C., B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, followed in Hallowell v. United States, 101.
Doctor v. Harrington, 196 U. S. 579, followed in Venner v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 24.
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, followed in Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 349.
In re Palliser, 136 U. S. 257, followed in United States v. Thayer, 39. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, followed in Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 349.
New Haven Railroad Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 361, followed in Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 56.
Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, followed in Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 405.
Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137, followed in Asbell v. Kansas, 251. Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U. S. 365, followed in Thomas v. Taggart, 385. Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S. 607. followed in United States v. Hermanos y Compañia, 337.
The Paquette Habana, 189 U. S. 453, followed in O'Reilly de Camara v. Brooke, 45.
United States v. Falk, 204 U. S. 143, followed in United States v. Hermanos y Compañia, 337.
United States v. Healy, 160 U. S. 136, followed in Ib.
CATTLE INSPECTION.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 11, 13; STATES, 3.
CERTIFICATE.
See JURISDICTION, A 8;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 5, 6, 7.
CHALLENGES TO JURORS. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9, 10.
CHINESE.
See IMMIGRATION.
CITIZENSHIP.
See JURISDICTION, A 7; TREATIES, 1.
CIVIL SERVICE ACT.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 4.
CLASSIFICATION FOR TAXATION. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 12.
COMMERCE.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
COMMISSIONS.
See BROKERS.
COMPACT BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6.
COMPACT BETWEEN STATES.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 8.
COMPETITION
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 5.
COMMUNITIES
See ACTIONS, 4; JURISDICTION, C.
I. ACTS OF.
See ACTS OF CONGRESS.
To purchase land for post-offices and courts.
Under Article I, § 8, cl. 17, of the Federal Constitution, Congress has power to purchase land within a State for post offices and courts by consent of the legislature of the State and to exercise exclusive legislation over the same. Battle v. United States, 36.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 11; JURISDICTION, B 7.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Commerce clause, see Infra, 8; Interstate COMMERCE.
1. Contract clause; contract to remove rights from state restriction, not within. One whose rights are subject to state restriction cannot remove them from
the power of the State by making a contract about them, and a contract illegal when made, such as the diversion of water from the State, is not within the protection of the contract clause of the Constitution. Hud- son Water Co. v. McCarter, 349.
2. Criminal trials; place of.
The requirements of § 2 of Art. III of, and of the Sixth Amendment to, the Federal Constitution relate to the locality of the offense and not to the VOL. CCIX-36
personal presence of the offender. Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 56.
3. Criminal trials; place of.
Transportation of merchandise by a carrier for less than the published rate is, under the Elkins Act, a single continuing offense, continuously com- mitted in each district through which the transportation is conducted at the prohibited rate, and is not a series of separate offenses, and the provi- sion in the law making such an offense triable in any of those districts, confers jurisdiction on the court therein, and does not violate § 2 of Art. III of, or the Sixth Amendment to, the Federal Constitution, pro- viding that the accused shall be tried in the State and district where the crime was committed. Ib.
4. Due process; one acting under statute not assured that interpretation given thereto by executive officers will be sustained by the courts.
Due process of law does not assure to taxpayers that the court will sustain the interpretation given to a statute by executive officers or relief from the consequences of misinterpretation by either such officers or the court; one acting under a statute must take his chances that such action will be in accord with the final decision as to its proper interpretation; this is a hazard under every law from which there is no security. Thomp- son v. Kentucky, 340.
5. Due process of law; deprivation of property; requiring warehouseman to pay interest on taxes on spirits in bond on which taxes had previously been paid by him, and the spirits withdrawn.
The fact that a warehouseman paid taxes without interest on spirits in bond under a mistaken interpretation of the statute by the state officers and subsequently permitted the spirits to be withdrawn does not estop the State to recover from the warehouseman interest due on such taxes under the statute, and a judgment therefor does not deprive the ware- houseman of his property without due process of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and so held as to the tax statutes of Kentucky. Ib.
6. Due process of law; property rights-Construction of compact between New York and New Jersey of 1833.
Under the agreement of 1833 between the States of New York and New Jersey, 4 Stats. 708, while exclusive jurisdiction is given to New York over the waters of the Hudson River west of the boundary line fixed by the agreement, the land under such waters remained subject to the Sovereignty of New Jersey and the jurisdiction given to New York over the waters does not exclude the sovereign power of New Jersey to tax such land, nor does an exercise of that power deprive the owner of the land of his property without due process of law. Central R. R. Co. v. Jersey City, 473.
7. Due process of law-Tax sales; sufficiency of notice by publication. An owner of property must be held to knowledge that failure to pay duly assessed taxes will be followed by sale; and if the statute gives him full
opportunity to be heard as to the assessment on definite days, and defi- nitely fixes the time for payment and the time for sale in case of default, so that he cannot fail; if duly diligent, to learn of the pendency of the sale, he is not denied due process of law because the notice of sale is by publication and not by personal service; and the validity of a tax sale under the law of Michigan sustained. Longyear v. Toolan, 414.
8. Due process of law; impairment of contract obligation; commerce; equal privileges and immunities-Validity of c. 238, Laws of New Jersey of 1905, prohibiting diversion of waters.
Chap. 238, Laws of New Jersey of 1905, prohibiting the transportation of water of the State into any other State is not unconstitutional either as depriving riparian owners of their property without due process of law, as impairing the obligation of contracts made by them for furnishing such water to persons without the State, as an interference with inter- state commerce, or as denying equal privileges and immunities to citi- zens of other States. Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 349.
See JURISDICTION, B 4; STATES, 5.
9. Equal protection of laws; classification of accused persons.
It is within the power of the State to divide accused persons into two classes, those who are, and those who may be, accused, and, if there is no dis- crimination within the classes, a person in one of the classes is not denied the equal protection of the laws because he does not have the same right of challenge of a grand juror as persons in the other class. Lang v. New Jersey, 467.
10. Equal protection of laws; validity of New Jersey statute discriminating against accused persons as respects challenges to grand jurors.
As construed by the highest court of that State, the statute of New Jersey providing that challenges to grand jurors cannot be made after the juror has been sworn does not deprive a person accused after the grand jury has been impanelled and sworn of the equal protection of the law be- cause one accused prior thereto would have the right of challenge. Ib. 11. Equal protection of the laws; deprivation by state statute imposing penalties affecting right of recourse to courts. While there is no rule permitting a person to disobey a statute with impunity at least once for the purpose of testing its validity, where such validity can only be determined by judicial investigation and construction, a provision in the statute which imposes such severe penalties for disobe- dience of its provisions as to intimidate the parties affected thereby from resorting to the courts to test its validity practically prohibits those parties from seeking such judicial construction and denies them the equal protection of the law. Ex parte Young, 123.
12. Equal protection of laws; classification of distilled spirits in bond not a denial of.
A classification of distilled spirits in bond, as distinct from other property
in regard to payment of interest on taxes does not constitute a dis- crimination amounting to a denial of equal protection of the laws within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thompson v. Kentucky, 340.
See JURISDICTION, B 3, 4. :
13. Export and preference clause; burdens and preferences contemplated by. The export and preference clause of the Constitution prohibits burdens only by way of actual taxation and duty, or legislation intending to give, and actually giving, the prohibited preference, and does not prohibit the merely incidental effect of regulations of interstate commerce wholly within the power of Congress; and the fact that such regulations in the Interstate Commerce Act may affect the ports of one State having natural advantages more than those of another State not possessing such advantages does not render the act unconstitutional as violating that provision. Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 56.
Post offices and post roads. See JURISDICTION D 4.
14. Privileges and immunities; effect of state statute forbidding diversion of waters.
Citizens of other States are not denied equal privileges within the meaning of the immunity clause of the Constitution by a statute forbidding the diversion of waters of the State if they are as free as the citizens of the State to purchase water within the boundaries of the State, nor can such a question be raised by a citizen of the State itself. Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 349.
Suits against States. See STATES, 7, 8.
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 2; STATUTES, A.
1. Discharge of one held for violation of decree entered without jurisdiction. An order of the Circuit Court committing one for contempt for violation of
a decree entered in a suit of which it did not have jurisdiction is unlaw- ful; and, in such case, upon proper application, this court will discharge the person so held. Ex parte Young, 123.
2. Propriety of action by Circuit Court of United States in punishing Attorney General of State for disobedience of its decree enjoining prosecution of state rate statute.
The Circuit Court of the United States having, in an action brought by a stockholder of the Northern Pacific Railway Company against the officers of the road, certain shippers and the Attorney General certain other officials of the State of Minnesota, held that a railroad rate statute of Minnesota was unconstitutional and enjoined all the defendants from
« PreviousContinue » |