClure, 10 Wall., 511 170 Missouri V. Iowa, 7 How., 660 231 Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall., 397 331 Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S., 22 292, 366, 374 Missouri v. McCann, 174 U. S., 580 75 Missouri Ry. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S., 206 346 Mitchell V. Clark, 110 U. S., 633 193, 240 Mitchell V. Harmony, 13 How., 115 301 Mitchell V. Leavensworth Co., 91 U. S., 206 27 Mitchell V. Lenox, 14 Pet, 49 241 Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S., 556 241 Mo.* Pac. Ry. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S., 512 342 Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Mackey, 127 U. S., 205 364 Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Nebraska, 164 U. S., 403 362 Mobile Co. v. Kimball, 102 U. S., 691 88, 381 Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S., 312 . 309 Montello, The, 11 Wall., 411 89,91 Moore v. Am. Trans. Co., 24 How., 1 87 Moore v. Greenhow, 114 U. S., 338 164 Moore v. Illinois, 14 How., 13 264, 302, 309 Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U. S., 69 47, 50 Morley v. Lake Shore & M. Ry. Co., 146 U S., 162 183, 343 Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S., 1 270,271,294 Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S., 217 80 Morgan, etc., Co. v. Louisiana, 118 U. S., 455, 467 143 Morgan's Steamship Co. v. Louisiana, 118 U. S., 455 80 TABLE OF CASES. XXXI Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall., 475 41 Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U. S., 623 258, 306 Mullan V. United States, 140 U. S., 240 214 Mulligan v. Corbins, 7 Wall., 487 181 Mumma v. Potomac Co., 8 Pet, 281 175 Munn V. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113 55, 72, 143, 153, 184, 350, 352 Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall., 620 238 Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S., 44 271, 293, 294 Murray's Lessees v. Hoboken, etc., Co., 18 How., 272 299, 302 N. Nagle, In re, 1Z5 V. S., 1 210 Nashville, etc., Ry. v. Alabama, 128 U. S., 96 77, 266, 345 Natal V. Louisiana, 139 U. S., 621 344 Nat. Bk. V. Yankton Co., 101 U. S., 129 271 Neagle, In re, 135 U. S., 1 225 Neal V. Delaware, 103 U. S., 370, 397 330, 385, 386 Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U. S., 359 231 Neil V. Ohio, 3 How., 720 174 Neves v. Scott, 13 How., 268 110 New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S., 76 228 New Haven, etc., Co. v. Hamersley, 104 U. S., 1 183 New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet, 284 224, 228 New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 134 151, 153,. 154 New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S., 114 149 New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Co., 142 U. S., 89 153, 185, 193, 359, 376 New Orleans v. The Steamship, 20 Wall., 387 211 New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S., 650. 159 New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Rivers, 115 U. S., 674 169 New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co. v. Louisiana, 157 U. S., 219 187 New Orleans, etc., R. R. v. Mississippi, 112 U. S., 12 93 Newport & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. U. S., 105 U. S., 470. ... 93 New York v. Com'rs of Taxes, 3 Black., 620 28 XXxii TABLE OF CASES. New York, City of, v. Miln, 11 Pet, 102 4X), 41 New York v. Roberts, 171 U. S., 658 55 New York Life Insurance Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S., 389 ... 78 New York, etc., Ry. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U. S., 431 65 N. Y., Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Penn., 153 U. S., 628 173 New York, etc., Ry. Co. v. People of New York, 165 U. S., 628 345 Newton v. Mahoning Co., 100 U. S., 548 183 Nobles V. Georgia, 168 U. S., 398 372 Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co. v. Penn., 136 U. S., 114 57, 260 North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S., 22 230, 323 Norton v. Switzer, 93 U. S., 355 90 Norwick, etc., R. R. v. Johnson, 15 Wall., 195 . . : 102 Nudd V. Burrows, 91 U. S., 426 225 O. Ogden V. Saunders, 12 Wheat, 213 98, 100, 135, 136, 194, 195 Ohio V. Thomas, 173 U. S., 276 83, 127 Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Debalt, 16 How., 416 188 Ohio Oil Co. V. Indiana, 177 U. S., 190 351 Olcott V. The Supervisors, 16 Wall., 678 170 Oliver, In re, 17 Wis., 681 133 Olney v. Arnold, 3 Dall. (U. S.), 308 237 Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S., 557 34 Osborn v. Florida, 164 U. S., 650 47, 241 Osborn v. Livingston, 13 Wall., 654 329 Osborn v. Mobile, 16 Wall., 479 65 Osborn v. United States, 91 U. S., 474 216 Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat, 738 26, 230, 323 Owings V. Speed, 5 Wheat., 420 171 Ouachita, etc., Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S., 444 44, 71, 319 TABLE OF CASES. XXXlll Face V. Burgess, 92 U. S., 372 141 Pac. Ex. Co. V. Seibert, 142 U. S., 339 341 Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall., 433 11 Pacific R. R. V. Ketchum, 3 Ball. (U. S.), 289 Ill Pac. R. R. Co. V. Maguire, 20 Wall., 36 189 Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S., 559 143 Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S., 80 71, 96, 143 Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S., 423 71,143 Page V. United States, 127 U. S., 67 19 Pargoud v. United States, 13 Wall., 156 215 Parkinson v. United States, 121 U. S., 281. 300 Parks, Ex parte, 93 U. S., 18 387 Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall., 36 238 Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet, 433 309,312,313,314 Parsons v. United States, 167 U. S., 324 125 Passenger Cases, 7 How., 286 40, 42 Patapsco Guana Co. v. North Carolina, 171 U. S., 345 79 Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S., 501 109 Paul V. Virginia, 8 Wall., 168 74, 78, 253, 260 Paulson V. City of Portland, 149 U. S., 30 359 Pawlet V. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292 293 Pearce v. Texas, 155 U. S., 311 370 Pearsall v. Great Northern R'y Co., 161 U. S., 646 152 Peck V. Chic. & N. W. R'y Co., 94 U. S., 164 183 Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall., 581 80, 202 Peik V. C. & N. W. R'y Co., 94 U. S., 164 353 Pembina, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S., 181 51, 260, 348, 366 Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S., 1 230, 322 Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S., 7r4 245, 362 Pennoyer v. Virginia, 140 U. S., 1 324 Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 96 U. S., 1. . . . 43,51,61,105 XXxiv TABLE OF CASES. Pennsylvania College Cases, 13 Wall., 190 152,182 Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Wall., 553 226 Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., 18 How., 421. . 143 People V. Barber (1900) 390 People V. Commissioners, 4 Wall., 244 36 People V. Comm'rs, 104 U. S., 466 200 People V. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 U. S., 59 41, 47, 19a Peoples' Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U. S., 256 Ill Permoli v. First Municipality, 3 How., 589 294 Pervear v. Mass., 5 Wall., 475 33, 316, 320 Peyronx v. Howard, 7 Pet., 324 90 Phila. Fire Asso. v. New York, 119 U. S., 110 78, 260, 349 Philadelphia, etc.. Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S., 326 43, 57, 66 Phillips V. Pryne, 92 U. S., 130 126 Pickard v. Pullman So. Car Co., 117 U. S., 34 58 Pierce v. Carskadon, 16 Wall., 234 137 Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoop, 16 How., 369 147, 149, 151 Pittsburg, etc., Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S., 421. 382 Pittsburg & Southern Canal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S., 590 199 Planters' Bk. of Miss. v. Sharp, 6 How., 301 177 Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S., 461 82 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S., 270 145, 160, 164 Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How., 212. 266 Pollock V. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S., 429; 158 U. S., 601 12, 13, 141 Poppe V. Langford, 104 U. S., 770 240 Porter v. Foley, 24 How., 415 240 Postal Telegraph Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S., 692 54, 64 Pound V. Turck, 95 U. S., 459 88, 94 Powell V. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S., 678 348 Prentiss v. Com. Bank, 5 Rand., 697 20 Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S., 252 122, 257, 296 Prigg V. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet, 539 128, 263 TABLE OF CASES. XXXV Prize Cases, 2 Black., 635 213 Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet, 514 153, 175, 190 Provident Ins. Co. v. Mass., 6 Wall., 611 28 Provident Inst. v. Jersey City, 113 U. S., 506 348 Pub. Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall., 521 243 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S., 18 36 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Hayward, 141 U. S., 36 54 Pumpelly v. Green Bay & M. Canal Co., 13 Wall., 16G 308 Pierce v. Somerset R'y Co., 171 U. S., 641 173 Q. Quarles, In re, 158 U. S., 507 133 R. Rahrer, In re, UO V. S., 545 70 Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S., 307 342 Rapeir, Ex parte, 143 U. S., 110 106 Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall., 560 75 Railroad Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S., 649 339 Railroad Co. v. Gothard, 114 CJ. S., 136 238 Railroad Co. v. Huson, 95 U. S., 465 .41, 81 Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall., 456 55, 6o, 183, 199 Railroad Co. v. McClure, 10 Wall., 511 181 Railroad Co. v. Palmes, 109 U. S., 257 152 Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall., 5 30, 130 Railroad Co. v. Penn., 15 Wall., 300 30 Railroad Co. v. Philadelphia, 101 U. S., 539 150 Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall., 584 47 Railroad Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S., 339 338 Rapier, Ex parte, 143 U. S., 110 106 Ratterman v. Western U. Tel. Co., 127 U. S., 411 61 Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S., 362, 76, 338, 354 XXXVIU TABLE OF CASES. Sohn V. Waterson, 17 Wall., 596 193, 194 Solomons v. United States, 137 U. S., 342 108 Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S., 703 - 342 South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S., 4 88 Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S., 483 210 Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S., 345 375, 381 Spies V. Illinois, 123 U. S., 131 292, 298 Spratt V. Spratt, 4 Pet, 393 98 Springer v. United States, 102 U. S., 586. . . .11, 29, 102, 141, 303 Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. b., 90 51 Spring Valley Water Co. v. Schottler, 110 U. S., 352 150 Springville v. Thomas, 166 U. S., 707 277 T. Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S., 548 281, 354 Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S., 688 * 54, 65 Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S., 465 41 Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S., 257 225 Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U. S., 69 171 Tennessee v. With worth, 117 U. S., 129 150, 189 Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43 293 Terry, Ex parte, 128 U. S., 289 366 Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S., 628 171, 193* Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Trans. Co., 155, 585 94 Texas v. White, 7 Wall., 700 6, 7, 115, 281 The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall., 616 286 The Grapeshot, 9 Wall., 129 115 The Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall., 274 314 The Lotta wanna, 21 Wall., 558 110 "The Lucy," 8 Wall., 307 Ill "The Thomas Gibbons," 8 Cranch, 421 114 The Victory, 6 Wall., 382 238 Thomas v. Gray, 169 U. S., 264 287 Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U. S., 380 139 TABLE OF CASES. XXXIX Thompson v. Railroad Co., 9 Wall., 579 31, 43, 129 Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S., 343 277 Thompson v. United States, 142 U. S., 471 142 Thompson v. Whitman, 8 Wall., 457 243 Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U. S., 490 292, 306 •Thurlow V. Massachusetts, 5 How., 504 67, 69 Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S., 204 229 rinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S., 101 366, 373 Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall., 460. 151, 325 Trademark Cases, 100 U. S., 82 109 Trademark Cases, 100 U. S., 82 109 Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S., 423 203 Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S., 273 203 Trask v. Maguire, 18 Wall., 391 150, 189 Trustees of Vincennes University v. -Indiana, 14 How., 268. 155 Trustees Wabash Canal Co. v. Beers, 2 Black., 448 180 Tryon v. Munson, 77 Pa. St., 250 356 Tucker v. Furguson, 22 Wall., 574 152, 188 Tullis V. Lake Erie & Western R'y Co., 175 U. S., 348 352 Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S., 38 80 Turnpike Co. v. State of Maryland, 3 Wall., 210 181 Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U. S., 504 141 Twitcheil v. Pennsylvania, 7 Wall., 321 235, 292, 302, 311 Tyler v. Defrees, 11 Wall., 331 113, 115 U. Un. Pass. R. Co. v. Phila., 101 U. S., 528 150 United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat, 392 250 United States v. Arjona, 120 U. S., 479 103, 112 United States v. Ballin, 144 U. S., 1 19 United States v. Bevan, 3 Wheat., 336 119, 132 United States v. Brewster, 7 Pet, 164 103 United States v. Britton, 108 U. S., 206 110 United States v. Burns, 12 Wall., 246 108 xl TABLE OF CASES. United States v. Cantril, 4 Cranch, 167 103 United States vs. Carll, 105 U. S., 611 103 United States v. Combs, 12 Pet., 72 42 United Stales v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat., 415 310 United States v. Cooper, 4 Dall. C. Ct., 341 20 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S.,. 542 292,296,333. United States v. D'Anterive, 10 How., 609 291 United States v. De Walt, 128 U. S., 393 300 United States v. Dewett,* 9 Wall., 41 126 United States v. Ducros, 15 How., 38 291 United States v. Duell, 172 U. S., 576 109 United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S., 1 84 United States v. Eaton, 144 U. S., 677 310 United States v. Eaton, 169 U. S., 331 219 United States v. Eliason, 16 Pet, 291 213 United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358 128, 131 United States v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U. S., 188 97 United States v. Fox, 95 U. S., 570 146 United States v. Gardner, 10 Pet., 618 103 United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet., 526 130, 279 United States v. Gusman, 14 How., 193 291 United States v. Halliday, 3 Wall., 407 96, 97 United States v. Holmes, 5 Wheat., 421 112 United States v. Howell, 11 Wall., 432 103 United States v. Howland, 4 Wheat, 108 110 United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32 110, 321 United States v. Joint Traffic Assn., 171 U. S., 505 86 United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat., 720 220 United States v. Klein, 13 Wall., 128 215 United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. (U. S.), 297 301 United States v. Marigold, 9 How., 560 103, 309 United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock., 96, 105 121 United States v. Memphis, 97 U. S., 284 381 United States v. Mitchell, 2 Dall. (U. S.), 348 242 TABLE OF CASES. xli United States v. New Orleans, 103 U. S., 358 153 United States v. Norton, 97 U. S., 164 214 United States v. Old Settlers, 148 U. S., 427 287 United States v. Padelford, 9 Wall., 531 215 United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat., 610 Ill United States v. Palmer, 128 U. S., 262 108 United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat, 979 309 United States v. Pillerin, 13 How., 9 291 United States v. Pirates, 5 Wheat., 184 Ill United States v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall., 322 30 United States v. Randenbusch, 8 Pet., 288 103 United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S., 407 262, 290 United States v. Reese, 92 U. S., 214 383, 384, 385 United States v. Rillieux, 14 How., 189 291 United States v. Rodgers, 150 U. S., 249 112 United States v. Rogers, 4 How., 567 278 United States v. The Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103 ". 286 United States v. Thirty-five Chests of Tea, 12 Wheat, 486. 90 United States v. Singer, 15 Wall., Ill 30 United States v. Smith, 5 Wheat., 153 112 United States v. Symonds, 120 U. S., 46 121 United States v. Thompson, 93 U. S., 586 , 240 United States v. Tingry, 5 Pet., 115 132 United States v. Turner, 7 Pet., 132 103 United States v. Vigol, 2 Dall. (U. S.) , 346 242 United States v. Villato, 2 Dall. (U. S.), 370 242 United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet., 150 216 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat, 76 Ill, 242 United States Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat, 904.. 228, 230 V. Vallandingham, Ex parte, 1 Wall., 242 134 Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall., 573 35, 36 Van Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall., 535 151. 156 172 Xlii TABLE OF CASES. Vashon v. Greenhow, 135 U. S., 552, 716 16S Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall., 533 11, 13, 31 Veazie v. Moore, 14 How., 568 89 Verden v. Coleman, 22 How., 192 235 Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. Dennis, 116 U. S., 665 190 Vicksburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. Putnam, 118 U. S., 545 225 Vicksburg v. Tobin, 100 U. S., 430 203 Vidal V. Girard's Executors, 2 How., 127 294 Vincent v. California, 149 U. S., 648 372 Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S., 270 145, 160 Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S., 315 330, 335, 336 Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S., 503 204, 231 Virginia, Ex parte, 100 U. S., 330 328, 329 W. Wabash, etc., Co. v. Hlinois, 118 U. S., 557 41, 57, 59 Wade V. Lawder, 165 U. S., 624 241 Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S., 90 362. Walker v. South Pac. R. R. Co., 165 U. S., 593 315 Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall., 314 158, 171 Walston V. Nevin, 128 U. S., 578 381 Walling V. Michigan, 116 U. S., 455 , 41, 45 Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U. S., 202 215 Washington University v. Rouse, 8 Wall., 439 151, 157 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S., 28 190 Watson V. Mercer, 8 Pet., 110 136, 240 Ward V. Maryland, 12 Wall., 418 41, 252, 256 Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall., 199 219, 287, 289 Ware v. United States, 4 Wall., 617 104 Waring v. Clarke, 5 How., 441 87 Waring v. The Mayor, 8 Wall., 110 64, 198 Watts V. Camors, 115 U. S., 353, 362 110 Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S., 344 108 Weber v. Board of Harbor Com'rs, 18 Wall., 57 26r TABLE OF CASES. f TTgUf FRSn Webster v. Reid, 11 How., 437, 460 277, 302 Wells, Ex parte, 18 How., 307 215 West Riv. Bridge Co. v. Dlx, 6 How., 507 152, 177, 307 West Tenn. Bank v. Citizens' Bank, 13 Wall., 432 240 West Wisconsin R. R. Co. v. Supervisors, 93 U. S., 598 152 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Alabama, 132 U. S., 472 37 West Un. Tel. Co. v. James, 162 U. S., 650 80, 352 West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S., 347 51, 321 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S., 1 63 Western Union Tel. Co. V. Texas, 105 U. S., 460 51 Weston V. Charleston, 2 Pet, 449 27, 35, 236 Weyerhauser v. Minnesota, 176 U. S., 550 380 Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S., 155 205 Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet., 591 107 Wheeler v. Jackson, 137 U. S., 245 193, 194 Wheeling Bridge Case, 18 How., 431 92, 104, 228 White V. Hart, 13 Wall., 646 170, 172 White's Bank V. Smith, 7 Wall., 646 44 Whitman v. Oxford Nat. Bk., 176 U. S., 559 252 Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S., 190 286 Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S., 36 96, 202 Wiley V. Sinkler, 179 U. S., — 16 Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S., 130 316 Wilmington R. R. v. Reid, 13 Wall., 264 149, 151, 160 Wilson V. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet., 241 92, 94 Wilson V. Eureka City, 173 U. S., 32 344 Wilson V. McNamee, 102 U. S., 572 71 Wilson V. North Carolina, 169 U. S., 586, 600 .255, 367 Willamette Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S., 8 94 Willard v. Presbury, 14 Wall., 676 126 Willard v. Tayloe, 8 Wall., 557 102 Williams v. Bruffy, 102 U. S., 248 235 Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S., 304 173, 357 Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S., 213 360 Williams v. Wingo, 179 U. S 176 xliv TABLE OF CASES. ■Williamson v. New Jersey, laO U. S., 189 153, 188 Wilson, Ex parte, 114 U S., 415 309 Winona R. R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S., 180 153, 183, 353 Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Ball. (U. S.), 321 237 Wisconsin v. Pelican Co., 127 U. S., 292 231, 246 Withers v. Buckley, 20 How., 84 240, 307 Withers v. Buckley, 26 How., 84 88 Wolff V. New Orleans, 103 U. S., 358 172 Woodruff V. Parham, 8 Wall., 123 197, 254, 257 Woodruff V. Trapnall, 10 How., 203 145, 148 Worcester v. State of Georgia, 6 Pet., 515 98, 218, 290 Wurts V. Hoagland, 114 U. S., 606 375 Y. Yarborough, Ex parte, 110 U. S., 651 16 Yerger, Ex parte, 8 Wall., 85 134, 388 Yesler v. Harbor Line Com'rs, 146 U. S., 646 344 Yick Wo V. Hopkins, 118 U. S., 356 337 York V. Texas, 137 U. S., 15 369 tJKIVERSITr CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WITH ANNOTATIOIf OF THE DECISIOJ^S OF THE SUPREME COURT THEREOiY. PEE AMBLE. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tran- quility, provide for the common defense, promote the gen- eral welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to our- selves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Con- stitution for the United States of America." 1. TJie Constitution emanated from the people, not the State legislatures. — 1. "The Convention which framed the Constitution was, indeed, elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, which came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obliga- tion or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might be submitted to a Convention of Dele- gates, chosen in each State by the people thereof under J CONSTITUTION OP UNITED STATES. the recommendation of its legislatures, for their assent and ratification. 2. "This mode of proceeding was adopted, and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the State legislatures the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it, in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true they assembled in their sev- eral States, and where else should they have assembled ? "No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separated the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that ac- count, cease to be the measures of the people themselves or become the measures of the State government. 3. "From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is ordained and established in the name of the people ; and is declared to be ordained, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, in- sure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is in calling the convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the PREAMBLE. 3 people. But tlie people were at perfect liberty to ac- cept or reject it, and their act was final. It required not the aJBSrmance and could not be negatived by the State governments. The Constitution was thus adopted. 4. "It has been said, that the people had already sur- rendered all their powers to the State sovereignties and had nothing more to give. But, surely, the question whether they may resume and modify the powers granted to government does not remain to be settled in this country. Much more might the legitimacy of the general government be doubted had it been created by the States. The powers delegated to the State sovereign- ties are to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty created by themselves. Por the formation of a league such as was the confedera- tion the State sovereignties were certainly competent. But when, 'in order to form a more perfect union,' it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an ef- fective government, possessing great and sovereign pow- ers and acting directly on the people, the necessity of re- ferring it to the people, and of deriving its powers di- rectly from them was felt and acknowledged by all." Ch. J. Marshall, M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 404. 5. "The Constitution of the United States was or- dained and established by the people of the United '4 CONSTITUTIOI^ OF UIs'ITED STATES. States, for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual States." "The people of the United States framed snch a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to the situation and best calculated to promote their in- terests." Ch. J. Marshall, in Barron v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 7 Peters, 242. See Story on Constitution, Sees. 351, 367. 6. "The Constitution of the United States was or- dained and established, not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically as the preamble of the Constitution declares, ^by the people of the United States.'" Martin v. Hunter,.! Wheat., 304- 324. Mr. Tucker, in his Constitution of the United States, enters into an elaborate discussion. His contention is that the preamble means that the people of each of the States, by a convention thereof, ordained and established the Constitution. Tucker on Const., Sees. 123, 187. His view is that it was the people of each of the States rather than the people of the United States. 7. The United States constitute one nation. — "The people of the United States constitute one nation under one government, and this government within the scope of the powers with which it is invested is supreme. On the other hand, the people of each State compose a State, TJNITED STATES ONE UNION. 5 having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent exist- ence. The State disunited might exist. Without the States in union there could be no such political body as the United States." Ch. J. Chase, in Lane Co. v. Oregon, V Wall., 71. 'Without them, (the States,) the general government would disappear from the family of na- tions." Collector v. Day, 11 Wall., 125. 8. "That the United States form, for many purposes, a single nation is not denied. In war we are one peo- ple. In making peace we are one people. In all com- mercial regulations we are one people. In many other respects, the American people are one ; and the govern- ment which is alone capable of controlling and manag- ing their interests in all these respects, is the govern- ment of the Union. America has chosen to be in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation ; and for these purposes her government is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all the powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can then in effecting these objects legitimately control all indi- viduals or governments within the American territory. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 413. "The United States is not only a government, but it is a National government, and the only government, in this country, that has the character of nationality. It 6 CONSTITUTION OP UNITED STATES. is invested with power over all the foreign relations of the country, war, peace and negotiations and intercourse with other nations, all which are forbidden to the State governments." Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall., 457, 555. And as an incident of sovereignty it can exclude aliens from the country; and by act of Congress can abrogate a treaty with a foreign power. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S., 581. Nature of the Union. — "The union of the States never was a purely arbitrary and artificial relation. It began among the Colonies and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these relations were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was or- dained, 'to form a more perfect union.' " Texas v. :White, 7 Wall., 725. "Within its legitimate sphere, Congress is supreme, and beyond the control of the courts ; but if it steps out- side of its constitutional limitations, and attempts that which is beyond its reach, the courts are authorized to, and when called upon in due course of legal proceedings must, annid its encroachments upon the reserved power NATURE OF UNION. 7 of the States and the people." U. S. v. Eeese, 92 U. S., 221. "The Constitution in all its provisions looks to an in- destructible union of indestructible States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation except through revolution or through dissent of the States." Texas v. White, 7 Wall., 700, 725, 726. The case of Texas v. White arose on these facts. The State of Texas at the time of its secession from the Union, held bonds of the United States payable to the State or bearer. The insurgent government sold these bonds, and they were purchased by the defendant in error, White, after they were due. He was charged with notice of defect in the title. The insurgent gov- ernment could not divest the State of its title ; and pub- lic property of a State, alienated during the rebellion by a usurping government for the purpose of waging war against the United States, may be reclaimed for the benefit of the State by a restored government, organ- ized in allegiance to the Union. 8 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I AETICLE I. Section 1. "All legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." A statute (Act Feb. 28, 1793) attempted to impose upon the judges of the district courts the duty of taking evidence of claimants for pensions, and transmit such proofs and a list of the claimants to the Secretary of War. Some of the judges declined to execute the law, on the ground that the duties imposed were not judicial duties. A change in the law rendered decision of the question by the Supreme Court unnecessary. Hay- burns Case, 2 DalL, 409 (note). See, post, p. 223. HOUSE OF EEPRESEI^^TATIVES. Section 2. "(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States ; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.'' 1. Members thus chosen by districts, into which the State may be apportioned, represent the entire State in its sovereign capacity. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S., 1. Sec. 2.] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES., 9 2. The States in prescribing the qualifications of voters for the numerous branch of their own legisla- tures, do not do this with reference to the election of members of Congress. JSTor can they prescribe the quali- fications for voters for members of Congress eo nomine. Thej define who are to vote for the popular branch of their own legislature, and the Constitution of the United States says the same persons shall vote for members of Congress in that State. It adopts the qualifications thus furnished as the qualifications of its own electors for members of Congress. It is not true, therefore, that electors for members of Congress owe their right to vote to the State law in any sense which makes the exercise of the right to depend ex- clusively on the law of the State. The right is based fundamentally on the Constitution which created the of- fice of member of Congress and declared it should be elective, and pointed to the means of ascertaining who should be electors. In re Yarhorougli, 110 U. S., 651. 6G4. "(2) No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of. the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. "(3) Representatives and direct tasies shall be appor- tioned among the several States which may be included 10 CONSTITUTION OP UNITED STATES. [Art. I, within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. (4) "The actual enumeration shall be made within three years, after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. (5) "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand; but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be en- titled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six. New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten. North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. (6) "When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. (7) "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." Decisions as to direct taxes. — (1) The 9th section of Act of July 13th, 1866, relating to the internal Sec 2.] DIRECT TAXES. 11 revenue, which provides that "every iN'ational banking association, State bank or State banking association shall pay a tax of ten per centum on the amount of notes of any State bank, or State banking association, paid out by them after a certain date (Aug. 1st, 1866) does not lay a direct tax, within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution which ordains that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states ac- cording to their respective numbers." Yeazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall., 533. This decision discusses the question, what are "direct taxes," and holds that what was meant in that section of the Constitution, is that where a gross sum as a tax was to be raised from all the States, the amount must be apportioned among the States according to population. Taxes in the nature of excise (like our internal revenue taxes), or on trades or professions, or imposts or duties, are another form of taxation. (2) Income tax, as levied upon insurance compan- ies, laid by Sees. 105 and 126 of Act of June 20th, 1864, as amended by Act of July 13th, 1866 (13 Stat, at L., pp. 276, 283) held not a direct tax but a duty or excise. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall., 433. (3) Taxes on real estate property are direct taxes, — Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall., 171; Springer v. United States, 102 U. S., 586. In the Hylton case a 12 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, tax was levied on pleasure carriages and was held not a direct tax. In the Springer case the court held that direct taxes meant "only capitation taxes and taxes on real estate.'' See Cooley's Taxation, p. 5, n. 2 ; Pom. Const. Law, 157 ; Sharswood's Blackstone, 308, n. (4) Taxes on the rents or income of real estate are direct taxes within this constitutional provision, and a Federal statute imposing taxes of this nature is void. Pollock V. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 TJ. S., 429 (1895) ; Keheard, 158 U. S., 601. (5) Taxes on personal property or the income there- from are direct taxes, and the Act of 1894, so far as it falls on income of real or personal property, is repug- nant to the Constitution; and the whole act constitut- ing one entire scheme of taxation is void. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S., 601. (6) A "succession' tax imposed by Acts of June 30th, 1864 (13 Stats, at L., pp. 285-287), as amended by Act of July 13th, 1866 (14 Stats, at L., pp. 140, 141), on every "devolution of title to any real estate," was held not to be a "direct tax," but an "impost or excise" and constitutional and valid. And so, the devise of an equitable interest in real estate is such devolution of title. Scholey v. Kew, 23 Wall., 331. The taxes upon legacies and distributive shares of per- sonal property, imposed by Act of June, 1898, are im- Sec. 3.] THE SENATE. 13 posed upon the transmission or receipt of such inheri- tances, and not upon the right of the State to regulate the devolution of the property upon death. It is not a direct tax. Knowlton v. Moore, 179 U. S., . (7) A tax upon the interest on municipal bonds is- sued by State municipalities is a tax upon the power of the State and its instrumentalities to borrow money, and repugnant to the Constitution. Pollock v. Farm- ers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S., 429 ; 158 id., 601. (8) A tax on bank circulation is not a direct tax and may be laid without apportionment. Veazie Bank v. Tenno, 8 Wall., 533, 546. THE SEI^ATE. Sectioi^ 3. "(1) The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Sen- ator shall have one vote. " (2) Immediately after they shall be assembled in con- sequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the ISenators of the first class shall be vacated at the expira- tion of the second year, of the second class at the expira- tion of the fourth year, and of the third class at the ex- piration of the sixth year, so that one-third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by 14 CONSTITUTION OP UNITED STATES. [Art. I^ resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legis- lature of any State, the executive thereof may make tem- porary appointments until the next meeting of the legis- lature, which shall then fill such vacancies. "(3) No person shall be a Senator who shall not have at- tained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen. "(4) The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. "(5) The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice- President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States." IMPEACHMENT. "(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. "(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not ex- tend further than to removal from office and disqualifica- tion to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit Sec. 4.] ELECTION OF SENATORS. 15- Tinder the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." ELECTION OF SENATORS. Section 4. "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be pre- scribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such reg- ulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." (1) In making regulations for the election of Rep- resentatives, it is not necessary that Congress should assume entire and exhaustive control. It may make entirely new regulations, or add to or alter or modify^ those made by the State. (2) Congress may impose (a) new duties on the of- ficers of election, or (b) additional penalties for breach of duty, or (c) for the perpetration of fraud, or (d) provide for th^ attendance of oflScers to prevent frauds and see that the elections are legally and fairly con- ducted. (3) There can be no conflict between the power of the State and that of Congress, because the power of Congress is paramount. (4) An act which authorizes deputy marshals to keep the peace at such elections is not unconstitutional. 16 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, (5) Congress can compel State officers to obey State laws regulating the election of Representatives; and wlien so compelled bj the act of Congress, the violation of the State law may be a violation of the Act of Con- gress. (6) Congress can vest in the Circuit Court the ap- pointment of supervisors of election. Ex parte Sie- bold, 100 U. S., 374, 382. (7) This section of Article I, adopts the State quali- fications for voting as the Federal qualification for the voter ; but the right to vote is based upon the Constitu- tion and not upon the State law, and Congress can pass laws for the free, pure and safe exercise of that right. Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U. S., 651. The right to vote for a member of Congress has its foundation in the Federal Constitution, and a case in- volving this right where the damages for its denial are laid at $2,500 may be brought in the Circuit Court of the United States ; and may be brought directly there- from to the Supreme Court. Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 TJ. S., (decided Oct. 15, 1900). MEETIliG OF CONGEESS. "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day." Sec. 5.] POWERS OF TWO HOUSES. 17 POWER OF SENATE AND HOUSE. Section 5. "(1) Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own mem- bers, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such pen- alties, as each House may provide." The courts of a State have no jurisdiction of a com- plaint for perjury on testifying before a notary public, upon a contested election of a member of the House of Representatives of the United States. Congress has regulated by law the forms, notices and manner of tak- ing depositions in contested election cases, and provided for punishment of perjury in such cases. In re Loney, 134 U. S., 372. "(2) Each House may determine the rules of its pro- ceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." (1) Tlie House of Bepresentatives has jurisdiction to punish for contempt, and the warrant of arrest un- der the hand and seal of the Speaker, attested by the Clerk, directed to the Sergeant-at-Arms, is legal though it does not show on its face on what evidence it was founded, nor set forth specifically in what the contempt consisted. Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat., 204. 18 CONSTITUTIOI^ OF XJISriTED STATES. [Art. I^ (2) The House may punish its own members for disorderly conduct, or for failure to attend its sessions^ and may fine and imprison contumacious witnesses, but there is no general power vested in either House to pun- ish for contempt. The imprisonment of Kilbourn for refusal to answer questions in an investigation rather judicial than legislative in its nature was a false im- prisonment. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S., 168. (3) While Congress cannot divest itself, or either of its Houses, of the inherent power to punish for con- tempt it may provide that contumacy of a witness called to testify before it, shall be a misdemeanor against the United States punishable by the Courts. In re Chapman, 166 U. S., 661. (4) Congress possesses constitutional power to en- act a statute to enforce the attendance of witnesses to enable the respective bodies to discharge their legisla- tive functions. Id. (5) House may count those not voting to determine whether there is a quorum. The Constitution em- powers each House to determine its rules of proceed- ing. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional re- straints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation taken between the mode or method established of proceeding by rule and the re- sult sought. The rule of the House of Kepresentatives of the 61st Congress that the names of members pres- ent who do not vote may be entered on the journal and Sec. 6.] COMPENSATION. 19 counted in determining the presence of a quorum does not infringe any constitutional right and is a valid ex- ercise of the power of the House to determine its own rules. United States v. Ballin, 144 U. S., 1. "(3) Each House shall keep a journal of its proceed- ings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting: such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and. the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present^ he entered on the journal. "(4) Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting." COMPENSATIOIT. Section 6. "(1) The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be as- certained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States." Compensation of Representatives. — ^When a person is elected to Congress to fill a vacancy made by unseat- ing a member, who, after having received the proper credentials, having been placed on the roll and drawn his salary, was declared not elected, the succeeding Representative is entitled to compensation only from the time the compensation of the unseated member ceased. Page v. United States, 127 U. S., 67. 20 COW^STITUTIOI^ OF UlSriTED STATES. [Art. I, PRIVILEGE FEOM ARREST, ETC. (2) "They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and (3) for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." (1) Members of Congress are not exempt from be- ing sued in the District of Columbia while there in at- tendance upon Congress. Howard v. Citizens', etc., .Co., 12 App. D. C, 222. (2) The exemption extends to service of process without arrest. Miner v. Markham, 28 Fed. Rep., 387; Doty v. Strong, 1 Pin. (Wis.), 84; Anderson v. Rountree, 1 Pin. (Wis.), 115. See Hoppin v. Jenckes, 8 R. I., 453; Danton v. Halstead, 2 Clark (Pa.), 450; Prentiss v. Com. Bk., 5 Rand., 697 ; Lewis v. Femen-' dorf, 2 Johns Cases. (3) In the following cases it is held that privilege from arrest does not extend to a civil suit. Gentry v. Griffith, 27 Tex., 461 ; Merrick v. Giddings, McArthur & M., 8 Mo., 55 ; Catlett v. Morton, 4 Lit. (Ky.), 122 ; Johnson v. Ofctt, 4 Met. (Ky.), 20; Rhodes v. Walsh, 68 Minn., 196. (4) The exemption does not absolve or excuse from obedience to a subpoena in a criminal case. United States V. Cooper, 4 Dall. C. Ct, 341. (5) Where a member of Congress, who had been sur- Sec. 7.] REVENUE BILLS. 21 rendered bj his bail, claimed discharge on ground of privilege, and it was proposed by the counsel for the bail, that they should remain responsible for surren- dering him four days after the session, the court ap- proved the compromise as a good precedent. Coxe v, McClinechan, 3 DalL, 478. DISABILITY TO HOLD OTHER OFFICES. (3) "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil oflSice under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a mem- ber of either House during his continuance in office." REVENUE BILLS. Section^ 7. "(1) AH bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives ; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills." "This provision," says Story, "beyond all question is borrowed from the British House of Commons, of which it is the ancient and indisputable privilege and right that all grants of subsidies and parliamentary aids shall begin in their house." The general reason is that the supplies are raised upon the body of the peo- ple; but Blackstone points out that a large part of the taxed property is owned by the Lords. The true rea- son seems to be that the Lords are a permanent body 22 CONSTITUTIOl^ OF UlS'ITED STATES. [Art. I, created by the pleasure of the king, and the Commons are chosen by the people. There seems less reason for the distinction here, and, indeed, the provision is vir- tually evaded, as by amendment of any revenue bill, the Senate may "originate" new methods of raising revenue, and entirely change by substitution the methods of the lower House for methods of their own. In England the Lords can refuse to pass but cannot al- ter or amend. What are bills for raising revenue ? This is confined only to bills for the levy of taxes in the strict sense of the word. They do not include those for establishing the post office and mint or others which incidentally bring in revenue. Story on Const., Sees. 874-880. The debates in the Constitutional Convention show that the word "Revenue Bill" was to be used only in this limited sense. The clause as originally intro- duced included appropriations; but this, after careful debate, was stricken out. Tucker's Const., pp. 446- 467. APPROVAL OR VETO OF BILLS, ETC. "(2) Every bill, which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall re- turn it with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If af- Sec. 7.] VETO OF PRESIDENT. 23 ter such reconsideration two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and, if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. "(3) Every order, resolution, or vote to which the con- currence of the Senate and House of Eepresentatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and be- fore the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two- thirds of the Senate And House of Eepresentatives, ac- cording to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill." Neither the Constitution nor any act of Congress im- poses upon the President the duty of ajBBxing a date to his signature to a bill. Gardner v. The Collector, 6 Wall., 499, 506. 24 COl^STITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, THE POWER OF COIS^GEESS DUTIES AND IMPOSTS. Section 8. "The Congress shall have power (1) to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; (2) "But all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uni- form throughout the United States." (1) The question arose under this power upon the Statute of 1794 (1 U. S. Stats, at L., 373) by which Congress laid a tax upon carriages for the conveyance of persons. The country was then poor. The owners of carriages, a small number comparatively, were com- pelled to pay quite an onerous tax on these articles of luxur^^. Hylton was, as appears, a manufacturer of carriages and had 125 for sale. A tax was levied on them. The case came before the Supreme Court on the question whether the tax was direct tax or a duty. The court agreed that it was not a direct tax. Hylton V. U. S., 3 Dallas, 171. (2) The case of McCuUoch v. State of Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316, is one of the most important decisions made by the Supreme Court. The Congress had estab- lished and chartered the United States Bank. This was the object of much opposition of a political char- acter. The bank had established a branch bank in Maryland, where it was doing business under its Fed- eral charter. Many denied the power of Congress to Sec. 8.] TAXES, DUTIES AND IMPOSTS. 25 grant such a charter. The Maryland legislature passed a law taxing heavily the circulation of all banks and branches thereof doing business in the State, and chartered otherwise than by State authority. The suit was brought by the State to recover in debt the penal- ties imposed. The highest court of Maryland decided the State law valid, and the case came on writ of error from that court to the Supreme Court. The tax im- posed was so onerous that the evident intent of the law was to drive the branch bank out of the State. The great turning point in the argument of this case was whether the Congress had the power to charter such a bank. The Chief Justice's opinion, in which all the- court concurred, is one of the great leading cases on Constitutional law. It lays down the doctrine of im- plied powers of the government derived from the power to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, etc. The argu- ment or reasoning of the opinion may be stated thus : (a) The government is not a creature of the State, but of the people. (b) Its general powers include those of levying taxes, borrowing money, etc., etc. (c) To exercise these powers it may establish a fis- cal system, select its own agencies, and to carry out. these powers it derives from the Constitution all inci- dental powers necessary, in the judgment of Congress^ for that purpose. (d) A bank is a proper agency to carry out the pow- ers of the government in its fiscal policy. It is a meana 26 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, appropriate and plainly adapted and not inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution ; and Con- gress may charter such a bank. (3) The power of Congress to levy taxes is not con- fined to the State, but is co-extensive with the territory of the United States. (4) But the State can tax the real property of a United States bank in common with other real property of the bank. J (5) The bank and its issues of currency being a necessary and proper agency of the Federal govern- ment, the State legislatures can not tax them for the power to tax is the power to destroy by burdensome or exhaustive taxation. If the State can tax at all it caii tax put of existence. If it can tax one agency of the Federal government it can tax another, and thus crip- ple the general government by destroying its agencies and means of exercising its powers. (6) The State law, therefore, which taxed the circu- lation of the branch of the United States bank was un- constitutional and void. This decision more effectually than any other single decision established the Federal government, put an €nd to the State rights opinions then too prevalent that the States could thwart and cripple, under pretence of co-ordinate sovereignty, the sovereign power of the United States. It is followed in Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat., Y38. Then followed the decision that stock issued for Sec. 8.] TAXES, DUTIES AND IMPOSTS. 27 loans to the government of the United States is not lia- l)le to taxation by a State or by municipal authority, under State law. All resting on the principle of Mc- Culloch V. Maryland, that the states could not tax the agencies or instrumentalities by which the Federal gov- ernment derived their revenues. Weston v. Charles- ton, 2 Peters, 449. After the Civil War had strained to the utmost the resources of the nation and compelled it to issue United States treasury notes, or "greenbacks," it was decided that they could not be taxed by State authority. If a man at time of assessment of taxes, had $100,000 in U. S. treasury notes, they could not be taxed, for the power to tax implies the power to destroy, and a hostile State might have taxed them so heavily as to destroy their value and impair their efficacy as a cir- culating medium. Mitchell v. Leavensworth Co., 91 U. S., 206. In this case, the plaintiff converted his bank balance into treasury notes on the day as of which assessment was made. He filed a bill to restrain the collection of the tax, but as his conduct was inequitable equity refused to aid him. On the same principle certificates of indebtedness issued by the United States can not be taxed by the States. The Banks v. The Mayor, 7 Wall., 16, 26. The United States was obliged to issue vast amounts of bonds to carry on the war for the Union. It was desired that people of capital should take these bonds 28 CONSTITUTION^ OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. 1, and lend their money to the government. The policy was to enlist to the support of the governmefnt the capital of the country, as well as its patriotic senti- ment. The bonds thus taken and held by holders resi- dent in the United States were in a series of decisions held to be exempt from State taxation. Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall., 594 ; jSTew York v. Com'rs of Taxes, 3 Black, 620; \^Bank Tax Case," 2 Wall., 200; Provident Ins. v. Mass., 6 Wall., 611. The Supreme Court went further and held that capital stock of a corporation, if that stock consisted in public securities^ was exempt. Prov. Ins. v. Mass., 6 Wall., 611. Thus, where an insurance corporation had as its capital stock a large block of United States bonds, though it could not tax the bonds as bonds, the State undertook to tax them as capital stock, thus doing indirectly what it was forbidden to do directly. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the public credit in what might be termed the judicial war to uphold the Union against the loyal States. They insisted on the right to- tax the property represented by the obligations of the government in various forms owed to its citizens. The Supreme Court denied this power as repugnant to the powers of the general government, for if the right ta tax exists at all it is a right "that acknowledges no limits." It is the power to take all as well as a part. We shall consider later the subject of the !N"ational Banks, and the cases that arose under the law creating and regulating them. See post^ p. 36. Sec. 8.] TAXES, DUTIES AIs'D IMPOSTS. 29 The uniformity required by the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 8) is not an intrinsic uniformity relating to the inherent character of the tax as respects its operation in individuals, but is merely a geographical uniform- ity. It means that the same plan and method must be operative throughout the United States. Knowlton V. Moore, 179 U. S., . Bight of States to tax salaries of the officers of the United States, etc. — The question arose quite early whether an officer of the United States could be taxed for his salary. The Supreme Court held that, when a State law acts upon the instruments, emoluments, and persons, which the United States may use and employ, it is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land. Dobbins v. Erie Co., 16 Pet., 435. Officers may distrain and sell property to collect taxes. — In the exercise of its power "to levy and col- lect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," Congress may, to enforce payment of taxes so levied, authorize the dis- traint and sale of either real or personal property. This is not depriving the owner of his property without due process of law. Springer v. U. S., 102 U. S., 586. In this case A's lands were levied on and sold because he would not pay his income tax, he having no leviable goods the marshal could find, the officer sold his entire lots including homestead. Held, That the sale was regular, though by a State law the homestead would be sold separately and last. 30 CONSTITUTIOJS' OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, Tax on distiller s output construed and upheld as ex- cise tax and constitutional. U. S. v. Singer, 15 Wall.^ 111. Tax on foreign-held bonds. — A railroad company of Pennsylvania issued a large amount of l)onds. They were held largely in foreign countries. The State leg- islature thought it an easy way to raise State revenue to tax the honds and require the railroad treasurer to pay into the State treasury 5 per cent, of the interest which accrued on these bonds. In the case of R. R. Co. V. Penn., 15 Wall., 300, it was held that this law was void. The indebtedness owned by the railroad company was not property in the State of Pennsyl- vania. The property was where the bond was held. By a divided court the tax was held invalid. It im- paired the obligation of the contract, and the real point is that it attempts to tax within a State property that is beyond its borders and outside of its jurisdiction. The United States can tax in such cases. — But while the power was denied to the States to tax the interest on. railroad bonds, the United States can impose such taxes. U. S. v. R. R Co., 17 Wall., 322. The States can tax the property of a railroad com- pany chartered by the United States; but it can not tax its operations. R. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall., 5. Taxing railroads, and their franchises. — Congress can make contracts with individuals, or corporations, for services to th^ government, and may exempt in Sec. 8.] TAXES, DUTIES AND IMPOSTS. 31 discretion the agencies employed in such service from State taxation which will impede the performance of the service; but in the absence of positive legislation prohibiting such taxation States may tax the property of such class in such service. Thomson v. R. R. Co., 9 Wall., 579. This case involved the taxation by State authority of the Union Pacific and other rail- roads and by the United States. Taxing the notes of State hanhs. — The Act of July 13, 1866 (14 Stat, at L., 146), required every ISTational bank, State bank or State banking association to pay a tax of 10 per cent, on all notes of State banks paid out by it. This law was intended to drive State bank notes out of circulation and force the bankers to or- ganize as ISTational banks, or at least give National banks and U. S. Treasury notes the whole field of cir- culation. It was held, as before noted, that this was a legitimate mode of Federal taxation and not a direct tax. Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall., 533. This case arose in this way. The bank paid out State bank notes. On these the Federal authorities assessed the 10 per cent, tax and were about to make a distraint to collect. The bank paid under protest and then sued to get back the money, on the claim that the law imposing the tax was unconstitutional. Tax on salaries of State officers. — In the stress of the war Congress taxed everything it could "lay hands on." One statute (June 30, 1864, 13 Stat, at L., 281) 32 COIS^STITUTION OF UN^ITED STATES. [Art. I, provided a tax upon gains, profits and income of every person, residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interests, dividends or salaries or from any profession, trade or employ- ment. The tax was 5 per cent, on all over $1,000. Judge Day paid the tax under protest and sued to col- lect or to recover back the money. The Supreme Court held that it was incompetent to levy a tax upon a ju- dicial officer of a State. The case followed Dobbins v. Erie Co., 16 Pet., 435, and held that it was not within the power of Congress to cripple the State governments by taxing salaries; because, if so, Congress could take all the salaries and thus break down the State adminis- tration. Collector v. Day, 11 Wall., 113. State taxation of franchises granted hy Congress. — A statute of California provided for taxing the prop- erty and also the franchise of the railroad companies, which had been conferred by the United States. The court held that the taxing of franchises conferred by the United States was repugnant to the Constitution and void. California v. E. K. Co., 127 U. S., 1. License tax cases. — An interesting question arose, when the Act of June 30, 1864 (13 Stats, at L., 223) required retail liquor dealers to pay a license tax to the United States, as a means of raising revenue. Penal- ties were imposed for failure to take out such license. This law was questioned as imposing a tax and grant- ing a license to do things which the State laws had in Sec. 8.] TAXES, DUTIES AND IMPOSTS. 33 some of the States forbidden. It was held, however, by the Supreme Court that : (1) Where the State laws permitted such sale of liquors (and lottery tickets) the United States could impose a special tax. (2) Where the States did not permit such sales, the [Federal law could not override the State law, by levy- ing such tax and that paying such Federal tax did not legalize the business. (3) The power of the Federal government to tax a licensed business, does not impair the power of the State to control and regulate any business wholly within its boundaries. License Tax Cases, 5 Wall., 462. (4) A man indicted for selling liquor contrary to State law can not plead as a bar that he had paid a li- cense tax to the government. Id. (5) That States may regulate or forbid the sale of intoxicating liquors within their respective borders. Pervear v. Com. of Mass., 5 Wall., 475. Regulation of pilots and pilotage. — The State of Pennsylvania passed a law regulating pilots and pilot- age, requiring every vessel arriving from or bound to any^ foreign port or place to receive a pilot, pay fees there* for, under penalty, and to pay half pilot fees to a so- ciety for the relief of old and decayed pilots, etc. This law was held not void, as the grant of power to 3 34 COISrSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, regulate commerce did not prevent the State from regu- lating pilots. Such State regulations may be made, without conflict with the power of Congress, where Con- gress has not prescribed otherwise. Cooley v. Wardens of Port of Philadelphia, 12 How., 299. See post, p. 51. POWER TO BORROW MONEY. The Congress shall have power, * * * "To borrow money on the credit of the United States." Notes. — "This power," says Story, "seems indis- pensable to the sovereignty and existence of a N^ational government." Story on Const, 5th Ed., Sec. 1054. Federal decisions hearing on the power to borrow money. — (1) This power to borrow money i% entirely beyond the interference, legislation and dominion of the States. Hence, the State can not tax the security by which the debt is evidenced. Bank Tax Cases, 2 Wall., 200. It was here held that a law levying a tax on the valuation of the capital stock paid in, when that stock or property consisted in stocks of the United States, is void. The granting of this power is incom- patible with any restraining or controlling power; and the declaration of supremacy in the Constitution is a declaration that no such restraining or controlling Sec. 8.] POWER TO BORROW MONEY. 35 power exists. A tax on stock of the United States held by an individual citizen of a State is a tax upon the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States and can not be levied by a State. Weston v. City Council, 2 Pet., 449. , (2) In issuing the bonds of the Federal government they were "exempt from taxation by or under State authority." (Act June 3, 1864.) But the act provid- ing K^ational currency and for IsTational banks, pro- vided that the shares of stock in such bank might be taxed by the States (See K. S., U. S., Sec. 5219) un- der certain limitations. The statute of New York (Mar. 9, 1865) attempted to tax the shares of N'ational banks, where it provided no taxation on the shares of stock in State banks. This was held void as it taxed the shares of stock in ]^ational banks differently from what other bank shares were taxed. This was repugnant to the 41st section of the J^ational banking law which pro- vided that the tax imposed under the laws of any State upon such shares "shall not exceed the rate imposed upon the shares in any of the banks organized under the authority of the State, where such association is located." Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall., 573. (3) The State of J^ew York then tried to adapt its laws to harmonize with the Federal law so as to tax Na- tional bank shares "but not at greater rate than is as- sessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of in- dividuals in this State." The majority opinion of the 36 COIS-STITUTIOlSr OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, Supreme Court held this law to be valid. People v. Commissioners, 4 Wall., 244. The tax on the shares of the stockholders is not the same thing as the tax upon the capital of a bank. Where a State law taxes the shares in a National bank but does not tax the shares but the capital of State banks the law is void. Affirming Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall., 573 ; Bradley v. People, 4 Wall., 459. (4) Certificates of indebtedness issued by the gov- ernment for supplies, can not be taxed by States ; such taxation is an interference with the power to borrow money, etc. Banks v. Mayor, 7 Wall., 16. (5) United State's treasury notes are obligations of the government and can not be taxed by the States. Banks V. Supervisors, 7 Wall., 27. Power of Congress to make the Treasury notes legal tender. — It was held in Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wall., 603 (decided in 1869), that the legal tender acts passed during the war, were unconstitutional. This opinion was given by Chief Justice Chase, the man who as Sec- retary of the Treasury had brought forward the legal tender scheme. But this decision threatened such dire disaster to the business interests of the country that, after the personnel of the court had been changed by death and new appointments, the question was raised again and solemnly argued in 1870 ; and it was held in Knox V. Lee (Legal Tender Cases), 12 Wall., 467, that the legal tender acts were constitutional; and applied Sec. 8.] REGULATIOI^ OF COMMERCE. 37 to contracts made before their passage as well as after. In this opinion the Court lay much stress on its being a "war power/' as if justified only by the dire necessi- ties of the nation's struggle for its life. But later in Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U. S., 421, it was held that this power to make United States Legal Tender 'Notes legal tender for private debts could be constitutionally exercised as well in time of peace as of war. These de- cisions have been much criticised by many of the ablest lawyers ; but it is not likely that the court will ever oscillate back to the other and earlier view. Tax on telegraph messages. — No State can impose a tax upon telegraph messages sent into or out of the State, or upon the receipts therefrom, nor on a gross amount which includes such receipts, as this is a reg- ulation of commerce. Western Union Telegraph Com- pany V. Alabama, 132 U. S., 472. KEGULATIOIT OF COMMERCE. The Congress shall have power. •X- * * "To regulate oommerce with foreign nations, and among the several States." "This power is vital to the prosperity of the Union; and without it the government would scarcely deserve the name of a National government. It would stand 38 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, as a mere shadow of sovereignty, to mock our hopes and involve us in a common ruin." Story on Const., 5 Ed., sec. 1057. What is meant hy commerce? — This term means traffic ; but it is something more ; it is intercourse. It comprehends navigation, and the laws regulating navi- gation are founded on the power to regulate commerce. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., 189. The great leading case on this subject is Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., 189. The facts out of which the case arose are these : The legislature of -N^ew York granted to Livingston and Fulton the exclusive navigation of all of the waters within the jurisdiction of that State, with boats propelled by fire or steam, for a term of years, and authorized the Chancellor to restrain by in- junction any person from navigating those waters with such boats. Livingston and Fulton assigned to Ogden their right to navigate the waters between places in "New Jersey and the city of 'New York. Gibbons had two steamers and ran on the lines granted to Ogden by Livingston and Fulton. The Chancellor enjoined Gib- bons from this violation of Ogden's exclusive right. From the decision affirming the Chancellor's decision, by the Court of Errors of New York (17 Johns., 486) Gibbons carried the case by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States. Here was a clear question raised, — the power to regulate commerce by the State as against the power to regulate commerce by the Con- Sec. 8.] REGULATION OF COMMERCE. 39 gress. The Court held: (1) That the power to regu- late commerce was exclusive of any concurrent power in the State, when Congress exercised its power, how- ever, it might be as to the State regulations in the ab- sence of actual exercise of the power by Congress. (2) That such power of Congress does not stop at the external boundary of a State. (3) That the law o£ !N'ew York granting this exclusive right was inopera* tive as against the laws of the United States; and that the !N'ew York Chancellor could not enjoin Gibbons from plying his vessels. Commerce includes an intercourse of persons as well as merchandise. Passenger Cases, 7 How., 283. The poiuer to regulate commerce with foreign no- tions. — What is meant by "regulate'' ? The power to regulate is the power to prescribe the rule by which commerce is governed. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., 196. It is to prescribe the conditions on which it shall be conducted. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S., 196. It includes navigation, and the power to pass navigation laws (Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., 190, 191) both on the ocean and within the limits of every State, so ,f ar as it is commerce among the States or with the Indian tribes (Id., 1), and control of all navigable waters in a State which are accessible from any other State. Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall., T13. Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How., 292, 315, 316. 40 COIS'STITUTION OF UlS^ITED STATES. [Art. I, It comprehends the power to impose an embargo. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat, 191, 192. Passenger cases. Right of the State to regulate head money. — The statute ,of ^N'ew York, which im- posed a penalty upon the master of a vessel arriving from a foreign port, who neglected to report to the mayor or recorder an account of his passengers, giving names, ages, place of birth, last legal settlement and occupation was held not a regulation of commerce, but a police regulation, and not contrary to the Federal Constitution. City of 'New York v. Miln, 11 Pet., 102. A statute of jSTew York, which required the masters of vessels to pay a certain sum to a State officer, on ac- count of every passenger brought from a foreign coun- try into the State or before landing any alien passen- gers is void. It interferes with commerce and inter- course. Passenger Cases, 7 How., 286. The decision in the case of :N'ew York City v. Miln, 11 Pet., 102, to the effect that the States might regulate commerce where the Congress had not acted upon the matter was regarded as a dangerous doctrine. Judge Story strongly dissented and expressed grave fears at the ten- dency of the Court, under its changed personality, to overturn the work of Marshall and his associates. But in the Passenger Cases, 7 How., 283, the ground was by a majority of the Court abandoned. The Court in later decisions held that the regulation of foreign and Sec. 8.] REGULATION OF COMMERCE. 41 interstate commerce is exclusively within the control of Congress and that;no State can attempt a regulation of such commerce, even though there be no law of Con- gress with which it might conflict. Wabash, etc., Co. V. Illinois, 118 U. S., 557; Fargo v. Michigan, 121 U. S., 230. The doctrine of these cases (7 How., 283) has been affirmed in Crandall v. ^N'evada, 6 Wall., 40 ; State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall., 213; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall., 163; State Freight Tax Cases, 15 Wall., 275 ; Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall., 475 ; Hen- derson V. 'New York, 92 U. S., 269 ; Kailroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S., 465; Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U. S., 516; Cook V. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S., 571 ; Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S., 465; People v. Compagnie Gen. Transatlantique, 107 U. S., 59 ; Walling v. Mich., 116 U. S., 455; Bobbins v. Shelby Taxing Dist, 120 U. S., 493; Bowman V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 125 U. S., 492 ; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S., 147. These cases are all cited in these notes and the point of each given. See also E'otes to U. S. Eeports, Vol. 4, p. 709, et seq. 1. The case of City of iS^ew York v. Miln, 11 Pet., 102, decided no more than that the requirement that a master of a vessel should furnish a catalogue of the passengers, with a description of names, ages, occupa- tions and places of birth and last legal settlement was a police regulation. 2. But the imposition of a tax on each passenger landed is not such a police regulation, but an invasion, of the power of Congtess to regulate commerce. 42 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, 3. Where the State law imposes an almost impossi- ble condition on the ship master ag a prerequisite to landing passengers, withe the alternative of paying a small sum of money for each one of them, this is a reg- ulation of commerce which the State has no power to make, whatever it may be called. 4. l^or does it help the State law that the penalty it imposes does not accrue until 24 hours after the arrival of the vessel. Passenger Cases, 7 How., 286. The power of Congress extends to acts done on land which interfere with or obstruct commerce or naviga- * tion with foreign nations and among the States, and it may pass laws punishing theft of goods belonging to vessels in distress, though the goods may be above high water mark on the land. 4 Stat, at L., 116. Held, SL valid law in United States v. Combs, 12 Pet., 72. The power to regulate commerce granted to Con- gress is not confined to the instrumentalities known and used at the time of its adoption, but ke6ps pace with the progress of the country and the new develop- ments. The Act of Florida, 1866, granting to the Pensacola Telegraph Co. exclusive right to maintain lines of electric telegraph is in conflict with the Act of Congress, July 24, 1866 (14 Stat., 221, K. S., sec. 5263, et seq.), entitled, "An act to aid in construction of Telegraph Lines and secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military and other pur- poses," and is void. It also conflicts with the power of Sec. 8.] REGULATIOI^ OF COMMERCE. 43 Congress to establish post roads. Pensacola Tele- graph Co. V. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S., 1. Congress may regulate immigration, — The act which imposes upon owners of vessels, who shall bring pas- sengers, not citizens of this country, a duty for each passenger is a valid act. Head Money Cases, 112 U. S., 680. Powers of Congress over commerce. — In executing the power to regulate commerce Congress may employ as instrumentalities, corporations created by it or by the States and may sanction the taking of private prop- erty for the use of such corporation for right of way. Cherokee ^tion v. So. Kans. K'y, 135 U. S., 641. While Congress may contract with individuals and corporations for services to the government ; may grant aids by money or land, etc., and exempt from State tax- ation, when Congress deems it necessary, the mere fact that a corporation deriving its existence from State law, exercising its franchises under such law and holding its property within State jurisdiction and under State protection, does not exempt it from taxation, unless Congress so declares. Thompson v. Pac. Railroad, 9 Wall., 579. Interstate commerce by sea is of a national charac- ter, and within the exclusive power of Congress, Phila., etc., Co. v. Penn., 122 U. S., 326. Where its power is exclusive, the failure of Congress to make express regulations is an indication of its will 44 COJS^STITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, that the subject shall be free from restrictions. Id. ; Leisj V. Harden, 135 U. S., 100; Bobbins v. Shelby Co. Taxing District, 120 U. S., 489. Interstate commerce can not be taxed at all by a State, even though the same amount of tax should be laid on domestic commerce, or that solely carried on within the State. Bobbins v. Shelby Co. Taxing Dist., 120 U. S., 489. Congress passed a law (9 Stat, at L., 440) that no bill of sale, mortgage, hypothecation or conveyance of a vessel of the United States, or any part of such vessel, should be valid unless recorded in the office of the Col- lector of Customs where registered. Held, a valid act. Whitens Bank v. Smith, 7 Wall., 646. In the absence of any regulation by Congress, the State may establish and regulate works of a local char- acter affecting more or less interstate commerce, such as wharfage rates and regulations. Ouachita, etc., Co. V. Aiken, 121 U. S., 444. State tax on commercial agents or agencies; when void. — An act of Pennsylvania (May 20, 1853, and Apr. 9, 1859) required every auctioneer to collect and pay into the treasury of the State a tax on his sales. This act, so far as it applied to sales of imported goods in the original package, by the auctioneer sold for the importer, is in conflict with sections 8 and 9 of Art. I, of the Constitution of the United States, and it Sec. 8.] REGULATION OF COMMERCE. 45 lays a duty on imports and is a regulation of commerce. Cook V. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S., 566. A tax imposed by a State upon an occupation, which tax necessarily discriminates against the introduction and sale of the products of another State, or against the citizens of another State, is repugnant to the Constitu- tion. So held where an agent employed in the business of soliciting orders for liquors to be shipped into the State from places without it, was taxed in such business at a higher rate than those soliciting for goods, etc., to be sold within the State. This is a restraint upon commerce between the States. Walling v. Michi- gan, 116 U. S., 446. A Tennessee law required that "All drummers and all persons not having a regular licensed house of busi- ness in the taxing district offering for sale or selling goods by sample to pay $10 per week or $25 per month for such privilege," violates the constitutional provision as to regulation of commerce, so far as it af- fects interstate trade. Robbins v. Shelby Taxing Dist., 120 U. S., 489. A similar Maryland statute held void. Corson v. Maryland, 120 U. S., 502. A State law exacting a license tax to enable a person within the State to solicit orders and make sales for a person residing in another State is repugnant to the commerce regulation clause of the Federal Constitu- tion. Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S., 129. A liceaise imposed by California upon an agency es- 46 CONSTITUTION or united states. [Art. I, tablished in San Francisco, by a railroad company, to induce passengers to take that company's route to !N'ew York, is unconstitutional as a tax upon interstate com- merce, and void. McCall v. Cal., 136 U. S., 104. The act of the legislature of Kentucky which pro- vides that the agent of an express company not incor- porated by the laws of that State must first obtain li- cense and satisfy the auditor as to the capital of the company he represents, is a regulation of interstate commerce and so far void. Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S., 47. An ordinance requiring agents soliciting orders on behalf of manufacturers of goods to take out a license and pay a tax therefor, under authority conferred by a statute granting such power to the municipal corpora- tion, is an exercise of the taxing power, and not the po- lice power, and when enforced against an agent sent by a manufacturer in another State to solicit orders for the products of his manufactory it imposes a tax upon interstate commerce, in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S., 289. A municipal ordinance of ^ew Orleans to establish a rate of license for professions, callings and other business attempted to charge and collect a license tax on persons owning and running tow-boats to and from the Gulf of Mexico and the city of 'New Orleans. Held, a regulation of commerce, and infringing the Constitu- Sec. 8.] REGULATION OF COMMERCE. 47 tion of the United States. Moran v. "New Orleans, 112 U. S., 69. The license tax imposed on companies doing busi- ness in Florida applies, as construed bj the Supreme Court of that State, to business within the State, and not to interstate business, and is valid. Osborne v. Florida, 164 U. S., 650. A State license tax on factors, brokers, buyers or sellers on commission, held to affect interstate com- merce so remotely as not to amount to a regulation of » A ■■■■ THK ( SRSIT 50 CONSTITUTION- OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, eign cominerce. F. May & Co. v. ;N"ew Orleans, 178 U. S., 496. Power of Congress, how far exclusive. — The grant of the commercial power to Congress does not expressly ' exclude the States from exercising authority. If they are excluded it is (1) because the nature of the power is such that the grant of power to Congress requires that a similar power should not exist in the States, or (2) because Congress has so exercised the power that state exercise would be incompatible. Cooley v. War- dens of Philadelphia, 12 How., 299. (3) When the subjects on which it is exercised are national in charac- ter and require uniformity, the power of Congress is exclusive. (4) When the subjects are local in their na- ture or operate or constitute aids to commerce, the State may provide for their proper regulation and man- ^agement until Congress acts and supersedes State ac- tion. Cardwell v. Am. Bridge Co., 113 IT. S., 205; Ferry Co. v. Penn., 114 U. S., 196 ; Brown v. Houston, 114 IT. S., 622. (5) When a law of a state imposes a license tax on boats under such circumstances and with such effect as to amount to a regulation of com- merce it is void on that account. Moran v. "New Or- leans, 112 IT. S., 69. (6) When a pilot is licensed un- der the laws of the United States, the State law can not compel a vessel having such a pilot to take a State pilot under R. S., sec. 4237, which enacts that no State shall make any regulations which shall make any discrimin- Sec. 8.] INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 51 ation in the trade of pilotage or lialf -pilotage between vessels sailing between the ports of different States. Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S., 90. The power to regulate between the States includes a control of the electric telegraph as an agency of com- merce. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co., 96 U. S., 1 ; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S., 460. The Act of Congress of July 24, 1866, giving telegraph companies the right to run their lines along post roads, etc., on ac- cepting certain terms prescribed by K. S., Sees. 5263-9, makes each company an agent of the government, so far as its business is concerned. Id. A State law, requir- ing the delivery of interstate messages to addressees, one mile distant from the office, is void. W. U. Tel. Co. V. Pendleton, 122 U. S., 347. State legislation which would impose a direct burden upon interstate commerce or interfere with its free- dom by direct means, encroaches upon the exclusive power of Congress. Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S., 485. The power of Congress over commerce is in no wise restricted by State authority. Pembina, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S., 181. INSTANCES OF CONSTITUTIONAL STATE TAXATION OF COE* PORATE FRANCHISES, PROPERTY, GROSS RECEIPTS, ETC., USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. The constitutional limitation of the power of Con- gress over commerce, "to regulate commerce among 52 CONSTITUTIOI^ OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. I, the several States/' etc., necessarily excludes from Fed- eral control all that commerce which is carried on en- tirely within the limits of a State, and does not affect or extend to other States. But a steamer employed in transporting goods on Grand river, in Michigan, des- tined for other States, and goods brought from outside the State destined to places in the State was engaged in commerce between the States and subject to Con- gressional regulation. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall., 557. Taxation on gross earnings within State, held legal in Dakota, act of 1883. McHenry v. Alford, 168 U. S., 651. A State law requiring an annual tax to be paid for privilege of exercising its franchises determined by the proportion which its gross receipts in the State bear to the whole receipts, to be ascertained as the statute re- quires, is valid. Maine v. Grand Trunk R'y Co., 142 U. S., 21Y. Taxation on basis of proportional value of franchise, etc. — The statute of Massachusetts (Pub. St., c. 13, Sees. 40, 43) requiring a telegraph company owning a line of telegraph within the State to pay to the State Treas- urer a tax upon its corporate franchises at a valuation equal to the aggregate value of the shares in its capital stock, deducting such portion of that valuation as is proportional to the length of its lines without the State, and deducting also an amount equal to the value of its Sec. 8.] INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 63 real estate and machinery subject to local taxation within the State, is valid, as applied to a telegraph company incorporated by another State, and which had accepted the rights conferred by Congress by Sec. 5263, E. S. U. S. Mass. v. West. Un. Tel. Co., 141 U. S., 40. Although the transportation of the subjects of inter- state commerce or the receipts therefrom, or the occu- pation or business of carrying it on can not directly be subjected to State taxation, yet property belonging to corporations or companies engaged in such commerce may be taxed by States ; and whatever the form of the exaction, if it is essentially only property taxation, it will not fall within the inhibition of the Constitution. Adams Ex. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S., 194. In this case the property of the company within the State was taxed, and in fixing its value it was assessed proportionately to the value of the entire property of the express company, the proportion being fairly as- certained. Unity of use is an element of value, the same as in estimating value of a railway property in several States. A State statute imposing a tax on the capital stock of all corporations engaged in the transportation of freight and passengers, within such State, under which a corporation of another State engaged in running rail- road cars into, through and out of such State and hav- ing at all times a large number of such cars in the State, taxed by taking as the basis of assessment such 54 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, proportion of its capital stock as the number of miles of railroad in the State bear to the whole number of miles over which the cars are run, does not as applied to such a corporation, conflict with the commerce clause of the Constitution. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Penn- sylvania, 141 U. S., 18 ; Same v. Hayward, id., 36. The statute of a State (Indiana, Laws, 1893, c. 171) required a telegraph company to pay a tax upon its property within the State valued at such a proportion of the whole value of its capital stock as the length of its lines within the State bears to its lines every where, deducting a sum equal to the value of the real estate, held valid. West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S., 1. A State privilege tax on each mile of wire within the State, imposed on all telegraph companies therein in lieu of other taxes, being a tax on property and not on interstate commerce, is valid. Tel., etc., Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S., 688. A city ordinance imposing a license on business done by a telegraph company exclusively in the city, and ex- cluding business done for the government and to and from points outside of the State, is an exercise of the police power, not an interference with interstate com- merce. Postal Tel. Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S., 692. Tax upon corporate franchises. — The statute of 'New York, requiring every corporation, joint-stock com- pany, or association organized under the laws of that Sec. 8.] II^TERSTATE COMMEECE. 55 State or other States or countries doing business in that State, except banks, etc., to pay a tax upon its fran- chise or business annually, as construed by the highest Court in that State is held not repugnant to the Fed- eral Constitution. ISTew York v. Eoberts, 171 U. S., 658. A tax on franchises of a foreign mining corporation, etc., to be ascertained upon a percentage of its whole capital stock, ascertained as the statute prescribes, held valid. Horn Silver Mining Co. v. New York, 143 U. S., 305. An act of 'New York fixing rate of elevator charges, held valid. Budd v. New York, 143 U. S., 517, ad- hering to Munn v. Illinois, 94 TJ. S., 113, and explain- ing Chic, etc., E'y Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S., 418. A corporation created by one State can exercise its corporate functions in another State only by the comity; of the latter, and may be taxed for the privilege of do- ing business therein. Ins. Co. v. Mass., 10 Wall., 566. A stipulation in a charter that the company shall pay the State granting the charter a bonus of some of its earnings is not an interference with interstate com- merce ; nor is it the imposition of a tax or impost on the same, nor a discrimination against the citizens of other States. E. E. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall., 456. « Internal commerce is under State control, and to encourage the growth of such commerce of the State, it may provide for deepening channels, removing 56 COIfSTITUTIOl!^ OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. I, obstructions, regulate the water flow, and improve them in other ways, and levy a general tax or toll upon those who use the streams to meet the cost of such improve- ment, providing the free navigation of the waters, as per- mitted under and by the laws of the United States, is not impaired, and provided, also, that any system for the improvement of their navigation, adopted by the general government, is not defeated. Sands v. Manis- tee Eiv. Imp. Co., 123 U. S., 288. INSTANCES OF TJNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LAWS, WHICH INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Unconstitutional taxation of interstate commerce or of the receipts therefrom or instrumentalities thereof. (a) State tax on gross receipts of railroads for busi- ness in interstate commerce, void. Michigan levied a tax on the gross receipts of railroads for the carriage of freights and passengers into, out of, or through the State. Held, a tax on interstate commerce and there- fore void. Fargo v. Michigan, 121 U. S., 231. (b) A state tax on gross receipts of a railroad com- pany is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, even though such gross receipts are made up in part from freights received from interstate commerce. The court distinguishes between a tax on the freight and a tax on the fruits of such carriage Sec. 8.] INTERSTATE COMMEECE. 57 after it has been commingled with other property. State Tax on Eailway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall., 284. (c) A State tax upon the gross receipts of steamship company incorporated under the laws, which receipts are derived from the transportation of persons and property by sea between different States and to foreign countries is void, as a regulation of interstate and for- eign commerce. Philadelphia, etc., Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S., 326. (d) Special tax on railroad and stage companies for €very passenger carried out of the State, is a tax on travel from State to State, and as a regulation of com- merce void when Congress has acted on the subject. 6 Wall., 35. And is void as an obstruction to citizens traveling, etc., and doing business for the United States. Crandall v. ISTevada, 6 Wall., 35. (e) A railroad, which as a link of a through line Tunning into other States, is engaged in interstate com- merce and a tax imposed for the privilege of keeping an office in the State for the use of its officers, etc., is a tax upon commerce among the States and as such re- pugnant to the Constitution. Norfolk & Western Wj €o. V. Pennsylvania, 136 U. S., 114. (f ) A law of Illinois was held void as operating to affect the rates for interstate transportation. Wabash^ etc., Wj Co. V. Illinois, 118 U. S., 557. This statute attempted to make the charges for "long hauls" and ^'short hauls" proportionate to the distance of the haul. 58 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I,. and, as construed by the Illinois court, it applied to transportation beyond the State. Thus construed it ap- plied to and interfered with interstate commerce. It also applied the same rule to passenger rates. (g) Sleeping car tax. — The legislature of Tennessee passed in 1877 a law which imposed a privilege tax of $50 per annum on every sleeping car used or run over a railroad in Tennessee, not owned by the railroad on- which it is run or used. This was, held void so far as it applied to interstate transportation of passengers. Pickard v. Pullman So. Car Co., 117 U. S., 34. Taxation of railroads and other transportation com- panies by the State. — Various attempts have been made by the States to tax railroad and other transportation companies. The State of Pennsylvania in 1864 at- tempted to impose a tax upon freight taken up within and carried out of the State, or taken without and brought within it. The highest court of the State sus- tained this tax. The Supreme Court of the United States sent its writ of error to the State court, and re- versed this decision, holding that transportation of freight is a constitutional part of commerce, and that a State tax upon freights transported from State to State is an attempted tax on commerce itself. Whenever the transportation of freight or passengers is taxed by States it can only be as to levies on business entirely within the States. State Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall.^ 232. Sec. 8.] INTEESTATE COMMERCE. 5^ The same principle was early established in Cran- dall V. Nevada, 6 Wall., 35. Nevada sought to tax specially stage companies, etc., for every passenger carried out of the State by stage or railroad. The Su- preme Court held this act void. So in Fargo v. Michi- gan, 121 U. S., 230, a State law of Michigan "went by the board." It was not a tax upon business, but dis- guise it as they would, it was but a tax upon commerce among the States. A statute of Illinois attempted to enact that railroad companies should be liable to a penalty for transport- ing freight or passengers at the same or a greater sum for any distance than they charged for a longer dis- tance. This was held invalid so far as it applied to in- terstate transportation, though valid as to internal com- merce. Wabash, etc., Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S., 657. The Texas statute of May 6, 1882, making it un- lawful for a railroad company in that State to charge and collect a greater sum for transportation of freight than is specified in the bill of lading, is, when applied to freight transported into the State from without it, in conflict with the interstate commerce act, and not ap- plicable to interstate shipments. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co, V. Hefley, 158 U. S., 98. The statute of Mississippi, requiring all railroads carrying passengers in that State (other than street railways) to provide equal but separate accommoda- tions for the white and colored races, does not violate 60 COI^STITUTION OF UIS^ITED STATES. [Art. I, the Federal Constitution, having been construed hj the Supreme Court of the State to apply solely to com- merce within the State, does no violence to the com- merce clause . of the Constitution. Louisville, etc., K'y V. Mississippi, 133 U. S., 587. Taxation of telegraph companies. — The State legis- latures, eager to compel foreign corporations doing business within their respective jurisdictions to bear the burden of running the government, have in several instances tried to tax telegraph companies on the mes- sages they sent. The case came to the Supreme Court first, on the question whether a telegraph line is an in- strumentality of commerce. The State of Florida un- dertook to give to the Pensacola Telegraph Co. an ex- clusive right to maintain telegraph lines in that State. The Congress in 1866 passed a law allowing telegraph <3ompanies to operate lines on any military or post roads or over any of the public domain. The Pensacola Company undertook to enjoin the Western Union from running lines in that State in competition with their exclusive franchise granted by the State. The case came to the Supreme Court, and it was there decided (1) That the power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and to establish post offices and post roads was not confined to the old instrumentalities of commerce known or used when the Constitution was adopted, but keeps pace with the progress of the country, and adapts itself to the Sec. 8.] Iiq^TEKSTATE COMMERCE. 61 new developments of time and circumstances ; (2) That the power to regulate commerce was legitimately exer- cised in extending privileges of the act of 1866 to tele- graph companies; (3) That the law of Florida, as it tended to obstruct and hinder this commerce between the States, was inoperative as against a company which had complied with the Act of Congress, 1866 (R. S., U. S., Sec. 5263, et seq.), and obtained the right to es- tablish its lines along railways and over military and post roads, from private owners. Pensacola Tel. Co. V. W. U. Tel. Co., 96 U. S., 1. See ante, p. 51. This decision fixed the telegraph line as an instru- mentality of interstate commerce. Id. Then followed the case of Telegraph Company v. Texas, 105 U. S., 460, which held that a tax attempted to be imposed by State law, on telegraph messages sent out of Texas, was an illegal interference by the State with interstate commerce, and the law levying it was void as repugnant to the Constitution. It remained for the State of Ohio to attempt to im- pose a tax on telegraph companies in another way. By an act of the legislature a State tax was levied upon all receipts of a telegraph company. As these included receipts from interstate business the law was held to that extent void. Eatterman v. W. U. Tel. Co., 127 U. S., 411. The State of Alabama undertook by State law to em- power a municipal corporation to impose a license tax 62 CONSTITUTION^ OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, on a telegraph companj, and a penalty for not paying it. The agent of the Western Union Telegraph Com- pany was sued for this penalty, as he was instructed to refuse to pay the tax. The case came on writ of er- ror to the Supreme Court of the United States and in 1887 was decided. The Court followed the line of de- cisions already indicated. This general license tax operating on all its business ran counter to the power of Congress ^'to regulate commerce," and as it affected its entire business it was held a void tax. Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S., 641. In Western Union Telegraph Company v. Attorney General, 125 U. S., 530, the State of Massachusetts had a law which required corporations and, among others, telegraph companies to pay certain taxes; and required the attorney general to bring suit to enjoin them from doing business, when in arrear of such taxes. The telegraph company was taxed on its lines operating in that State, the value of which was to be ascertained by comparing the same with the length of the entire lines. The Supreme Court held this act valid as to tax, but void as to the power to enjoin. The Supreme Court carefully distinguishes between the right of the State to tax property within its borders even of a corporation engaged in interstate commerce and the right to tax that commerce. But in St. Louis v. W. U. Tel. Co., 148 U. S., 92 (decided in 1893), the city of St. Louis, by power de- ^SeC. 8.] IN^TERSTATE COMMERCE. 63 rived from its charter, passed an ordinance compelling the telegraph companies to paj an annual tax of $5.00 on every pole "for the privilege of using the streets, al- leys and public places." This was held not to be a li- cense tax but a charge in the nature of a rental and not Tepugnant to the Constitution. A statute of a State which requires a telegraph com- pany to pay a tax upon its property within the State, valued at such a proportion of the whole value of its capital stock, as the length of its lines within the State bears to its entire length of lines everywhere, deducting therefrom the value of its real estate and machinery subject to local taxation within the State, is valid, not- withstanding it does not in terms direct a deduction from the valuation, either for the value of its fran- chises from the United States, or for the value of its real estate, and machinery situated and taxed in other States. So held as to an Indiana statute of 1891, which, as construed by the Supreme Court of that State, makes it the duty of the tax-commissioners to make deductions, on account of the greater proportional value of the company's property outside the State or for any other reason, so as to assess the property within the State at its true cash value. So construed the act is constitutional. West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S., 1. See ante, p. 52. A city ordinance, passed pursuant to State law, re- 64 COI^STITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I^ quired a telegraph company (which had accepted the provisions of the Act of July 24, 1866, c. 230, 14 Stats., 221), to pay a license tax upon business done ex- clusively within the city, not including any business done to or from points outside the State, or business done for the government of the United States or its of- ficers, is a valid exercise of police power and not an in- terference with interstate commerce. Postal Tel. Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S., 692. Property sent from one State to another, on its ar- rival there is then subject to taxation, and subject to the general taxes imposed upon property in that State. Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S., 622. Where goods were imported and a contract for the purchase of cargoes of foreign merchandise before or after the arrival of the vessel in ihe bay of Mobile (which is a part of the port of Mobile and included in it), where by the terms of the contract the goods are not to be at the risk of the purchaser until delivered to him in said bay, do not constitute the purchaser an "im- porter," and the goods so purchased and sold by him though in original packages, may be property sub- jected to taxation by the State. Waring v. Mayor, 8 Wall., 110. Where a railroad within a State is taxed on its gross receipts for tolls and transportation, and among such tolls are rentals paid to it by another company en- gaged in interstate transportation, the law imposing Sec. 8.] INTERSTATE COMMEKCE. 65 such tax is valid. ^N". Y., etc., E'j v. Pennsylvania, 158 U. S., 431. In the case of Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S., 688, the statute of Mississippi imposed a tax against telegraph companies organized under tho laws of other States, according to the miles of wire within the State, in lieu of taxes directly levied on the property. This act did not put an unconstitutional re- straint upon commerce, nor interfere with it. A stipulation in the charter of a railroad company that it shall pay to the State a bonus or portion of it3 earnings is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. B. & O. K. K. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall., 456. A company was chartered by Georgia to do a general forwarding and express business. It had an office in Mobile and there had an express business extending be- yond the limits of Alabama and under the contract so to do. An ordinance of Mobile required a license tax to be paid by such a company. Held, not repugnant to the Constitution. Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall., 479. A tax on account of transportation from one point to another in the same State though passing during transit through part of another State is not a tax upon inter- state commerce, and is valid. Lehigh Valley R'y v. Pennsylvania, 145 U, S., 192. Railway gross receipts taxable. — A statute of a State imposing a tax upon the gross receipts of a railroad company is not a tax on imports or exports nor a regula- 66 COIfSTITUTIOI^ OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, tion of interstate commerce, nor a tax upon interstate transportation. "State Tax on Railway Gross Re- ceipts," 15 Wall., 284. A State statute which levies a tax upon the gross re- ceipts of railroads for the carriage of freight and pas- sengers into, out of, or through the State is a tax upon commerce and therefore void. Fargo v. Michigan, 121 U. S., 230. The State may tax the money actually within the State, after it has passed beyond the stage of compensation for carrying persons or property, as it may tax other money or property within its limits; but a tax specifically upon receipts for carriage of freights and passengers into, out of, or through the State is a tax upon the commerce out of which it arises, and void. Id. A State can not under the guise of taxing business within its borders impose a burden upon commerce among the States. Id. A State tax upon the gross receipts of a steamship company incorporated under its laws, which receipts are derived from the transportation of persons and property by sea, between diiferent States, and to and from foreign countries, amounts to a regulation of in- terstate and foreign commerce and is void. Phila., etc., Steamship Co. v. Penna., 122 U. S., 326. A State tax upon freight, transported from one State to another, is a regulation of commerce among the Sec. 8.] INTEESTATE COMMEKCE. 67 States, and void. State Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall., 232. Right of States to regulate or prohibit the sale of in- toxicating liquors. — A license tax by the State upon dealers in beer and ale bj the cask, which was not man- ufactured in the city imposing such tax, was held not in conflict with either the clause as to regulating com- merce or that protecting the privileges or immunities of citizens of the several States. Downham v. Alexan- dria Council, 10 Wall., 173. The right to sell intoxicating liquors is not one of the privileges and immunities of citizens that States have no power to abridge. Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall., 129. The provisions of the statute of Connecticut, leaving the sale of liquors, etc., to County Commissioners do not conflict with the 14th Amendment. Gray v. Con- necticut, 159 U. S., 74. A State law imposing a tax of 50 cents a gallon on all spirituous liquors brought into the State is con- stitutional where a like tax is imposed on liquors man- ufactured in the State. Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall., 148. But this is qualified by the rule that the State law must not interfere with the right to sell imported liquor in the original cask or package. Thurlow v. Mass., 5 How., 504. The power of regulation of the sale of liquor in a State is subject to State Constitution and statutes. Gi- 68 coxsTiTUTiois^ or united states. [Art. I, ozza V. Tiernan, 148 U. S., 657 ; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S., 1. "No one lias an inherent right to sell intoxicating liquors at retail. Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S., 86. A State law prohibiting the manufacture of intoxi- cating liquors within its limits to be there sold for gen- eral use as a beverage violates no right, privilege, or im- munity secured by the United States Constitution. Id. A corporation incorporated as the Boston Beer com- pany in 1828, by act of the legislature of Massachusetts, was given certain powers and privileges of manufactur- ing corporations granted by an act (1809). That act was repealed in 1829. But it contained a proviso that the legislature might from time to time, on due notice, make further provision and regulations for the management of business of the corporation, or wholly to repeal any act, or part thereof, establishing a corporation. The act of 1869 prohibited the sale of intoxicating and certain malt liquors. Held, (1) That the provisions of the act of 1809, touching the power reserved by the legislature, were adopted in the charter, and part of the contract between the State and the Company. (2) That the contract was not affected by the repeal of the act of 1809. (3) Under the company's charter it had no more rights than individuals had to manufacture and sell malt liquors. Sec. 8.] INTEESTATE COMMERCE. 69 (4) The State can prohibit the sale of such liquors under the police power. The doctrine of Bartemejer v. Iowa, 18 Wall., 129, reaffirmed. Beer Co. v. Mass., 97 U. S., 25. A statute prohibiting the manufacture of intoxi- cating liquors is not invalid as a regulation of com- merce because it does not except from its operation li- quors manufactured for export. Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S., 1. The provisions in the legislation of the State of Texas, respecting the taxation of persons engaged in the sale of spirituous, vinous or malt liquors or medicated bitters do not violate the Federal Constitution. Gi- ozza V. Tiernan, 148 U. S., 657. The ordinary legislation of a State regulating or pro- hibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors is not repug- nant to the Constitution. Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S.,, 205; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall., 129. The mode of prohibition is wholly within the discre- tion of the State legislatures. Carney v. Iowa, 5 Wall., 480 ; Thurlow v. Mass., 5 How., 504. A special license imposed by a city for the privilege of selling beer is not invalid. Downham v. Alexan- dria, 10 Wall., 173. The license under an act of Congress imposed under the excise or revenue law of the United States, does not give the right to keep or sell liquors in violation of the State laws, and is no defense to an indictment un- VO CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, der State law. McGuire v. Mass., 3 Wall., 387; Li- cense Tax Cases, 5 Wall., 462, 480. Original package cases. — A statute of a State pro- hibiting the sale of any intoxicating liquors except for pharmaceutical, medical, chemical, or sacramental pur- poses, etc., as applied to a sale by the importer and in the original package or kegs, unbroken and unopened, if such liquors manufactured and brought in from an- other State, is unconstitutional and void, as repugnant to the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S., 100, followed in Lyng v. Mich., id., 161. The act of August 8, 1896 (26 Stat, 315, c. 728), which enacts that "all fermented, distilled or other in- toxicating liquors or liquors transported into any State or Territory, or remaining therein for use, consump- tion, sale, or storage therein, shall upon arrival in such State or Territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted under its police powers, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced in original packages or otherwise," is valid. In re Eahrer, 140 U. S., 545. But retrospective operation is not given to the act. Id. iN'or was it necessary to re-enact the State law af- ter the passage of that Act of Congress. Id. The South Carolina Dispensary law. — The "Dispen- sary law of South Carolina" held invalid. It recog- nized liquors as commodities which might be bought Sec. 8.] INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Yl and sold, and therefore must be deemed to be the sub- ject of foreign and interstate commerce, and obstructs and interferes with it, and to that extent stands con- demned. Scott V. Donald, 165 U. S., 58. INSTANCES WHERE STATE LAWS ARE VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWERS, THOUGH REMOTELY OR INCIDENT- ALLY AFFECTING COMMERCE. 1. Wharfage may he charged hy a city which owns and maintains improved wharves at its own expense. This is not an interference with the power of Congress; to regulate commerce. Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S., 80; Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S., 423; Oua- chita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S., 444. Acts of States regulating pilotage are in view of acts of Congress recognizing and adopting them, to be deemed constitutionally made till Congress supersedes them by its own acts. Ex parte Mcl^iel, 13 Wall., 236. The pilot laws of 'New York held not to conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Ex parte Mc- l^iel, 13 Wall., 236, and Cooley v. Wardens, etc., 12 How., 299, reaffirmed. Wilson v. McJSTamee, 102 U. S., 572. The statute of Minnesota requiring railway com- panies to fence their roads is a police regulation and does not deny equal protection of the laws. Minne- apolis, etc., K'y v. Emmons, 149 U. S., 364. T2 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, Fee for filing articles of consolidation, amounting to a percentage on the entire authorized stock, is not a tax on interstate commerce. Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S., 436. Grain elevators — States may regulate charges. — 1, The business of elevating grain is one charged with a public interest, analogous to that of common carriers, and it may be regulated and rates for elevating and storing fixed by State laws for the public good. Budd V. ISTew York, 143 U. S., 517. 2. And this is so, notwithstanding such elevators are used as instruments by those engaged in interstate com- merce, and until Congress acts in relation to these in- terstate relations such State regulations can be en- forced, even though they may indirectly operate upon commerce beyond the State jurisdiction. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113. B. Owners of elevators are not deprived of the equal protection of the laws by such regulations (Brass v. Stoeser, 153 U. S., 391), nor, of property without due process of law (Budd v. l^ew York, 143 U. S., 517), at least where the charges are not shown to be unreason- able. (Id.) See post, pp. 338, 353. 4. One who engages in the business of elevating and storing grain of other people for profit is subject to such statutory regulations although his main purpose in maintaining the elevator is to store his own grain in carrying on his own business of buying and shipping for sale; and the statute may require him to store for Sec. 8.] INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 73 others at the fixed rate when there is room to receive it. Brass v. Stoeser, 153 U. S., 391. 5. As to reasonableness of charges, see post, p. 338. Running of trains on Sunday. — State may forbid it, and though a needless intrusion on commerce it is with- in the exercise of State police power. Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S., 299. Requiring railway trains to stop at stations. — A statute of Illinois (R. S., 1889, c. 114, Sec. 88) re- quired all regular trains of railroad corporations to stop at stations of county seats a sufficient length of time to receive and let off passengers. The Supreme Court of the State construed it as requiring the fast mail trains of the companies to make such stops. Held, that it was an unconstitutional hindrance and obstruc- tion of interstate commerce and the passage of the mails of the United States. The requirement of the Illinois statute that all reg- ular passenger trains must stop at county seats, is a di- rect burden on interstate commerce, so far as it requires interstate passenger trains to stop at such stations. Cleveland, etc., R'y Co. v. Illinois, 177 U. S., 514. But such requirement may be made as to trains running wholly within the state. Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S., 427. And a statute may require three of the regular trains, if so many are run daily, to stop at stations in cities or villages containing a specified population. Lake T4 COK^STITUTION OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. T, Shore, etc., Ej. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S., 285. Such regulation need not necessarily burden interstate com- merce. Id. Speed of trains in cities. — A regulation of the speed of railroad trains within the limits of a city is not an unconstitutional interference with interstate com- merce. Erb V. Morasch, 177 U. S., 584. States may impose conditions on which foreign cor- porations may do business in the State. — The imposi- tion of conditions on which foreign insurance compan- ies may do business in a State are not provisions re- lating to interstate commerce. Hooper v. California, 155 U. S., 648; Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S., 535. A State may impose terms on which a foreign cor- poration shall carry on business in its territory. Bank V. Earle, 13 Pet., 579 ; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall., 168; Ducat V. Chicago, 10 Wall., 410. "But when it imposes limitations upon the power of the non-resident corporation to make contracts for car- rying on commerce between the States, it violates the Constitution." Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S., 727. The statute of Iowa of 1862 enacted that all rail- roads operating lines in that State should &x their rates per mile for passengers or freights, etc. The Congress passed a law June 15, 1866 (15 Stat, at L., 66), de- clared that every railroad company in the United Sec. 8.] INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 75 States was authorized to carry upon and over its road, boats, bridges, etc., all passengers, troops, government supplies, mails, freight and property on their way from one State to another, and to receive compensation there- for. The railroad company contended that the State law was in conflict with the Act of Congress. Held, that the State law was valid, being but a police regula- tion. E. K. Co. V. Fuller, 17 Wall., 560. The statute of Missouri (K. S., 89, Sec. 944), pro- vided that whenever any property is j-eceived by a com- mon carrier to be transported from one place to another, within or without the State, it shall be liable for any loss caused by its own negligence or the negligence of any other carrier, etc., having been construed by the Su- preme Court of that State as not restricting the right of a carrier to limit its liability to the end of its own road, is valid. Missouri, etc., K'y v. McCann, 174 TJ. S., 680. A statute of Iowa Code (1873, Sec. 1308) provided that "no contract, receipt, rule or regulation shall ex- empt any corporation engaged in transporting persons or property by railway from liability of a common car- rier, or carriers of passengers, which would have ex- isted had no contract, receipt, rule or regulation been made or entered into." Held, that as applied to an in- jury happening within the State, it does not contravene the Constitution as a regulation of commerce. Mil. & St. P. K'y V. Solan, 169 U. S., 133. T6 CONSTITUTIOIT OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. I, The legislature of Delaware, in an act incorporating a railroad company, required the company to pay an- nually one-fourth of 1 per cent, tax on the capital stock. This did not prevent a subsequent legislature from im- posing a further tax, but was simply a declaration of the rate payable till a further rate was fixcfd. Later, the company consolidated with a company whose line ran into another State, by virtue of acts passed in three States. Afterwards, the State imposed a further tax of one-fourth of 1 per cent., on the cash value of each share of stock, but where the company's line was partly in another State, the company should pay only in pro- portion as the length of the road in Delaware bore to the whole length of the road. This was held not to con- flict with the Constitution of the United States. Del- aware V. E. K. Tax Case, 18 Wall., 206. An act of a State legislature establishing a commis- sion with power to classify and regulate rates of fare and freight on railroads is valid, being the creation of a board administrative in nature to carry out the will of the State. Eeagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 164 IJ. S., 362. A statute of California required that the Commis- sioner of Immigration, a State officer, should satisfy himself that any passengers coming into that State were not "paupers, idiots, etc., or lewd or debauched women." He was to charge 75 cents for every pas- senger examined and collect it of the shipmaster, or Sec. 8.] II^TERSTATE COMMERCE. Y7 the vessel by attachment. Held, that the act went be- yond the necessities of protecting the State from crim- inal, diseased or immoral foreigners; that such power existed in the State but could not be so exercised as to invade the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S., 275. A State statute requiring locomotive engineers to be licensed after examination as to competency is not a regulation of interstate commerce, but a valid exercise of the police power. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S., 465. A fee charged therefor is not a tax upon trans- portation. Id. The State may legislate as to duties, qualifications and liability of employes, to secure against accidents, as to require of engineers an examination for color blindness. ^N'ashville, etc., Ky. v. Alabama, 128 U. S., 96. The Iowa Code, Sec. 4059, making owner of Texas cattle liable for damages suffered by allowing them to run at large, is valid exercise of police power. Kim- mish V. Ball, 129 U. S., 217. Laws of a State forbidding the killing of woodcocks, ruffed grouse, or quail for the purpose of conveying the same beyond the State, or the transportation of the same^ do not infringe the Federal Constitution. The reason on which this rests is that wild animals are the prop- erty of the State. It can allow them to be killed or for- 78 COIS^STITUTIO]^ OF UNITED STATES. ' [Art. I, bid it. When caught or killed lawfully the property vests in the one who catches or kills. But the State may impose conditions that only a limited or qualified property shall pass from the State to the captor. A condition that the game, fish, etc., shall not be used out- side the State is one that the State may impose. Geer V. Connecticut, 161 U. S., 533. Insurance not commerce. — The business of fire in- surance is not interstate commerce (Paul v. Virginia, S Wall., 168; Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. v. Mass., 10 Wall., 566 ; Phila., etc., Ass'n v. :N"ew York, 119 U. S., 110) ; nor is marine insurance (Hooper v. California, 155 U. S., 648); nor is life insurance. "New York Life Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S., 389. The business of life insurance is not commerce. A State may require a foreign insurance company to make its policies non-forfeitable for non-payment of premiums, as a condition of doing business in the State, or may refuse to admit it if so inclined. E'ew York Life Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S., 389, cit- ing Paul V. Virginia, 8 Wall., 168 ; Hooper v. Cali- fornia, 155 U. S., 648 ; Daggs v. Orient Ins. Co., 172 U. S., 557; Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall., 450; Doyle v. Ins. Co., 94 U. S., 535. State inspection laws, when void. — Minnesota passed A statute providing for inspection of all cattle, sheep and swine designed for slaughter for human food. Its terms were so framed as to exclude from the State all Sec. 8.] INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 79 fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb, or pork taken from ani- mals slaugbtered in other States ; and it was held void as it burdened interstate commerce. Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S., 314. It can not stand as a rightful exercise of the police power. The Act of Virginia of Feb. 18, 1890, declares it to be unlawful to offer for sale, within the limits of the State, any beef, veal, or mutton from animals slaugh- tered more than 100 miles from the place where of- fered for sale, unless previously inspected and approved by local inspectors appointed under that act. The in- spector was to be paid one cent a pound for inspection. This operated to discriminate against such meats pro- duced in other States, as was its intent, and was held void as a restraint upon commerce among the States. Brimmer v. Kebman, 138 TJ. S., 78. An act of Virginia, requiring the inspection of all flour brought into the State and offered for sale, held repugnant to the commerce clause. Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S., 62. The act of I^orth Carolina providing for inspection of fertilizers to prevent imposition, held not in collision with the power of Congress over commerce. Patapsco Guano Co. v. ]^orth Carolina, 171 U. S., 345. A statute of Maryland providing for the inspection of tobacco, and forbidding it to be carried out of the State except in hogsheads inspected and marked and a certain charge allowed for inspection or "outage," be- 80 CONSTITUTIOiq- OF TJIs^ITED STATES. [Art. I, ing merely an inspection duty was held valid. Tur- ner V. Maryland, 107 U. S., 38. A statute of Georgia requiring every telegraph com- pany, with a line of wires wholly or partly within the State, to send or deliver the dispatches with diligence^ under penalty, does not interfere with interstate com- merce. West. U. Tel. Co. v. James, 162 U. S., 650. Quarantine laws, when valid. — A requirement that each vessel passing a quarantine station shall pay a fee, fixed by the statute, for examination of her sanitary condition, is a part of all quarantine systems and is not a tax on tonnage, etc., and not repugnant to the Federal Constitution. Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S., 217. The State may so regulate till Congress covers the same ground or forbids such regulation. A State can not in order to pay or defray the ex- penses of her quarantine regulations impose a tonnage tax on vessels owned in foreign ports and entering her harbors in pursuit of commerce. Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall., 581. Congress has adopted State quarantine laws. They do . not interfere with commerce ; and though they amount to a regulation of commerce, they are valid till Congress otherwise enacts. Morgan's Steamship Co. V. Louisiana, 118 U. S., 455. The State may charge a fee for examination as to her sanitary condition. This is not a tonnage tax. Id. The statute of Missouri, which prohibits driving or Sec. 8.] INTERSTATE COMMEECE. 81 carrying Texas, Mexican or Indian cattle into the State during a portion of the year is contrary to the Consti- tution. It is more than a quarantine regulation and not legitimate exercise of the police power. The State may establish quarantine and reasonable inspection reg- ulations and prevent animals having infectious or con- tagious diseases from going through or coming into the State ; but not by such a sweeping act as the one passed, upon. E. K. Co. V. Hunson, 95 U. S., 465. Oleomargarine legislation. — Oleomargarine has for a quarter of a century nearly, been recognized as an article of commerce and as an article of food both in Europe and the United States, and is recognized as such by Congress, in the Act of Aug., 1886, c. 840. Be- ing an article of commerce it can not be wholly excluded from importation into a State from another State where it was manufactured, although the State into which it was imported may so regulate the introduction as to se- cure purity of quality. Schollenberger v. Pennsyl- vania, 171 U. S., 1. The importer has a right not only to sell personally, but he has the right to employ an agent to sell in the original packages. The right to sell does not depend upon whether the original pack- age was suitable for the retail trade or not, but is the same, whether to consumers or wholesale dealers. Id. A statute of ]^ew Hampshire prohibited the sale of oleomargarine as a substitute for butter, unless it is of a pink color. Held, invalid. It is plain that if the 6 82 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, State had not the power to absolutely prohibit the sale of an article of commerce like oleomargarine in its pure state, it has no power to provide that such article shall be colored or rather discolored, by adding a for- eign substance to it. Collins v. 'New Hampshire, 171 U. S., 30. The Act of Massachusetts (1891, c. 58) to prevent deception in manufacture and sale of imitation but- ter, in its application to oleomargarine brought into the State from other States, is not in conflict with the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Plum- ley V. Massachusetts, 155 U. S., 461. The Act of Congress, Aug. 2, 1886, c. 840, impos- ing a tax upon oleomargarine, does not involve an un- constitutional delegation of power on the Commissioner by them, since it is declared to be for their use. Id., 238. A bonus on the basis of earnings, as the considera- tion for granting a charter, is not an "impost." R. R, Co. V. Maryland, 21 Wall., 456. Tax on 'passengers. — A special tax on railroad and stage companies for every passenger carried out of the State by them is a tax on the passenger for passing through the State. Such tax is not in conflict with the clause of the Constitution forbidding a State to lay a duty on exports. Crandall v. l^evada, 6 Wall., 35. But it is void as against interstate commerce. Id. What is a tax upon exports? — A statute of Califor- nia which imposed a stamp duty on every bill of lading 200 CO]S^STITUTIO]S^ OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, of gold or silver in coin or bars or other form, when transported from any point within to any point with- out the State is in effect a tax upon a class of exports and the law imposing it is void. Almy v. California, 24 How., 169. Goods, the product of a State, intended for exporta- tion to another State, are liable to taxation as part of the general mass of property of the State of their origin, until started in course of transportation to the State of destination or delivered to a common carrier for that purpose. The carrying them to and deposit- ing them at a depot for transportation is not a part of .that transportation. So held as to logs hauled from -the place of cutting to the town of E. in 'New Hamp- shire, there to be transported upon the river to Lewis- 4on, Maine. Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S., 517. On the day to which a State assessment relates, the property was in products, on shipboard in the course of transportation, and could not be taxed. If on that day it was in money, the subsequent assessment of it could not be set aside, on the ground that when assess- ment was made it was employed in purchase of prod- ucts for exportation. People v. Comm'rs, 104 U. S., 466. l^OTE. — Many taxes and impositions by States fall Tinder the head of interference with interstate com- merce, or foreign commerce, and the cases are collected under that head. Sec. 10.] PROHIBITIONS ON STATES. 201 PROHIBITIONS ON THE STATES. "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with an- other State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." What is a tonnage tax? — Although a tax levied, as on property, by a State upon vessels owned by its citi- zens and based on a valuation of the same are not pro- hibited by the Federal Constitution; yet State taxes can not be imposed on them by any State at so much per ton of the registered tonnage, and are unconstitu- tional even though the vessels are owned within the State and engaged exclusively in trade within the State. State Tonnage Cases, 12 Wall., 204. So much of the act of the legislature of l^ew York, passed May 22, 1862, as amended April 17, 1865, as required ships and vessels which enter the port of New York, or load or unload or make fast to any wharf therein, to pay a certain percentage per ton, on the ton- nage as registered, is a tax on tonnage and void. In- man Steamship Company v. Tinker, 94 U. S., 238. Tonnage is a vessel's internal cubical capacity. The States can not levy a duty of tonnage on ships or vessels, even though they are engaged only in State 202 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. I, commerce, not internal or foreign. Cox v. The Col* lector (State Tonnage Cases), 12 Wall., 204. An ordinance of 'New Orleans wliicli requires of all steamboats, which shall moor or land in any part of the port of iN'ew Orleans, a sum measured by the ton- nage of the vessel, is a tonnage tax and void. Cannon V. New Orleans, 20 Wall., 577. This was done under pretence of compensation for wharfage; but for the use of wharves owned by a city a reasonable compen- sation may be charged and received. Id. A State can not, in order to defray the expenses of her quarantine regulations, impose a tonnage tax on ves- sels owned in foreign ports and entering her harbors in pursuit of commerce. Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall., 681. What is not a tonnage tax? — A license of $100 per boat required of the owner of a ferry boat plying across a river between two States is not "tonnage tax," and may be imposed. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S., 365. The duty of tonnage prohibited by the Constitution is a charge upon a vessel according to its tonnage as the instrument of commerce, for the privilege of enter- ing or leaving a port or navigating public waters. Huse V. Glover, 119 U. S., 543. Reasonable compensation for the use of artificial facilities for the improvement of navigation is not a tonnage tax. Id. Sec. 10.] PROHIBITIONS ON STATES. 203 Wharfage is not tonnage, and can be charged by State autboritj. Transportation Company v. Parkers- burg, 107 U. S., 691. But it must be imposed in good faith, and to the extent of a fair remuneration. Packet Co. V. St. Louis, 100 U. S., 423. It may be graduated by the size of the vessel. Id. Whether the charge is wharfage or tonnage is a question of law and fact. The intent is immaterial. Trans. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S., 691. The Vicksburg wharfage regulations were not a duty on tonnage, nor interference with interstate com- merce. Vicksburg v. Tobin, 100 U. S., 430. Taxes levied upon ships, by a State, although en- rolled, owned by citizens of the State, based on a valua- tion of the vessel as property, are not within the Con- stitutional prohibition against levying duties of ton- nage. Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S., 273. But wharfage may be charged in proportion to ton- nage. See, ante J p. 71. ' Compact or agreement with other States. — It is not necessary that the consent of Congress be expressed in any particular form ; and when Congress consented to the separation of Kentucky and its admission as a State into the Union, it amounted to consent to a com- pact previously made between them, and gave it the force of a contract, within the 18 th section of the first Article of the Constitution. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat., 1. 204 coisrsTiTUTioN of uis^ited states. [Art. I, The consent of Congress to an agreement or compact "between two States may be implied from circum- stances, such as arranging the judicial districts on the basis of a boundary settled by the States, or the form- ing of a congressional district on the same basis. Vir- ginia V. Tennessee, 148 U. S., 504. "Controversies between (States), arising out of pub- lic relations and intercourse, can not be settled either by war or diplomacy, though with the consent of Con- gress they may be composed by agreement. As pointed out by Mr. Justice Field in Virginia v. Ten- nessee, 148 U. S., 503, 519, there are many matters on which the different States may agree that can in no respect concern the United States, while there are other compacts or agreements to which the Constitu- tion applies. And as to this, he quotes from Mr. Jus- tice Story in his ^commentaries. Sec. 1408 * * * ^that its language may be more plausibly interpreted from the terms used (in the previous part of the same section) "treaty alliance or confederation," and upon the ground that the sense of each is best known by its association (noscitur a sociis) to apply to treaties of a political character; such as treaties of alliance, and treaties of confederation, in which the parties are leagued for mutual government, political co-operation, and the exercise of political sovereignty, and treaties of cession and sovereignty, or conferring internal politi- cal jurisdiction, or external political dependence, or I Sec. 10.] PROHIBITIONS OlS STATES. 205 general commercial privileges, and tliat the latter clause, "compacts and agreements" might then very properly apply to such as might be deemed mere priv- ate rights of sovereignty; such as questions of bound- ary; interests in land situate in the territory of each other, and other internal regulations for the mutual comfort and convenience of States bordering on each other.' And he adds: ^In such cases the consent of Congress may be properly required, in order to check any infringement of the rights of the !N^ational govern- ment ; and, at the same time, a total prohibition to en- ter into any compact and agreement might be attended with permanent inconvenience or public mischief.' " Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S., 1, 17. An agreement made between two States, made with- out consent of Congress, to appoint commissioners to run and mark the boundaries, is not within the inhibi- tion of the above section. Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S., 503. The consent of Congress may be implied from its subsequent action in assigning districts for judicial, election and revenue appointments on the basis of the boundaries agreed upon by the States. Id. The compact of 1785 between Virginia and Mary- land, settling the jurisdiction of each over Chesapeake bay and the Potomac and Pocomoke rivers, was not affected by the constitutional provision against compacts between States. That operates only on compacts made after, not before, the adoption of the Constitution.. Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S., 165. 206 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. II, AKTICLE 11. THE EXECUTIVE POWEE. Section 1. "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, to- gether with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, he elected as follows : — " presidential electors. "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legis- lature thereof may direct, a number of Electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." Power of State legislature to provide for manner of choosing presidential electors. — The several State legis- latures have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice-President shall be appointed. The appointment may be by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as the legislature may provide. Mc- Pherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S., 1. The appointment of electors, and the mode thereof, Sec. 1.] ELECTION OF PRESIDENT. 207 belong exclusively to the States, under the Constitu- tion. In re Green, 134 IT. S., 377, 379. A State law fixing a different time for the meeting of electors is to that extent invalid, but not necessarily; as to other provisions of the act. The date may be re- jected and the other parts of the law stand. McPher- son V. Blacker, 146 U. S., 1. The 14th and 15th Airiendments do not amend Art- icle II of the Constitution, and do not limit the power of appointment to the particular manner of appoint- ment of presidential electors pursued at the time of the adoption of the amendments. Id. (Here is omitted that part of Section 1, Article II, which was amended by Article XJI of the Amend- ments, which is as follows:) ''The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President; and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in presence 208 COII^STITUTIOIf OF UNITED STATES. [Art. 11^ of the Senate and House of Kepresentatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President Bhall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest number not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives, shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote ; a quo- rum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President, whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice- President shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list the Senate shall choose the Vice- President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two- thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But Sec. 1.] EXECUTIVE POWER. 209 no person constitutionally ineligible to tlie office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. "The Congress may determine the time of choosing the Electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States." The Executive Power is vested in the President, and as far as his powers are derived from the Constitution^ he is beyond the reach of any other department, except through the impeaching power. But this is not true of other executive officers. Kendall v. United States, 12 Peters, 624. , The obligation imposed on him to see the laws executed does not imply a power to forbid their execution. Id. The President can not authorize a Secretary of State to omit the performance of duties which are enjoined by law. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137. It was held in this case that the Supreme Court could not, in the exercise of original jurisdiction, compel by man- damus the Secretary of State to issue a commission to an appointee. Where rival State governments in a State each claim to be lawful, the President must determine as between them which is the legislature and Governor lawfully entitled to recognition and which is in insurrection. Luther v. Borden, 7 How., 1. When he has decided 14 210 COIS^STITUTION^ OF U^'ITED STATES. [Art. II, the Courts of the United States are bound to follow his decision. Id. The act of a head of a department in calling the at- tention of any person having business with such de- partment, to a statute relating in any way to such busi- ness, can not be made the foundation of a cause of ac- tion against such officer. Spalding v. Yilas, 161 XJ. S., 483. The President has the power to protect a judge of a court of the United States, who, while in the discharge of the duties of his office, is threatened with per- sonal violence or death. In re Nagle, 135 U. S., 1. When iN'ew Mexico was gained to the United States by conquest and treaty, the executive authority of the United States properly established a provisional gov- ernment, which ordained laws and instituted judicial tsystems ; all of which continued in force after the close of the war, and until modified by the direct legislation of Congress, or by the territorial government estab- lished by its authority. Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How., 176. When during the late civil war portions of the in- surgent territory were occupied by the ITational forces, it was within the constitutional authority of the Presi- dent to establish 'provisional courts, defining their powers, etc., by proclamation. The Grapeshot, 9 Wall., 129; see Cross v. Harrison, 16 How., 193; Mechanics' Sec. 1.] WHO MAY BE PEESIDENT. 211 and Trader's Bank v. Union Bank, 22 Wall., 276 ; N'ew Orleans v. The Steamship, 20 Wall., 387. ELIGIBILITY TO THE OFFICE. "No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." Persons born in the colonies before the Declaration of Independence, had a right to elect whether thej would retain their native allegiance to the British Crown, or would become citizens of the several States. The right of election has reference to that date, but it is not necessary that the election should be manifested by any act prior to or at the very time of the Declaration of Independence, and prima facie, if born before July 4, 1776, and remaining here after that day the person is to be deemed a citizen but this presumption may be rebutted by acts showing an adhesion to the British Crown during the struggle. Inglis v. Trustees Sail- or^s Snug Harbor, 3 Pet, 99. A person born in Eng- land before the Declaration of Independence and al- ways residing there is an alien. Dawson v. Godfrey, 4 Cranch, 321. 212 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. II, DEVOLUTION OF OFFICE. "In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice-President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and snch officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." COMPENSATION. "The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which shall neither be in- creased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them." OATH OF OFFICE. "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: — *I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitu- tion of the United States.' " Sec. 2.] 1 EXECUTIVE POWER. 213 POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT, \ ^ Section 2. "The President shall be commander-in- chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Powers as commander-in-chief, — The President, as the executive chief of the government and commander- in-chief of the armj and navy, has a right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion. Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635. The President has power to make and repeal rules and regulations for the government of the army, in respect to compensation for extra services, Congress not having legislated thereon, and the Secretary of War is the regular organ of the President for publicly pro- mulgating such rules and regulations. United States V. Eliason, 16 Pet, 291. The President has power to supersede or remove an officer in the army by appointing another in his place by and with consent of the Senate (Keyes v. United 214 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. II, States, 109 U. S., 336; Blake v. United States, 103 U. S., 227), and this notwithstanding the act of Con- gress of July 13, 1866, Sec. 5, which provides that no officer shall be dismissed from the army or navy in time of peace except upon and in pursuance of the sen- tence of a court martial to that effect or in commuta- tion thereof. Mullan v. United States, 140 U. S., 240. The Constitution do^s not prohibit the creation by military authority of courts for the trial of civil causes during civil war in conquered portions of the insur- gent States. And where so established by a command- ing general it will be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the President authorized it. Mech. and Traders' Bk. v. Union Bk., 22 Wall., 276. The President, as commander-in-chief and vested with charge of hostile operations, may permit limited commercial intercourse with an enemy in time of war, especially so, when he has the concurrent authority of an act of Congress, viz.: Act of July 13, 1861 (12 Stat, at L., p. 257) ; Hamilton v. Dillin, 21 Wall., 73. The proclamation of the President takes effect as of the beginning of the day of its date. So held of a proclamation annulling all restrictions to trade with States lately in rebellion in the territory east of the Mississippi, imposed under the Act of June 13, 1865 (13 Stats., 763). United States v. mrton, 97 U. S., 164. Sec. 2.] PARDONING POWER. 215 TJie 'pardoning power of the President. — In order to ascertain what is meant by the power to grant re- prieves and pardons resort must be had to the meaning of these words and the power as used in England un- der the common law. From these sources it appears that the power includes the right to commute the sen- tence of the court by substituting a milder punishment as imprisonment in place of sentence of death; and acceptance of such pardon binds the convict to the sub- stituted punishment. Ex parte Wells, 18 How., 307. Pardon of the President under Act of July 17, 1862 (13 Stat, at L., 592) by proclamation operates to grant oblivion, and removes all consequences of giving aid and comfort to those in rebellion (United States v. Padelford, 9 Wall., 531) and entitles the persons pardoned to a restoration of all rights of property, ex- cept slaves, on condition of their taking and keeping in- violate the oath prescribed. United States v. Klein, 13 Wall., 128. See Wallach v. Van Kiswick, 92 U. S., 202. The President's proclamation of pardon and am- nesty unconditionally and without reservation to all who participated, directly or indirectly, in the late re- bellion relieves claimants of captured and abandoned property from proof of adhesion to the United States, during the^ate civil war. Pargoud v. United States, 13 Wall., 156. A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from tha 216 CON^STITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. II, power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has com- mitted. It is the private though official act of the ex- ecutive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended and not communicated of- ficially to the court. It must be brought to the notice of the court by plea or motion. United States v. Wil- son, 7 Pet., 150. A pardon by the President for all offenses arising from participation in the rebellion, relieves the re- cipient from the necessity of taking the oath required by the Act of January 24, 1865. Ex 'parte Garland, 4 Wall., 333. Such pardon blots out the offense (Arm- strong V. United States, 13 Wall., 154; United States V. Padelford, 9 Wall., 531; Knox v. United States, 95 U. S., 149) and restores to the recipient all rights of property lost by the offense, unless it has by judicial process become vested in other persons. Osborn v. United States, 91 U. S., 474; Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall., 147. As to them, it can not affect rights vested in others directly by the execution of the judg- ment for the offense, or acquired by others while it was in force. Knote v. United States, 95 U. S., 149. The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall., 92; Semmes v. United States, 91 U. S., 21. The general pardon of the owner relieves him of so much of the penalty as accrued to the United States Sec. 2.] EXECUTIVE POWER. 217 under the Confiscation Act of August 3d, 1861. Arm- strong's Foundry, 6 Wall., 766. The proviso in the general appropriation Act of 1870, which assumes to annul the effect of the Presi- dent's pardon, in claims pending before the Court of Claims, can have no such annulling effect. United States V. Klein, 13 Wall., 128. But where the statute prohibits payment of claims to persons not known to be loyal during the war, a pardon does not authorize the payment of such claims. Hart V. United States, 118 U. S., 62. One convicted by a consular court having jurisdic- tion, and sentenced to death for murder, but accepting a pardon granted on condition that he be imprisoned for life in a penitentiary is bound by the condition. In re Eoss, 140 U. S., 453. The recital in a pardon that it is granted at the re- quest of the district attorney, in order to restore the competency of the pardoned person as a witness in a murder trial, does not alter the fact that the pardon is full and unconditional. Boyd v. United States, 142 U. S., 450. TEEATY-MAKIiS^G POWER DIPLOMATIC APPOINTMENTS. "He shall have power, by and with the advice and con- sent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirdi of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 218 COI^STITUTIO]^ OF UNITED STATES. [Art. II,. shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other offi- cers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be estab- lished by law; but the Congress may by law vest the ap- pointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." Treaties. — Though a treaty is the law of the land^ and its provisions must be regarded by courts as equiv- alent to an act of the Congress when it operates directly on a subject, yet if it be merely a stipulation for future legislation by Congress, it addresses itself to the political power, and the judicial department must await congressional action. Foster v. ISTeilson, 2 Pet.^ 253. See, post, pp. 283-4. The statute of the State of Georgia, which subjected to punishment all white people residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation, and authorized their ar- rest and forcible removal therefrom, was held repug- nant to the laws and treaties of the United States. Worcester v. State of Georgia, 6 Pet., 515. The treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain, concluded on the 3rd of September, 1783 (8 Stat, at L., p. 80) enables British creditors to recover debts, previously contracted to them by our citizens, notwithstanding a payment into a State treas- Sec. 2.] EXECUTIVE POWER. 219 ury had been made during the war, under the author- ity of a State law of sequestration. Ware v. Hylton, 3 DalL, 199. The treaty with the Cherokee Indians, made Dec. 29, 1835, was made under the treaty-making power vested by the Constitution in the President and Sen- ate. Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall., 211. Vice-Consuls. — Sees. 1695, 1703, Eev. St., empow- ering the President to provide for the appointment of vice-consuls, are valid, though not requiring the ad- vice and consent of the Senate. They fall under the class of those inferior officers, whose appointment Con- gress may vest in the President alone. United States V. Eaton, 169 U. S., 331. The power of appointment. — The appointment and commission of a collector of internal taxes "until the end of the next session of Congress and no longer," is not continued by a new appointment and commission during the pleasure of the President. The latter is a. new appointment distinct from the first and requires a new bond. United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat., 720. POWER TO FILL VACANCIES. "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." 220 COIN^STITUTION OF UIS^ITED STATES. [Art. Ill, Appointments. — ^Where tlie President makes an ap- pointment to hold till the end of the next session, and then after the session, appoints the same officer to hold during pleasure, it is a new appointment requiring a new bond, and the sureties on the first bond are not lia- ble for acts done under the second commission. United States V. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat, 720. DUTIES AND POWEES AS TO CONGRESS. Section 3. "He shall from time to time give to the €ongress information of the state of the Union, and rec- ommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States." ''Shall commission all the officers of the United States/' — ^When a commission has been signed the ap- pointment is made; and the commission is complete when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the Secretary of State. Where the officer is re- movable at the will of the President, the circumstance which completes his appointment is of no concern, be- Sec. 1.] JUDICIAL POWER. 221 cause tlie act is at any time revocable. But where the officer is not removable at the will of the Executive, the appointment is not revocable and can not be annulled. This was held, but as the Supreme Court had no orig- inal jurisdiction to compel the Secretary of State to deliver the commission, the rule to show cause why mandamus should not issue was discharged. Marbury V. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137. BEMOVAI. ON IMPEACHMENT. Section 4. "The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason^ bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." AKTICLE III. THE JUDICIAL POWEE. Section 1. "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compen- sation, which shall not be diminished during their contin- uance in office." 222 coNSTiTUTioisr or united states. [Art. Ill, EXTENT OF JUDICIAL POWER. Section 2. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to contro- versies to which the United States shall be a party; to con- troversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or sub- jects." Changed hy amendment. — This was changed by the eleventh Amendment, which reads : "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State or citizens or subjects of a foreign State." "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public minis- ters, and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make." See 'post, p. 321. ."Sec. 2.] JUDICIAL POWER. 223 The 12th section of the Interstate Commerce Act, au- thorizing the Circuit Court of the United States to use their process to compel attendance of witnesses before the Interstate Commerce Commission does not conflict with the Federal Constitution by imposing on such courts duties not judicial in their nature. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S., 447. TRIAL OF CRIMES BY JURY. "The trial of all crinies, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have di- xected." Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. — The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of purely political questions, of those not involving rights of persons or property, such as a bill to abolish an existing State government, or to restrain the executive or the Secretary of War from car- rying into effect acts of Congress which would work such abolition. Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall., 50. 'Not^ of a bill to enjoin the President in the execution of his du- ties. Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall., 475. Congress may prescribe the process or mode of pro- ceeding where the Supreme Court has original jurisdic- tion; but the jurisdiction of the court does not depend 224 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. Ill, on sucli Congressional action ; and the court may, if oc- casion require, make its own rules. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 DalL, 419 ; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How., 98 ; N'ew Jersey v. ISTew York, 5 Pet., 284. But the court must keep within the limits of its jur- isdiction ; its acts beyond are void. Khode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet., 657. Its original jurisdiction embraces actions at law and suits in equity. Wheeling Bridge Case, 13 How., 518. Congress can not enlarge its original jurisdiction. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; ^ew Jersey v. I^ew York, 5 Pet., 284; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet, 637 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat., 264. States can not restrict Federal jurisdistion. An agreement to abstain from resorting to the United States courts is against public policy and a statute requiring such agreement void; but the State may impose as a condition to do business in the State, that a corpora- tion shall not remove a case into the Federal courts, and may revoke its license where such removal is made. Doyle V. Ins. Co., 94 U. S., 535 ; following and explain- ing, Ins. Co. V. Morse, 20 Wall., 44. State law requiring a corporation to stipulate not to remove causes is void, because it requires the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Barron v. Burnside, 121 U. S., 186. Sec. 2.] JUDICIAL POWEE. 225 A State can not by Constitution or statute prohibit the judges of the Federal courts from charging juries with regard to matters of fact. St. Louis, etc., R'y Co. v. Vickers, 122 U. S., 360; Vicksburg, etc., K'y Co. v. Putnam, 118 U. S., 545 ; ISTudd v. Burrows, 91 U. S., 426; Ind., etc., E'y Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S., 291. * So far as the sovereignty of the United States extends its sovereignty is supreme. 'No State can obstruct its officers, and it can protect them ; and such protection is not dependent on State courts (Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S., 257) ; and original causes against Federal officers, for acts done under color of office, can be removed to the Federal courts. R. S., Sec. 643, held valid. Tennes- see V. Davis, 100 U. S., 257. Congress may give the Supreme Court appellate jur- isdiction of cases where it has original jurisdiction. Gittings V. Crawford, Taney, 9 ; Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S., 260. The Supreme Court may protect itself and its mem- bers from disturbance in the exercise of its functions. Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 94. The President, un- der his general obligation to see that the laws are faith- fully executed, is in duty bound to protect the judges from personal violence while executing their duties. In re Neagle, 135 II. S., 1. Can act only where there is an actual controversy. — ' The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to declare void & Federal State statute, except when a case is brought be* 15 226 CONSTITUTIOIS^ OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. Ill, fore it, between litigants to an actual controversy. It never anticipates a question nor lays down a rule broader than the case before it requires. Liverpool, etc., Co. V. Comers of Emigration, 113 U. S., 33. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. — The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is con- ferred by Art. Ill, section 2, clause 1, which declares the cases in which the court shall have original jurisdic- tion. Cherokee IN'ation v. State of Georgia, 5 Pet., 1. This second clause distributes the jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court in the previous one into orig- inal and appellate jurisdiction, but does not profess to confer any. Penn. v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Wall., 553. ''In all the cases affecting ambassadors or other public ministers/' — The court on application of a person claim- ing to be a public minister for a writ of prohibition or mandamus, to restrain a district court from the exer- cise of its ordinary jurisdiction, will require the cer- tificate of the State that he is such minister, and accept the same as conclusive evidence as to his character. A consul general of a country, in the absence of the regu- lar minister, is not privileged as a public minister, as respects the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In re Baiz, 135 U. S., 403. The immunity of foreign ministers, as representatives of their sovereigns, is dis- cussed by Chief Justice Marshall, in Schr. Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch, 116, 138. Sec. 2.] JUDICIAL POWER. 227 Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases where State is a party. — Under the Constitution, as originally adopted, a State could be sued by an individual citizen of another State. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 DalL, 419. Service of process on the Governor and Attorney General of the State was sufficient service of the process, and the court ordered that judgment by default should be en- tered unless the State appeared or showed cause by the next term. Id. ; Grayson v. Virginia, 3 DalL, 320. In equity like service of subpoena might be made, to be served sixty days before the return day and if the State did not appear the plaintiff might proceed ex parte. Grayson V. Virginia, 3 DalL, 320. ^'It is a part of our history, that, at the adoption of the Constitution all the States were greatly indebted; and the apprehension that these debts might be prosecuted in the Federal courts formed a very strong objection to that instrument. Suits were instituted and the court maintained its jurisdiction. The alarm was general; and to quiet the apprehensions that were so extensively entertained, this amendment was proposed in Congress. * * * The amendment extended to suits com-^ menced or prosecuted by individuals but not to those brought by States." Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat., 406. This amendment applies only to original suits against the States, and does not touch the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to re-examine on appeal or writ of error a judgment rendered by a State court. Id., 264. 228 COXSTITUTIOX OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. Ill, In cases '%n which a State shall he a party/' — To give the Supreme Court jurisdiction on the ground that a State is a party, the State must be the real party to the record. TJ. S. Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat, 906 ; Lincoln Co. v. Luning, 133 U. S., 5^9. It is not enough that the State be consequentially affected (Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 DalL, 411; Wheeling Bridge Cases, 13 jHow., 559), nor where a State sues a State for the bene- fit of a citizen. New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S., 76 ; New York v. Louisiana, id., 91 ; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S., 1, 16. (See post, p. 321.) Nor does it derive jurisdiction when another political com- munity, such as an Indian tribe (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet., 15), or the District of Columbia (Hep- burn V. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445), brings the action or is sued. No act of Congress is necessary to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction of a suit between States. Kentucky V. Dennison, 24 How., 66 ; New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet, 284 ; Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DalL, 1. A suit by or against a Governor of a State, in his offi- cial character, is a suit by or against a State. Kentucky V. Dennison, Governor, 24 How., 66. Where the chief magistrate is sued, not by his name but in his official character, and the claim is made upon him solely as such officer and not personally the State is deemed the party of record. Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet, 110. Sec. 2.] JUDICIAL POWER. 229 Making a State officer a party does not make the State. a party, although the officer may act pursuant to a State law. Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall., 203. A suit against individuals, as officers of a State, to prevent them from enforcing an unconstitutional statute is not a suit against the State. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S., 466. A suit against State officers to recover real prop- erty is not a suit against the State so as to deprive a Federal court of jurisdiction. Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S., 204. When a State holds a large amount of bonds, which are a lien upon a railroad, and the trustees of the bonds are the State agents, but hold the legal title in trust for the State, the State may seek relief in equity in the Su- preme Court against citizens of another State. Florida V. Anderson, 91 IT. S., 667. Where the State is a stockholder in a private corpora- tion, the fact will not give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction of suit where the corporation is a party, nor disturb the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat., 904 ; Bk. of Ky. v. Wister, 2 Pet., 318 ; Briscoe v. Bk. of Ky., 11 Pet, 324; Darrington v. Bk. of Ala., 13 How., 12; Curran v. Ark, 15 How., 304; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall., 203. A suit against a State, by its own citizen, can not be brought in a Federal Court without the consent of the 230 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. Ill, State. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S., 1 ; N"orth Caro- lina V. Temple, 134 U. S., 22; Pennoyer v. McCon- naughy, 140 U. S., 1. The llth Amendment limits the Federal jurisdiction ovefT suits against States to those in which the State is the real party or a party in the record. Lincoln County V. Luning, 133 U. S., 529. The prohibition to sue a State, in the 11th Amend- ment, does not extend to a case in which the State is not made a party on the record, even though it has the en- tire ultimate interest in the subject of the suit. Osborn V. U. S. B., 9 Wheat., 738. But see, In re Ayers, 123 U. S., 443. A State may sue in the Supreme Court to enjoin pay- ment of a judgment in behalf of a British creditor taken on a debt, which was confiscated by the State, until it can be ascertained to whom the money belongs. Georgia V. Brailsford, 2 DalL, 402, 415. It is denied jurisdiction, by the 11th Amendment, of suits against a State by citizens of another State or the citizens or subjects of foreign States. Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall., 402 ; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Ball., 419; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat., 264; Osborn v. United States' Bank, 9 Wheat., 738 ; United States' Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat., 904; Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet, 110; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet., 1; Brisco v. Kentucky, 11 Pet, 324; Darrington V. Bk. of Ala., 13 How., 12 ; Curran v. Ark., 15 How., 304; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall., 203. Sec. 2.] JUDICIAL POWEE. 231 The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of suits by a State against citizens of other States, but this was not intended to confer the power to entertain an action of a nature, not, upon settled principles of public law, to be entertained in the judiciary of another State ; such as to recover a penalty imposed by the laws of the State that sues, for a breach of its municipal law. Wisconsin, V. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S., 265. Suits between States to settle boundaries. — The Su- preme Court has jurisdiction of a suit in equity filed by one State against another to ascertain and establish their boundaries. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet., 657 ; Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S., 503 ; Missouri V. Iowa, 7 How., 660; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How., 478; Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall., 397; Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U. S., 1; Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S., 479 ; IsTebraska v. Iowa, 143 U. S., 359 ; Iowa v. Illinois, 151 U. S., 238. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court over United States Courts. — Congress in 1793 and in 1789 passed "a judiciary act" as it is called, creating circuit and dis- trict courts and defining their jurisdiction. By the 22d section it gave the Supreme Court appellate juris- diction over them as follows : "And upon like process (writ of error) may final judgments and decrees in civil actions and suits in equity in a circuit court, brought there by original process, or removed there from the courts of the several States, or removed there by appeal from a district court, where the matter in dispute ex* 232 CONSTITUTIOI^J- OF UNITED STATES. [Art. Ill, ceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars, exclu- sive of costs, be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court, the citation being in such case signed by a judge of such Circuit Court, or justice of the Supreme Court, and the party having at least thirty days' notice." Sec. 22, Ch. 20, 1 Stats, at L., 1789. This appellate jurisdiction was much changed by the Act of March 3, 1891, which created the nine Circuit Courts of Appeals, as intermediate appellate courts, to cut off from the Supreme Court a vast mass of appeals in matters not involving constitutional or jurisdictional questions. The appellate jurisdiction over the Circuit Courts of the United States, since the Act of 1891, is as follows : 1. In any case in which the jurisdiction of the trial coTirt is in issue (in such cases, however, the question of jurisdiction only is to be certified to the Supreme Court from the court below for decision). 2. From final sentences and decrees in prize causes. 3. From cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime. 4. In any case that involves the construction or ap- plication of the Constitution of the United States. 5. In any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority is drawn in question. 6. In any case in which the Constitution or law of a Sec. 2.] JUDICIAL POWER. 233 State is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitu- tion of the United States. . (Act March 3, 1891.) Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the Court of Appeals. — The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over the Circuit Courts of Appeals : 1. By writ of error or appeal in all cases where the matter in controversy shall exceed $1,000, besides costs, in all cases where the decision of the Circuit Courts of Appeals is not made final as hereinafter specified. 2. When the Supreme Court deems any matter be- fore a Circuit Court of Appeals so important that it should take charge of it and decide it, the Supreme Court may issue a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals, to send up the case before it to the Supreme Court, there for final decision, review or determination. The object of this is, doubtless, to secure uniformity of decision in the various Courts of Appeals. 3. When one of the Circuit Courts of Appeals is in doubt as to any matter, it may, of its own motion, certify to the Supreme Court any questions or propositions of law, arising in a case pending in such Circuit Court of Appeals, concerning which it desires the instruction of the Supreme Court for its proper decision. (Act of March 3, 1891.) Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over State Courts. — It is declared in the Constitution of the United States that the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties made in pursuance "shall be / 234 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. Ill, the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in the sev- eral States shall be bound thereby, anything in the Con- stitution of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The Supreme Court is the ultimate tribunal in all such cases. The Supreme Court is vested with the power to issue a writ of error to review the final judgment or de- cree of the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had in the following cases : 1. Where the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, is drawn in question and the decision of the State Court is against their validity ; 2. Where the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under a State, is drawn in question on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision of the State Court is in favor of their validity ; 3. Where any title, right, privilege or immunity so claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under the United States, and the decision of the State Courts is against the title, right, privilege or immunity so set up or claimed, under such Constitution, treaty, statute, commission or authority. K. S., Sec. 709. This is one of the most important statutes ever passed by Congress in respect to far-reaching consequences. It prevents the nullification of the Constitution or laws of the United States by State legislatures and courts. It Sec. 2.] JUDICIAL POWER. 235 has been decided to be itself constitutional. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat., 304; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 id., 264; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How., 506; Williams V. Bruffy, 102 U. S., 248. The following are among the most important points that have been decided : 1. It is the only means of bringing a case from the Supreme Court of a State to the Supreme Court of the United States. Verden v. Coleman, 22 How., 192. 2. There is no distinction between civil and criminal cases. Twitchell v. Pennsylvania, 7 Wall., 321. But, if the prisoner should escape, the court will not entertain a writ of error in his behalf, until he returns and sub- mits himself to the court below. Bohanan v. !N'ebraska, 125 U. S., 692. 3. The citizenship of the parties is immaterial. French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S., 524. 4. Consent can not give jurisdiction in this case. It can be derived only from the Constitution and laws. Mills V. Brown, 16 Pet., 525. 5. This statute includes all cases where rights pro- tected by the Constitution, laws or treaties are involved, however created, and no matter how frivolous the ob- jection. Hall V. Jordan, 15 Wall., 393. 6. This section includes all cases in chancery as well as in law ; and in a chancery case, where the evidence be- comes a part of the record in the highest court of the State, the Supreme Court of the United States can re- 2dQ COIsrSTITUTION OF UIS'ITED STATES. [Art. Ill, view the law and the facts so far as necessary to de- termine the validity of the right, title, etc. ; but in cases tried by jury or in jury cases where the jury has been waived and the court tries the case, the Supreme Court can not review the facts, but only the questions of law raised by the record. Boggs v. Mining Co., 3 Wall., 304; Eiver Bridge Co. v. Kas. Pac. Ey. Co., 92 U. S., 317. 7. It must be from a final judgment or decree. This means the judgment which would, when enforced, end the case. See Dainese v. Kendall, 119 U. S., 53. It must be final as to all matters within the pleadings. Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How., 201. It may be final as to the right, though it may have some matters of ac- count to be settled by further decree. Forgay v. Con- rad, p How., 201. The judgment may be reviewed, though it comes up on a case stated — that is, on an agreed state of facts, Aldrich v. Insurance Co., 8 Wall., 491. 8. This writ of error lies "m any suit/' etc. What is meant by suit f The court holds that it means any pro- ceeding in which an individual proposes a remedy af- forded by law. Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet., 449. It includes not only the ordinary actions of the common law, but the extraordinary remedies of the common law, such as mandamus, quo warranto, writ of prohibition and the writ of habeas corpus, and all suits in equity. It also includes the special proceedings to take land for Sefc. 2.] JUDICIAL POWER. 237 public use. Sewing Maehiiie Cases, 18 Wall., 585 ; Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Peters, 564; Ex 'parte Milli- gan, 4 Wall., 133 ; Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S., 375. 9. The suit need not be necessarily in the highest court of the State, but in the highest court in which a decision could be had. If a case stops in some lower court and no appeal or writ of error is allowed from it to a higher court in that State, then a writ of error can be sent to that court which is the highest to which the case can go. Gregory v. McVeigh, 23 Wall., 306. But where the highest court allows cases to come before it, in some instances only on leave first obtained, the re- fusal to grant leave will be deemed equivalent to an af- firmance of the court below and will be deemed the judg- ment of the highest court. Id. 10. In some States the legislature once had a power given by the Constitution to set aside the judgment of a State court. But this fact did not prevent the Supreme Court of the United States from sending its writ of error to the court (Olney v. Arnold, 3 Dall., 308) because the statute gives writ to the highest court, and the legis- lature is not deemed a court, although it might have this power to reverse and set aside judgments. 11. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction only over such questions as are defined in the statute above quoted. They are called "federal questions" (Wiscart v. Dauchy^ 3 Dall., 321), and the record must show a Federal ques- 238 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. ill, tion is involved. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall., 620. See itsTotes, Gould & Tucker, p. 176, for numerous cita- tions. When it is certified by the State court that a Federal question exists, this is not conclusive. Parme- lee V. Lawrence, 11 Wall., 36. And the Federal ques- tion must have been raised and presented, though not formally. Crowell v. Kandell, 10 Pet., 368; Arm- strong V. Athens Co., 16 id., 281. It is not enough that a Federal question might have been raised or ought to have been raised. Hoyt v. Sheldon, 1 Black., 518 ; K. K. Co. V. Guthard, 114 U. S., 136; The Victory, 6 Wall., 382. It must appear that the court either knew or ought to have known that a Federal question was involved in the decision to be made. Brown v. Colorado, 106 U. S., 95 ; Boom Co. v. Boom Co., 110 U. S., 57. Generally, it may be said that the point whether a Federal question is raised is one of great delicacy ; and the test is always found in the statute. It is necessary here to recapitulate the cases in which the great, final, ultimate appellate jurisdiction can be invoked: 1. When is drawn in question the validity of the United States or a treaty, and the decision is against such validity. 2. The Supreme Court has also jurisdiction over the State court, under this section, where is drav/n in ques- tion the validity of a statute, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repug- Sec. 2.] JUDICIAL POWER. 239 nant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity. 3. The Supreme Court has also jurisdiction of an ap- pellate nature over the State court, where any rights, title, privilege or immunity is claimed under the Consti- tution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held, or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or immun- ity specially set up or claimed. R. S., U. S., Sec. 709. To illustrate the meaning of this statute let us sup- pose that A holds a piece of land under a patent from the United States. Some one brings ejectment against him in a State court. He claims to own it by good title derived from his patent from the United States. He sets up his claim of title and the State court decides against it — that it confers no title. He appeals to the Mghest court of the State ; and his title is there decided against. He can then sue out a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to the State court to obtain a review and reversal of the decision. Bell V. Hearne, 19 How., 252; Eeichart v. Felps, 6 Wall., 160; Berthold v. McDonald, 22 How., 334; Silver v. Ladd, 6 Wall., 440. Another instance of this appellate jurisdiction would be this : A holds a patent right from the United States. In some action in the State court he sets up or claims this right as essential to his claim or defense. The highest court decides against its validity. He then 240 CO]vrSTITUTION OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. Illy seeks redress, under this clause, in the Supreme Court of the United States. So if he held a commission under the United States and it gave him certain power, and he exercised that power, and was sued in the State court and there his commission was held invalid, he might be greatly op- pressed and the authority of the United States overrid- den, unless the Supreme Court could review the adverse State decision and uphold his right. See Gould & Tucker's ISTotes, pp. 180-184. But the question must be a Federal question, that is, it must raise some one of these questions specified in the statute above quoted. The Supreme Court can not re- view questions of mere general law. United States v. Thompson, 93 U. S., 586; Bank v. 'McVeigh, 98 U. S., 332 ; Allen v. McVeigh, 107 id., 433. 'Not can the Su- preme Court thus review questions of local law, not rais- ing a Federal question. Poppe v. Langford, 104 U. S.^ Y70. No Federal question is raised when the State court decides that a law" of the State is contrary to the State Constitution, unless it also appears to be against the Federal Constitution. Withers v. Buckley, 20 How., 84 ; Medbery v. Ohio, 20 Ohio, 24 How., 413 ; Porter v. Foley, 24 How., 415 ; Salomons v. Graham, 15 Wall., 208; Hart v. Lampshire, 3 Pet, 280; Wat- son V. Mercer, 8 Pet., 88 ; Mitchell v. Clark, 110 U. S., 633; West Tenn. Bank v. Citizens' Bank, 13 Wall., Sec. 3.] TREASON. 241 432; Mitchell v. Lenox, 14 Pet., 49. See Gould & Tucker's :N'otes, pp. 179, 183 ; Eustis v. BoUes, 150 U. S., 361; Dower v. Eichards, 151 U. S., 658, Qm; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S., 556 ; Os- borne V. Florida, 164 U. S., 650; Wade v. Lawder, 165 U. S., 624. Territorial courts, — These courts are created by Con- gress, under the power to make all needful rules and regulations. They are not courts of the United States^ Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet., 511 ; Benner v. Porter^ 9 How., 235; Forsyth v. United States, 9 How., 571;. Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall., 434; Hornbuckle V. Toombs, 18 Wall., 648 ; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S., 145; Good v. Martin, 95 U. S., 90. Their judges are not judges of the courts of the United States. Id. TREASON DEFINED, ETC. Section 3. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. "The Congress shall have power to declare the punish- ment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained." 16 242 CONSTITUTION" OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. IV, What is treason? — There must be an actual assem- blage of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute levying war. A mere conspiracy or the enlistment of men is not sufficient. Ex parte BoUman, 4 Cranch, Y5. But when enemies are at war with the United States, the enlisting or procuring enlistments for the enemy's service is treason. Respublica v. M'Carty, 2 DalL, 86. Nothing will excuse joining the enemy but the fear of present death. Id. Fear of loss of property or its destruction, or of slight or remote injury to the person will not excuse (United States v. Vigol, 2 DalL, 346), nor will drunkenness. Respublica v. Weidle, 2 DalL, 88. It is treason to suppress by armed force the officer X)f excise and to render nugatory the laws of Congress. U. S. V. Vigol, 2 DalL, 346 ; U. S. v. Mitchell, 2 DalL, S48. Who may he guilty of treason. — Only a citizen can be guilty of high treason. United States v. Villato, 2 DalL, 370. It is a breach of allegiance and can be committed only by one owing allegiance either permanent or tem- porary. United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat, 76, 97. Aliens domiciled in the United States owe a local and temporary allegiance to the government of the United States, and are equally amenable with citi- zens for infraction of the laws, except such as relate immediately to citizenship, while they reside within the United States. For selling salt petre to the Confed- erate States knowing that it was to be used in the manu- facture of gun powder, they were amenable for treason Sec. 1.] FAITH AIS^D CREDIT^ ETC. 243 in giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall., 147. AETICLE lY. FAITH AND CREDIT TO ACTS^ ETC., OF OTHER STATES. Section 1. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceed- ings of every other State. And the Congress may by gen- eral laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." When full faith and credit to he given. — This rule applies to courts only so far as they have jurisdiction. Lacking that the record is not entitled to credit (Pub. Works V. Columbia College, 17 Wall., 621) and does not prevent an inquiry into the jurisdiction. Thomp- son V. Whitman, 18 Wall., 457. The record may be contradicted by proving the facts therein stated or recited to show jurisdiction to be false. Id. Want of jurisdiction may be shown either of the subject matter, the person or the rem. Id. D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How., 165; Ejiowles v. Gas Light Coke Co., 19 Wall., 58 ; Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S., 160. In an action on a judgment rendered in another State, the defendant, notwithstanding the record shows a return of a sheriff that he was personally served with 244 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. IV, process, may show the contrary to defeat jurisdiction. Knowles v. Gas Light and Coke Co., 19 Wall., 68. A judgment obtained against a non-resident joint debtor, without notice to him, is entitled to no faith and credit out of the jurisdiction where rendered. D'Arcy V. Ketchum, 11 How., 165. Under this clause and K. S., Sec. 905, a judgment recovered in one State against two joint defendants, only one of whom has been duly served with summons, and which is valid and enforcible by the law of that State against the former alone, will support an action against the one so served in another State. Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S., 1 ; Kenaud v. Abbott, 116 U. S., 277. In a personal action brought in a State against a cor- poration that is not incorporated there, nor does busi- ness nor has an agent or property in such State, a judg- ment rendered can not be recognized as valid in any other State; even though the summons were served on the President while temporarily in such State. Goldey V. Morning 'News, 156 U. S., 518. The tribunals of one State have no jurisdiction over persons of other States unless found within their terri- torial limits. Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall., 350. The partner, not residing in the State where the firm is sued, is not personally bound by the judgment recov- ered in that State, when he is not served, though after dissolution other partners did appear and entered ap- Sec. 1.] FAITH AND CREDIT, ETC. 245 pearance for all the parties. Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S., 160. Process from tlie tribunals of one State can not run into another State and summon a party there domi- ciled; and publication of process within the State can not summon him to appear. A judgment obtained on such service may be sufficient to dispose of the prop- erty of the defendant brought by seizure or some equiv- alent act within the control of the court ; but as to the absent defendant's personal rights and obligations it is ineffectual. A judgment against him personally for the recovery of money, rendered upon such constructive service, is not entitled to credit in the Federal courts or courts of other States. Pennoyer v. 'Ne&, 95 XJ. S., 714. Where, by the State law, constructive service by pub- lication of summons or process is provided, and upon such service the court is authorized to adjudicate upon the rights of the absent party, strict compliance with the statutory mode of service must be observed. Gal- pin V. Page, 18 Wall., 350. Where B, a citizen of Maryland, had executed a bond, with a warrant authorizing any attorney of any court of record in the State of New York or any other State to confess judgment for the penalty, and judgment hav- ing been entered in Pennsylvania under local law, with- out service of process or appearance of attorney or in person by the defendant, the courts of Maryland were 246 COXSTITUTIOK^ OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. lY, not bound to give faith and credit to such judgment. Grover, etc., Mch. Co. v. Eadcliffe, 137 U. S., 287. This provision "establishes a rule of evidence rather than of jurisdiction." "It does not make the judg- ments of other States domestic judgments to all in- tents and purposes, but only gives a general validity, faith and credit to them as evidence. No execution can issue upon such judgments without a new suit in the tribunals of other States. And they enjoy not the rights of priority or lien, which they have in the State where they are pronounced." See Wisconsin v. Pelican Co., 127 U. S., 292. "To give it force of a judgment in an- other State it must be sued upon and made a judgment there and can only be executed as its laws may permit." M'Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet., 312, 325. As to public acts, records and judicial proceedings, this clause requires that the same effect be given them that by law and usage they have at home. Chicago, etc., K'y Co. v. Wiggins, 119 U. S., 615. A statute which declares that "no action shall be maintained on any judgments or decree rendered with- out the State against one who was at the time a resident of the State passing the law, is void as in conflict with the full faith and credit clause. Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall., 290. Records and judicial proceedings of each State, so far as they affect property in that State, must be given the eame force and effect in other States that they have at Sec. 1.] FAITH AND CREDIT^ ETC. 247 home; but as to similar property elsewhere they have no greater effect than similar records or proceedings of the State not of origin. Eobertson v. Pickrell, 109 U. S., 608. The power of a will is determined by the law of the State where the land lies. If admitted to probate in another State, the validity of the devise is determined not by the judgment of probate but by the lex rei sitae (the law of the site of the land). Robertson v. Pick- rell, 109 U. S., 608. The laws of another State, in order for the court of a State to give them full force and credit, must be proved as a fact. Chicago, etc., R'y Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U. S., 615. A judgment of one State has the same effect as a domestic judgment of another State, under this clause, only so far as to preclude all inquiry into the merits. M'Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet., 312. The probate of a will is not conclusive abroad to any^ farther extent than in the State where granted. Darby's Lessee v. Mayer, 10 Wheat., 465. The judgment of one State is conclusive evidence in another, although commenced by attachment of prop- erty, the defendant having afterwards appeared and de- fended. Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheat., 129. Nil debet (that he does not owe) is not a good plea to an action founded on a judgment of another State. Mills V. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481. 248 COI^STITUTIOI^ OF UNITED STATES. [Art. IV, The judgment of a State court has the same credit, effect and validity in every other court, within the United States which it had in the State where rendered, and only such pleas as could be made to it there can be made elsewhere. Hampton v. M'Connel, 3 Wheat, 234; Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S., 1. An action of debt will not lie against an administra- tor in one State, on a judgment recovered against a dif- ferent administrator of the same intestate appointed in another State, under its authority. Stacy v. Thrasher, 6 How., 44. There is no privity between the two ad- ministrators. Id. Statutes of limitation may bar judgments obtained in other States. B'k of Ala. v. Walton, 9 How., 522. When A is sued in one State upon an assessment or call upon stockholders made in another State, made by the court in winding up the corporation, and A pleads the general statute of limitations of the State where the suit is brought, no Federal question as to faith and credit is raised. Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 TJ. S., 329. A, B, and C resided in I^ew York. A owed both B and C severally. He gave a mortgage on chattels in Illinois to secure B, but the same was not recorded, which by the laws of Illinois was essential to validity, as also was delivery. C attached the property in Illi- nois and levied upon and sold it. B was no party to this proceeding and did not intervene; but sued C in N'ew Sec. 1.] FAITH AND CREDIT, ETC. 249 York for converting the property. C pleaded in bar the proceeding in Illinois, which plea was overruled hj the State court. This was in violation of the full faith clause. Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall., 139. A court of equity may enjoin a creditor (who is within its jurisdiction) from prosecuting his debtor in another State, when proceedings have been instituted against the debtor, under a general State insolvent law ; and the creditor attaches property in another State, which the insolvent law requires the debtor to transfer to his assignee for distribution. Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S., 107. The mere construction of a statute of a State, without denying its validity, does not deny it full faith and credit { especially where no decision in the State where the statute was enacted is in conflict with such construc- tion. Glenn v. Garth, 147 U. S., 360. One who holds bonds of one State may be taxed upon them in another, where he resides. Such taxation does not violate this full-faith clause. Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U. S., 592. Whether a State court has denied full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of another State is a Federal question ; and whether the statute of a State is of a penal nature so that another State will not give it effect, will be determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S., 657. A statute making a stockholder liable for all the debts 250 CONSTITUTIOI^ OF UNITED STATES. [Art. IV^ of the corporation is not penal; and full effect should be given to the liability in another State. Id. The courts of the United States, exercising original jurisdic- tion take judicial notice, without proof, of the laws of the several States of the United States; but the Su- preme Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction, regards as matter of fact whatever was matter of fact in the State court. Chicago, etc., E'y Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U. S., 615. Objection that a record of authentication is incom- plete must be raised in the court below; it can not be raised for the first time in the appellate court. Car- penter V. Strange, 141 U. S., 87. "No other authenti6ation is necessary than that pre- scribed by the act of Congress. The seal of the State is sufficient to an act of the legislature. United States V. Amedy, 11 Wheat, 392. See, R. S. U. S., Sec. 908. When the courts of one State construe the statutes of another State differently from their construction at home, it does not justify removal to the Federal court, but the remedy is by writ of error from the Supreme Court, when full faith is not given to the acts, etc., of the other State. Chicago, etc., R'y Co. v. Wiggins*^ Ferry Co., 108 U. S., 18. In a proceeding in a Federal court to enforce a lia- bility created by a State statute, the same effect will be given to a judgment of a State court either as evidence or as a cause of action, as is given to it in the courts of Sec. 1.] FAITH AND CREDIT^ ETC. 251 the State whose laws are invoked in the enforcement. Chase v. Curtis, 1^3 U. S., 452. S. sued a railway company in Kansas for wages in justice's court and recovered all he claimed. The com- pany appealed to the district court. When called for trial the company asked continuance on the ground that a creditor of Sturm had sued him in an Iowa court, of which State the company was also a corporation, and re- covered a judgment there from which an appeal had been taken which was still pending and that in that ac- tion the defendant corporation had been garnisheed for the same debt as that on which the suit was brought. Mo- tion for stay and for new trial denied. Heldj that the Iowa court had jurisdiction and the Kansas courts did not give the Iowa proceedings due faith and credit, for which reason judgment was reversed. Chicago, etc., E'y Co. V. Sturm, 174 U. S., 710. In an action begun in 'Egw York by the plaintiff against a former husband to recover alimony awarded by a decree of a court of !N'ew Jersey, the ^New York court denied the relief on the ground that the decree was erroneous, according to the law and practice of New Jersey. Held, that the New York court should have given full faith and credit to the judgment, leav- ing the defendant to seek his remedy of reversal for errors in the courts of New Jersay. Laing v. Eigney, 160 U. S., 531. Liability of stochholders for debts of corporation, when enforcible by courts of other States, — 1. The 252 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. lY, liability of a stockholder, fixed by the laws of the State of the domicile of the corporation of another State, is contractual and not 'penal in its nature and may be sued for in the Federal courts of another State where the stockholder resides. Whitman v. Oxford I^ational Bank, 176 U. S., 559. See, ante, p. 249. 2. And when the judgment of a court of the State of domicile of the corporation has been rendered and is conclusive upon the stockholder who is liable, the courts of other States must give full faith and credit to such judgments. Hancock National Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S., 640. Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S., 657. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS. Section 2. "The citizens of each State shall be en- titled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." N^OTE. — What are privileges and immunities? — The Supreme Court will not describe and define these privi- leges and immunities in a general classification, prefer- ring to decide each case as it arises. Conner v. El- liott, 18 How., 591 ; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall., 418, 430; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S., 248. The privileges and immunities of citizens guarantied by the Constitution did not (as the Constitution was prior to the late amendments) apply to free negroes, Sec. 2.] PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES. 253 whose ancestors were brouglit to this country and sold as slaves. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How., 393. It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in ques- tion to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as advan- tages resulting from citizenship in those States are con- cerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alien- age in other States; it inhibits discriminating legisla- tion against them in other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into them and egress from them ; it insures to them in other States the same freedom pos- sessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happi- ness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws. It has been justly said no pro- vision of the Constitution has tended so strongly to con- stitute the citizens of the United States one people a» this. Paul V. Virginia, 8 Wall., 168, 180. The privileges and immunities which this clause se- cures are those common to the citizen, not such special privileges as a State may give its citizens or some of them, such as the right to fish in public waters. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall., 168. This clause does not vest the citizens of one State with any interest in the common property of the citizens of other States. The citizens of a State may be authorized to plant oysters in the soil of tide waters within the 254 coA^STiTUTiOK- or united states. [Art. IV,' State, and citizens of other States may be forbidden. McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S., 391. This clause does not prevent a State from imposing a tax on all sales made by auction in it (except by im- porters of imported goods in the original packages), and where such tax is imposed on its own citizens, it may be imposed in the same manner and to the same extent on citizens of other States. Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall., 123. So an ordinance of a city imposing a license tax of $200 upon dealers in beer or ale by the cask, not man- ufactured in that city, is valid. It does not discrimi- nate against citizens of other States. Downham v. Alexandria, 10 Wall.^ 173. Instances of statutes repugnant to this section, as de- priving citizens of their privileges and immunities. — It is not in the power of a State, when establishing regula- tions for the conduct of private business of a particular kind, to give its own citizens essential privileges which it denies to other States. Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S., 239. A law of a State which provides that in case of for- eign corporations carrying on business in the State, and becoming insolvent, resident creditors shall be preferred to non-resident creditors, is repugnant to this provision of the Constitution. ^ Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S., 239. This case (Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S., 239) was again before the court in 176 U. S., 59, the judgment Sec. 2.] PRIVILEGES AK^D IMMUJS^ITIES. 255 rendered below not being in conformity to the decision, and mandate, and again it is declared that creditors, who are citizens of the United States are entitled to stand on the same plane with resident creditors in the distribution of the estate of a foreign corporation. Blake V. McClnng, 176 U. S., 59. See Sully v. Am. JN'at. Bk., 178 IT. 8., 289. The due process clause of the 14th Amendment does not regulate practice in the State courts nor control procedure therein; and all its requirements are com- plied with when the person condemned or whose rights are adjudicated has had sufficient notice and adequate opportunity to defend. Louisville, etc., Co. v. Schmidt, 177 IT. S., 230. In this case the point of ob- jection was that the company had been precluded from proving defenses not pleaded. To the general proposi- tion, the same ruling is in Iowa Cent. R'y v. Iowa, 160 U. S., 389 ; Wilson v. N'orth Carolina, 169 U. S., 586. A Maryland statute provided that resident traders should take out and pay for licenses to carry on business at one rate and that non-residents should pay at a higher rate, or be punished for doing business. Held, that the statute was void, so far as it conflicted with this provi- sion as to privileges and immunities. The non-resident may lawfully sell or offer or expose for sale, any goods which permanent residents might lawfully sell or offer or expose for sale, without being subjected to any higher 256 coiNTSTiTUTioiq^ of united states. [Art. lY, tax or excise than that exacted by law of permanent resi- dents. Ward V. Maryland, 12 Wall., 418, 430. The citizen has a right to come to the seat of govern- ment to press his claims and seek its protection, inde- pendent of the will of any State over wKose soil he may pass in coming or going. Crandall v. ITevada, 6 Wall., 35, 44. 'No State can by any law, subsequent to the Consti- tution, make a foreigner or any other class of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the J'ights and privileges secured by the Federal Constitu- tion. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How., 393. The right of the people of one State to take what is their property into a territory of the United States and there hold it as property is applicable to property held in slaves in a State where slavery exists by law. Dred Scott V. Sandford, 19 How., 393. An act of Congress prohibiting slavery in a territory of the United States held unconstitutional. Dred Scott V. Sandford, 19 How., 393. Instances where State statutes are held not repugnant to those provisions. — The provision in the 14th Amend- ment that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citi- zens of the United States" does not deter the State from passing such laws as it deems necessary to regulate the privileges and immunities of its own citizens and as do not abridge their privileges as citizens of the United Sec. 2.] PRIVILEGES AIS^D IMMUNITIES. 257 States. A State may prescribe what bodies may be or- ganized to constitute its organized militia, and forbid others from organizing. Pressor v. Illinois, 116 U. S., 252. The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Con- stitution of the United States. A State may abolish the grand jury system or provide for a charge of crime without the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, or may provide for a jury of less than twelve men to try one accused of crime. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S., 581. A uniform tax on all sales by auction whether by citi- zens or non-residents, imposed by ordinance of a city, is not repugnant to this clause. Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall., 123. A State statute which compels peddlers of goods to take out license, under penalty, making no discrimina- tion between residents or products of the State and those of other States, does not violate this section. Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S., 296. The law of Louisiana, which gives the community of gains between married persons, does not apply when the marriage is contracted and the parties reside outside of that State, even to lands owned in Louisiana. This is a right which Louisiana may regulate, not one of the per- 17 258 CONSTITUTIOIs^ OF UNITED STATES. [Art. IV, sonal rights of a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. Connor v. Elliott, 18 How., 591. The Iowa statute which provides that any one having Texas cattle shall be liable for damages for allowing them to run at large and spread the "Texas Fever" does not conflict with this section of the Constitution. Kim- mish V. Ball, 129 U. S., 217. The admission of a person to the practice of law in the courts of a State is not a privilege or immunity which a State may not deny. In re Lockwood, 154 U. S., 116 ; Bradwell v. The State, 16 Wall., 130. As to privileges and immunities as affected by the 13th and 14th Amend- ments see Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall., 36. A general tax laid on all property alike, as where coal is sent from one State to another to be sold, and there be- comes intermingled with the property of that State, does not violate this clause of the Constitution. Brown V. Houston, 114 U. S., 622. The right to sell intoxicating liquors is not one of the privileges and immunities of citizens, protected by the Constitution. Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall., 129 ; Gi- ozza V. Tiernan, 148 U. S., 657 ; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S., 623. Licenses may be granted only to residents of the State. Id. A State law prohibiting the carrying of dangerous weapons abridges no constitutional privilege or immun- ity. Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S., 535. The provision in a State law that when the defendant Sec. 2.] PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES. 259 is out of the State, the statute of limitations shall not run against the resident plaintiff, does not violate Sec- tion II of Article lY. Chemung Canal Co. v. Lowery, 93 U. S., 72. In actions at law in Federal courts the State rule does not apply that the defendant may demur to the com- plaint when it appears therefrom that the statute of lim- itations has run. Chemung Canal Co. v. Lowery, 93 U. S., Y2. There is nothing in the Constitution or laws of the United States which exempts an offender, brought be- fore the courts of a State, from trial and punishment, even though brought there by unlawful violence or by the abuse of legal process. Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S., 436; Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S., 700; Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S., 183, 190, 192. In Louisiana it is allowed to take land for the con- struction of levees on the Mississippi river without com- pensation, as they were subject to such servitude under the former French law. Land so taken belonging to a citizen of another state gives him no claim that his privileges and immunities have been illegally taken away. Eldridge v. Trezevant, 160 U. S., 452. The provision of the 'New York Criminal Procedure Code (Sees. 527, 555) for admitting to bail for non- capital offenses only by filing certificate of a judge as to •reasonable doubt whether the judgment should stand, is not repugnant to this section. The Constitution 260 CONSTITUTION- OF UNITED STATES. [Art. lY, does not mean that what may be a privilege and im- munity in one State must of necessity be so in another. McKane v. Durston, 153 TJ. S., 684. Corporations are not citizens within the meaning of this section. — Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall., 168 ; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall., 410; :N^orfolk, etc., K'y Co. v. Penn., 136 U. S., 114; Phila. Fire Asso. v. ^ew York, 119 U. S., 110; Pembina Mining Co. v. Penn., 125 U. S., 181. "That invisible, intangible, artificial being, that mere legal entity, a corporation aggregate, can not sue or be sued in the courts of the United States, unless the rights of members in this respect can be exercised in their cor- porate name." Bank of U. S. v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61, 86. An averment that the defendant is a natural citizen of the United States, and resides in Louisiana, and that the plaintiff is a citizen of France, is sufficient to give jurisdiction to a Circuit court. Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet, 761. A' corporation can not act outside the State of its cre- ation, but by the permission of the State or county where it seeks to act. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet, 519 ; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Mass., 10 Wall., 566. Sec. 2.] FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE. 261 DELIVERY OF FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE. Section 2, Art. IV. "A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having juris- diction of the crime.'* This clause of the Constitution was intended to in- clude any offense against the law of the State in which it was committed. The right is absolute and the duty correlative; but it is not within the power of Congress nor the executive or judicial department to compel its enforcement. The duty rests solely on the honor and good faith of the States. Kentucky v. Dennison, Gov- ernor of Ohio, 24 How., 6Q ; Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S., 642 ; Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U. S., 537. Congress by the Act of February 12th, 1793 (1 Stat. at L., 392, c. 7), provided the method by which this provision could be carried into execution ; and declares that, on due evidence, the nature of which is described, ^*It shall be the duty" of the executive to whom demand is made to give up the fugitive. These words are not mandatory but merely give expression to the moral ob- ligation of the executive of the State to obey the Con- stitution on the subject. Id. The prisoner Was indicted on two indictments "for 262 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. IV, being a common cheat and swindler" in Georgia. Eeq- uisition was made for his person on the governor of 'New York, for the crime charged in such two indict- ments. When delivered up, he was before trial upon those indictments, tried and convicted of forgery. He moved to quash the indictment on the ground that the offense charged in it was not the same for which he had been extradited from the State of 'New York. Held, that there was nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent such trial ; that there was between the States no right of asylum in the international sense. Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U. S., 537. Under extradition treaties with foreign States (R. S., Sees. 5272, 5275) extradition must be negotiated through the Federal government ; and under the treaty with England, a person can, when extradited, be tried only on the offense charged in the extradition papers. United States v. Eauscher, 119 U. S., 407. Holmes was arrested in Vermont on a warrant or or- der issued by Governor Jennison of that State, directed to the sheriff of a county of Vermont setting forth that an indictment had been found in Quebec, Lower Can- ada, for murder, and commanding the sheriff to arrest Holmes, convey his body to some place on the border and there deliver him to the Canadian authority which might be there to receive him. A writ of habeas corpus was sued out of the Supreme Court of Vermont, and on the hearing the court held the imprisonment lawful. Sec. 2.] FUGITIVE SLAVES, ETC. 263 The Supreme Court of tlie United States was of the opinion that the State of Vermont had no right to sur- render the prisoner to a foreign State. Yet the majority of the court decided that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction and dismissed the writ of error. Hohnes V. Jennison, 14 Pet., 540. FUGITIVE SLAVES^ ETC. "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in conse- quence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." The Constitution (as originally adopted) clothes the owner of a slave with entire authority to seize and re- capture his slave in any State of the Union, whenever he can do so without any breach of the peace or illegal violence. Prigg v. Penn., 16 Pet., 539. An act of the State of Pennsylvania made it criminal to "take and carry away, or cause to be taken and car- ried away," or by fraud or false pretense "seduce or cause to be seduced," or to "attempt to take, carry away, or seduce any negro or mulatto from any part or parts of this commonwealth to any other place or places what- soever, out of this commonwealth, with a design and in- tention of selling and disposing of, or of keeping and 264 COIs^STITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. IV, detaining or of causing to be kept or detained, such, negro, or mulatto as a slave or servant for life or for any term whatsoever; every such person or persons or abettors'' were punishable. This act held repugnant to the Constitution. Id. The last clause of the second section of the fourth article confers on Congress the exclusive power to legis- late concerning the extradition of fugitive slaves. Id. The fugitive slave act of 1793 (1 Stats, at L., 308) held constitutional. Id. ; Jones v. Van Zandt, 5 How., 215. A State law which makes it a crime to harbor a fugi- tive slave is not in conflict with the Constitution. The act of harboring may be an offense both against the State law and the laws of the United States. Moore v. Illi- jiois, 14 How., 13. The question whether slaves held in a slave State are made free by going into a free State with the permis- sion of their masters is purely a question of local law, over which the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, un- der the Constitution, before the amendments abolishing slavery. Strader v. Graham, 10 How., 82. The ordinance of 1787 ceased to be of force after the adoption of the Constitution. Id. Persons, whose ancestors were negroes of the African race imported into this country and held as slaves, can not though emancipated or born of free parents, become citizens of the United States, in the sense in which that Sec. 2.] FUGITIVE SLAVES, ETC. 265 word is used in the Constitution as originally adoj)ted. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How., 393. And they can not sue as such citizens in a Federal court. Id. The carrying of a person held as a slave into terri- tory of the United States ceded to it by France did not divest the owner of his property in such slave. The Act of Congress of March 6, 1820 (3 Stat, at L., 1545), commonly called "the Missouri Compromise," held unconstitutional and void as it forbade slavery in a portion of the territory of the United States and in- terfered with the right of the slave owner to go there carrying his slave property with him. Id. The fugitive slave law of Sept. 18, 1850 (9 Stat, at L., p. 462), held valid. Exclusive jurisdiction of of- fenses against that act was vested in the district courts of the United States, and State courts or judges have no jurisdiction nor power to discharge on writ of habeas corpus any person arrested by United States authority and committed by a United States commissioner. To discharge such person when it is made known to the court or judge issuing the writ, is to violate the laws and Constitution of the United States. Ableman v. Booth, 21 How., 506. The guaranty of trial by jury was intended for a state of war as well as peace ; and Congress can not in- vest a military commission in a State not invaded nor engaged in rebellion to try, convict and sentence for any criminal offenses, a person who was neither a prisoner 266 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. IV, of war nor a citizen of a State in rebellion. Ex 'parte Milligan, 4 WalL^ 1. Such person is entitled to trial by jury. Id. The provision that trials shall be held in the State where the crime shall have been committed, has refer- ence to trials in United States courts and not to trials in State courts. IN'ashville, etc., E'y Co. v. Alabama, 128 IT. S., 96. PORMATION AND ADMISSION OF STATES INTO THE UNION. Section 3, Article IY. "New States may be ad- mitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." Rights of State when admitted. — The State of Ala- bama, when admitted into the Union, became entitled to the soil under the navigable waters of the State not pre- viously granted away. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How., 212. And Congress could not afterwards grant them away. Id. The new States admitted into the Union since the adoption of the Constitution have the same rights as the original States in the tide waters and lands under them within their respective jurisdictions. Shively v. Bowl- by, 152 U. S., 48. Sec. 3.] ABMISSIOI^ OF STATES. 267 The lands and the tide waters within the State limits passed to the State upon its admission with the consequent right to dispose of the title as the State might think proper, subject only to the paramount right of navigation over the waters as the necessities of com- merce might require. Weber v. Board of Harbor Com- missioners, 18 Wall., 57. The admission of a State on an equal footing with the original States in all respects, works collectively the naturalization of all those who had declared their in- tentions, and who had been members of the political community and were recognized as such at the time of the admission. Boyd v. ISTebraska, 143 U. S., 135. Upon the admission of Illinois into the Union the State became entitled to all the rights of dominion of the original States and could afterwards exercise the* same powers over rivers within her limits as Delaware exercised over Blackbird Creek, and Pennsylvania over Schuylkill river. Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S., 678 ; Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S., 543, 546 ; Hamilton v. Vicksburg, etc., K'y Co., 119 U. S., 280, 285. The provision in the act admitting California into the Union ^^that all the navigable rivers within the said State shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to the citizens of the United States, without any tax, impost or duty, therefor," does not deprive the State of the power pos- sessed by other States, in the absence of legislation by^ 268 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. lY, Congress, to authorize the erection of bridges over navi- gable streams within the State. Card well v. Am. Bridge Co., 113 U. S., 205. The power to admit new States includes the power tp acquire territory to be admitted as a State, and to maintain a government there until the territory is ripe "a for admission. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How., 393. On the admission of a State into the Union uncondi- tionally, the territorial government is abrogated, every part of it, and no power of jurisdiction remains except that derived from State authority, and that by force and operation of the Federal Constitution and laws. Ben- ner v. Porter, 9 How., 235; MclS'ulty v. Batty, 10 How., 72. Territorial 'property passes to State on admission. — A statute of the territory of Colorado authorized a board of managers to receive a conveyance of a site in Denver for the capitol of the territory. A conveyed by warranty deed a tract for such site to such board "for the purpose of erecting a capitol and other buildings thereon only." The territory made no use of the land before the admission of Colorado into the Union. After its admission, A executed and put on record an instru- ment attempting to annul the gift and took and was in possession of the land when he brought the suit in equity praying that the board and State officers be enjoined from disturbing his possession until he should receive just compensation. Held, he could not maintain suit. Sec. 3.] POWER OVER TERRITORIES. 269 as all the property of the territory passed to the State j and the State, as the case showed, was about to construct buildings on the land. Brown v. Grant, 116 U. S., 207. "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any par- ticular State.'' The power to acquire and govern territories. — "The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war and of makings treaties; consequently that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty." Ch. J. Marshall in Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet., 511, 542. Under the power of the general government to govern the territories, Congress exercises the combined powers of the Federal and State governments and may legislate directly for a territory, although the organic act con- tains no reservation of such power. Id. "Perhaps the power of governing a territory belong- ing to the United States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the facts that it is not within the power t 270 CONSTITUTIOIS' OF UI^ITED STATES. [Art. IV, and jurisdiction of any particular State, and is witbin the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory. Which ever may be the source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unquestioned.'^ Id. (1) The power of Congress over the territory is gen- eral and plenary, arising from the right to acquire them ; which right arises from the power of the govern- ment to declare war and make treaties of peace, and also, in part arising from the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other prop- ^ erty of the United States. (2) This plenary power extends to the acts of the legislatures of the territories and is usually expressed in the organic acts of each by an express reservation of the right to disapprove and annul the acts of the legis- lature thereof. (3) Congress has the power to repeal the act of in- corporation of the Mormon Church, by virtue of its gen- eral power and, also, its reserved right in the organic act of the Territory of Utah. Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S., 1. Subject to the limitations expressly or by implication imposed by the Constitution, the Congress has full and complete authority over a territory and may directlj^ legislate for its government, and may nullify its enact- ments. The act organizing a territory is its funda- Sec. 3.] POWEE OVER TERRITORIES. 271 mental law and binding upon the territorial authorities. ISTat. B'k V. Yankton Co., 101 U. S., 129. "Doubtless Congress, in legislating for the territories, would be subject to those fundamental limitations in favor of personal rights, which are formulated in the Constitution, but these limitations would exist by infer- ence and the general spirit of the Constitution from which Congress derives its powers rather than by any ex- press and direct application of its provisions. '^ Mormon Church V. United States, 136 U. S., 44. The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty which restrain all the agencies of government. State and national ; their polit- ical rights are franchises which they hold as priviliges in the legislative discretion of Congress. Murphy v. Eamsey, 114 U. S., 44. The people of the United States, as sovereign owners, have supreme power over the territories. In the exercise of this sovereign dominion, they are represented by the government of the United States, to whom all the powers of government over that subject have been delegated, subject only to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution or are necessarily im- plied in its terms, or in the purposes and object of the power itself ; for it may well be admitted in respect to this, as to every other power of society over its members, that it is not absolute and unlimited. Murphy v. Ram- sey, 114 U. S., 44. 272 CONSTITUTION or united states. [Art. IV,. "The power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States is not more comprehensive than the power to make all laws which shall he necessary and proper for carrying into execution'' the power of the government. Yet all admit the constitutionality of ter- ritorial government which is a corporate body. M'Cul- loch V. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316, 422. The Dred Scott decision. — The clause in the Consti- tution authorizing Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other prop- erty of the United States, applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some of the States when they were colonies of Great Britain, and which was sur- rendered by the British government to the old confedera- tion in the treaty of peace, but has no application to ter- ritory acquired by the present Federal government^v Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How., 393. In the territory acquired by the people of the United States for their common benefit. Congress can not pro- hibit the citizen of any particular State from going there and taking up his home, while it permits citizens of other States to go there ; and each may take his prop- erty there, and as the Constitution recognizes property in slaves, the slave owner may take his property there and hold it, the same as the owner of other chattels can take them there. Congress can not prohibit this. Dred Scott V. Sandford, 19 How., 393. The United States, under the present Constitution, ^ *^ Sec. 3.] POWER OVER TERRITORIES. 273 can not acquire territory to be lield as a colony, to be governed at its will and pleasure. But it may acquire territory which, at the time, has not a population that fitd it to become a State, and may govern it as a territory^ until it has a population which in the judgment of Con* gress entitles it to be admitted as a State into the Union. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How., 393. Power over territories. — Upon the acquisition of a territory by the United States, by treaty, cession f roia the States, a discovery and settlement, the same title an(J dominion passes to the United States for the benefit o£ the whole people and in trust for the States to be ulti- mately created out of the territory. Shively v. Bowlby, ► 152 U. S., 48. By the treaty of March 14th, 1855, between the United States and the Cherokee nation certain lands were ceded to them, and it was provided that the lands ceded "shall in no future time be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or terri- tory. But they shall secure to the Cherokee nation the right of their national councils to make and carry into effect all such laws as they may deem necessary for the government and protection of persons and property within their own country belonging to their people, or such persons as have connected themselves with them; provided, always, that they shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution of the United State and such acts of Congress as have been or may be passed, regulating 18 274 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. IV, trade and intercourse with the Indians," etc. Held, that the Cherokee nation are so far under the protection of the laws of the United States, as a State or territory, for the purpose of suing in the District of Columbia, on an administrator's bond. Mackey v. Coxe, 18 How., 100. A person appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate to be the judge of the district court of Alaska, under the provisions of the act of May 17th, 1884 (23 Stat. 24, c. 53, Sec. 3), is not a judge of the courts of the United States within the meaning of the tenure of office act. K. S. U. S., Sec. 1768 ; McAllis- ter V. United States, 141 U. S., 174. Under the provision as to the trial of offenses com- mitted within the jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, the ac- cused was tried in Maryland for a murder committed on Mavassa island, a small island in the Carribean sea, over which the United States had exercised jurisdiction since 1859, it being occupied by an American company, for its phosphates or guano deposits. Jones v. United States, 137 U. S., 202. In 1815 Congress levied a direct tax on the States. By a later act, of the same session, a direct tax was also levied upon the District of Columbia. This tax was held valid, as Congress has power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. In the course of the opinion Chief Justice Marshall uses these words : "This Sec. 3.] POWER OVER TERRITORIES. 275 grant (of power to lay and collect taxes, etc.) is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extefnds to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subse- quent words which modify the grant. These words are, 'But all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.' It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any portion of the American empire ? Certainly, this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories. The District of Columbia, or the ter- ritories west of the Mississippi, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania; and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitu- tion, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, du- ties and excises, should be observed in the one, than in the other." But it was held that as Congress had power of exercising exclusive legislation in all cases whatso- ever, it had the power to lay direct taxes on the basis of population. Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat., 317. The courts held in the territories by judges appointed by the President are not courts of the United States, 'but are merely legislative courts created by virtue of the 276 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. IV, clause which authorizes Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory, etc. Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall., 434. The theory upon which the various governments for portions of the territory of the United States have been organized has ever been that of leaving to the inhabit- ants all the powers of self-government consistent with the supremacy and supervision of national authority, and with certain fundamental principles established by Congress. Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall., 434, 441. The right of the people of the territories to trial hy jury. — In a criminal prosecution in the District of Col- umbia the accused claimed the right of trial by jury. In this case, the Court says : "As the guaranty of a trial by jury, in the third article, implied a trial in that mode and according to the settled rules of the common law, the enumeration in the Sixth Amend- ment of the rights of the accused in criminal prosecu- tions is to be taken as a declaration of what these rules were, and is to be referred to the anxiety of the people of the States to have in the supreme law of the land, and so far as the agencies of the general government are con- cerned, a full and distinct recognition of those rules, as involving the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property. This recognition was demanded and secured for the benefit of all the people of the United States, as well as those permanently or temporarily residing in the District of Columbia as those residing or being in the Sec. 3.] POWER OVER TERRITORIES. 277 several States. There is nothing in the history of the Constitution or of the original amendments to justify the assertion that the people of the District of Columbia may be lawfully deprived of the benefit of any of the constitutional guaranties of life, liberty and property; especially of the privilege of trial by jury in criminal cases.^' ^'We can not think that the people of this dis- trict have in that regard less rights than those accorded to the people of the territories of the United States." Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S., 540, 549, 550 ; Thompson V. Utah, 170 U. S., 343. An act of the territory of Iowa dispensing with a jury in a certain class of cases was held contrary to the 7th Amendment, and void, the Constitution having been ex- tended to the territory by statute of Congress. Web- ster V. Eeid, 11 How., 437. The statute of Utah, while a territory, which provided that "in all civil cases a verdict may be rendered on the concurrence therein of nine or more members," is valid ; if not so under the 7th Amendment to the Con- stitution it is so as violating the provisions of the act of Sept. 9, 1850, c. 51, admitting Utah as a territory and extending the Constitution there so far as applicable. Am. Pub. Co. V. Fisher, 166 U. S., 464; Springville v. Thomas, 166 U. S., 707. It is intimated that Congress could not deprive one of this common-law right even in a territory. Id. ; Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S., 343. Where the country occupied by one of the Indian 278 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. IV, tribes is not within a State, Congress may enact laws to punish offenses committed there either by whites or In- dians. U. S. V. Rogers, 4 How., 567. Where a provisional government had been erected by the President in California between the date of the treaty of peace (Feb. 3, 1848) and the date when a col- lector of the post entered upon his duties and under such provisional government duties had been exacted upon imports from foreign countries, they were not illegally exacted and can not be recovered back. Cross v. Har- rison, 16 How., 164. The civil government so erected by the President by virtue of the power of conquest did not cease upon the ratification of the treaty but continued, without viola- tion of the Constitution or laws of the United States, until Congress provided otherwise by legislation. Id., 195. The following clause in Justice Wayne's opinion is claimed to have some significance. He says, "The as- sertion rather than argument, ^that there was neither treaty nor law permitting the collection of duties,' has been answered, it having been shown that the ratifica- tions of the treaty made California a part of the United States, and that as soon as it became so, the territory be- came subject to the acts which were in force to regulate foreign commerce with the United States, after those had ceased which had been instituted for its regulation as a belligerent right." Id., 198. Power to sell and dispose of lands.- — The power of Sec. 4.] GUARANTIES TO STATES. 279 Congress to "dispose" of the public lands is not limited to sales, but it may lease them. United States v. Gra- tiot, 14 Pet., 526. The term territory as here used is merely descriptive of the one kind of property and is equivalent to the word lands. And Congress has the same power over it as over any other property belonging to the United States, and this power is vested in Congress without limitation, and has been considered the foundation upon which the ter- ritorial governments rest. Id. GUAKANTIES TO STATES. Sectioit 4, Article IV. "The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against in- vasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the Executive (when the legislature can not be convened), against domestic violence." 1. This section provides that "the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion," etc. 2. Under this article of the Constitution it rests witH Congress to decide what government is established in a State. For as the United States guaranties to each State a republican form of government. Congress must neces* earily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or notl 280 CONSTITUTION or united states. [Art. lY, 3. The decision of Congress is binding on every other department of government. 4. Congress may delegate this power to the President, and when he decides which of two contending and alleged State organizations constitute the State govern- ment, his decision, under the Act of Feb. 28th, 1795 (1 Stats, at L., 424), is conclusive on the courts of the United States. Luther v. Borden, 7 How., 33, 42. The relation of States to the Union. — (1) When Texas became one of the States of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obli- gations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of re- publican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The Act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the polit- , ical body. And it was final. The Union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the Union between the original States. (2) The Ordinance of Secession was therefore void, absolutely null as a transaction under the Constitution. (3) Texas, in legal contemplation, continued to be a State in the Union. (4) When Texas attempted to secede and entered into a hostile confederacy and waged war upon the United States her rights as a member of the Union were suspended. (5) These new relations imposed new duties on the Sec. 4.] GUAEANTIES TO STATES. 281 United States, first, to suppress the rebellion; second, to re-establish the Union. (6) The authority for performance of the second ob- ligation was derived from the obligation of the United States to guaranty to every State in the Union a repub- lican form of government. (Y) The power to carry into effect the guaranty •clause is primarily a legislative power, and resides in Congress. For, as the United States must necessarily guaranty to each State a republican government, Con- gress must necessarily decide what government is estab- lished in the State, before it can decide whether it is re- publican in form, or not. Texas v. White, 7 Wall., 700, 726, 730. The Kentucky election case. — The guaranty of a re- publican form of government to each State by Art. IV, Sec. 4, does not confer on the Supreme Court of the United States jurisdiction to review the decision of the highest court of a State sustaining the determination of a canvassing board or tribunal created under the State Constitution. It does not deny the right of the people to choose their own officers. Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S., 548. Justice Brewer with Brown dissented from the view that the court had no jurisdiction but held that the de- cision of the Kentucky court should be affirmed. He cited the cases of Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S., 480 ; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S., 201, and Boyd v. Nebraska, 282 CONSTITUTIOI^ OF UNITED STATES. [Art. V* 143 IT. S., 135, as instances where the court had enter- tained jurisdiction, to inquire whether one had been de- prived of office without due process of law. Id. AETICLE V. AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION. "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments ta this Constitution, or, on the application of the legisla- tures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall he valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of rati- fication may be proposed by the Congress; provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." As to the date of ratification of each of the amend- ments to the Constitution, see post, p. 386. Art. VL] CONSTITUTION SUPREME, ETC. 28S AKTICLE VI. PUBLIC DEBTS CONSTITUTION, ETC., SUPREME. "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all ex- ecutive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or af- firmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Acts of Congress prevail over State laws, etc. — ^When a State statute and a Federal statute operate upon the same subject matter and prescribe different rules, and the Federal statute is one that Congress can pass the State statute must give way. Gulf, etc., Wj Co. v. Hef- ley, 158 U. S., 98. 284 CONSTITUTIO]^ OF UNITED STATES. [Art. YL A law of Maryland, imposing a tax on a branch of the United States Bank, held invalid. M'CuUoch v. Mary- land, 4 Wheat., 316. "The government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result necessarily from its nature. It is the government of all ; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this ques- tion is not left to mere reason ; the people have, in ex- press terms, declared it by saying, "this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land." Id., 405, 406. The States must conform to the decisions of the Su- preme Court of the United States as to the unconsti- tutionality of an act. Cook v. Moffat, 5 How., 295, 405. The act of Congress of Feb. 17th, 1793, providing for the enrollment and license of persons engaged in the coasting trade is the supreme law of the land. Sinnot V. Com'rs, etc., of Mobile, 22 How., 227. The act of the Alabama legislature requiring vessels in such trade to register at a State office, under penalty, is void. Id. Foster v. Same, 22 How., 244. The government of the United States has jurisdic- tion over every foot of its soil and acts directly upon -each citizen. In re Debs, 158 U. S., 564. When courts give effect to treaties, — A treaty is pri- Art. VI.] CONSTITUTION SUPKEME, ETC. 285 marily a compact between independent nations. It de- pends for the enforcement of its provisions on the in- terest and honor of the governments which are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the courts have nothing to do and ca,n give no redress. But a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and are capable of enforcement as between the parties in the courts of the country. Ex 'parte Cooper, 143 U. S., 472, 501. When a question is pending between the government of the United States and a foreign power and negotia- tions are still going on, the courts should not interfere by process to determine whether the government was right or wrong. Ex parte Cooper, 143 U. S., 472. Upon the State courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard, enforce and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, whenever those rights are involved in any suit or proceeding before them. Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S., 624, 637; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S., 565, 586. 286 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. VI, Where one was imprisoned under the warrant of a district judge to abide the order of the President for the purpose of being extradited as a fugitive from the justice of France, under a convention with that coun- try, the Supreme Court will not issue a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of his commitment. In re Metzer, 5 How., 176. Acts of Congress and treaties. — A treaty is the su- preme law of the land and binds courts as much as any act of Congress. U. S. v. The Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103 ; Strother v. Lucas, 12 Pet., 410 ; Fellows v. Blacksmith, 19 How., 366. By the Constitution, a treaty and a statute are put on the same footing ; and if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control if the treaty be self -executing. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S., 190; Kelley v. Hedden, 124 U. S., 196. A treaty may supersede a prior act of Congress ; and an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty. The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall., 616. Congress is bound to regard public treaties and has no power to nullify titles confirmed many years before. Eeichart v. Felps, 6 Wall., 160. Acts of Congress may abate treaties. — Treaties are subject to such acts of Congress as may be passed for their enforcement, modification or repeal. Edye v. Eobertson, 112 U. S., 580 ; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 ,XJ. S., 190; Chinese Exclusion Cases, 130 U. S., 581; Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S., 238 ; Horner v. Art. VI.] CONSTITUTIOI^ SUPREME, ETC. 287 United States, 143 U. S., 207; Fong Yog Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 698. Thomas v. Gray, 169 U. S., 264. If a statute is in conflict with a treaty of the United States with a foreign power, the courts are bound to follow the statute. Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S., 238. Where there is a conflict between the treaties with the Cherokees and later statutes, the latter will prevail. United States v. Old Settlers, 148 U. S., 427. Treaties 'paramount over State Constitutions and laws. — Every treaty, while in force, is superior to the Constitution or laws of a State. Hauenstein v. Lyn- ham, 100 U. S., 483 ; Ware v. Hylton, 3 DalL, 199. It is the law of the land, whenever its provisions pre- scribe a rule by which the rights of the private citizen or subject may be determined. Ex parte Cooper, 143 U. S., 472. A statute of l^ew York giving to Livingston and Ful- ton exclusive right to navigate all waters in that State by steam or fire, held void, as repugnant to power granted to Congress. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., 1. "The nullity of any act, inconsistent with the Constitu- tion, is produced by the declaration that the Constitu- tion is the supreme law." Id., 210. The treaty-making power of the United States ex- tends to all proper subjects of negotiation between this government and other nations. De Geofrey v. Riggs, 133 U. S., 258. A treaty is the law of the land, and its provisions must 288 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Art. VI. be regarded as equivalent to an act of the legislature, when it operates directly on a subject, yet, if it be merely a stipulation for future legislation, the courts must await the action of the legislature upon it, before they can give it effect. Poster v. ISTeilson, 2 Pet., 253, 314. Virginia passed an act Oct. 20, 1877, to sequester British property. It provided, "That it shall be lawful for any citizen of Virginia, owing money to a subject of Great Britain, to pay the same, or any part thereof, from time to time, as he should think fit into the loan of- fice, taking thereout a certificate for the same in the name of the creditor, with an endorsemeoit under the hand of the commissioner of said office, expressing the name of the payer ; and shall deliver such certificate to the governor and council, whose receipt shall discharge him from so much of said debt." The fourth article of the definitive treaty of peace be- tween the United States and Great Britain of Sept. 3, 1783 (8 Stats, at L., 80), agreed "that creditors of either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recov- ery of the full value, in sterling money, of all bona fide debts before contracted. It was held that the British creditors of citizens of Virginia could recover debts pre- viously contracted, notwithstanding the debtors had paid the sums due into the loan office under the Vir- ginia law." There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States. By their authority the Art. VI.] TEEATIES, ETC., SUPREME. 289 State Constitutions were made, and by their authority; the Constitution of the United States was established; and they had the power to abolish the State Constitu- tions, — to make them yield to the general governme-nt, and to treaties made by their authority. A treaty can not be the supreme law of the land, that is, of all the Unite-d States, if any act of a State legislature can stand in its way. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall., 199, 236. The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the 6th article of the treaty of 1783 in the same manner as that of natural persons, and the act of the legislature of Vermont granting lands in that State, which belonged to The Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, a British corporation, to the respective towns in which the lands lie, is void, and conveys no title. Society for Propagation of Gospel v. New Haven, 8 Wheat, 464. The treaty power of the United States extends to the protection to be afforded to citizens of a foreign country owning property in this country, and to the manner in which it may be transferred, devised or inherited. De Geofroy v. Eiggs, 133 U. S., 258. "A treaty with Switzerland gave the citizens of that country owning lands in fee to whom lands in this coun- try descended the right to recover and sell the lands and withdraw and export the proceeds." This was the su- preme law and removed all incapacity to sell imposed 19 290 CONSTITUTIOI^ OF UNITED STATES. [Art. VI. by State law. Hauenstein v. Ljnliam, 100 U. S., 483, 488. A statute of Maryland limited the right of aliens to hold lands. The treaty of amity and commerce with Prance of 1778 (8 Stats, at L., 13, Art. 11) eoiabled the subjects of France to purchase and hold lands in the United States. The State law is inoperative. Chirac V. Chirac, 2 Wheat., 259. A treaty is a law of the land, of which all courts. State and National, must take judicial notice. Under an ex- tradition treaty, a prisoner, given up by another nation as a fugitive charged with murder, can not be placed on trial for any other offense. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S., 407. ^ The United States made a treaty with an Indian tribe in ^orth Carolina. A subsequent dispute as to bound- ary was settled by another treaty. This was binding on the State and on private rights ; and grants of land by the State within the Indian territory were held void, though the fee was in the State subject to Indian right of occupancy. Lattimer v. Poteet, 14 Pet., 4. The law of Ge-orgia, which subjected to punishment all white persons residing within the limit of the Chero- kee nation, authorized their arrest and removal there- from and trial in the State courts, is held unconstitu- tional because repugnant to treaties made with the Cher- okees. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet., 515. By treaty of Xov. 3, 1762, France ceded to Spain the Art. VII.] EATIFICATION. 291 province of Louisiana. A grant of land made after that date was void, unless ratified by Spain. Long contin- ued possession miglit justify presumption of such ratifi- cation. United States v. D'Auterive, 10 How., 609; Same v. Pillerin, 13 How., 9 ; Same v. Rillieux, 14: How., 189 ; Same v. Gusman, 14 How., 193 ; Same v. Ducros, 15 How., 38. AKTICLE YIL "The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution be- tween the States so ratifying the same." "Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty- seven, and of the independence of the United States of America, the twelfth. In Witness whereof we have here- unto subscribed our names. (Signed by) "Go. Washington, "Presidt. and Deputy from Virginia," and by thirty-nine delegates. 292 co:nstitution of united states. [Am'ts, AMENDMENTS* In addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution. The first ten amendments to the Federal Constitution contain no restrictions on the powers of States, but were intended to op- erate solely on the Federal government. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet., 2i3; Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet., 469; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How., 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall., 321; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall., 532; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542, 552; Spies v. Illi- nois, 123 U. S., 131; In re Sawyer, 124 U. S., 200, 219; Eilen- becker v. Dist. Court, 134 U. S., 31; Davis v. Texas, 139 U. S., 651; Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U. S., 490; Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S., 535; Ex parte Keggel, 114 CJ. S., 642; Iowa C. R. Co. V. Iowa, 160 U. S., 389; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S., 226; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S., 22. AKTICLE I. FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, AND RIGHT OF PETITION. 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Art. I.] FREEDOM OF KELIGION^, ETC. 293 The establishment of religion. — The religious estab- lishmeiit of England was adopted in the Colony of Vir- ginia, and by it the freehold of church lands was in the parson. The act of the legislature of 17Y6 con- firmed to the church its right to these lands. Subse- quent statutes which sought to divert the rights as con- firmed and vt'st them in a corporation held unconstitu- tional. The statute of Virginia confirming the titles to church lands was not an infringement of any rights secured under the Constitution. Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43. The common law of England so far as it respects the ete'ction of churches of the Episcopal persuasion and the corporate capacity of the parson to take in succes- sion was recognized in the province of ]N^ew Hampshire prior to the revolution. Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292. A grant to the church vested the fee in the par- son. Id. A statute of the United States, for the territory of Utah, provided that no bigamist, polygamist or any per- son cohabiting with more than one woman, etc., should be entitled to vote. This held valid. Murphy v. Ram- sey, 114 U. S., 15. The above clause, "Congress shall make no law re- specting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," does not make void an act of a territory excluding from offices of trust and honor 294 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, those who disobey the law in practicing polygamy. Davies v. Beason, 133 U. S., 333. The pretense of religious belief can not deprive Con- gress of the power to prohibit polygamy and all other like offenses in a territory. Congress may provide for tjie winding up of a so-called religious corporation in- corporated by territorial acts. It possesses all the chancery powers necessary to the proper superinten- dence and direction of any gift to a charitable use. Mormon Church v. U. S., 136 U. S., 1. A party's religious belief does not shield him for committing acts which violate the laws of the land. He can not plead his faith to justify polygamy. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S., 145 ; Cannon v. United States, 116 U. S., 55 ; Murphy v. Ramsay, 114 U. S., 15. The Constitution makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective States in their religious liberties; this is left to the State Constitutions and laws ; nor is there any prohibition, imposed on the States by the Federal Constitution in this respect. Per- moli V. First Municipality, 3 How., 689. , A devise upon a trust to establish and maintain a college for the education of indigent or poor boys is a charitable trust, although the will of the testator ex- cludes all ecclesiastics, missionaries, and ministers of the gospel, of all sects, from any trust or duty concern- ing the college or from entry into it e*ven as visitors. Vidal V. Girard's Executors, 2 How., 127. Art. II.] RIGHT TO KEEP Al^D BEAR ARMS. 295 There are many decisions of the Supreme Court on questions relating to the rights of religious societies; but they do not turn on constitutional questions. An agreement by the commissioners of the District of Columbia, to maintain a hospital, made with the Sis- ters of the Roman Catholic church, for poor patients of the District of Columbia, to be paid for by appropria- tions made by Congress, does not conflict with the 1st Amendment that Congress shall make no law respecting, the e'stablishment of religion. Bradfield v. EobertSj, 175 U. S., 291. The appropriation by Congress of money to a hospi- tal for the treatment of poor patients, under a contract, lield, not an appropriation to religious societies, in vio- lation of the Constitutional provision respecting an es- tablishment of religion. Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 F. S., 291. ARTICLE 11. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right to hear arms is not granted by the Consti- tution ; nor in any manner dependent upon that instru* 296 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, ment for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that Congress shall not infringe the right. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542. This amendment is a limitation only on the poweTs of Con- gress and the National goveTnment. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the National government, as well as in view of its general powers, the States can not prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful re- source in maintaining the public security. State legis- latures may, however, enact statutes to control and regu- late all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are author- ized by the militia laws of the United States. Presser y. Illinois, 116 U. S., 252.. V AETICLE III. QUARTERING OF SOLDIERS IN HOUSES. "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Of this amendment Story says : ^'Its plain object is to secure the perfect enjoyment of that great right of the common law, that a man's house shall be his own castle privileged against all civil and military in- Art. IV.] NO SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. 297 trusions. The billeting of soldiers in time of peace upon the people has been a common resort of arbitrary princes, and is full of inconvenience and peril. In the Petition of Right (4 Charles I.), it was declared by Parliament to be a great grievance." Story's Com. on Constitution, 5 ed.. Sec. 1900. As to the effect of mar- tial law, see. In re Milligan, 4 Wall., 2, 124, 141. ARTICLE IV. SECURITY AGAINST SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirm- ation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'* Searches and seizures. — It does not require actual entry upon premises and search for and seizure of papers to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A compulsory production of a party's private books and papers to be used against himself or his property in a criminal proceeding, or for a forfeiture, is within the spirit of the amendment. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S., 616. Searches and seizures in the mails. — Letters and sealed packages in the mails subject to letter postage, 298 COI!^STITUTIOI^ OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, can be opened and examined only under like warrant issued upon oath or affirmation, particularly describing the tbing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household. The con- stitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be se- cure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers thus closed against in- spe-ction, wherever they may be. Ex 'parte Jackson, 96 U. S., 727. Applies only to National government. — This pro- vision does not apply to searches and seizures made by State authorities ; and when letters of an accused person have been seized and used against him in a trial in a State court, no Federal question is presented by such procedure. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S., 131. Espe- cially so, when the objection to the admission of such letters was not made, at the trial, but for first time in the State Supreme Court. Id. A State statute, which prohibits oyster fishing in modes that would destroy the beds altogether, is within State power of regulation, and it may declare vessels illegally engaged forfeited, and though it does not pro- vide for seizure by warrant on oath that question can not be raised in the Supreme Court of the United State-s. Smith v. Maryland, 18 How., 71. Warrants of distress under Federal law. — An act of Congress (3 Stats, at L., 592), authorized the Solicitor of the Treasury to issue warrants of distress against the Art. v.] SAFEGUARDS TO ACCUSED. 299^ property of a revenue officer, for the amount found due on adjusting his accounts in the Treasury department. This act held constitutional, it being usual in English and American law to authorize such provisions. Mur- ray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How., 272. AKTICLE Y. SAFEGUARDS TO ACCUSED PERSONS. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other- wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indict- ment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual serv- ice in time of war or public danger ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just com- pensation." Exception in time of war or public danger applies to militia only. — In the Fifth Article of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States providing that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or other- wise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indict- ment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service 300 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Alll'tS, in time of war or public danger, the words, "when in actual war or public danger" apply to the militia only. Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U. S., 109. Filing informations in cases of infamous crime. — The practice of filing informations against persons ac- cused of infamous crimes, is in violation of their right under the Fifth Amendment, and persons convicted upon such information of an infamous crime and im- prisoned upon the sentence are eoititled to discharge on habeas corpus. An infamous crime, within the provi- sions of the Fifth Amendment, includes one punishable by imprisonment for a term of years with or without hard labor. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S., 415 ; Mackin V. United States, 117 U. S., 348 ; Parkinson v. United States, 121 U. S., 281; United States v. De Walt, 128 U. S., 393. An acquittal on a criminal information for violation of the revenue laws is a good plea in bar to a civil infor- mation for the forfeiture of goods, arising upon the same acts. Coffey v. United States, 116 U. S., 436; Boyd V. United States, 116 U. S., 63.4. Indictment not amendable. — The declaration that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otheT- wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indict- ment of a grand jury" is jurisdictional. After the in- dictment has been preseoited there can be no amendment of the same in the body of the indictment. Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S., 1. Art. v.] SAFEGUARDS TO ACCUSED. 301 Admiralty cases not criminal. — An information filed in the district court to enforce the forfeiture of a ves- sel for exporting arms and ammunition contrary to U. S. Stats, at L., 369, is a civil cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and not to be tried by a jury. United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall., 297. Trial hy jm^y — criminal procedure, — The power given Congress to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces, authorizes the passing by Con- gress of laws to punish military and naval offenses, with- out indictment by grand jury or trial by jury, and under such laws the President may direct the imprisonment of one convicted by a naval court martial of attempt to desert. Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How., 65. The guaranty of trial by jury is of force as well in time of war as in time of peace, and can not be sus- pended nor a citizeii tried and convicted by a military commission in a State not in insurrection, and where the courts of the United States are regularly sitting. IN'either the President, nor Congress, nor the judiciary, can disturb the safeguards to liberty which this pro- vision of the Constitution affords. Ex 'parte Milligan, 4 Wall., 1. In a trial in the Federal courts, the rule is that the court may expre-ss its opinion upon the facts of the case. McLanahan v. Ins. Co., 1 Pet., 182 ; Games v. Stiles^ 14 Pet, 322 ; Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How., 116. An act may be an offense against the United States 302 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, and against a law of a State, and not for that reason contravene the Federal Constitution. So held of a stat- ute of Illinois making it a crime to harbor or secrete a fugitive negro slave. Moore v. Illinois, 14 How., 13. The Act of May 15, 1820, which authorizes the So- licitor of the Treasury to issue a warrant of distress against the property of a revenue officer for the amount found due on adjusting his accounts is constitutional. Murray's Lessees v. Hoboken, etc., Co., 18 How., 272. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution relating to criminal prosecutions, was not designed as limits upon the State governments but exclusively as restric- tions upon Federal poweT. Twitchell v. Common- wealth of Pennsylvania, 7 Wall., 321. The organic law of the territory of Iowa, by express provisions and by reference, extended the laws of the United States, including the Ordinance of 1787, over the territory so far as applicable. This preserved the right of trial by jury there. Webster v. Eeid, 11 How., 437, 460. "The trial by jury is justly dear to the American people. It has always been an obje-ct of deep interest and solicitude, and every encroachment upon it has been watched with great jealousy. One of the strong- est objections originally taken against the Constitution of the United States, was the want of an express pro- vision securing the right of trial by jury in civil cases. As soon as the Constitution was adopted, this right was Art. v.] SAFEGUARDS TO ACCUSED. 303 secured by the Seventh Amendmeiit of the Constitution proposed by Congress, which received an assent of the people so general as to establish its importance as a fundamental guaranty of the rights and liberties of the people." Story, J., in Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet., 433. What is ''due process of law f — Congress, in the ex- ercise of its power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, im- posts and excises," may, to enforce their payment, au- thorize the distraint and sale of either real or personal property, and this is not depriving of property without due process of law. Springer v. United States, 102 U. S., 586. See, ante, p. 302. A bill in equity to declare invalid and enjoin €*nforce- ment of a judgment obtained against the defendant for a tort committed under military authority, in accord- ance with the usages of civilized warfare, is "due pro- cess of law," and not in conflict with the Federal Con- Btitution. Preeland v. Williams, 131 U. S., 405. See, ante, p. 192. Compelling to he witness against self in criminal cases. — The provision of the Act of February 11, 1893 (c. 83, 27 Stat, at L., 443), "that no person shall be excused from attending and testifying, or from produc- ing books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents before the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion, or in obedience to the subpoena of the Commis- sion on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of 304 CONSTITUTIOI^ OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS^ him may tend to criminate him or subject him to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transac- tion, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify^ or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before said commission or in obedience to its subpoena, or the subpoena of either of them, or in any such case or pro- ceeding. But no person shall be prosecuted or sub- jected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or other- wise, before said commission, or in obedience to its sub- poena or the subpoena of either of them," affords abso- lute immunity against prosecution, Federal or State^ for the offense to which the question relate-s, and, hence, the witness can not shelter himself from answering be- hind this provision of the Constitution. Brown v. Walker, 161 Wis., 591. Where a person is under examination before a grand jury, in an investigation into certain alleged violations of the Interstate Commerce Act of Feb. 4, 1887 (24 Stats, at L., 379, and the Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stats, at L., 855), he is not obliged to answer questions where he states that his answers might tend to crimin- ate him, although the Eevised Statutes, § 860, provide that no evidence given by him shall in any manner be used against him, in any court of the United States in any criminal proceeding. 'No statute that does not af- ford complete immunity from future prosecution can Art. v.] SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. 305 supplant the privilege conferred by the Constitution. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S., 648. The stat- ute of 1893, above referred to, appears to have been passed in view of this decision. Seizure of private papers to he used as evidence.--^ The seizure or compulsory production of a man's pri- vate papers to be used in evidence against him is equiva- lent to making him testify against himself, and in a prosecution for a crime, penalty or forfeiture, is equally within the prohibition of the Fourth Amendment. Boydi V. United States, 116 U. S., 616. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments run into and shed light upon each other. When the thing forbidden in the Fifth Amendment, viz., compelling a man to be a witness against himself, is the object of a search and seizure of his private papers, it is an unreasonable "search and seizure" within the Fourth Amendment. Search and seizure of a man's private papers to be used in evidence to convict him of a crime or recover a peoi- alty or to forfeit his property is totally different from the search and seizure of stolen goods, dutiable articles for unpaid duties, etc., which rightfully belong to the custody of the law. Id. The 5th section of the Act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stats, at L., 186), which authorizes a court of the United States, on motion of the government attorney, to require the defendant or claimant, in revenue cases, to bring his private books, invoices, and papers into- 20 306 COIs^STITUTION- OP UI^ITED STATES. [Am'tS, court, or else that the allegations of the complaint be deemed confessed, held unconstitutional and void, as ap- plied to suits for penalties, or for a forfeiture of the party's goods, as such action for forfeiture or penalty is a "criminal case," within the meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself." Id. Not applicable to seizures hy State authority. — The arrest of a vessel engaged in taking oysters contrary to the statute of Maryland, held not contrary to the Constitution of the United States, as without "due pro- cess of law," as the Fifth Amendment restraining the issue of warrants, but on probable cause, etc., applies only to the United States and not the State authorities. JSmith V. Maryland, 18 How., 71. ^ ;The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution (relating to criminal prosecutions) were not designed as limits upon the State governments in reference to their own citizens, but are only restrictions upon Federal power. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet., 243 ; Thorington V. Montgomery, 147 U. S., 490. See, ante, p. 292. Talcing for public use — Sale of liquors may be for- bidden. — Forbidding the manufacture or sale of intox- icating liquors is not a taking of property for public use, nor without due process of law. Mugler v. Kan- sas, 123 U. S., 623. In condemnation proceedings for taking lands for Art. v.] EMINENT DOMAIN. 307 public use under a State statute, a published notice of the proceedings, in compliance with the statute, is "due process of law," And where the commissions appointed to appraise have been sworn and acted, the question whether one of them was a freeholder can not be raised collaterally in an action of trespass for entering the land after condemnation. Huling v. Kaw Valley Ry. Co., 130 U. S., 559. See, post, p. 374. The provision of the Fifth Amendment, as to taking private property, is only a limitation of the power of the United States ; it is not applicable to the legislation of the several States. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet., 242. The taking of a toll bridge, owned by a private cor- poration, may be accomplished for a public highway by eminent domain, and this taking, with compensation, does not impair the obligation of a contract. West Riv. Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How., 507 ; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How., 84. The Confiscation Acts of August 6, 1861 (12 Stats, at L., 319), and July 17, 1862 (12 Stats, at L., 588), are an exercise of the war power and not in conflict with the restrictions of the Fifth and Sixth Amend- ments. Miller v. United States, 11 Wall., 268. But the purchase of the property of a loyal citizen of the late rebel confederacy, under such statutes, is void. Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall., 457. Laws for the flowing of lands for mill-dams, or other like uses, are constitutional, if they provide for compen- 308 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, Bation ; and land sold by the United States, thougli bor- defring on navigable streams, is within the protection of the constitutional provision. Pumpelly v. Green Bay & M. Canal Co., 13 Wall., 166. The right of eminent domain exists in the govern- ment of the United States, and may be exercised within the States so far as necessary in the enjoyment of powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S., 367. The general grant of legislative power in the Consti- tution of a State does not authorize the legislature, in the exercise either of the right of eminent domain, or the right of taxation, to take private property, without the owner's consent for any but a public object, and not as a mere donation to a private manufacturing corpora- tion. Cole V. La Grange, 113 U. S., 1. The provision in the Fifth ^i^iendment of the Consti- tution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is a limita- tion on the power of the United States, not upon the legislation of the several States. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet, 243. Compensation for property taken for public use. — In proceedings taken in behalf of the United States under Act of August 8, 1888 (25 Stat, at L., pp. 400, 411), to condemn the locks and dam of the Monongahela ^Naviga- tion Company, the latter is entitled under the Fifth Amendment to compensation for its franchise, to take Art. v.] TWICE IN JEOPARDY. 309 tolls, as well as for the value of its tangible property. Monongahela JSTav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S., 312. Twice in jeopardy. — Where a court has imposed fine and imprisonment, where the statute conferred power only to punish by fine or imprisonment, and the fine has been paid, the court can not, even during the same term, modify the sentence by imposing imprisonment instead of the former sentence. Ex parte Lange, 18 How., 163. The same act or series of acts may constitute an of- fense equally against the United States and against a State, and subject the guilty party to punishment under the laws of each State. Cross v. iN'orth Carolina, 132 U. S., 132 ; United States v. Marigold, 9 How., 560, 669 ; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How., 410, 433 ; Moore v. Hlinois, 14 How., 13, 19 ; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S., 371, 390. In the latter case it is held that Congress may pass a law to punish a violation of any State law in regard to the election of Representatives to Congress. See, antej pp. 8, 301. Where a jury in a criminal case is discharged during the trial because one of the jurymen had sworn on his voir dire that he had no acquaintance with the accused ; and this fact had been disputed in a newspaper article, which the jury had read, a re-trial does not put the ac- cused twice in jeopardy within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Simmons, 142 U. S., 148, citing United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat., 979. 310 CONSTITUTIOI^ OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, ARTICLE VI. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED PEESONS. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been pre- viously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory pro- cess for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." The courts of the United States have no common-law jurisdiction of offenses at common law against the United States* United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat., 415. Therefore, they can not take cognizance of a criminal prosecution for a libel against the President and Congress of the United States. United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32. There are no common-law of- fenses against the United States. United States v. Britton, 108 U. S., 206 ; United States v. Eaton, 144 U. S., 677. And the Federal courts can punish only Buch offenses as are defined and made punishable by the statutes of the United States. Id. The statute of Pennsylvania enacted that "In any in- dictment for murder or manslaughter it shall not be Art. VI.] EIGHTS OF ACCUSED. 311 necessary to set forth the manner in which, or the means by which, the death of the deceased was caused ; but it shall be sufficient in every indictment for murder to charge that the defendant did feloniously, wilfully and of malice aforethought, kill and murder the deceased." A defendant under sentence of death in the court. Oyer and Terminer of Pennsylvania, sued out a writ of er- ror from the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that the indictment did not sufficiently in- form the accused of the nature of the accusation against him. Held, (1) That the court has no jurisdiction, as the Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not apply to the State governments ; (2) that in the opinion of the court, it is doubtful whether such an indictment is sufficient. Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall., 321. In the States which have authorized this form of indictment, it is held sufficient. See, State v. Allen, 85 Wis., 22, and cases cited. The Supreme Court has not authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to bring up the body of a person com- mitted to jail for a contempt by a circuit court of the District of Columbia. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat., 38. See, post, p. 387. The deck of a private American vessel is considered for many purposes constructively as territory of the United States. Yet persons on board such vessels, whether officers, sailors, or passengers, can not invoke the protection of the provisions of the Constitution as 312 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, to indictment and trial by jury, until brought within the actual territorial limits of the United States. Koss v. Mclntyre, 140 U. S., 453. AETICLE VII. TRIAL BY JURY IN CASES AT LAW. "In snits at common law, where the value in contro- versy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." "Suits at common law," within the meaning of the Seventh Amendment, include, not merely modes of pro- ceeding known to the common law, but all suits, not of equity or admiralty jurisdiction, in which legal rights are settled and determined. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet., 433. The clause in the amendment, "No fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined, than according to the rules of the common law," is a prohibition to the courts of the United States to re-examine any facts tried by a jury in any other manner. The only modes known to the common law to re-examine such facts, are the granting of a new trial by the court where the issue was tried, or to which the record was returnable, or the award of a venire facias de novo, by an appellate court. Art. VII.] TRIAL BY JURY. 313 for some error of law which intervened in the proceed- ings. The Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20, Sec. 17 (1 ^ 6tats. at L., 83), has given to all the courts of the • United States "power to grant new trials in cases where there has been a trial by jury, for reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law/' * Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet., 447. An Act of the State of Maryland incorporating the Bank of Columbia, afterwards included in the District of Columbia, in 1793, gave to the corporation a sum- mary process by execution, in the nature of an attach- ment against the debtors who have, by an express consent in writing, made the bonds, bills or notes drawn by them negotiable at that bank. This was held not {repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or the State of Maryland. The Circuit Court of the Dis- trict of Columbia was empowered by the Act of 1801 (2 Stats, at L., 102), to execute the provisions of this law. Bank of Columbia v. Oakley, 4 Wheat., 235. When Louisiana was ceded to the United States she had and still retains a practice unlike the common law and more nearly like the civil law. There had been created a territorial district court by act of Congress before the admission of Louisiana into the Union. Af- ter the admission into the L^nion Congress passed an act (4 Stats, at L., p. 62), that the proceedings in civil cases in courts of the United States that now are or hereafter may be established in the State of Louisiana, shall be 314 CONSTITUTIO]?^ OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS^ conformable to the laws directing tlie mode of practice in the district courts of that State. This statute also- provided for petit jurors in civil and criminal cases. It was held that it did not alter the appellate jurisdic- tion of the Supreme Court or give it power to re-ex- amine the facts once tried by a jury in an action at law» Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet, 433. A judgment of a State court though authorized by statute, whereby private property is taken for public use without compensation, is wanting in due process of law. Chic, B. & Q. K'y Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S., 226. In this case the city laid a street across the grounds of the company, the jury fixed the damages at one dollar. The Supreme Court of the United States held the ver- dict conclusive, under the 7th Amendment, though the court might think the jury erred in passing on the facts as proved. The provision that "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law," applies to facts tried by a jury in a State court ; and that part of the Act of March 3d, 1863, which provides for the re- moval of a judgment in a State court, and in which the cause was tried by a jury, to the Circuit Court of the United States for a re-trial on the facts and law, was contrary to this provision, and void. The Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall., 274. The clause of the Seventh Amendment; that "no fact Art. VII.] TRIAL BY JURY. 315 tried bj a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law," applies to cases coming to the Su- preme Court of the United States from the highest courts of the States in which facts have been found by a jury. Chicago, B. & Q. K'y v. Chicago, 166 U. S., 226. The Act of 1850, c. 61 (9 Stat, at L., 453, 458), ad- mitting Utah as a territory, enacted "that the Constitu- tion and laws of the United States are hereby extended over and declared to be in force in said Territory of' Utah, so far as the same or any provision thereof may be applicable." A later act of Congress (18 Stats, at L., 27), confirmed the statutes of various territories "so far as they authorized a uniform course of proceeding in all cases whether legal or equitable, provided, that no party has been or shall be deprived of the right of trial by jury in cases cognizable at common law." While such was the state of the law a territorial statute providing that a verdict in civil cases might be ren- dered by nine or more members of the jury, was held invalid, as contravening the Seventh Amendment. Am. Pub. Co. V. Fisher, 166 U. S., 464. This implies that the substance as well as the form of a jury trial should be preserved. Walker v. South. Pac. K. E. Co., 165 U. S., 693. 316 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, AKTICLEVIII. EXCESSIVE BAIL AND CKUEL PUNISHMENTS PROHIBITED. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." What are excessive fines, cruel or unusual punish- ments. — The provision that ^'excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" applies to !N'ational not State legislation. Pervear v. Mass., 5 Wall., 475. A fine of $50 and imprisonment at hard labor for three months as punishment for selling liquor without license, would not be deemed an excessive fine, nor a cruel or unusual punishment. Pervear v. Mass., 5 Wall., 475. The statute of 'New York which provides for capital punishment by electricity is not forbidden by this sec- tion. In re Kemmler, 136 U. S., 436. The statute of Utah, while a territory, provided for punishment of capital offenses by shooting, hanging or beheading, giving option to the convict as to the mode he would select. Held, he could be sentenced under this act, and the court can direct the mode where the pris- oner does not make the selection. Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S., 130. This statute of March 6, 1852, held not Tepealed by later act. Id. The adoption of the 14th Amendment does not make Art. IX.] RESERVED RIGHTS. 317 all the provisions of the first ten amefndments operative in the State courts. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S., 581. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, com- monly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply embodied certain guaranties and immunities, which we had inherited from our English ancestors; and which had from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions. It was not intended in adopting these amendments to disregard the excep- tions, which have always been recognized as if form- ally expressed. The power to arrest deserting seamen in the merchant service and deliver them on board their vessel, is not a part of the "judicial power," and Con- gress can confer it on justices of the peace, without vio- lation of the ten amendments, or Sections 1 and 2 of Article III, conferring judicial power, nor the 13th Amendment. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S., 275. ARTICLE IX. ENUMERATED POWERS NO DENIAL OF OTHERS RETAINED BY PEOPLE. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The State of Pennsylvania having liens upon the lands of its debtors by judgments and other proceedings passed a special act subjecting the lands to sale on pro* 318 OONSTITUTIOI^ OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, cess to be issued bj the Governor, to satisfy the debts, there being no other mode under the laws then existing to satisfy the debts. It was contended that this law vio- lated the 9th Amendment, as well as the 6th and 7th, but the answer of the court was that those amendments did not apply to the States. Livingston's Lessee v. Moore, T Pet, 469. "The most cursory glance at these articles discloses a unity of purpose, when taken in connection with the history of the times, which can not fail to have an im- portant bearing on any question of doubt concerning their true meaning. !N"or, can such doubts, when any reasonably exist, be safely and rationally solved without a reference to that history; for in it is found the oc- casion and necessity for recurring again to the great source of power in this country, the people of the States, for additional guaranties of human rights; additional powers to the Federal government ; additional restraints upon those of the States." Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall., 36, 37. AETICLE X. EESEKVED POWERS. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- served to the States respectively, or to the people." The general government and the States, although both exist within the same territorial limits, are sepa- Art. X.] KESERVED POWERS. 319 Tate and distinct sovereignties acting separately and in- dependently of each other within their respective spheres. The former in its appropriate sphere is su- preme ; but the States within the limits of their powers not granted, or, in the language of the 10th Amendment, "reserved/' are as independent of the general govern- ment as that government within its sphere is indepen- dent of the States. And Congress can not under the Constitution impose a tax upon the salary of an officer of the State. Collector v. Day, 11 Wall, 113. See, Ableman v. Booth, 21 How., 506. This provision applied in sustaining a municipal ordinance of !N^ew Orleans, which authorized the collec- tion of wharfage. Ouichita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S., 444. See, ante, p. 71. The ordinance was found not contrary to the Constitution or any law of the United States. The Supreme Court in holding the act of the State of "New York, which required all ships or vessels entering the port of l!^ew York to pay a certain tax per ton, void as a duty on tonnage, say that it is prohibited to the States. Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S., 238. "No mode is provided by the Constitution and laws of the United States by which a person, unlawfully ab- ducted from one State to another, and held in the latter State upon process of law for an offense against the State, can be restored to the State from which he was ab- 320 CONSTITUTIOI^ OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS^ ducted ; and such person can not be discharged on a writ of habeas corpus from a Federal court. Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S., 700. The statutes of the United States are as much the law of the land in any State as are those of the State ; and although exclusive jurisdiction for their enforcement may be given to the Federal courts, yet where it is not given, either expressly or by necessary implication, the State courts having competent authority, may be re- sorted to. Claflin V. Houseman, 93 U. S., 130. An assignee in bankruptcy may sue in a State court, to re- cover the assets of the bankrupt, no exclusive jurisdic- tion having been conferred on the courts of the United States. Id. This clause finds illustration in the case of State law punishing the offefnse of passing counterfeit coin, which is also a violation of the statutes of the United States. It was held not prohibited to the States to so punish. Fox V. Ohio, 5 How., 410, 432. The statutes of the State of Maryland protecting the oyster fisheries of the Chesapeake Bay, were held not to contravene the Constitution or any law of the United States. Smith v. Maryland, 17 How., 71. A license from the Federal government under the in- ternal revenue acts, does not work a prohibition to the State to pass laws regulating or forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors. Pervear v. Commonwealth, 5 Wall., 71 ; License Tax Cases, 5 Wall., 462. The statutes of Indiana which require telegraph com- Art. XI.] JUDICIAL POWER LIMITED. 321 panies to deliver despatches by messenger to persons to whom addressed or their agents, provided they reside within one mile of the telegraph station, or within the city or town where the station is, were held void, as in conflict with the interstate commercial power granted to Congress, in so far as the statutes attempt to regulate the delivery of despatches sent from other States. W. U. Tel. Co. V. Pendleton, 122 U. S., 347. The powers of the general government are made up of concessions from the several States — whatever is not expressly given the latter expressly reserve. The ju- dicial power of the United States is a constituent part of these concessions — that power is to be exercised by; the courts organized for the purpose, and brought into existence by an effort of the legislative power of the Union. All the other courts (except the Supreme Court) of the United States possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general government will authorize them to confer. United States v. Hudson, 7 C ranch, 32. ARTICLE XL JUDICIAL POWER LIMITED AS TO SUITS AGAINST STATES. "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, com- menced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State." 21 322 COXSTITUTIOI!^ OF UIs^ITED STATES. [Am'tS, The adoption of tlie 11th Amendment by the constitu- tional number of States operated to deprive the Su- preme Court of jurisdiction over suits against a State by citizens of another State; and suits pending at the time of its adoption could be no further prosecuted. HoUings worth v. Virginia, 3 DalL, 378. ^N^or could new suits be instituted. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S., 11. The 11th Amendment does not operate to prevent counties in a State from being sued in the Federal courts. This amendment limits the jurisdiction only as to suits against a State. Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S., 529. A State statute which attempts to ex- emj)t counties from liability except in the courts of the county can not defeat the jurisdiction given by the Con- stitution to the Federal courts. Id. A suit in equity against a board of canal commission- ers, brought by one who has purchased State lands, to restrain alleged violations of the purchaser's right un- der his contract of purchase, is not a suit against the State within the meaning of the 11th Amendment. Pennoyer v. Connaughty, 140 L^. S., 1. See, ante, p. 226. A circuit court of the United States, in a proper case in equity, may enjoin a State officer from executing a State law in conflict with the Constitution or a statute of the United States, when such execution will violate the rights of the complainant. Where the State is con- Art. XL] JUDICIAL POWER LIMITED. 323 cerned it should be made a party, if it can be done. That it can not be done is a sujficient reason for not doing it and the case may proceed to a decree without the State being a party. In deciding who are parties to the suit the court need not look beyond the record. Making a State officer a party is not making the State a party, although her law may prompt his action and she may stand behind him as the real party in interest. Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat., 846 ; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall, 203. Under this amendment a citizen of a State can not sue his own State in the Federal courts. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S., 1 ; :N'orth Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S., 22. A bank or other corporation, wherein a State is one of the corporators or the sole corporator, may be sued by a citizen of another State. The State puts off its sover- eignty when it becomes a stockholder. Curran v. Bank of Arkansas, 15 How., 304. Suits against State hoards or officers. — In Osborne v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat., 738, it was held as above indicated, viz. : that where the State was not a party to the record, the action could be maintained. But in later cases this doctrine has been overruled. In Louisiana, 107 U. S., 711, it was held that a mandamus would not lie to compel a board which held in trust cer- tain funds for payment to the creditors of the State to pay them contrary to a direction by the State legislature, as the funds were State funds and the suit was against 324 coisrsTiTUTioN of united states. [Am'ts, the State though not a party of record. So, In re Ayres, 123 IT. S., 443, it was held, where the State of Virginia had directed its Attorney General to sue certain tax pay- ers, where they had tendered tax-receivable coupons, a creditor filed a bill in the Federal court and obtained an injunction enjoining the Attorney General of the State from prosecuting such suits. The Attorney Gen- eral disregarded the injunction, and the judge of the United States court out of which the injunction was issued, fined and imprisoned the Attorney General for contempt. The Supreme Court discharged him on the ground that the suit for such injunction was really against the State and could not be maintained in the Federal court. This was followed in McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S., 562, and Pennoyer v. Virginia, 140 U. S., 1. So, further, it was held that when a suit is brought in a court of the United States to enforce performance of a contract made by the State and the validity of the con- tract is the question in controversy, and the remedy sought is by the State, the ofiicers as nominal defendants having no personal interest in the suit, but defending only as representatives (yi the State, the State is the real party and the suit is prohibited by the 11th Amendment. Hagood V. Southern, 117 U. S., 52. A Federal court is without jurisdiction of a suit by a private person against the executive ofiicers of a State to test the constitutionality of a statute or enjoin its en- Art. XI.] JUDICIAL POWER LIMITED. 325 forcement, where the defendants are by the statute charged with no duty and have done and attempted to do nothing to the harm of the plaintiff. Such action is in effect against the State. Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S., 516. But where a State by its officer seizes the property of a citizen, in violation of his rights under the Consti- tution, the officer can be sued, and can not plead that the act is that of the State, because the State can not authorize an unconstitutional act. The action is against the officer as a wrong-doer, and not against the State. Coupon Cases, 114 U. S., 269 ; Cunningham v. E. R Co., 109 U. S., 453; Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall., 460 ; Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S., 531. Suits in the Supreme Court hy one State against an- other. — The State of Louisiana filed a bill against Texas, her Governor and health officer, alleging that the latter State had granted its Governor and health officer ex- tensive powers to maintain quarantine over infectious diseases, which power was purposely exercised to build up commerce in Texan cities to the detriment of E'ew Orleans. A decree was prayed for that neither the State of Texas nor her Governor nor health officer have the right under an exercise of police or quarantine powers to declare and enforce an embargo against interstate commerce nor to discriminate against Louisi- 326 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, ana in such regulations. The bill, on demurrer, was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because — (1) In order to maintain jurisdiction it must ap- pear that the controversy to be determined was directly between State and State and not in vindication of the grievances of particular individuals; and that in this case the State presented herself as parens patriae, guardian or representative of her citizens; and (2) that the bill failed to show that the State of Texas had so au- thorized or confirmed the act of her health officer as to make it her own ; (3) that the court was unable to hold that the bill presented a case in controversy between a State and citizens of another State, or, (4) that it could be maintained as a suit against the health officer alone on the theory that he had acted in excess of or violation of a valid law of the State. Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S., 1. The previous cases are cited and explained in this case. See, ante, p. 207. AKTICLE XII. TWELFTH AMENDMENT. Article XII of the amendments is given in connection with the part of the original Constitution amended by it. Art. XIII.] SLAVERY PROHIBITED. 327 ARTICLE XIII. SLAVERY PROHIBITED. Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. "Congress shall have power to enforce this* article by appropriate legislation." Decisions explanatory of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment relates only to slavery and the involuntary servitude which it abolishes; and thus establishes universal freedom in the United States ; and Congress may lawfully pass laws directly enforcing its provisions ; but this legislative power extends only to slavery and its incidents; and the denial of equal ac- commodations in inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement imposes no badge of slavery or in- voluntary servitude upon the party, but at most in- fringes rights which by the Fourteenth Amendment are protected from State aggression. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3. "One great purpose of these (Thirteenth and Four- teenth) Amendments was to raise the colored race from that condition of inferiority and servitude in which most of them had previously stood, into perfect equality of 328 COIs^STITUTION OF UIV^ITED STATES. [Am'tS, civil rights with all other persons within the jurisdiction, to take away all possibility of oppression by law because of race or color. They were intended to be, what they really are, limitations of the power of the States and en- largements of the power of Congress. They are to some extent declarations of rights, and though in form pro- hibitions, they imply immunities, such as may be pro- tected by congressional legislation." Ex 'parte Vir- ginia, 100 U. S., 339, 344. An examination of the history of the causes which led to the adoption of these amendments demonstrates that the main purpose of all the last three amendments was the freedom of the African race, the security and per- petuation of that freedom, and their protection from the oppressions of the white man who had formerly held them in slavery. In construing them it is necessary to liave in view the main purposes, though the letter and spirit of those articles must apply to all cases coming "within their purview, whether the party concerned be of African descent or not. The Thirteenth Amend- ment, primarily intended to abolish slavery, equally for- bids Mexican peonage or the Chinese Cooley trade, when they amount to slavery or involuntary servitude; and the use of the word "servitude" is intended to pro- hibit all forms of involuntary servitude of every class of men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall., 36. A person in Arkansas, one of the late slave-holding States, for a valuable consideration, passed in March, Art. XIII.] SLAVERY PROHIBITED. 329 1861, before the Eebellion bad broken out, sold a negro slave which he then had, in the bill of sale warranting the said negro to be a slave for life, and also warrant- ing the title to be clear and perfect. The Thirteenth Amendment subsequently made operated to give this slave his freedom. In an action brought, after the amendment, upon the promissory note given for the slave, the defendant pleaded the warranty that the negro was a slave for life. Held, by the Supreme Court : — 1. That slavery having been lawful in Arkansas when the contract was made, the contract was legal. 2. That the right to sue upon it was not taken away by the Thirteenth Amendment, as the destruction of vested rights can not be presumed to result by implica- tion. 3. That the warranty of the negro as a slave for life was not a warranty of continuity of title against the acts of sovereign power. Osborn v. Livingston, 13 Wall., 654. The Act of Congress of March 1st, 1865 .(18th Stats, at L., part 3,336), which enacts that no citizen possess- ing all the other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law, shall be disqualified from service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States or of any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude; and making it a misdemeanor to exclude or fail to summon them for that cause, was held constitutional. Ex 'parte Virginia, 100 U. S., 339. 330 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, This case arose as follows : Judge Coles was indicted in one of the district courts of the United States for Vir- ginia, charged with excluding jurors because they were colored men and ex-slaves. The matter was brought be- fore the Supreme Court, to test the validity of the Act of Congress, which the judge was charged with violat- ing. Id. Exclusion of colored persons from grand jury. — Finding an indictment against a negro in a State court, by a grand jury from which colored men are excluded solely because of their race or color, denies him the equal protection of the laws, whether done by the ac- tion of the legislature, through the courts, or by the executive or administrative officers of the State. Car- ter V. Texas, 177 U. S., 442 ; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S., 303 ; A^eal v. Delaware, 103 U. S., 370, 397; Gibson V. Miss., 162 U. S., 565 ; Virginia v. Eives, 100 U. S., 315 ; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S., 339. ARTICLE XIV. CITIZENSHIP AND CIVIL RIGHTS. Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law . which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive Art. XIV.] CITIZEIN'SIIIP AND CIVIL EIGHTS. 331 any person of life, liberty, or property, without due pro- cess of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of Electors for Presi- dent and Vice-President of the United States, Representa- tives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty- one years of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. "No person shall be a Senator or Representa- tive in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-Presi- dent, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 332 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, Section 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for service in sup- pressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States, nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insur- rection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held ille- gal and void. Section 5. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Citizenship — Indians when not citizens, — An In- dian,, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized by the government as a tribe, and who has voluntarily sepa- rated himself from his tribe, and taken np his residence among the white citizens of a State, but who has not been naturalized or taxed or recognized as a citizen, either by the United States or by the State, is not a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the 1st section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Elk v. Wil- kins, 112 U. S., 94. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they re- side." They may be citizens of the United States and not be citizens of any State. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Art. XIV.] CITIZENSHIP. 333 Wall., 36, T4. The same person may be at tlie same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State ; but bis rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542. Does not confer female suffrage. — A provision in a State Constitution which confers the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," does not violate the Federal Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall., 162. The amendment does not add to the priv- ileges and immunities of citizens. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as they already had. At the time of the adoption of this amend- ment suffrage was not co-extensive with citizenship, nor were the terms co-extensive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Id., 92 U. S., 542: iN'oTE. — Most of the decisions on the question of citi- zenship arise under the naturalization laws, and no at- tempt is here made to collate them. DECISIONS RELATING TO TPIE 14tH AMENDMENT. I. Operative against States, not individuals. The 14th Amendment is prohibitory upon the Statea only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress is not direct legislation on the matters respect- ing which the States are prohibited from making or en- forcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but is cor- rective legislation, such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting or redressing such laws. 334 COIS'STITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, The 1st and 2(i sefctions of the Civil Eights Act, passed March 1st, 1875 (18 Stats, at L., 335), which undertakes to declare all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States entitled to the full and equal en- joyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters and other places of public amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations estab- lished by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of previous condition or servi- tude, and punish the denial of such enjoyment by fine or imprisonment, held unconstitutional; as such power to deal with individuals directly for refusing or denying such privileges and enjoyments was not conferred on Congress by the amendment. The 14th Amendment protects the civil rights of the people of the class af- fected from State aggression. Civil Rights Cases, 109 r. S., 3. II. Discrimination hy State laws against colored citi- zens. The 14th Amendment was one of a series of constitu- tional provisions having a common purpose ; namely, to secure to a recently emancipated race all of the civil rights the superior race enjoyed, and to give it the pro- tection of the general government in the enjoyment of such rights, whenever they should be denied by the States. A statute of West Virginia, which, in effect, singles Art. XIV.] CIVIL EIGHTS. 335 out and denies to colored citizens the right of sitting as jurors, because of their color, though qualified in all other respects, is a ban upon thein and a discrimina- tion against them, which is forbidden by the amend- ment. The Revised Statutes of the United States, Sec. 641, which provides for the removal of any civil suit or criminal prosecution from the State to the Federal courts when the party against whom the cause is pend- ing, is denied or can not enforce any right secured to him by the Civil Eights Act as a citizen of the United States, and prescribes the method for such removal, is a valid act. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S., 303 ; Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S., 313. The provisions of the 14th Amendment have exclusive reference to the State action. It is the State which is prohibited from denying. Id. When in a judicial proceeding a person is defnied any -civil right secured by the within amendments, after it is too late to remove the same to the Federal courts for trial, the final judgment of the highest court may be re» viewed by the Supreme Court. Id. Congress may enforce the prohibition of this section, whenever they are disregarded by either the legislature, the executive, or judicial departments of a State. The mode of enforcement is left to the discretion of Con- gress. It may enforce it by providing for the removal of the case into the Federal courts from the State court 336 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS^ where the right is denied. Virginia v. Eives, 100 U. S.^ 313. The defendant accused of crime and prosecuted in a State court, himself a colored man, was about to be tried. He asked that one-third of the panel of jurors be men of his own race. The denial of this motion did not deny him any right secured by these amendments. It ap- peared that the jurors had been called by the venire, without any discrimination, from both races. And this was all that he was entitled to. He could not claim that a part of the jury which tried him should be colored men. Virginia v. Eives, 100 U. S., 313. Where a cause has been removed from a State into a Federal court on the erroneous ground that civil rights were denied, the Supreme Court granted a mandamus to the judge of the Federal court, on examining the case and finding that no civil right was infringed, com- manding him to remand the cause. Id. When a State, by action of its legislature, courts, or executive or administrative officers debars persons of the African race from serving as grand jurors in the criminal prosecution of a person of that race, such per- son so prosecuted is denied the equal protection of the laws. When denied the right of challenge to a grand juror thus selected, the objection may be taken by plea in abatement or motion to quash the indictment, before pleading in bar. The question whether his constitu- tional right was pleaded and brought to the notice of the Art. XI v.] EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS. 337 State court is itself a Federal question. Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S., 442. Education of colored children. — A board of education maintained a high school for white children; but tem- porarily suspended a similar school for colored children for economic reasons. It was prayed that the board be enjoined from maintaining a school for white children. It appeared that no hostility to the colored race actuated the board; and the action was not deemed a denial of the equal protection of the laws or of any privilege be- longing to the colored people complaining within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Gumming v. Rich- mond Co. Board of Education, 175 U. S., 528. III. Instances where the statutes of States have been held as void because denying the equal protection of the laws. Police regulation as to boundaries. — A municipal ordinance forbade persons from carrying on the laundry business within corporate limits without having first ob- tained the consent of the board of supervisors, thus making an arbitrary and unjust discrimination founded on diiference of race, between persons otherwise in sim- ilar circumstances. This ordinance was aimed at the Chinese in San Francisco. It violates the guaranties of the 14th Amendment, which extends to all persons the equal protection of the laws. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S., 356. Discrimination against non-resident creditors, — XJn* 22 338 COK^STITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Amt's, secured non-resident creditors, citizens of other States, of a foreign corporation doing business in a State, are en- titled to share in the distribution of its assets on the same footing with creditors residing in the State. An act of the State of Tennessee giving priority to creditors within the State over non-resident creditors by simple contract debt, and over judgment or mortgage, given after the local debt was incurred, was held violative of Article lY and of the 14th Amendment. Sully v. Am. mt. Bank, 178 U. S., 289, following Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S., 239, 176 U. S., 59. IV. Statutes limiting the rates carriers may charge, held void as depriving them of a reasonable profit. The sale of tickets — Michigan act void. — The statute t)f Michigan requiring the railroad companies to sell 1000-mile tickets at less than the specified rates, and to be good for two years, is taking the property of the cor- poration without due process of law. Lake Shore, etc., K'y Co. V. Smith, 173 U. S., 684. Can not reduce rates to deprive of a profit. — While a State can, where unhampered by contract, fix maximum rates or charges for the railroad companies, such power is subject to the condition that the rates must be such as will admit of the carrier earning a compensation just to it and to the public. What is a reasonable compensa- tion is a judicial question. R'y Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S., 339; Eeagan v. Trust Co., 154 U. S., 362, 399; Art. XIY.] KEGULATION OF FAKES, ETC. 339 E'y Co. V. Gill, 156 U. S., 649 ; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S., 466, 523. The E'ebraska law of April 12th, 1893, fixing maxi- mum rates of railroad freights on local business is void. It is held to deprive them of a reasonable profit on their business, which is depriving them of their property with- out due process of law. Smyth v. Ames, 169 TJ. S., 466, 523. This case reasons out the subject at great length. A railroad company is not protected by the 14th Amendment in charging rates for the purpose of realiz- ing profit upon fictitious capital. It is entitled only to a fair return upon the value of what is employed for the public convenience. Id. The Nebraska statute, regu- lating and reducing the rates of transportation of a com- pany below a just and reasonable rate, was held void. The reasonableness of the rates is the subject of ju- dicial inquiry. Id., S. C, 171 U. S., 361. A State can not so reduce local freights as to throw an undue burden on interstate business to make up losses caused by such unreasonable local rates. Id. See, ante, pp. 55, 352. V. Instances where the statutes of a State affecting rates charged by carriers and 'police regulations concern- ing them have been upheld, 1. States may classify railroads. — A State statute which classifies the railroad corporations by the length of their lines fixing, in each class, a different limit to the 340 CONSTITUTIO]^ OF UNITED STATES. [Amt's, passenger rates, is not a denial of the equal protection of tlie laws. Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S., 680. 2. States may fix maximum rates for domestic trans- portation. — The statute of Arkansas of April 4th, 1887, fixed at three cents a mile the maximum fare that any railroad corporation may take for carrying passengers within the State. This was not a taking of property without due process of law. In this case, the course of decision by the court is fully reviewed. Dow v. Beidel- man, 125 U. S., 680. 3. State may compel companies to pay expenses of railroad commission. — The provisions of the statute of South Carolina, that the expenses of a railroad commis- sion, created by State law and invested with a general supervision over the railroads in the State, should be borne entirely by the railroad corporations, held not to deprive the corporations of the equal protection of the laws or other provisions of the 14th Amendment. Charlotte, etc., Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S., 386. The rea- sons assigned for this decision are that it is not a tax of a general nature imposed upon them ; but that their busi- ness is affected with a public interest; the regulation by a commission is within the power of the State and the exercise of the duties of the commission beneficial to the public and also to the railroad companies. Id. 4. Express companies, how they may he taxed. — A statute of Missouri which imposes on express companies a tax on "the receipts of their business done in the State" Art. Xiy.] EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS. 341 does not deprive of the equal protection of the laws, since that State has the right to tax different kinds of property in different ways ; and express companies, hav- ing little or no tangible property of their own, constitute a separate class from companies owning their own means of transportation. Pac. Ex. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S., 339. See, ante, pp. 51, 56. States may repeal laws exempting from taxation. — A charter immunity from taxation for a designated period held not a vested right, nor within the clause of a State statute forbidding the amendment or repeal of a charter which would impair such rights. Citizens Saving Bk. V. City of Owensboro, 173 U. S., 636. See, ante, p. 151. State may declare lands forfeit for failure to report for taxation, — A law of West Virginia by which taxable lands are forfeited to the State for neglect by the own- ers for five consecutive years to enter them for taxation, in cases where the owner so owned 1,000 acres or more, but the law exempted from such forfeiture owners of less than that quantity, held not for that reason to deny equal protection, nor take without due process of law. King V. MuUins, 171 U. S., 404. State can not grant away the right to limit rates. — The right of a State to reasonably limit the amount of charges by a railroad company for the transportation of persons and property within its jurisdiction can not be granted away by the legislature but by words of positive enactment. And where the charter contains the clause 342 coisrsTiTUTioi^ of united states. [Amt's, giving the right from time to time to ^x^ regulate and receive the tolls and charges by them to be received for transportation, these words do not grant away the right in the State to regulate the same and to act upon the reasonableness of the rates thus charged. Eailroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S., 307. VI. The police power of States not affected by the Ufih Amendment, Police power of the State not impaired. — The 14th Amendment does not, impair the police power of a State. A municipal ordinance, passed under legislative au- thority to the municipality, prohibiting washing and ironing in public laundries and washhouses from ten o'clock at night to six in the morning, is a purely police regulation, within the competency of a municipality pos- sessed of ordinary powers. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S., 27 ; Soon Hing v. Crowley/ 113 U. S., 703. The 14th Amendment does not limit the subjects in relation to which the police power of the State may be exercised for the protection of its citizens. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S., 27; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S., 703; Mo. Pac. E'y v. Humes, 115 U. S., 612; Minn. K'y Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S., 26. The State may limit or restrain the sale of intoxicat- ing liquors. — A State may prohibit or restrain the man- ufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors within its limits, and inflict penalties therefor, and provide for the abate- ment as a nuisance of all property used for such for- Art. XIY.] POLICE POWERS OF STATES. 343 V bidden purposes ; and sncli legislation does not deprive of property without due process of law. Kidd v. Pear- son, 128 U. S., 1. See, ante, p. 67. Police regulations the State may prescribe without contravening the IJfth Amendment: 1. May change rate of interest on judgments. — A State statute may change the rate of interest on a judgment previously rendered. This is not depriving of property without due process of law. Morley v. Lake Shore, etc., K'y Co., 146 U. S., 162. It is ruled that the contract did not provide that the interest on any judgment should be at any particular rate. Id. 2. May require practitioners to pay license tax. — The statute of West Virginia which requires every practi- tioner of medicine in the State to obtain a certificate from the State board of health that he is a graduate of a reputable medical college in the school of medicine to which he belongs, or that he has practiced medicine in the State for ten years or that he is found upon examina- tion to be qualified to practice medicine in all its depart- ments and which subjects a person so practicing without such certificate to prosecution and punishment for a misdemeanor, does not violate the Pourteenth Amend- ment, even when applied to one who had practiced medi- cine for five years before the passage of the act. Dent V. West Virginia, 129 U. S., 114. 3. The location of marJcets, — An ordinance declaring" that no public market in !N'ew Orleans shall be kept 844 COIs'STITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Amt's, within six squares of any other public market, under penalty, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. N'atal v. Louisiana, 139 U. S., 621. See Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall., 36. 4. May make regulation to 'protect highways, etc. — An ordinance of a city prohibiting the moving of any building on or across the streets without permission of the mayor of the city or president of the council, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Wilson v. Eu- reka City, 173 U. S., 32. The statute of Utah which makes any person who drives cattle on a hillside highway liable for damages by such animals to the highway, does not deny to such persons the equal protection of the laws. The dam- ages in this case were caused by rolling rocks in the highway and destroying the banks. Jones v. Brim, 165 U. S., 180. 5. May locate harbor lines. — The location of harbor lines on navigable waters held not a depriving of prop- erty without due process of law, though they included a wharf long established, where the Constitution of the State recognized a vested right therein; as the same right remained in the wharf -owner after as before the establishment of the harbor line. Yesler v. Harbor Line Com'rs, 146 U. S., 646. 6. May require cars to be heated otherwise than by stoves. — A statute of 'New York which forbids the heat- ing of passenger cars by stoves, on railroads over 50 Art. XIV.] POLICE POWERS OF STATES. 345 miles in length, does not violate the Fourteenth Amend- ment. "New York, etc., K'j Co. v. People of !N'ew York, 165 U. S., 628. 7. May declare liability of railroad companies for failure to fence trades. — A statute of Minnesota (Gen. Laws, 1877) gave to land owners damages for the ex- pense and inconvenience of watching cattle, to keep them from escaping upon the railroad tracks running through their lands, which the company had failed to fence. Such statute is within the police power of the State and not subject to the inhibition of the Four- teenth Amendment, as it does not deprive of the equal protection of the laws. Minneapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Emmons, 149 U. S., 364; Same v. ISTelson, 149 II. S., 368. So, the allowance of damages for the diminution in value of the farms resulting from the failure to fence its tracks. Id. 8. May regulate licensing of locomotive engineers. — A State statute requiring locomotive engineers to be ex- amined as to their capacity to distinguish colors and dis- criminate between color signals, and require railroad companies to pay a fee for such examination, does not deprive of property without due process of law, nor af- fect interstate commerce. !N"ashville, etc., R'y Co. v. Alabama, 128 U. S., 96. 9. May regulate rule as to damages for injuries to employes. — The statute of Kansas which provides that, **Every railroad company organized or doing business 346 CONSTITUTIO]^^ OF UNITED STATES. [Amt'Sj. in this State shall be liable for all damages done by any employe of such company in consequence of any neg* ligence of its agents, or by the mismanagement of its^ engineers, or other employes, to any person sustaining such damage," does not deprive of property without due* process of law, nor deny equal protection of the laws. Missouri K'y Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S., 206. The rea- son for this ruling is that the hazardous character of the- business of operating a railroad calls for special legis- lation, having for its object the protection of their em- ployes as well as the public. The business of other cor- porations is not subject to similar dangers to employes^ Id. ; Minneapolis, etc., Co. v. Herrick, 127 U. S., 210. Statutes of similar character, making railroad com- panies peculiarly liable, have been upheld in Chicago^ etc., Ey. Co. v. Pontius, 157 U. S., 209 ; Orient Ins. Co. V. Daggs, 172 U. S., 557. 10. May fix rule of damages for stock hilled hy negli- gence of railroad, — The statute of Iowa (Sec. 1289), which authorizes the receiving of "double the value o£ stock killed or damages caused thereto" by railroads derelict in maintaining fences on their tracks is not de- priving of property without due process of law or deny- ing of equal protection. Minneapolis R'y Co. v. Beck- with, 129 U. S., 26. 11. May restrain illegal fishing and declaring ap- paratus so used nuisances. — Laws of a State declaring nets, pounds and other devices for violating the laws Art. XIV.] POLICE POWERS OF STATES. ^4?| against fishing or killing game out of season, a nuisance, are not in violation of the 14th Amendment, as depriv- ing of property without due process of law. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S., 132. 12. May regulate 'payment of wages to discharged em- ployes. — An Arkansas statute, which requires any rail- road company discharging an employe, to immediately pay any unpaid wages earned at the time of discharge, is- not contrary to the 14th Amendment. St. Louis, etc., K. Co. V. Paul, 173 U. S., 404. 13. May regulate insurance contracts to he made in the future. — A valued policy statute applying only to future contracts which raises a conclusive presumption of fact as to value, does not deprive an insurance com- pany of property without due process of law, as the parties are free to fix the value and the statute merely estops them after the contract is made. Orient Ins. Co. V. Daggs, 172 U. S., 557. 14. May regulate the sale of oleomargarine and like 'products. — The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was not designed to interfere with the exercise of the police power of the State for the protection of health, the prevention of fraud, and the preservation of public morals. The prohibition of the manufacture of oleag- inous substances, such as oleomargarine or butterine, or of products in imitation of butter, is a lawful exercise of the police power. The statute of Pennsylvania "for the protection of the public health and to prevent adul- 348 CONSTITUTION" OF UNITED STATES. [Amt^S, teration of dairy products and fraud in their sale," held valid; and that it neither denies equal protection, de- prives of property without due process of law, or without compensation. Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S., 678. 15. May make water rents a charge upon lands, with priority of lien, etc. — An act making water rents a charge upon lands in a municipality, with a lien having priority to all liens by mortgage, does no violation to the 14th Amendment, whether the water was introduced upon the premises before or after the giving of the mort- gages. It is not depriving without due process of law. Provident Inst. v. Jersey City, 113 U. S., 506. 16. How far may exclude foreign corporations from doing business in the States. — The only limitation upon the power of the State to exclude foreign corporations from doing business within its limits or hiring officers for that purpose or to exact conditions for allowing the corporations to do business or hire officers there, arises where the corporation is in the employ of the Federal government, or where its business is strictly commerce, foreign or interstate. Pembina Mining Co. v. Penn- sylvania, 125 U. S., 181. This was a Colorado corpora- tion, and by the laws of Pennsylvania was required to pay a license fee to enable it to have an office in that State. See ante, pp. 190, 260. Corporations are persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Santa Clara Co. v. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 118 U. S., 394; Pern; bina Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S., 181. Art. XIV.] POLICE POWEKS OF STATES. \ ^4sf But a foreign corporation can not claim that it is de- nied the equal protection of the laws by being required to pay a license tax to do business in the State. It must comply with the conditions imposed for the privilege of doing business in the State. Phila. Fire Ass. v. New York, 119 U. S., 110. 17. May fix hours of labor in mines. — The statute of Utah forbidding the employment of working men for more than eight hours a day in mines and the smelting, reduction, etc., of ores, is within the police power of the State, not an interference with the right of contract, nor violation of the 14th Amendment. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S., 366. 18. The right to demand reimbursement from a mu- nicipal corporation for damages caused by a mob is a statutory right, and not one founded on contract. The legislature may repeal the law ; and when a judgmcfnt has been obtained therefor, the State may forbid the levying of taxes to pay such judgments, without depriv- ing the owner of his property without due process of law, within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Louisiana v. Mayor of l^ew Orleans, 109 U. S., 285. 19. The Chinese Deportation Act of May Qth, 1892, which puts the burden of proof upon a Chinese laborer arrested for having no certificate, as well as the require- ment of proof by one credible white man that he was a resident of the United States at the time of the passage 550 COIS^STITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Amt's, of the Act, is not unconstitutional. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 698. 20. Warehouses and elevators^, subject to State re- strictions to charges. — The States under their police power may fix the reasonable rates to be charged for re- ceiving in elevators and storing grain ; and such restric- tions do not deprive the owners of the warehouses or elevators of equal protection or due process of law. Munn V. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113 ; Budd v. N'ew York, 143 U. S., 517 ; Brass v. Stoeser, 153 U. S., 391. 21. Irrigation of lands a public purpose^ statutes for, valid. — The statutes of California to provide for the or- ganization and government of irrigation districts, the acquisition and distribution of water, being held valid by the Supreme Court of the State, are so regarded. Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S., 112. The method of taking property for such use is due pro- cess of law. Id. Miscellaneous police regulations held valid. — The ordinance of the city of Boston which provides that "no person shall, in or upon any of the public grounds, make any public address," etc., "except in accord- ance with a permit from the mayor," is not in con- flict with Federal Constitution or the 14th Amendment, which does not destroy the power of the States to make police regulations as to subjects within their control, and does not give the citizen the right to use public Art. XI v.] POLICE POWEES OF STATES. 351 property of the State in a manner contrary to its laws. Davis V. Massachusetts, 167 U. S., 43. Regulation of houses of ill fame. — The ordinance of jN'ew Orleans prescribing limits in that city outside of which no lewd woman shall dwell is lawful exercise of the police power ; and does not deprive owners of prop- erty in or adjacent to such limits of their property with- out due process of law. L'Hote v. N^ew Orleans, 177 U. S., .587. 8ale of cigarettes. — The ordinance of the city of Chi- cago which authorizes the sale of cigarettes, but only oh payment of a license of $100, is no violation of the Federal Constitution. Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S., 183. Flowing or waste of natural gas. — The statute of Indiana of March 4, 1893, forbidding owners, etc., of natural gas wells to allow or permit the flow of gas into the open air, and requiring it to be safely confined, does not conflict with the 14th Amendment, but is lawful ex- ercise of police power. Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U. S., 190. The exaction of tolls, under a State statute for the use of an improved natural waterway, is not within the prohibition of the Constitution that no State shall de- prive a person of his property without due process of law. Sands v. Manistee Eiver Imp. Co., 123 TJ. S., 288 ; Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S., 543. It is not depriving of property without due process 352 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Amt's, of law to subject the logs of one owner in a log boom to a lien for fees of the surveyor general, for surveying and scaling all the logs in the boom, nor is it a burden on in- terstate commerce. Lindsay and Phelps Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S., 126. Diligence in delivering telegraph dispatches. — ^A! State can impose a penalty for lack of diligence in de- livering telegrams; and this is not an interference with interstate commerce, though it applies to lines wholly or partly within the State. Western U. Tel. Co. v. James, 162 U. S., 650. Declaring liability of private corporations. — A stat- ute of Indiana making railroad or other corporations, except municipal, liable for damages for personal injury in certain cases specified, does not conflict with the 14th Amendment. Tullis v. Lake Erie & Western K. Co., 175 U. S., 348. State regulation of carriers* rates. — 1. The common- law doctrine is that common carriers or other persons exercising a public employment can not charge more than a reasonable compensation for their services, and it is in the power of the State legislature to declare, as to traffic wholly within the State, what shall be a rea- sonable compensation, or to ^x a maximum beyond which any charge would be unreasonable. Munn v. Il- linois, 94 U. S., 133; Chicago, B. & Q. K. E. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S., 155. 2. If the rates are improperly fixed the legislature^ Art. XIV.] POLICE POWEKS OF STATES. 353 not the courts, must be appealed to for tlie change. Peik V. C. & K W. K'y Co., 94 U. S., 164; C, M. & St. Paul E. E. Co. V. Ackley, 94 U. S., 179 ; Winona & St. Peters E. E. V. Blake, 94 U. S., 180 ; Stone v. Wisconsin, 94 U. S., 181; Dow V. Beidelman, 126 U. S., 680; Stone V. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 116 U. S., 307 ; Stone v. 111. Cent. E. E., 116 U. S., 352 ; Same v. JSTew Orleans, etc., E. E., 116 U. S., 352. 3. But this power is not without limit. The State can not under pretense of regulation require a railroad company to carry without reward; neither to do that which amounts to taking of private property for public use, without due compensation or without due process of law. 116 U. S., 331. 4. A statute fixing 3 cents per mile as the maximum, within the State, and classifying railroad corporations by the length of their lines, was held as not depriving of property with due process of law. Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S., 680. 5. And, under the 14th Amendment, it is held that when a State fixes rates so unreasonable as to practically; destroy the value of the property of the companies en- gaged as carriers, the courts of the United States may treat it as a judicial question, and hold such legislation to be in conflict with the Constitution of the United States as depriving the company of property without due process of law and as depriving it of the equal pro- 23 S54 COIS^STITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Amf S, teetion of the laws. St. Louis, etc., E. K. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S., 649. 6. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of rates prescribed by a State, as to transportation wholly within the State, must be determined without reference to in- terstate business done or the profits derived therefrom. Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S., 466. 7. It is within the power of a court of equity of the United States, having jurisdiction, to decree that the rates so established are unreasonable and unjust and to restrain their enforcement; but it can not establish rates itself nor restrain the State railroad commissioners (who are authorized by the State laws to fix rates) from again establishing rates. Eeagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S., 362. See, ante, p. 338. Decisions of State tribunal as to a State office. — The decision of a State tribunal, against a claimant to a State office, does not deprive him of property, within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, so as to give jur- isdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error. Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S., 548. VII. Instances where local taxation has been upheld as not contravening the IJf-th Amendment. 1. State may tax bridge crossing river into another State. — To bring taxation by a State within the provi- sions relating to due process of law, the case must be so clearly an illegal encroachment as to be spoliation. A bridge across the Ohio river at Henderson, Kentucky, Art. XIV.] STATE TAXATIOI7. 355 was taxed by the municipal authorities of the city on the Kentucky side. Held, that it was a proper subject of taxation there, though the river, as a navigable stream, is under the control of Congress. Henderson Bridge Co. V. Henderson, 173 U. S., 592, 624. 2. Franchise tax held valid as not discriminating against foreign company. — The N'ew York statute im- posing a franchise tax upon corporations doing business in the States, does not deny equal protection because it exempts corporations wholly engaged in manufacturing or mining within the State, since no discrimination is made in that regard between domestic and other corpora- tions. It does not operate to tax the products of a for- eign corporation brought into the State.' Where the franchise tax is based upon the amount of capital em- ployed by the corporation in the State, it is not rendered illegal by the fact that such capital is employed in in- terstate or foreign commerce. State v. Roberts, 171 IT. S., 658. 3. State may tax the interest of a non-resident mort- gagee in the mortgaged land. — The statute of a State (Oregon) which imposes a tax upon a mortgagee's inter- est in land as real estate, regardless of the residence of the mortgagee, does not deprive him of his property with- out due process of law nor deny him the equal protection of the laws. Savings & Loan Soc. v. Multnomah Co., 169 U. S., 421. The reasoning of the court in this case is that the interest of the mortgagee can be assessed irre- 356 CONSTITUTIOIT OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, spective of the personal debt, and the interest of the mortgagor can be separately assessed. The Constitution of Oregon forbids the taxing of promissory notes or other instruments, but provides for the taxing of the in- terest in the real estate, which is a mere security for such debt. This ease is to be noted with Kirtland y. Hotch- kiss, 100 IT. S., 491, where it was held that debts to per- sons residing in one State ^nd secured by mortgages in another might for purposes of taxation be taxed at the domicile of the creditor. He is therefore exposed to double taxation. He must pay tax on the chose in action where he resides, and for the security on land by mort- gage which secures it he is taxed where the land is. The court approves the language of Tryon v. Munson, 77 Pa. St., 250. "There is a manifest difference be- tween the debt, which is a mere chose in action, and the land which secures its payment. Of the former there can be no possession except that of the writing which evidences the obligation to pay; but of the latter, the land or pledge, there may be. The debt is intangible, the land tangible. The mortgage passes to the mortga- gee the title and right of possession to hold till payment shall be made." 4. Inheritance tax hy State valid. — The provisions of the 14th Amendment, securing the equal protection of the laws, does not prevent the States from distinguish- ing, selecting and classifying objects of legislation, so long as the classification is based on some reasonable Art. XIV.] POLICE POWERS. 357 ground, and is not merely arbitrary. Magoun v. 111. Trust & Savings Bk., 18 Sup. Ct. Eep., 594. In this case it is held that the amount of property exempted from an inheritance tax is entirely in the discretion of the State legislature. The law of Illinois taxing strangers to the blood 3 per cent, on legacies of $10,000 or less, 4 per cent, on those between $10,000 and $20,000 and 5 per cent, on legacies between $20,000 and $50,000, and 6 per cent, on all above $50,000 was held a reasonable classification, and not a denial of the equal protection of the law. Id. A law of the State of Louisiana imposing a tax on legacies payable to aliens, is not repugnant to the Con- stitution of the United States. Mager v. Grima, 8 How., 492. 5. State may create new or special taxing districts. — - A statute of Connecticut placed five towns in a class, and made them a municipal corporation, for the pur- poses of maintaining highways and bridges. They were subjected to a different control in respect thereto from other towns. A taxpayer against whom taxes were lev- ied by this corporation can not claim that he is denied the equal protection of the laws. Williams v. Eggles- ton, 170 U. S., 304. It is not proceeding without due process of law, for the State legislature to create new taxing districts and assigning the territory to belong to them. Id. Dog taxes. — A State statute providing that no dog 358 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, shall be entitled to the protection of the law, unless placed upon the assessment rolls, and that in a civil ac- tion for killing a dog, the owner can not recover beyond the value fixed by himself in the last assessment roll, is within the police power of the State. Sentell v. 'New Orleans, etc., E. Co., 166 U. S., 698. Exemption of property from taxation. — The 14th Amendment does not compel the States to adopt an iron- rule of equal taxation. It leaves that subject to the sev- eral States. They may exempt certain property, impose and vary the rates on trades and professions, or on products, subject only to the Constitution of the State. Bell's Gap E. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S., 232. Taxation of National hank shares. — The Massa- chusetts law for the taxation of shares of National banks held not to deny the equal protection of the laws as they do not impose a disproportionate or unequal tax upon such banks. Bank of Eedemption v. Boston, 125 U. S., 60. The fact that the State laws exempt savings' banks and trust deposits from like taxes does not violate the 14th Amendment. Mercantile Bank v. ISTew York, 121 U. S., 138; Davenport Bank v. Davenport, 123 U. S., 83. See, ante^ p. 35. An ad valorem assessment of cost of irrigation ap- pliances instead of an assessment on the basis of benefit is not a taking of property without due process of law. Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S., 158, 176, 176. The city charter of Portland, Ore., grants in general Art. XIV.] STATE TAXATIO]!T. 359 terms power to the common council to construct sewers and assess cost of same on benefited property. This is not depriving of property without due process of law, even though it contain no express provisions for notice of such assessment. Paulsen v. City of Portland, 149 U. S., 30. The giving of notice is implied in the statute, or ordinance. Id. The repeal of a statute authorizing a water company to set off its water rates owing it by the city against taxes due the city is not a depriving of the city of prop- erty without due process of law, in the sense in which the word "property" is used in the Constitution. "New Or- leans Water Works v. ISTew Orleans, 142 U. S., 79. The statute allowed the city free use of water for municipal purposes and gave the company exemption from taxa- tion. Taxation of foreign corporations on proportionate bases.— The Ohio statute (E. S., sees. 2777-2780) tax- ing telephone, telegraph and express companies on prop- erty within the State, the value of which is determined with reference to the entire capital of the company, is not a tax on property beyond the jurisdiction of the State and is not a taking of property without due process of law. Sandford v. Poe, 165 U. S., 194. I^Tor, does 'it deny the company the equal protection of the laws. Id. Tolls for waterways. — The exaction of tolls, under a State statute, for the use of an improved natural water- way, is not within the prohibition of the Constitution 360 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, that no State shall deprive a person of his property with- out due process of law. Sands v. Manistee, etc., Co,, 123 U. S., 288. Making tax deeds conclusive evidence, — A State law, making tax deeds after having been of record a stated time, conclusive evidence that there was no irregularity in the proceedings antecedent to and in issuing the deed, is a statute of limitations and not in conflict with the 14th Amendment. Saranac Land, etc., Co. v. Comptrol- ler of New York, 177 U. S., 318. The amendment operates retrospectively against laws passed before its adoption, — The provision of the 14:th Amendment forbidding the States to deprive any per- son of his property without due process of law, so far operates retrospectively as to prevent such taking after the amendment, under authority of a statute passed prior thereto. Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 142 U. S., 254. A proceeding under a State statute may now violate the 14th Amendment "V^rhich would not have violated the Constitution before the adoption of that amendment. Id. Privileges and immunities as to voters. — The Missis- sippi Constitution and laws pursuant thereto forbidding any but persons who can read and write and have paid their taxes from voting or being qualified electors or jurors, does not violate the 14th Amendment, because it may operate as a discrimination against the colored race. Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S., 213. Art. XI Y.] DUE PEOCESs or law. 361 Decisions relating to and definitive of "due process of law'' — Due process of law defined. — "The clause in the 14th Amendment Vithont due process of law' is in- tended where used in the State and Federal Constitu- tions as an additional security against the arbitrary dep- rivation of life and liberty and the arbitrary spoliation of property." *'By ^due process of law' is meant one which follows the forms of law appropriate to the case, and just to the parties affected. It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by law ; it must be adapted to the end to be attained ; and whenever it is necessary for the protection of the parties, it must give them an op- portunity to be heard respecting the judgment sought. A law authorizing a tax or assessment on property ac- cording to its value does not infringe the 14th Amend- ment." Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., Ill U. S., 701. The words "due process of law," in the 14th Amend- ment, do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder. Where State Constitutions, like those of Michigan, Cali- fornia and Wisconsin authorize such crimes to be charged and tried upon information filed, this is due process of law, in such States. Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S., 516. Tax. — The due process implies, at least conformity, with natural and inherent principles of justice, and for- bids the taking of property without compensation, or the condemnation of any person or property without oppor- 362 COI^STITUTION OF UIvTITED STATES. [Am'tS, tunity to be heard in defense. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S., 366. The term "due process of law" means a course of legal proceedings according to the rules and principles which have been established in our jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights. Pen- noyer v. K'eff, 95 U. S., 714; Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S., 480; Hagar v. Eeclamation Dist., Ill U. S., 701. "Due process of law" in a State is regulated largely by the law of the State. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S., 90. Instances of depriving of property without due pro^ cess of law. 1. Compelling corporatio7i to surrender land for ele- vator. — An order of a State court, requiring a rail- road company to surrender land to private individ- uals to be used as a site for an elevator, is taking of pri- vate property without due process of law. Mo. Pac. E. Co. V. :N'ebraska, 164 U. S., 403. 2. Making non-resident personally liable for faxes. — A State statute which attempts to make a non-resident lot owner liable personally for assessment for local im- provements amounts to taking property without due pro- cess of law. And by resorting to the State court for re- lief the non-resident does not thereby consent to such personal liability. Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S., 193. A judgment of a State court even if authorized by Art. XIV.] DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 363 statute, whereby private property is taken for the State, or under its direction, without compensation made or se- cured to the owner, is wanting in the due process of law required by the 14th Amendment. Chicago, B. & Q. E'y Co. V. City of Chicago, 166 U. S., 226. Where several railroad companies use the tracks of a railroad, under a viaduct, in a city, some as lessees of the others, under an agreement the terms of which are unknown to the authorities, it can not be held that a statute and ordinance throwing on the lessor the burden of repairs is a denial of equal protection. Chicago, B. & Q. K'y V. mbraska, 170 U. S., 57. What is depriving of liberty without due process of law. — The "liberty" of which a person can not be de- prived without due process of law includes not only the right to be free from mere physical restraint of his per- son by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of a citizen to be free in the employment of his faculties ; to be free to use them in lawful ways ; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling ; to pursue any law- ful avocation, and for that purpose to enter into lawful contracts. A State statute which prohibits a citizen of the State, under an open policy of marine insurance, ef- fected outside the State, from sending a letter by mail or a telegram describing particular goods then within the State, operates to deprive of liberty without due pro- cess of law. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S., 578. Due process of laWj when secured. — ^Due process of 364 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, law, within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, is se- cured, if the laws operate on all alike, and do not sub- ject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government. Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S., 377 ; Giozza V. Tiernan, 148 U. S., 657 ; Mo. Pac. E. Co. v. Mackej, 127 U. S., 205 ; Minn. & St. L. K. Co. v. Her- rick, 127 U. S., 210; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S., 462. A State legislature performs its whole duty in pro- viding due process of law, when it enacts laws for the governance of its courts, while exercising their respec- tive jurisdictions, which, if followed, will afford the necessary protection to the parties. The fact that the judge may err does not cast the State in violation of constitutional obligations. Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U. S., 194. Due 'process of law, as affecting proceedings in courts. Too short notice, — Five days' notice to a non-resident of a suit to foreclose a vendor's lien, where it would take four days' constant travel to reach the place of trial, is insufficient to constitute due process of law. Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S., 398. Each State construes its own laws, with respect to ad- mission to practice before its own courts. In re Lock- wood, 154 U. S., 116. The State has full control over the procedure in its CQurts both in civil and criminal cases subject only to the qualification that such proceeding must not work a denial of fundamental rights or conflict with specific and Art. XIV.] DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 365 applicable provisions of tlie Federal Constitution. Brown v. iN'ew Jersey, 175 U. S., 172 ; Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S., 642 ; Iowa Cent. R^ Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S., 389 ; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S., 226. Administration of estates of living persons. — When a court of probate appoints an administrator of the estate of a living person, who has been absent and not heard from for over seven years, such appointment being madfe after published notice and on the presumption that he is dead, the living person having no notice in fact of the proceedings, the proceedings are without jurisdiction; and the person, whose lands are sold under such admin- istration to pay his debts, is deprived of his property without due process of law. Scott v. Mc!N*eal, 154 U. S., 34. When procedure in courts is ''due process of law" — When the legislature of a State enacts laws which pro- vide for the government of its courts while exercising their respective jurisdictions which, if followed, will furnish parties the necessary constitutional protection, it performs its whole duty to the Constitution. The Su- preme Court refused to reverse the judgment of the State court, where the question turned on the validity of a sale of land by a guardian, where the only irregu- larity was that the Probate Court dispensed with the giving of a bond. This was held not a depriving of the ward of his property without due process of law, such aa 366 CONSTITUTIOIS^ OF UlS^ITED STATES. [AlTl'tS, to Invoke Federal jurisdiction. Arrowsmith v. Har- moning, 118 U. S., 194. The first section of the 14th Amendment to the Con- stitution of the United States contemplates the protec- tion of persons and to prevent their being denied the equal protection of the laws. It does not prohibit the States from prescribing the jurisdiction of their own courts, either as to territorial limit, subject-matter or amount. Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S., 22. When party not entitled to jury trial as due process of law. — The provision of the 14th Amendment that a State shall not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law does not prevent the State from giving jurisdiction to courts of equity of a suit brought by the owner of an equitable interest in land to establish his rights against the holder of the legal title, because it deprives the holder of the legal title of the right to trial by jury which he would have in a suit at law. Church v. Kelsey, 121 U. S., 282 ; Pem- bina Mining Co. v. Penn., 125 U. S., 181. Proceedings according to the common law for con- tempt of court are not subject to the right of trial by jury and are "due process of law" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Eilenbecker v. Plymouth Co., 134 U. S., 31 ; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S., 289. A jury is not an essential to "due process of law" in proceedings for contempt. Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S., 101. In re Debs, 158 U. S., 564, 568. Art. Xiy.] DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 36 1 The equal protection of the laws is not denied in pro- ceedings for contempt, where the same course of pro- cedure is followed that would be pursued in a proceed- ing against any other person under similar circum- stances. Id. "Due process of law" does not require jury trial in quo warranto proceedings in a State court. Wilson v. mrth Carolina, 169 U. S., 586, 600. Struck juries. — The States may by statute provide for struck juries and such provisions are not in contra- vention of any provision of the Federal Constitution; and the decision of the highest court of the State that they are constitutional in that State is conclusive on the Federal Supreme Court. Brown v. !N'ew Jersey, 175 U. S., 172. Due 'process of law — procedure. Libel in a pleading — -Right of action may he denied. — A person is not de- prived of his reputation, even if it constitutes property, without due process of law, by denying his right of ac- tion for damnatory words published in a pleading, where the matter complained of as defamatory was pertinent and material. Abbott v. Bank, 175 U. S., 409. Who concluded by judgment. — One who actively de- fends an action to which he is not technically a party, can not claim, when brought in by rule to show cause af- ter judgment rendered, that he was denied due process •of law. Louisville, etc., B. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U. S., ^30. 368 cojn'stitutiojS" of united states. [Am'ts^ Setting aside or enjoining judgment due process of law. — A bill in equity to invalidate a judgment against the defendant in an action for tort committed under military authority, 'in accordance with the usages of civilized warfare and as an act of public war is "due process of law" and not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S., 405. What steps in court procedure are not inconsistent with '^due process of law/' — A bill in equity brought to invalidate a judgment obtained in trespass de bonis as- portatis for the taking and conversion of cattle, which were taken under military authority in time of and as an act of public war, and, also, to enjoin its enforcement, is due process of law. A judgment obtained for such act is not a contract and is not impaired by such an act as that of West Virginia in 1872, which forbade the sale or seizure of any property under final process founded upon such judgments. Freeland v. Williams^ 131 U. S., 405. The 14th Amendment does not limit the powers of States in dealing with crime within their borders, except that no State can deprive particular persons, or classes of persons, of equal and impartial justice under the law. Laws operating on all alike, and not subjecting the in- dividual to the arbitrary powers of government unre- strained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice, secure due process of law. Art. XI v.] DUE PEOCESS OF LAW. 369 Whether statutes of a State have been duly enacted in accordance with the Constitution of such State is not a Federal question. The decision of the State Court as to what are laws in that State are binding. Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S., 462. The provisions of a statute of a State (Arts. 1242- 1245 of Texas), which construe a special appearance into a general appearance do not violate the 14th Amendment. York v. Texas, 137 U. S., 15. i The 14th Amendment was not designed to interfere with the power of a State to protect the lives, liberty and property of its citizens, nor with the exercise of that power in the adjudications of courts of the States in administering the process provided by its laws. In re Converse, 137 U. S., 624. One convicted of embezzle- ment under one section of the Michigan statute, con- fessed to embezzlement under another section, and was sentenced accordingly. Held^ihdii this was not a viola- tion of the 14th Amendment. Id. One is not deprived of liberty without due process of law, in violation of this Amendment, by being tried and sentenced by a judge of a court who is a de facto judge of a court de jure. In re Manning, 139 U. S., 504. The laws of Missouri provide that in all capital cases, except in cities having a population of over 100,000, the State shall be allowed eight peremptory challenges to jurors, and in such cities, shall be allowed fifteen. Thia is not a denial of the equal protection of the laws within' 24 370 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Hayes v. Mis- souri, 120 U. S., 68. A person was arrested in Texas on requisition from Alabama, on an indictment for embezzlement and lar- ceny. It was sought to obtain his discharge in Texas on habeas corpus on the ground of the insufficiency of the indictment. The Texas court decided that he should be extradited ; and the Supreme Court of the United States held that this decision denied no right secured by the Constitution. Pearce v. Texas, 155 U. S., 311. The statute of Missouri, as construed by the Supreme Court of that State, authorizes a special administrator, who is placed in charge of the estate pending the contest of the will, to have a final settlement of his accounts without notice to the distributees of the estate, is con- clusive in the absence of fraud. The administrator or radministratrix with the will annexed, or executor, repre- •sents in such matters all who claim under the will. Ro- Bards v. Lamb, 127 U. S., 58. A statute framed in accordance with the laws of Texas charging that the prisoner at a time and place named, "did unlawfully and with express malice afore- thought kill one J. M. S. by shooting him with a gun, contrary," etc., does no violation to the 14th Amend- ment. Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S., 692. When a prisoner sentenced to death carries his case to an appellate court due process of law does not require that he be present when the appellate court pronounces Art. Xiy.] DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 371 its judgment, as, if it be of affirmance, no new sentence is imposed but merely a direction given that the former be carried into execution. Schwab v. Berggren, 143 U. S., 442 ; Fielden v. Illinois, 143 U. S., 452. . One under sentence of death in a State court insisted that the warrant for his execution was issued contrary to the State statute. The court decided against him. This is held by the Supreme Court as not to involve denial of due process of law. Lambert v. Barrett, 159 U. S., 660. The dismissal of an appeal in a criminal case by a State Supreme Court, after the criminal has escaped, unless he shall surrender or be recaptured, is not a tak- ing without due process of law. Allen v. Georgia, 16 G U. S., 138. A right of review in capital cases is not an indispens- able element of due process of law, as the right of appeal may be regulated in each State by its own laws. Mc- Kane v. Durston, 153 U. S., 684, 687; Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S., 272. A statute of a State providing that a prosecutor may be adjudged to pay costs, if it be found that he had insti- tuted the prosecution maliciously and without probable cause, is valid. Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U. S., 81. An indictment which does not specify the decree of murder charged, does not deny the accused the equal protection of the law, nor constitute lack of due process of law. Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S., 655. 372 CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. [Am'tS, Where the prosecution of a capital offense is by in- formation instead of indictment, it is due process of law. Mc:N'ulty v. California, 149 U. S., 654. Vincent V. Same, 149 U. S., 648. The question whether a proceeding is "due process of law," within the meaning of the Constitution, is inde- pendent of the question whether the proceeding was by ordinary action or motion or other steps, so that it was according to the statute which provided for notice and opportunity to be heard. Iowa Cent. R'y v. Iowa, 160 U. S., 389. The Kansas statute, allowing a fee to the plaintiff's attorney, on recovering damages resulting from fire caused by the operation of railroad trains, is a regula- tion, reasonably relevant to the object sought, and does not contravene the 14th Amendment. Atchison, etc., R. Co. V. Matthews, 174 U. S., 96. A State statute which provides for an inquisition of lunacy after verdict in a capital case, by a jury, not in the presence of a court or a judge, is not a denial of due process of law. !N'obles v. Georgia, 168 U. S., 398. A statute requiring a bond as a prerequisite to the is- sue of an attachment against a resident, when sued out against a resident, but requiring no bond when sued out against a non-resident, is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Central Loan and Trust Co. v. Campbell Commission Co., 173 U. S., 84. Escheat. — A statute providing for judgment of Art. XIV.] DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 373 escheat, after due notice by publication to unknown heirs, is due process of law. Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U. S., 256. The repeal of a statute of limitations, as applied to a debtor, against whom the right of action is already barred, does not deprive him of his property in violation of the 14th Amendment. Campbell v. Holt, 115 U. S., 620. A State law simply forbidding a defendant to come into court and challenge the validity of service upon him in a personal action without submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court, but which does not attempt to restrain him from fully protecting his person, his property and his rights against any attempt to enforce a judgment rendered without due process of law, is not forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Kauffman v. Wootters, 138 U. S., 285. It is so held where a receiver was appointed and an officer of the corporation was committed for contempt till he obeyed an order which he had refused to obey. His imprisonment was not indefinite or uncertain be- cause he could at any time obtain his discharge by obey- ing the order. A jury trial is not essential to due pro- cess of law in a contempt proceeding. Tinsley v. An- derson, 171 U. S., 101. "The Fourteenth Amendment does not profess to se- cure to all persons in the United States the benefit of the same laws and the same remedies. Great diversities 3T4: CONSTITUTIOISr OF UNITED STATES. [Alll'tS, in these respects may exist in two States separated only by an imaginary line ; on one side of this line there may be a right of trial by jury, and on the other side no snch right. Each State prescribes its own modes of judi- cial proceeding. Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S., 22, 31. And the statute of Missouri, which increased the num- ber of challenges allowed the State in capital cases to 15 (only eight being allowed elsewhere) in cities of over 100,000 inhabitants, does not deny to persons accused of crime the equal protection of the laws." Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S., 68. VIII. Instances where exercise of eminent domain has been held to he hy due ^process of law. Condemnation 'proceedings, whereby property is taken for public use, are not without due process of law merely because the courts change their rulings to hold that the proceedings shall be before a common-law jury rather than a jury of inquest, as theretofore decided, nor be- cause the statute prescribes that certain objections shall be deemed waived if not specified at a particular stage in the proceedings. Backus v. Depot Co., 169 U. S., 557, 556. A statute of California for the widening of a street provided the usual method of taking property for that public use. When pursued in the usual method and assessment is made according to benefits, and allowing an aggrieved person to apply to the court for rehearing, it is due process of law. Lent v. Tillson, 140 U. S., Art. XIV.] DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 375 316, 325 ; following in principle the Kentucky Eailroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S., 321, 331 ; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S., 345, 355. Servitudes imposed without compensation. — The im- position of a servitude by the public authorities upon land owned by a citizen of another State for the purpose, under the same law that imposed like servitude on a resi- dent owner under like circumstances, is equal pro- tection and due process of law. So held under the Louisiana levee laws, where the taking is held to be un- der the police power and that no one is entitled to com- pensation for such land as is used to build levees against the river. Eldridge v. Trezevant, 160 U. S., 462. Drainage laws, when valid. — The drainage laws of "New Jersey, providing for draining low, wet or sandy lands, on petition of some of the owners and assessing the expense on the owners, by commissioners, does not deprive of property without due process of the law. Wurts V. Hoagland, 114 U. S., 606. Assessment of damages hy commission is due process of law J in condemnation proceedings, if there be right of review by the courts. Long Island Water Supply Co. V. Brooklyn, 166 U. S., 685. There is no denial of due process of law in making the findings of the jury or com- missions final, when the courts can determine in review whether an erroneous basis were adopted. Id. When a contract with a city has been declared ultra vires and void, it can not be impaired, and subsequent 376 coxsTiTunoy of fxitzd states. [Am'ts, legislation of the State in respect to it, authorizing a tax which the void contract exempted the contractor from, is not a taking of property without due process of 4aw. City of Xew Orleans v. Xew Orleans Water Works Co., 142 F. S., 79. The statute of a State, authorizing any person to erect mnd maintain a watermill and mill dam on streams not navigable, paying to the owners of lands flowed damages assessed in a judicial proceeding, does not deprive them of their property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In condemnation proceedings conmienced under a State statute for condemnation of land for the uses of a railway, a published notice to non-residents is sufficient notice and is "due process of laV as applied in such eases. Huling v. Kaw Valley, ete., R. Co., 130 U. S., 559. Where-, under the Constitution and laws of a State, eonsequential damages to property abutting on a street are n<^ recoverable, a statute authorizing the occupation Page. Chinese, laws denjing equal protection, void 337 Deportation Act, valid 34» Exclusion Act, valid 99 Cigarettes J States may forbid or license sale of 351 Citizens, privileges and immunities of, in other States 252 defined, and instances where not given 252 Dred Scott decision as to 252 who are, of U. S., 14th Amendment 330 immunities of, can not be abridged by States 330 Citizenship, who are citizens of United States 330 Fourteenth amendment as to 330 President must be natural born citizen... 211 Coinage, power of Congress over 101 forbidden to States 144 Colored People, slavery of, prohibited 327 protected by 14th Amendment 334 protected by 15th Amendment 388 laws discriminating against, void 334 ComMnations by railroads for join traffic, illegal 85 Comity, States may fix conditions on which foreign corporations may do business in States, when 74 Commander-in-Chief, President to be, of army and navy 213 powers as such 213 Commerce. (See, Interstate Commerce.) Congress may regulate 37 what is meant by 38; Includes intercourse 39f and navigation 39 regulation of, defined 39 case of Gibbons v. Ogden 3& extent of power to regulate 39 States can not exact "head money" 40, 47 States can not regulate, when Congress has not 41 immigration, controlled by Congress 43 instrumentalities used in, when taxable by States 43 Interstate, by sea. Congress may regulate 43 passengers coming Into State can not be taxed by State. ... 47 fees for vessels arriving, void 48 survey of hatches, void 48 registration of vessels, void 48 original packages of imported goods, States can not tax.. 49 what are original packages 49 power of Congress, how far exclusive 50, 51 applies to new instrumentalities such as telegraphs, etc. . 51 how far States may tax property used in interstate.. 51 oleomargarine laws of States, when void 81 same, when valid 81 anti-trust act of Congress valid 83 to what applies 83 joint traffic combinations illegal 85 with Indian tribes. Congress regulates 06 26 J 402 INDEX. Page. Commercial Agents, of interstate commerce, States can not dis- criminate against 45 Commercial intercourse. Congress may regulate, in war 114 Commissions, President to issue, to officers 220 Common law, U. S, courts liave no, jurisdiction 310 suits at, inciude wliat 312 facts tried by jury re-examined only according to ^ rules of 312-313 Compensation, of senators and representatives 19 not cut off by payment to unseated member 19 Condemnation. (See, Eminent Domain.) Confederate money, contracts to pay in, when and how en- forcible 158 Confiscation, power of, in war 113, 115, 116 Confiscation Acts, not contrary to 5th and 6th Amendments.. 307 Congress, vested with legislative power 8 of w^hat consists 8 when to meet 16 President may call extra session 220 Consolidation, fee for filing articles, do not interfere with com- merce 71 Constitution, laws and treaties, supreme law of land 283 State, not a contract 171 Contempt, commitment for, due process of law 373 jury trial not demandable in 366 Contracts. (See, Impairing Contracts.) by States, they can not impair 153 Contracts, ultra vires, not impaired by later laws 185 Copyright, power of Congress as to 107 is plenary and exclusive 107 Corporations, not citizens of State 200 charters of, when contracts, which States can not im- pair 147-155 States may exclude foreign 348 or fix terms of admission to do business 348 tax of property of, on propoi'tional basis 350 States may fix liability of 352 Counsel, accused may have, for defense 310 Counterfeiting, Congress may provide punishment for 102 and of foreign coin or securities 103 power not exclusive 103 law of nations in respect to 112 States may also punish 309 County may be sued in Federal court 321 County seat, removal of, no impairment of a contract 183 Coupons. (See, "Virginia Coupon Cases.) 160 Courts. (See, Supreme Court, Federal Courts, Territorial Courts, Judicial Power.) power of Congress to establish Inferior 110 Court procedure, in States, when due process of law 368 Creditors, rights of, when impaired by State laws 155 State laws denying equal protection to, void 339 Crimes, may be both against Federal and State laws 301 INDEX. 403 D. Page. Dams, over navigable streams, when States may authorize 91 Dartmouth Colleye Case, State can not impair contract obligation of charter, when 147, 150 Debts of United States, not to be questioned 332 Congress has power to pay 24 those contracted before Constitution, valid 283 States can not make anything but gold and silver coin a tender for 144 of Confederate States, never to be assumed or paid 332 Defense, Congress may provide for common, and pay debts for. . 24 Direct taxes, how laid, what are, etc 10, 21, 141 Income tax unconstitutional 11, 141 taxes on real property are 11 and on incomes therefrom 12 succession tax not a 12 Diplomatic Appointments, President to make 217 Disabilities for part in Civil War 331 Disfranchisement by educational disqualification may be made. . 360 Disorderly behavior, each house may punish or expel for 17 Distiller's output, Congress may tax 30 Distress for internal taxes, allowable 29 against revenue officers when allowed 298 to collect income tax lawful 298 District of Columbia, power of Congress over 125 is not a "State" 125 may impose direct tax in 125 and apportion tax 125 may cede part back to State 126 Divorce, laws for, impair no contract 184, 192 Dockyards, Congress has authority over 125 Domestic Insurrection, Congress may call out militia 121 may decide which is State government 122 Drainage, when, by due process of law 375 "Drummers" of other States, State can not tax unequally 45 Due Process of Law, definition of 303, 361 in levying taxes 361 instances of depriving, without 362 administration of estates of living person, not 365 proceedings in courts, when 365 Duties, Congress has power to lay 24 shall be uniform throughout the United States 24 shall not be laid on exports 141 no State shall impose on imports or exports 196 net produce of duties for inspection, to inure to U. S 196 vessels not to pay, in States 142 404 INDEX. E. Page, Election of President and Vice President, by electors 207 Election of Representatives, power of Congres over 15, 16 Election of Senators^ State legislatures may prescribe time, place and manner 15 but Congress may make or alter regulations 10 Electors. ( See, Presidential Electors.) 206 Elevators, States may regulate charges 72 contracts for, not interference with interstate commerce, when 47 nor "no preference" clause 143> Eminent Domain, private property not to be taken for public use, without compensation 29{> when such taking is by due process of law 306 prohibiting sale of liquor, not 306 laws permitting, when repealable 177, 179 Employes, liability of corporations for, within State control.... 345 States may require payment to, on discharge 347 Engineers, States may require locomotive, to be licensed 345 Equal Protection secured by Constitution, 14th Amendment.... 333 cases where denied by States 337 by denying carriers a reasonable profit 338 police regulations not denying 339, 342 Escheat, when to State, Is by "due process" 372 Excises, Congress can lay 24 such taxes not affected by State prohibitory laws 32 nor hostile to same 32 Executive Power vested in President 206 independent of other departments 209 can not forbid execution of laws 209 to choose between several State governments 209 to protect judges of U. S. courts 210 may establish provisional governments in newly acquired territory, when 219 and provisional courts in insurgent territory 210 Exclusive Franchise, when not impaired by chartering rival line. 178 when not granted, others may be 189 Exemption from taxation. State may bind itself by con- tract 147, 155, 156 of railroad property. Includes what 169 of stock, includes shares 189 but not property of corporation 189 nor land granted ^ 189 when not a contract 147, 155, 187 Exports, from States, no tax to be laid on 141 stamp taxes on tobacco not a tax on 141 excise taxes, not a tax on 141 tax on withdrawal of spirits from bonded warehouses, not a tax on 142 from States, not to be taxed 141 decisions as to 141, 142 INDEX. 405 rage. Ex post facto laws. Congress shall not pass 134 what are and are not 134, 131) States shall not pass, instances of, and decisions on 146 Extra Session, President may convene Congress in 220 Extradition of fugitives from justice 264 under foreign treaties 265 F. Faith and Credit, full, to be given in each State to acts, records, etc., of other States 243 when to be given 243 instances, where not given 243-252 instances, where given 243-252 Felony, members not privileged from arrest for 20 on high sea. Congress may punish Ill accusation for, must be by indictment 299 ^'Federal Questions," what are, arising in State courts 233 Fences, State may require railroads to build 71, 345 Ferry, across navigable streams, State regulation of 95 when franchise not a contract 175, 176 Fifteenth Amendment, text of, to Constitution 383 decisions under 383 Fines, excessive, not to be imposed 316 Fish and Oame, States may regulate killing and shipment of. . .77, 346 Flotcing lands, laws for, constitutional, when 307 Foreign Coin, Congress may regulate value 101 and punish counterfeiting of 103 Forfeiture, treason not to worls, except for life of attainted.... 241 Forts, power of Congress over 124, 126 Fourteenth Amendment, text of, to Constitution 330 decisions under 332-382 operative against States only 333 instances of laws discriminating against colored persons... 334 where laws have denied equal protection 337 discriminated against non-residents 337 limited carriers rates unreasonably , 333 where regulation of carriers does not violate 339 what States may require of carriers 340 may fix maximum rates in State 340 power of States over rates 341 police power of States not affected by 342 instances of constitutional police power 342 instances of proper local taxation 354 what is due process of law under 361 instances of unconstitutional acts 362 depriving of property without due process 362 Instances where "due process of law" was found 365 court procedure, when due process 368 eminent domain, when due process 374 taxation when and when not "due process" 379 operates retrospectively 360 406 I]ST>EX. Page. FrancMses, granted by Congress, when taxable by States 30 States may tax, bow and when • 51 State taxes on, valid 355 when a vested contract right .147, 159 exclusive, when a contract 169 Foreign Corporations, admission to do business In a State, not a contract 190 States may exclude 348 Foreign-held bonds. States can not tax, when 30, 157 Congress may tax 30 Form of Oovernment, republican, guaranteed to States 274 Formation of New States, admission of, into Union.. 266 Freight, tax upon, an Interference with Interstate commerce, when 58 regulation of charges for, by States, void, as to interstate. . 59, 66 States may regulate charges, when 183, 352 but not unreasonably 338, 353 Fugitives from Justice, to be delivered up, when 264 Fugitive Slaves, former provisions as to 261 decisions upon 261 G. Game and Fish, States may regulate killing and shipment of.. 77, 346 Gas, States may regulate waste of natural 351 General welfare. Constitution established for 1 Congress may provide for 24 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., 189, leading case as to power of Congress over navigation, etc 38 Gold and Silver, State can make nothing else a tender 144 Government, republican form guaranteed to States 279 Grand jury. Indictment by, for capital or Infamous crimes 299 States can not disqualify for color 324, 330 "Granger Cases/' States may regulate freight charges of common carriers 183 Grant of lands, by State can not be Impaired 154, 155 "Greenbacks" States can not tax 27 Gross earnings of interstate railways, taxation by State 52 Gross receipts of Interstate carriers, when taxable by States.. 56, 65 when not so taxable 56 Guarantees to States of republican form of government 279 President may determine which Is government of State 279 Luther v. Borden Case 279 Kentucky Election Case ,. 281 H. "Habeas Corpus, not to be suspended, when ^ IS.'l Supreme Court can not review on 311 jurisdiction of Supreme Court in 387 INDEX. 40Y Page. Harhor Lines, States may locate 344 Hiyhicays, cities may protect 344 assessments for improvements, when constitutional 381 High Crimes and Misdemeanors, President and civil officers im- peachable for 221 "High Seas," Congress may punish piracy and felony on Ill what are 112 House of Representatives, how composed 8 qualifications of members 8 who may be representatives 8 how apportioned among States 9 what number to compose 10 vacancies, how filled 10 to choose Speaker and officers 10 has power of impeachment 14 judge of elections, etc., of members 17 majority a quorum 17 may determine rules of proceeding 17 may punish or expel members for disorderly behavior, etc... 17 shall keep a journal 19 not to adjourn more than three days without Senate's con- sent 19 privilege of members 20 for speech or debate 20 disabilities of members 21 from rebellion, how removed.. 331 revenue bills to originate In 21 may punish for contempt 17 and pass laws to compel attendance of witnesses 17 may count those present not voting in quorum 18 Houses of III Fame, States may fix limits for 351 I. Immigration. (See, Head Money.) State can not tax incoming passengers 47 Immunities (See, Privileges and Immunities) 252 Impairment of Contract by State, laws, instances of 147-174 instances where laws not an 174-196 by statutes of limitations 193 Impeachment, President, etc., liable to 221 Implied Contract may be impaired by State laws 174 Imports, States can not lay duty on, except, etc 196 what are 197 Imposts. (See, Commerce.) Congress may lay taxes on. etc 24 to be uniform throughout U. S 24 may distrain to collect 29 decisions as to 24 408 INDEX. Page. Incidental Poicers of Congress 128 decisions as to, and defining 128 pertaining to sovereignty 131 Indians, commerce with tribes, Congress regulates 96 not counted, for representation 10, 331 when not citizens 332 sale of liquor to. Congress may forbid 97 Indictment for capital or infamous crime 299 not amendable 300 form of, in state court not reviewable 311 Infamous Crime triable only on indictment 299 Inferior Courts, Congress may establish 221 appellate Jurisdiction over 231 Information not sufficient to try on, for infamous crime 300 Inheritance Tax by States, he'd valid 356 Injunctions, Federal courts may enjoin interference with Inter- state commerce 86 Insolvent Laws of States, when impair obligation of contract.. 194 Inspection Latcs, when void or, valid 78 of tobacco, valid 79 of fertilizers, valid 79 of meats, void when discriminative 79 Insurance not commerce ; States may regulate 78 Interstate Commerce, State can not tax 44 nor Interfere with, by license taxes 44 as to express companies 46 as to occupations 46 as to factors or brokers 47 how far States may tax property used in 51 may tax gross earnings, when 52 and when not 56, 65 or proportion of same 52 or proportional value of franchise 52, 63 or proportional value of capital stock 53 or of franchise 54 or miles of wires in State 54 or business done solely in State 54 or corporate franchises 54 of foreign corporations 55 or terms may be Imposed on same 74 can not tax passengers, or company for carrying into, out of, or through State 57, 59 nor regulate long and short hauls as to 57 nor tax sleeping cars, when 58 nor freight passing through 58, 59 nor telegraph companies 60 Intoxicating liquors, state may regulate sale of, In state.. 33 67, 69, 342 original package cases as to 70 States or cities may charge wharfage 71 and regulate Import, pilotage 71 and compel railroads to fence track : 71 INDEX. 409 Page. Interstate Commerce— Continued. and charge fees for filing consolidation articles 71 and regulate elevator charges 72 and running trains on Sunday 73 but can not require stopping at all stations 73 may regulate speed in cities 74 may impose conditions on foreign corporations 74 and liability for negligence , 75 and liability for injuries and contracts of exemption therefrom 75 may charge rate of taxation 76 and regulate fares in State 76 may charge for examination of paupers, idiots, etc., com- ing in, when 76 may require locomotive engineers to be examined and li- censed 77 may regulate killing of game > 77 or fish caught 78, 346 may regulate insurance . = 78 State inspection laws, when void 78 as to meats when restrictive of interstate' commerce ... . 79 as to tobacco, held valid 79 as to fertilizers, valid when 79 quarantine laws, when valid 80 oleomargarine laws by States, when void 81 shipment from point to point in same State, not interstate 58 oleomargarine laws, when void 81 Congress may tax ^ 82 anti-trust act, valid 84 to what applies 83 monopolies, sugar refineries, not 84 joint traffic combinations illegal 85 Federal courts may enjoin interference with, Debs' case.. 86 internal navigation, Congress controls, when a 86 State power as to 88 iiens, maritime. Congress may provide 90 marine torts on rivers. State power over 90 bridges over navigable rivers, power of Congress over — . 91 ferries over navigable rivers, how far States may regulate. 95 Interest in judgments, law may change 182 Intoxicating Liquors, States may regulate 33, 67, 342 original packages, case as to 70 sale of, in Indian country 97 prohibiting sale of, not taking for public use 306 insurrtiction, Congress may provide for calling out militia to suppress '. 121 disability for engaging in 331 Invasion, States to be protected from 121, 279 Inventors. (See, Patent Right.) may be secured, exclusive rights 107 decisions as to 107, 109 Irrigation, a public purpose, property may be taken for 850 410 INDPX. J. Page. Jeopardy, no one to be put twice In, of punishment 29& what is, and is not, twice in 309 Joint Traffic Comhitiations of railway companies, held illegal.. 85 Journal of Proceedings, each house of Congress to keep 19 objections of President to be entered on 22 TOte of members to be entered on 2S Judges in every State, bound by Constitution 283 of Supreme and other courts to hold during good behavior. 221 compensation of, provided for 221 Judicial Power, vested in Supreme and Inferior courts 221 to what cases extends 222 decisions as to 223-241 limited as to suits against States 321 Judgments, full faith and credit In, of States to be given In other States 243 to what judgments rule applies 243 decisions as to 243-252 who is concluded by 367 State may change rate of Interest on 182, 343 against municipality, how enforced 157, 158 in case of impeachment, extent of 14 Judgment Creditor, right of, to seize property of wife of debtor, not a contract right 191 Jurisdiction, of Supreme court, see Supreme Court 223 slavery prohibited within, of U. S 327 In case of judgment of other State, may be disputed, when 243 decisions as to 243-246 new States not to be carved out of old, without consent.. 266 Federal courts have no common law 310 when not conferred by due process of law 364 Jurors, States can not disqualify, for color 329, 330 Jurp Trial in criminal cases secured 299, 301, 310 Just Compensation, private property not taken for public use without 299 decisions as to such taking 308 as to whether proceedings are due process of law 374 K. Keniuc'kp Election Case, Supreme court can not review State election 281 L. Labor, fugitives from service are to be delivered np 261 State may fix hours of 349 Laches, when waiver of claim that State law impairs contract. 173 same not "Federal question" 173 iisrDEX. 41 1 Page. Land and Naval Forces, Congress to make regulations for.... 120 Law and Fact, Supreme court has appellate jurisdiction as to. 222 Law of the Land, Constitution, laws and treaties are, supreme . 283 *'Law of Nations/' Congress may punish offenses against 112 Legal Tender, States can make gold or silver only 144 Congress can make U. S. treasury notes 36 Letters can not be seized in mails 297 nor seized for use as evidence 305 Letters of Marque and Reprisal, when may be issued 113, 116 States can not issue 144 Levees on Rivers, taking land for, without compensation valid in Louisiana 375 License Fees, States may exact, for doing business in 351 License Tax to sell liquors, does not override State prohibition laws 32 by states, void when restrictive of interstate or foreign commerce 44 Lien of judgment. States can not divest, when 157 Liens, maritime, Congress may provide for 90 Life, Liberty and Property, not to be deprived of, but by due process of law 330 Life and Limb, not to put twice in jeopardy 299 Liquors. (See, Intoxicating Liquors.) Liquor Laws of States not affected by Internal revenue tax.... 32 Luther v. Borden Case, insurrection in Rhode Island 279 M. Magazines, Congress exclusive power over 124, 126 Mails, Congress may shut out matter from 105 courts may enjoin interference with 106 and punish disobedience as a contempt 106 letters can not be seized in 297 Majority of each house a quorum 17 of States necessary for choice of President by House of Rep- resentatives 208 of Senators to choose Vice-President, when 208 Maritime Jurisdiction, judicial power of Federal Courts extends. 222 Marine Torts, States may declare liability for, when 90 Markets, cities may limit location of 343 Marriage, divorce laws not impairment of contract 184 Marque and Reprisal, Congress may grant letters of 113, 116 States not to issue letters of 144 Meeting of Congress, when to be 16 Measures, Congress to fix standard of weights and 101 Members of Congress. (See, Represntatives.) Message, President to inform Congress as to state of Union .... 220 Militia, Congress may provide for calling out 121 power defined ,. 121 412 INDEX. Page. Militfa-Contlnued. for arming and disciplining same » 122 necessary for security 295 President commands, when called into service 213 military Courts may be established in war 115 Military Governors may be appointed in war 115 Misdemeanors, President and civil oflBcers may be impeached for 221 Mohs, States may repeal laws, allowing damages for injuries by 349 Money to be drawn from treasury on appropriation only 143 Congress may borrow 34 may coin and regulate value of 101 for supporting army, only for two years 118 Mormons, decisions as to 293 Congress may prohibit polygamy 294 Mortgages, State can not add to time of i*edemption, as to pro- visions 159 State laws can not Impair obligation of 154 States may tax mortgagee's interest in land 355 Municipal Charters not contracts with State 185 Municipal Corporation, contract for water supply of, from one source not impaired by contract to supply from another - source 185 N. Nations, Congress may provide for punishing offenses against laws of Ill may regulate commerce with foreign 37 National Banks, how taxable by States 31, 35 Natural-born Citizen only eligible as President, etc 211 Naturalization, power of Congress as to 98 exclusive power of Congress 98 admission of State naturalizes citizens of, when 99 Congress may exclude or expel aliens 99 who are citizens of U. S 330 Naval Forces, Congress may make rules for, etc 120 Navigation, Congress may regulate interstate 86-88 State power as to internal 88 Navy, Congress may provide and maintain 119 powers defined as to 119 and punish offenses In * 119 and desertion from 119 Secretary of, may prescribe regulations for, with approval of President 120 Negligence, State may regulate liability for. In Interstate com- merce, when 75 New States may be admitted into Union 266 rights of, when admitted 266 decisions as to same 266-269 INDEX. 413 Page. NoUlitu, title of, by Congress, forbidden I 144 by States forbidden 144 Nominationsj by President to oflBce, how made 217 O. Oath of Office, President to take 212 to support Constitution, all officers, etc., to take and be bound by 283 Otjections, President vetoing bill to return, with same 22 Obligation of Contracts, States not to impair 144 decisions upon clause 147-196 Offense against law of nations. Congress may provide for punish- ment Ill Office. (See, various heads.) member of Congress can not hold other 21 disqualification for, by rebellion 33 appointment to, not a contract 178 appointment to, in recess of Senate 219 vacancies of, in recess of Senate 219 Officers of U. S., President to nominate 217 of U. S. can not accept title or present from foreign prince 144 Oleomargarine, State laws, when interfere with commerce 81 may prevent deception 82 Federal tax on, valid 82 State laws do not apply to National Homes 82 when and how State may regulate 347 Opinion, President may require, of heads of departments 213 Original Jurisdiction of Supreme court 222 Original Packages of imported goods, not taxable by States till broken or sold by importer 48 what are 49 of liquors sent into State 70 Overt Act, in treason, must be proved by two witnesses 241 P. Pardon, power of President to grant 213 decisions as to 215 Passengers, tax on stage companies for, when void 57 inspection of, when an interference 77 toll upon, over Cumberland road, violates contract with U. S 173 Patents, power of Congress as to 107 is plenary and exclusive 107 Post Offices and Post Roads, Congress may establish 103 extent of, defined 104 reaches to new instrumentalities 105 may shut out matter from mails 105 and punish depredations on 104 may prevent interference with 106 courts may enjoin same 106 and punish disobedience as a contempt 106 414 INDEX. Page. Powers,' not delegated to United States reserved to the people of States 318 illustrative decisions 318 enumerated, not to disparage- others not mentioned 317 Peace, in time of. States not to keep troops or ships of war.. 201 soldiers not to be quartered in houses 296 Pensions and Bounty, debt for, not to be questioned 332 People, Constitution ordained by 1 rights of, to petition, etc 292 to bear arms 295 secure from searches and seizures. 297 powers not delegated, reserved to 317, 318 Pilots and Pilotage, how far States may regulate 33 Piracy, Congress may define and punish Ill decisions under clause Ill Police Regulations, States may prescribe, when 74, 342 Ports, not to be preferred 142 what regulations local authorities may make 142 Practitioners may be required to pay license tax 343 Preamble, object of the Union 1 nature of the Union 2 Constitution emanated from people 1 United States one nation 4 Preference, not to be given to ports 142 President vested with executive power 206 who eligible to office 211 Vice President, when act as 212 compensation of, not to be changed 212 oath of office 212 to be Commander-in-Chief 213 powers as such 213 pardoning power of 215 extent and effect of 215 may make treaties with consent of Senate 217 appointing power of 207 may fill vacancies, when 219 to give information to Congress 220 to commission officers 220 removable by impeachment 221 Presidential Electors, how chosen 206, 209 States direct manner of election 207 can not change time of meeting 207 when meet and how proceed 207 Private Papers can not be seized to be used as evidence 305 nor taken from mails 297 Privateering, Congress may authorize, when 116 Privileges and Immunities of citizens of State, entitled to, in each State 252 decisions under clause 252-260 corporations not citizens 200 not denied by State Constitution requiring voter to be able to read and write 360 INDEX. 415 Page. Prizes Captured in War, Congress may make rules as to 113 Process of Law. (See, Due Pi'ocess of Law.) Proclamation of President, when takes effect ., 214 effect of, as pardon and amnesty 215 Professions, exclusion from, not impairment of contract . . . . c . 184 Prohibitions on States, States not to lay duties on imports or exports, except for inspection 190 Inspection laws limited 196 no State shall levy tonnage tax 201 keep troops or ships in time of peace 201 enter into compacts with other States or foreign powers. . 201 engage in war unless invaded, etc 201 Prohibitory Laws of States not affected by U. S. license tax... 32 Promissory Note, obligation of, impaired by tax laws 158 law forbidding transfer, impairs contract 177 Property, no person to be deprived of but by due process of law 299 States not to so deprive 330 Property of United States, Congress may dispose of, etc 279 and make regulations as to 279 Prosecutions, to be by indictment, when 299 right to speedy public trial 310^ by jury of district 31o' to have and confront witnesses 310 informed of accusation , 310 to have counsel 310 Protection of the laws. States not to deny equal 330 Provisional Courts, President may establish, when 210 Provisional government. President may establish, when 210 Public Buildings, power of Congress over 124, 126 Public Debts of Confederation not binding on Union 283 Public (Grounds and Streets, States may regulate use of ...... 350 Public Lands, power of Congress to dispose of 269 may sell or lease 278 Public Ministers, President to receive 220 Public Use. (See, Eminent Domain.) private property not to be taken for, without compensation . 299 decisions as to 299, 306, 308, 374 Punishments, cruel and unusual, not to be inflicted 346 for impeachment 14 impeachment no bar for other 15 Quarantine Laws of States, when valid 80 Congress may enact 80 as to cattle diseased 80 •Quartering Soldiers prohibited, in houses in times of peace 296 41C) INDEX. R. Page. Race, right to vote not to be denied on account of 383 Ratification of Constitution, by States 291 dates of, by several States. (See, Chronology.) 380 dates of, of amendments, by States. (See, Chronology.).. 386 Ratio of Representation, according to population 9 to be reduced, when right to vote abridged 331 Re-assessment of Taxes. (See, Taxation.) when "due process of law" 380 Retellion, disabilities for engaging in 331 debts incurred to suppress, not to be questioned 332 habeas corpus may be suspended in case of, when 133 States to be protected from 279 Records, Public, full faith and credit to be given to, of each State in other States 243 Redemption from Mortgages, State can not give, as to past contracts 159 Regulations of commerce, foreign and interstate 37 no preference to ports, by 142 Release of railroad from condition of State subscription not void as impairment of contract 177 Religion, Congress not to establish ^ 292 nor prohibit free exercise of 292 State establishment not affected by 293 belief in, does not shield from crime 295 maintenance of hospital not establishment of 295 Religious Test, none required, for office 283 Remedies, statutes affecting, when not impairment of contract 171 when an impairment 172 Repeal of Statutes, when do not Impair conti-acts 190 Reprecentatives, Congress to consist of House of, etc 8 qualifications of electors 8 who may be eligible as 9 how apportioned 9 disability from holding other office 21 (See, House of Representatives.) Representation, basis of, among the States 9 when to be reduced in a State 331 Reprisal, Congress may grant letters of 116 Rights, enumeration of, not to disparage others 317 bill of, first 10 amendments 291 of suffrage, fifteenth amendment as to 383 decisions thereunder 383 Right of Wa-y, Congress may grant, to railway, telegraph and telephone lines through Indian country 97 Riparian Rights, subject to navigation and control of same by Congress 378 Rivers, Navigable, power of Congress over 91 States may improve and charge tolls, when 91 States may authorize dams upon, when 91 INDEX. 417 Page. Running of Trains on Sunday, States may regulate 7a and speed of, in cities "^4 Republican Form of Oovernment guarantied to States 279 Reserved Rights of States are those not delgeated 317, 318 Resignation of President, Congress may provide in case of 212 Revenues, pledge of certain, for creditors, a contract 181 Revenue Bills, to originate in lower House 21 Salaries of Federal officers not taxable by States 29 of State officers, not taxable by Congress 31 Salvation Army may be forbidden to hold meetings in street.. 350 Science and Useful Arts promoted by copyright and patents.. 107 Searches and Seizures, right to be secure against 297 Seizures, right of people to be secure against unreasonable 297 as well in mails as houses 297 Senate, how composed 13 how classified 13 who el'gible to 13 Vice President to preside over 14 to choose officers 14 has power of impeachment 14 court of impeachment, how constituted 14 election of, in States ". . 15 decisions as to 15 Set-Off 8, allowance of, does not impair contract 184 Soldiers, not to be quartered in houses 296 Slaves, emancipation of, by war power 115 Slavery prohibited within U. S. and all places in jurisdiction.. 327 13th amendment explained 327 Slave Trade, when may be prohibited 132 Sleeping Cars, tax on, by States, when void 58 Sovereignty, powers pertaining to 131 Standard of Weights and Measures, Congress shall fix 101 States. (See, other titles.) admission of, into Union 266 rights of, when admitted 266 take territorial property 269 not to be formed of States, not consenting . 269 prohibitions on 144, 201 consent to be sued not a contract 179, 185 suits against, in Federal courts, when not allowed 321 suits against State officers, when against State 323 decisions as to 324-6 reserved rights of 318 relation of, to the Union 280 full faith and credit to public acts, etc., to be given 24:i not to be deprived of equal representation in Senate 2*^2 control of internal commerce CO 27 418 INDEX. rage. Btate Banks. (See, Banks.) Congress may tax circulation of 31 State Bonds, contracts, not to be impaired 153 State Office, State tribunals may decide who chosen to .... 354 Stations, requirement that trains stop at, when void 73 requirement to stop at, no impairment of contract, when.. 183 Statutes, a part of contract made, when in force 169 Statutes of Limitations, when impair obligations of contract.. 193 must give reasonable time 193 Stock of Corporation, composed of public securities, not taxable, by States 28 Stock Killed, States may allow double damage for 346 Stockholders' Liability, repeal of, impairs contract, when.... 155 Struck Juries, held "due process of law" 366 Suffrage, amendments to Constitution do not confer 333 nor extend it to females 333 not to be denied for color, etc 383 amendments do not confer right of 333 Sunday, States may regulate travel on 73 Supreme Court of United States, no jurisdiction of political questions 223 may prescribe procedure, when 223 must keep within jurisdiction 224 which extends to law and equity 224 and Congress can not enlarge 224 nor States restrict 224 Congress may extend appellate jurisdiction 225 may protect itself and judges 225 President bound to protect 225 can try only actual controversy , 225 original jurisdiction, to what extends '226 to ambassadors or public ministers 226 to cases where State a party 226 to suits between States to settle boundaries 231 appellate jurisdiction over United States courts 231 same over Circuit Court of Appeals 233 same over State Courts 233 in what cases conferred 234 leading points as to 235-241 Supreme Law of Land, Constitution, laws and treaties are 283. T. Taxation. (See, Taxes.) j where personalty of non-residents subject to 879 when, "due process of law" 379 evasion of State, not protected in equity 380 State may create or change, taxing district 357 power of, never presumed to be relinquished 189 nor relinquishment implied from license 190 itn^dex. 419 Page. Taxation— Continued. exemption from, when a contract (See, Exemption) 148, 151 156, 178 of commercial agencies, when void 44 of passengers or "l;ead money" void 40 by States, of corporate franchises 51 of gross receipts, etc. 51 >of interstate commerce, when unconstitutional 46 rate may be raised, without impairing contract, when.... 76 of corporations engaged in Interstate commerce, by States .. 51-55 'prop(irtionate valuation of same 52 property sent from one state to another taxable 64 Taxes, direct, how laid and apportioned 9, 140, 331 not permitted on exports from States 141 Congress has power to lay 24 internal revenue, officers may distrain for 39 on distiller's out-put, valid 30 ■^ by States, of foreign-held bonds of corporate franchises, etc. 51 gross receipts of corporations 51 interstate commerce 46 rate of, when may be raised 76 exemption from ( See, Exemption.) 156 States may tax property of railroads but not Interstate operations 30 States may tax Railroads and franchises granted by U. S. unless forbidden 30 when such tax repugnant 32 Tax Certificatea not Impaired by requirement that occupant have notice : 181 , Temporary Appointments, when President may make 219 Tender in Payment of Debts. (See, Legal Tender.) Testimony of two witnesses to convict of treason 241 Tie Vote, Vice-President then to vote In Senate. 14 Titles of Nobility forbidden by Congress and States 144 Telegrams, States may require diligent delivery 352 can not tax, sent out of State 37, 61 nor prescribe distance of delivery 51 Telegraph Companies, Instrumentalities of commerce 60 States can not exclude 60 tax on Interstate messages, void 61 on receipts, when void 61 license taxes, when void 62 may be taxed on lines in State 62, 64 on poles 62 on proportional basis 63 States may require diligence in delivery 80 tax, on business done in State 63 Congress may grant right of way to, through Indian coun- try 97 Telephone Lines, Congress may grant right of way for, through Indian country 97 / 4:20 IN^DEX. Page. Territories, Congress may make rules and regulations as to 269 Government may acquire, by conquest or treaty 2G9 power of Congress plenary 270 subject to fundamental limitations 271 personal and civil righ-^s secured to citizens of, as to other citizens 271 the Dred Scott decision as to 272 power of Congress ove", is in trust for whole people 273 courts in, creatures of Congress 274 where offenses committed in, triable 274 may levy taxes in 274 right of people in, to trial by jury 276 provisional government in, when proper 278 power of Congress to dispose of lands 278 Territorial Courts not "courts of United States" 241 Toll Bridges, when charter of, a contract 156 other, near bridge, an impairment, when 156 may be condemned to public use 177 Trade-Marks, power of Congress as to lOf) act of Congress as to, void 109 Treason defined by Constitution , 241 Congress may declare punishment 241 but power limited 241 who may be guilty of 241 aliens, when may be guilty of 242 Treaties, President to make, with consent of Senate 217 effect of 218 courts must give effect to c 284 are supreme law of land . 283, 284 paramount over State Constitutions 287 States forbidden to enter into 144 British property protected by, of 1783 289 power to make, extends to protection of property of aliens 289 State laws hostile to, void 290 with Indians binding on States 290 Trial ty Jury, crimes except impeachment triable by 310 not entitled to, at sea 311 In cases at law, secured 312 suits of common law include all proceedings 312, 315 fact tried by, how re-examined 312 how. In Supreme court 315 not applicable in army or navy 301 guaranty of, when applies in war 301 court may express opinion on facts in 301 ^ -^ dear to American people 302 Tribunals, Inferior to Supreme court, Congress may establish.. 110 Troops or Ships of War, States can not keep, in time of peace. . 201 Trusts, act of 1890, does not apply to Kansas City Live Stock Ass'n 83 same, held valid 85 Two-thirds Vote necessary to Impeachment 14 or pass bill over veto 23 INDEX. 421 Page. Two-thirds Vote— Continued. of Senate to ratify treaty 217 to elect Vice President 208 to expel a member 17 of both houses to propose amendments 282 to remove disabilities 331 ^wo-thirds of States, vote of members from, to choose President, ^ when 208 to call convention for proposing amendments to Constitu- tion 282 U. Union, to establish a more perfect 1 nature of, under Constitution 6 constituting one nation 4 new States may be admitted into 266 President to inform Congress of state of 220 each State guarantied a republican form of government.. 279 Unreasonable Bates, States can not limit, for common carriers. etc 338-353 Unreasonable Searches and Seizures forbidden 297 V. Vacancies, President when to fill 219 Validity of Public Debt, never to be questioned 332 Valuation Laws, by State, when impair obligation on contract. . 154 Vessels from one port to another in U. S. not to pay duties, etc. 142 Veto, power of President as to 22 Vice Consuls, President may appoint 219 Vice President to be President of Senate 14 not to vote except in case of tie 14 to be chosen for four years 206 how elected by electors 207 when executive duties devolve on 212 impeachment for, for high crimes and misdemeanors 221 Virginia Coupon Cases, statutes and decisions as to 160 War. (See, War Power.) treason against TJ. S. consists of levying, etc 241 War Power, Congress may declare war 113 grant letters of marque 113 and make rules concerning captures 113, 116 defined 113 may exercise, in domestic insurrection 113 422 INDEX. Page. War Power— Continued. can not disturb safeguards of liberty, when 113 powers as to alien property 114 may regulate commex'cial intercourse with enemy 114, 115 and President may 114 may establish military courts 115 emancipate slaves 115 acquire territory by conquest 115 transport ti'oops through States 115 confiscate, in civil war 115 provide provisional governments 115 exercise powers of belligerent in civil war 116 Warehouses, States may regulate charges for 350 Warrants, for search to issue only on oath, etc 297 Warrants on Treasury, agreement by State to take, in payment of dues, a contract 173 Warranty of negro, as slave for life not broken by emancipation 828 Weights and Measures, Congress may fix standard for 101 Waterways. (See, Rivers.) States may improve and charge tolls for 351, 359 Water Rents, States may make, charge on lands 348 Wharfage, charges for, not interference with commerce 71 municipalities may charge for 96 Witness Against Self, one not compelled to be 299, 303 extent of privilege 304 Witnesses, accused, may confront 310 and have compulsory process for 310 two, to overt act to convict of treason 241 TTNIVERSITT (P 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. ^OcV62KL ^•^^ HI '^C'o tJJ fM^ 11 wm SEP 1 9 1^-^' 200 e t' 6 2i» REC'D LD 0CI8 196Z -U m ^5«lav'64^^* LD 21A-50m-3,'62 (C7097sl0)476B General Library University of California Berkeley VB U8I6 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY