4. Surety; conditions; sufficiency of compliance.

The mere fact that the examination, if made by a reasonably com-
petent person, failed to discover discrepancies covered by false
entries and bookkeeping devices would not defeat renewals of the
policy. Ib.

In re Mueller, 135 Fed. Rep. 711, approved in Matter of Loving, 183.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Ceballos & Co. v. United States, 214 U. S. 47, distinguished in United
States v. Anciens Etablissements, 309.

Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, distinguished in Choate
v. Trapp, 665.

United States v. Tyler, 105 U. S. 44, distinguished in Plummer v.
United States, 137.

CASES EXPLAINED.

West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229, explained in Haskell v.
Kansas Natural Gas Co., 217.

CASES FOLLOWED.

Apache County v. Barth, 177 U. S. 538, followed in Gonzales v. Buist,
126.

Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, followed in Henry v.
A. B. Dick Co., 1.

Binns v. United States, 194 U. S. 486, followed in Interstate Com.
Comm. v. Humboldt Steamship Co., 474.

Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89, followed in J. W. Calnan Co. v.
Doherty, 145.

Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665, followed in Gleason v. Wood, 679;

English v. Richardson, 680.

Excelsior Water Power Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282, fol-
lowed in Herndon-Carter Co. v. Norris & Co., 496.

Ex parte Harding, 219 U. S. 363, followed in Interstate Com. Comm. v.
Humboldt Steamship Co., 474.

Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398, followed in Gonzales v. Buist, 126.

Goat v. United States, 224 U. S. 458, followed in Deming Investment
Co. v. United States, 471.

Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413, followed in Goat v. United
States, 458.

Helm v. Zarecor, 222 U. S. 32, followed in Sharpe v. Bonham, 241.
Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 437, followed in
American Security & Trust Co. v. District of Columbia, 491.
Lewis v. United States, 92 U. S. 618, followed in Guarantee Co. v. Title
Guaranty Co., 152.

Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467, followed in
Philadelphia, Balto. & Wash. R. R. Co. v. Schubert, 603.

Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373, followed in Heckman v. United
States, 413.

Paper Bag Patent Case, 210 U. S. 405, followed in Henry v. A. B. Dick
Co., 1.

Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516, followed in Interstate Com.
Comm. v. Humboldt Steamship Co., 474.

Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, followed in Philadelphia,
Balto. & Wash. R. R. Co. v. Schubert, 603.

Southern Railway Co. v. Allison, 190 U. S. 326, followed in Missouri
Pacific Ry. Co. v. Castle, 541.

Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U. S. 420, followed in Standard Oil
Co. v. Missouri, 270; Graham v. West Virginia, 616.

Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, followed in United States
v. St. Louis Terminal, 383.

Steamer Coquitlam, 163 U. S. 346, followed in Interstate Com. Comm.
v. Humboldt Steamship Co., 474.

Tefft v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114, followed in J. W. Calnan Co. v.
Doherty, 145.

Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Miller, 221 U. S. 408, followed in
Brinkmeier v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 268.

Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, followed in Heckman
v. United States, 413.

Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 111, followed in Standard Oil Co. v.
Missouri, 270.

United States v. Amèrican Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315, followed

in Heckman v. United States, 413.

United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, followed in
United States v. St. Louis Terminal, 383.

United States v. Ames, 99 U. S. 35, followed in Interstate Com. Comm.
v. Goodrich Transit Co., 194.

United States v. Berdan Fire Arms Co., 156 U. S. 552, followed in
United States v. Anciens Etablissements, 309.

United States v. New York Indians, 173 U. S. 464, followed in United
States v. Anciens Etablissements, 309.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Penna. R. R. Co., 195 U. S. 540, followed in
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Richmond, 160.

Wheeler v. Nesbit, 24 How. 544, followed in Brown v. Selfridge, 189.
Wisconsin &c. R. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, followed in Oregon
R. R. & N. Co. v. Fairchild, 510.

Yates v. Jones National Bank, 206 U. S. 158, followed in Thomas v.
Taylor, 73.

Young v. Amy. 171 U. S. 179, followed in Gonzales v. Buist, 126.

CERTIFICATE.

See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 3.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.

See BANKRUPTCY, 5, 6.

CHEROKEE INDIANS.
See INDIANS, 3, 4, 15, 26, 27, 28.

CHICKASAW INDIANS.
See INDIANS, 5.

CHOCTAW INDIANS.

See INDIANS, 5, 20.

CITIZENSHIP.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8;

CORPORATIONS, 1;

INDIANS, 2.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
See PATENTS, 3, 12.

COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
See RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

COMMERCE.

See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 2;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 24;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE;
RESTRAINT OF TRADE;

SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.

1. Delegation of power; requiring commission to apply rules prescribed
effect as.
Congress may not delegate its purely legislative power; but having laid

down general rules of action under which a commission may pro-
ceed, it may require that commission to apply such rules to par-
ticular situations. Interstate Com. Comm. v. Goodrich Transit Co.,
194.

2. Over commerce, interstate and territorial; effect of existing contracts on
exercise of power.
Congress has power, in regulating interstate commerce and commerce
in the District of Columbia and in the Territories, to legislate
unfettered by any existing arrangements or contracts in conflict
with its policy. Prior arrangements are necessarily subject to the
paramount authority of Congress. (Louisville & Nashville R. R.
Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467.) Philadelphia, B. & W. R. R. Co. v.
Schubert, 603.

3. Indians; destruction of rights acquired under statute or agreement.
There is a broad distinction between the power to abrogate a statute
and to destroy rights acquired under it; and while Congress, under
its plenary power over Indian tribes, can amend or repeal an agree-
ment by a later statute, it cannot destroy actually existing in-

dividual rights of property acquired under a former statute or
agreement. Choate v. Trapp, 665; Gleason v. Wood, 679; English
v. Richardson, 680.

4. Indians; authorization of suit to maintain restrictions upon alienation
by.
Congress has power to authorize the Government to sue to maintain

the statutory restrictions upon alienation of Indian allottee lands.
(Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373.) Heckman v. United
States, 413.

5. Same.

Where Congress has power to authorize the Government to sue, an
appropriation for expenses of suits already brought is a recogni-
tion of the right to bring them; and so held that the provisions of
the act of May 27, 1908, 35 Stat. 312, c. 199, and of subsequent
acts making appropriations for suits brought to cancel con-
veyances made by Cherokee allottee Indians in violation of
statutory restrictions on alienation are within the power of Con-
gress. Ib.

6. To insure efficacy of liability imposed.
Where Congress possesses the power to impose a liability it also pos-
sesses the power to ensure its efficacy by prohibiting any con-
tract, rule, regulation, or device in evasion of it. (Second Em-
ployers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 52.) Philadelphia, B. & W.
R. R. Co. v. Schubert, 603.

See ARMY AND Navy, 3;

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, 1, 2;

INDIANS, 3, 4, 8, 13, 15;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 4;
PATENTS, 20.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Commerce clause. See Infra, 24

1. Contract clause; franchise of corporation as contract which cannot be
impaired.

While franchises to be are not transferable without express authority,
franchises to have and to hold and to use are contractual and pro-
prietary and can be transferred; and, held in this case, that the
franchise granted to a telephone company was property, taxable
and alienable under the conditions on which it was granted, and,
under the contract clause of the Constitution, could not be abro-
gated as against a transferee whose rights had been recognized by
the municipality. Louisville v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 649.