2168 lines
123 KiB
Plaintext
2168 lines
123 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
THE
|
||
UNITED STATES AND THE STATES
|
||
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
|
||
BY
|
||
C. STUART PATTERSON.
|
||
SECOND EDITION,
|
||
WITH NOTES AND REFERENCES TO ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES,
|
||
BY
|
||
ROBERT P. REEDER,
|
||
OF THE PHILADELPHIA BAR.
|
||
______________
|
||
|
||
PHILADELPHIA
|
||
T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO.
|
||
1904.
|
||
|
||
CONTENTS.
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER I.
|
||
THE RELATION OF THE STATES AND OF THE TERRITORIES
|
||
TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO EACH OTHER.
|
||
1. The sanction of the Constitution.
|
||
2. The indissolubility of the Union.
|
||
3. The autonomy of the states.
|
||
4. The delegated character and limited powers of the government of the
|
||
United States.
|
||
5. The federal supremacy.
|
||
6. The restraints upon the states.
|
||
7. The force and effect of the preamble to the Constitution.
|
||
8. The territories.
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER II
|
||
THE IMPLIED POWERS.
|
||
9. The necessity of their existence.
|
||
10. Their constitutional recognition.
|
||
11. The test of the relation of the means to the end.
|
||
12. Illustrations of the exercise of the implied powers.
|
||
13. The legal tender question.
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER III.
|
||
TAXATION.
|
||
|
||
14. Taxation defined and limited.
|
||
15. Taxation by the United States
|
||
16. Restrictions upon federal taxation.
|
||
17. Taxation of exports.
|
||
18. Direet taxation.
|
||
19. Requirement of uniformity.
|
||
20. Taxation in the territories.
|
||
21. Exemption of state agencies from taxation by the United States.
|
||
22. Charges which are not taxes exempt from constitutional restraints.
|
||
23. Taxation by the states.
|
||
24. Expressed restraints upon state taxation.
|
||
25. Implied restraint upon state taxation resulting from the federal
|
||
supremacy.
|
||
26. Taxation of national banks.
|
||
27. State taxation as affected by the prohibition of the impairment of
|
||
the obligation of contracts.
|
||
28. State taxation as affected by the grant to Congress of the power of
|
||
regulating commerce.
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER IV.
|
||
THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE.
|
||
|
||
29. The constitutional provisions.
|
||
30. The historical reason for the provisions.
|
||
31. Commerce defined.
|
||
32. Regulation of commerce defined.
|
||
33. The general principles defining the limits of national and state
|
||
regulation.
|
||
34. The internal commerce of a state.
|
||
35. Navigable waters and the soil under them.
|
||
36. Preferences of ports.
|
||
37. Duties upon exports.
|
||
38. Duties upon tonnage.
|
||
39. Port dues.
|
||
40. Pilotage.
|
||
41. Regulation of navigation.
|
||
42. Port regulations.
|
||
43. Quarantine.
|
||
44. Ferries.
|
||
45. Bridges and dams.
|
||
46. Improvements of navigation.
|
||
47. Wharves and piers.
|
||
48. State duties upon imports and exports.
|
||
49. State inspection laws.
|
||
50. Taxation discriminating against goods from other states.
|
||
51. The original package doctrine.
|
||
52. Transportation: (a) State regulation in the exercise of the police
|
||
power; (b) Regulation by taxation; (c) The Interstate Commerce Act,
|
||
53. Tbe Anti-trust law.
|
||
54. Telegraphs.
|
||
55. Commerce with the Indian tribes.
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER V.
|
||
THE IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.
|
||
|
||
56. The prohibition affects only state laws.
|
||
57. The term "law" defined.
|
||
58. Jndgements of state courts not conclusive either as to the non-
|
||
existence or non-impairment of contracts.
|
||
59. The obligation of a contract defined.
|
||
60. legislation as to remedies.
|
||
61. The term "contracts" defined.
|
||
62. State insolvent laws.
|
||
63. Judgments as contracts.
|
||
64. Munieipal taxation.
|
||
65. History of the prohibition.
|
||
66. State grants.
|
||
67. Express contracts of exemption from taxation.
|
||
68. Express grants of peculiar privileges.
|
||
69. Contracts between a state and its political subdivisions.
|
||
70. Implied contracts in charters of incorporation.
|
||
71. Implied corporate exemption from taxation.
|
||
72. Implied grants of peculiar privileges.
|
||
73. Exemption from the operation of the police power.
|
||
74. Contracts as to matters of public concern.
|
||
75. The withdrawal by a state of its consent to be sued.
|
||
74. The force, and effect of the prohibition as cont;trued by the Supreme
|
||
Court.
|
||
CHAPTER VI
|
||
|
||
EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER.
|
||
|
||
77. The constitutional provisions.
|
||
78. The distinction between retrospective and ex post facto laws.
|
||
79. Ex post facto laws defined.
|
||
80. Illustrations of ex post facto laws.
|
||
8I. Illustrations of laws which are not ex post facto.
|
||
82. Bills of Attainder and bills of pains and penalties.
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER VII.
|
||
|
||
THE PROHIBITION OF STATE BILLS OF CREDIT.
|
||
83. Bills of credit defined.
|
||
84. What are, and what are not, bills of credit.
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER VIII.
|
||
STATE COMPACTS.
|
||
85. What compacts are permitted, and wbat are forbidden.
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER IX.
|
||
FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE.
|
||
86. The constitutional provision.
|
||
87. The concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and state courts.
|
||
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER X.
|
||
THE JUDICTAL POWER.
|
||
88. The constitutional provisions.
|
||
89. The theory of a judicial system under the common law.
|
||
90. The necessity of a federal judiciary.
|
||
91. Cases in law and equity, etc.
|
||
92. Cases affecting ambassadors, etc.
|
||
93. Admiralty.
|
||
94. Controversies to which the United States shall be a party.
|
||
95. Controversies between citizens of different states.
|
||
96. Controversies between two or more states.
|
||
97. Controversies between a state and citizens of another state, etc.
|
||
98. Federal jurisdiction.
|
||
99. Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction.
|
||
100. The courts of the United States.
|
||
101. Original jurisdiction.
|
||
102. Appellate and supervisory jurisdiction.
|
||
103. The necessity of a judicial "case."
|
||
104. The federal judiciary.
|
||
105. The federal supremacy.
|
||
106. Constitutional find statutory construction.
|
||
107. Judgments of courts.
|
||
108. Treaties.
|
||
109. The law administered in the federal courts.
|
||
110. Courts martial and impeachments.
|
||
111. The IV Amendment.
|
||
112. The V Amendment -(a) Due process of law; (b) Jeopardy etc.
|
||
113. The VI Amendment.
|
||
114. The VII and VIII Amendments.
|
||
115. The XI Amendment.
|
||
116. The relations between the federal and state courts.
|
||
117. The XIV Amendment as affecting state judicial proceedings.
|
||
118. The "full faith and credit clause.
|
||
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER XI.
|
||
RIGHTS OF PERSON AND OF PROPERTY.
|
||
118. Citizenship of the United States.
|
||
119. Citizenship of a state.
|
||
121. The right of suffrage.
|
||
122. The right of serving on juries.
|
||
123. Congressional regulation of federal elections.
|
||
124. Immigrants and aliens.
|
||
125. Personal property rights.
|
||
126. The rights within a state of citizens of other states.
|
||
127. Foreign corporations.
|
||
128. The I Amendment.
|
||
129. The XIII Amendment.
|
||
130. The XIV Amendment.
|
||
139. The equal protection of the laws.
|
||
140. The police power.
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER XII
|
||
THE FEDERAL SUPREMACY AND THE RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE STATES.
|
||
133. The results of federal supremacy.
|
||
134. The constitutional reservation of the rights of the states.
|
||
135. The nature and extent of those reserved rights.
|
||
136. The importance of the preservation of the rights of both the United
|
||
States and the states.
|
||
|
||
TABLE OF CASES CITED
|
||
|
||
The references are to the pages.
|
||
|
||
A.A.P. Co. v. D.P. Co., 191 U.S. 373 282, 288
|
||
A.B. Co. v. Kansas, 193 U.S. 49 228
|
||
Aberdeen Bank v. Chehalis County, 166 U.S. 440 50, 52
|
||
Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506 18, 271
|
||
Achison v. Huddleson, 12 How. 293 97
|
||
Adams v. Nashville, 95 U.S.19 49
|
||
v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 246, 320
|
||
A. Ex. Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U.S. 171 40,57,103
|
||
v. Michigan, 177 U.S. 404 206
|
||
v. Ohio,165 U.S. 194 166 id. 185,40,54,57,103,316
|
||
A.I. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 8, 9, 19
|
||
Ainsa v. U.S., 184 U.S.639 209
|
||
Alabama v. Georgia 23 How. 505 191, 211
|
||
Albany Bridge Case, The, 2 Wall, 403 84
|
||
Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U.S. 80 233
|
||
v. Newberry, 21 How. 244 209
|
||
v. P.P.C. Co., 191 U.S. 171 55,56,58,103,105
|
||
v. S.P.R. 173 U.S. 479, 224
|
||
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 63, 280
|
||
Almy v. California, 24 How. 169 54, 64, 88, 106
|
||
Ambrosini v. U.S., 187 U.S. 1 39
|
||
Ames v. Kansas, 111 U.S. 449 206, 221, 225
|
||
Amy v. Shelby County, 114 U.S. 387 179
|
||
v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136 266, 267
|
||
Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204 18
|
||
v. U.S., 171 U.S. 604 128
|
||
Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14 283, 284, 286
|
||
v. Swartz, 156 U.S. 272 274, 282
|
||
Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U.S. 769 145
|
||
A.P. Co. v. Fisher, 166 U.S. 464 256
|
||
A.P. & S. Co. v. U.S., 175 U.S. 211 67, 127, 251
|
||
Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U.S. 405 21,5 276, 319
|
||
Arkansas v. K. & T. C. Co., 183 U.S. 185 206, 210, 225
|
||
Armstrong v. Carson, 2 Dall.302 283
|
||
v. Lear, 8 Pet. 52 229
|
||
Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U.S. 316 274
|
||
Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238 265
|
||
Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U.S. 194 276
|
||
A.R.T. Co. v. Hall, 174 U.S. 70 40, 57, 103
|
||
A. Ry. v. New York, 176 U.S. 335 142, 161, 176, 278
|
||
Asher v. Texas, 128 U.S. 129 55, 92, 302
|
||
Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U.S. 436 22,55,103,304,305,306
|
||
A.S. of M. H. v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94 229
|
||
Aspinwall v. Daviess County, 22 How. 364 148, 149
|
||
A.S.R. Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 89 320
|
||
Asylum v. New Orleans, 105 U.S. 362 52, 162, 163
|
||
A.S. & W. Co. v. Speed, 192 U.S. 500 43, 55, 87, 92, 94
|
||
Atherton v. Atherton, 181 U.S. 155 286
|
||
A.T. & S.F. R. v. Matthews, 174 U.S. 96 313, 314, 318
|
||
Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U.S.343 96
|
||
Auten v. U.S. Nat. Bank, IL74 U.S. 125 206
|
||
A.V.L.& C. Co. v. Mann, 130 U.S. 69 257
|
||
Ayers, In re, 123 U.S. 443 180, 261
|
||
A.& P.T.Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U.S. 160 24, 134
|
||
Backus v. F.S.U.D. Co., 169 U.S. 557 274, 277
|
||
Bacon v. Howard,, 20 How. 22 283
|
||
Bailey v. Maguire, 22 Wall. 215 174
|
||
Bain, Ex parte, 121 U.S. 1 247
|
||
Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284 225
|
||
Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678 233, 238
|
||
v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223 141, 152 153
|
||
Baltimore v. B.T. Co., 166 U.S. 673 177
|
||
Baltzer v. North Carolina, 161 U.S. 240 180
|
||
Banholzer v. N.Y.L.I. Co., 178 U.S. 402 282
|
||
Bank v. Supervisors, 7 Wall. 26 44
|
||
Bank of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 522 267, 283, 288
|
||
Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519 63, 304, 305
|
||
Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235 256
|
||
Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, 161 U.S. 134 163
|
||
id. 416 162
|
||
Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley's Lessee, 2 Pet. 492 204
|
||
Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Pet. 318 262
|
||
Bank of Redemption v. Boston, 125 U.S. 60 50
|
||
Bank of U.S. v. Deveaux, 5 Cr. 61 303
|
||
v. Halstead, 10 Wheat. 51 265
|
||
v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904 262
|
||
Bank of Washington v. Arkansas, 20 How. 530 180
|
||
Banks v. Mayor, 7 Wall. 16 44
|
||
Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall. 200 44
|
||
Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 210
|
||
Barbier v. Connally, 113 U. S. 27 314, 321
|
||
Barings v. Dabney, 19 Wall. 1 169
|
||
Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280 210
|
||
v. City of New York, 193 U.S. 430 280, 319, 323
|
||
v. Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324 72
|
||
Barnitz v. Beverly, 163 U.S. 118 146
|
||
Barrett v. Holmes, 102 U.S. 651 143, 279
|
||
Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 247
|
||
v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186 307
|
||
Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall.129 100,298
|
||
Bartlett v. Lockwood, 160 U.S. 357 80
|
||
Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S.126 255
|
||
Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204 264
|
||
Bath County v. Amy, 13 Wall. 244 267
|
||
Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548 11, 251, 253
|
||
Bausman v. Dixon, 173 U.S. 113 206
|
||
Bayard v. Singleton, 1 Martin, (N.C.) 42 233
|
||
B.B. & B. C. R. v. New Whatcom, 172 U.S. 314 277
|
||
Beatty v. Benton, 135 U.S. 244 224
|
||
Bedford v. E. B. & L. Assn., 181 U.S. 227 142, 306
|
||
Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25 100,176,178
|
||
Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527 180,181
|
||
Belden v. Chase, 150 U.S. 674 206, 209
|
||
Belfast, The, 7 Wall 624 208,209,264
|
||
Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10 209, 253
|
||
Bell v. Bell, 181 U.S. 175 286
|
||
Bellaire v. B. & O. R. 146 U.S. 117 225
|
||
Bement v. N.H. Co., 186 U.S. 70 126,128
|
||
Benjamin v. New Orleans, 169 U.S. 161 215
|
||
Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235 9
|
||
B.G.R. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232 41,43,316
|
||
Bier v. McGehee, 148 U.S. 137 139,148,149
|
||
Bigby v. U.S., 188 U.S. 400 209
|
||
Bigler v. Waller. 14 Wall. 297 21
|
||
Billings v. Illinois, 188 U.S.97 41, 316
|
||
Bingham v. Cabot. 3 Dall. 382 215
|
||
Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51 167,168,175
|
||
Bischoff v. Wethered, 9 Wall. 812 284
|
||
Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189 40,41,140
|
||
Blair v. Cuming County, 111 U.S. 363 25
|
||
Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239 215,303,304,319
|
||
v. McClung, 176 U.S. 59 303
|
||
In re, 175 U.S. 114 267
|
||
Blount v. Walker, 134 U.S. 607 287
|
||
v. Windley, 95 U.S. 173 144,148,153
|
||
Blyew v. U.S., 13 Wall. 581 206
|
||
Board of Assrs. v. C. N. D' E., 191 U.S. 388 40, 41
|
||
Board of Liquidation v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 622 141
|
||
v. McComb, 92 U.S. 531 263, 264
|
||
Board of Pub. Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521 284
|
||
Bock v. Perkins, 139 U.S. 628 19, 206, 225, 272
|
||
Bolles v. Brimfield, 120 U.S. 759 242
|
||
Bollman and Swartwout, Ex parte, 4 Cr. 75 243, 250
|
||
Bolin v. Nebraska, 176 U.S. 83 2, 274
|
||
Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U.S. 592 23, 42
|
||
Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403 210
|
||
Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425 232, 279, 321
|
||
Borer v. Chapman, 119 U.S. 587 265
|
||
Bors v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252 221
|
||
Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459 18,206,215,224,225,238,270
|
||
Boswell's Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. 336 273, 285
|
||
Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 238
|
||
Bowman v. C. & N. W. Ry., 125 U.S. 465 69, 94, 102
|
||
v. Middleton, 1 Bay, (S.C.) 252 233
|
||
Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546 310
|
||
Boyd v. Alabama, 94 U.S. 645 176
|
||
v. Nebraska, 143 U.S.135 224, 291
|
||
v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 246
|
||
Boyd, Ex parte, 105 U.S. 647 210
|
||
Boyer v. Boyer, 113 U.S. 689 50
|
||
Boyle v. Zaeharie, 6 Pet. 635 147, 151
|
||
Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S.291 309
|
||
Bradley v. Lightcap,195 U.S.1 146, 276
|
||
v. The People, 4 Wall. 459 49
|
||
Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall 130 301, 311
|
||
Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U.S. 391 98, 278, 315, 317
|
||
Breithaupt v. Bank of Georgia, 1 Pet. 238 215
|
||
Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U.S. 289 55, 92
|
||
Bridge Proprietors v. Hob oken Co., 1 Wall. 116 141,168
|
||
Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 54, 89, 91
|
||
Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257 3, 189, 190, 234, 262
|
||
Bristol v. Washington County, 177 U.S. 133 22, 40, 41
|
||
Bronson v. Kimpton, 8 Wall. 444 20
|
||
v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311 146
|
||
v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229 20
|
||
Brown v. Houston, 114 U.S. 622 54, 69, 90, 94, 104
|
||
v. Huger, 21 How. 305 264
|
||
v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112 215
|
||
v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 449 28,43,62,88,93,94,235
|
||
v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172 274,282,298,320,322
|
||
v. Smart, 145 U.S. 454 139
|
||
v. Trousdale, 138 U.S. 389 225
|
||
v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 111, 232, 252
|
||
In re, 135 U.S. 701 143
|
||
Brownfield v. South Carolina, 189 U.S. 426 313
|
||
Bryan v. Board of Education, 151 U.S. 639 141, 165
|
||
v. Virginia, 135 U.S. 685 147
|
||
B.T. Co. v. B.B.R., 151 U.S. 137 276, 282
|
||
Bucher v. C.R., 125 U.S. 555 210, 243, 282
|
||
Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334 273
|
||
Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586 2
|
||
Budd v. New York, 143 U.S. 517 98, 101a, 278, 315
|
||
Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U.S. 20 240, 242
|
||
Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U.S. 310 24
|
||
Burthe v. Denis, 133 U.S. 514 206, 224
|
||
Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U.S. 110 216, 313
|
||
Butchers' Union v. C. C. Co., 111 U.S. 746 178
|
||
Butler v. B. & S. S. Co., 130 U.S. 527 208, 209, 238
|
||
v. Horwitz, 7 Wall. 258 20
|
||
v. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 402 147, 179
|
||
Butterworth v. Hoe, 112 U.S. 50 229
|
||
Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 66, 232, 251
|
||
B. W. S. Co. v. Mobile, 186 U.S. 212 165
|
||
Byers v. McAuley, 149 U.S. 608 210, 266, 272
|
||
Byrne v. Missouri, 8 Pet. 40 189
|
||
B. & 0. R. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65 215
|
||
v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456 23, 56, 102
|
||
B. & S. R. v. Nesbit, 10 How. 395 182, 183
|
||
Cable v. U.S. L. I. Co., 191 U.S. 288 307
|
||
Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 182, 183, 184
|
||
Caldwell v. Carrington, 9 Pet. 86 283
|
||
v. North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622 55
|
||
v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692 273
|
||
California v. C. P. R., 127 U.S. 1 54, 103, 305
|
||
v. S. P. Co., 157 U.S. 229 213
|
||
Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 10, 246, 252
|
||
Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322 210, 215
|
||
Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620 279
|
||
v. Wade, 132 U.S.34 148, 149
|
||
Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577 44, 74, 76
|
||
Caperton v. Ballard, 14 Wall. 238 283
|
||
Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cr. 126 215
|
||
Cardwell v. A. B. Co., 113 U.S. 205 84
|
||
Carneal v. Banks, 10 Wheat. 181 2 38
|
||
Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456 41, 42, 182, 183
|
||
v. Strange, 141 U.S. 87 285
|
||
Carroll County v. Smith, Ill U.S. 556 242
|
||
Carson v. Brocton S. Com., 182 U.S. 398 24, 2 77
|
||
Carstairs v. Cochran, 193 U.S. 10 40
|
||
Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U.S. 365 252
|
||
v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442 295, 313, 319
|
||
Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 243
|
||
Cates v. Allen, 149 U.S. 451 255
|
||
C., B. & Q. R. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 101a , 176, 257, 277
|
||
v. Iowa, 94 U.S. 155 98, 176, 177
|
||
v. Nebraska, 170 U.S. 57 141, 176, 177, 178
|
||
C.C.C.&St.L.Ry. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 439 40, 57, 103
|
||
v. Illinois, 177 U.S. 514 101
|
||
C. C. D. Co. v. Ohio, 183 U.S. 238 206,247,279,298, 315
|
||
C. C. & A. R. v. Gibbes, 142 U.S. 386 24, 278, 304, 314, 316
|
||
C. D. Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. 227 303
|
||
Central Nat. Bank v. Stevens, 169 U.S. 432 272
|
||
Central R.&B.Co. v. Wright, 164 U.S. 327 53, 162, 166
|
||
C. F. D. N. v. Louisiana, 186 U.S. 380 so
|
||
Chadwick v. Kelley, 187 U.S. 540 228, 316
|
||
Chandler v. Dix, 194 U.S. 590 260
|
||
Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677 215
|
||
In re, 166 U.S. 661 18
|
||
Chappell v. U.S., 160 U.S. 499 19
|
||
v. Waterwortb, 155 U.S. 102 215, 225
|
||
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 544 174
|
||
Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U.S. 72 302
|
||
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 135, 213, 229
|
||
v. S. K. Ry., 135 U.S. 641 135, 253
|
||
Cherokee Tobacco, The, 11 Wall. 616 238
|
||
Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. 50 52, 139, 162, 163
|
||
Chicago Theological Seminary v. Illinois, 188 U.S. 662 53, 166
|
||
China, The, 7 Wall. 53 77
|
||
Chin Bak Kan v. U.S., 186 U.S. 193 297
|
||
Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 19, 238, 239, 296, 297
|
||
Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259 238, 291
|
||
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 205, 214, 258
|
||
Chittenden v. Brewster, 2 Wall. 191 266
|
||
Christ Church v. Philadelphia, 24 How. 300 164
|
||
Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290 283
|
||
Christy, Ex parte, 3 How. 292 268
|
||
Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cr. 187 229
|
||
v. Kelsey, 121 U.S. 282 179, 274
|
||
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 57, 105, 296
|
||
Citizens' Bank v. Parker, 192 U.S. 73 52, 162, 166
|
||
Citizens' Savings Bank v. 0wensboro, 173 U.S. 636 53, 165, 166
|
||
Citizens' S. & L. Assn. v. Perry County, 156 U.S. 692 148
|
||
City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 139
|
||
City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453 9
|
||
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 323
|
||
Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130 218, 268, 269
|
||
Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436 260, 265
|
||
v. Bever, 139 U.S. 96 210, 242, 243
|
||
v. Kansas City, 176 U, S. 114 320
|
||
v. Titusville, 184 U.S. 329 41, 316
|
||
Clarke, Ex parte, 100 U.S. 399 296
|
||
v. Field, 138 U.S. 464 310
|
||
Co. v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103 140, 276
|
||
Cleveland v. C. C. Ry., 194 U.S. 517 178
|
||
v. C. E. Ry., 194 U.S. 538 178
|
||
C. L. 1. Co. v. Needles, 113 U.S. 574 140, 175
|
||
Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434 9
|
||
Clinton Bridge, The, 10 Wall. 454 83
|
||
Close v. Glenwood Cemetery, 107 U.S. 466 l65
|
||
C. M. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U.S. 727 234, 3O8
|
||
C. M. L. 1. Co. v. Cushman, 108 U.S. 51 143
|
||
v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602 142, 148, 176, 308
|
||
C.,M.&St.P.Ry. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418 101a,176,177, 278, 313
|
||
v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133 99, 140, 148, 243
|
||
v. Tompkins, 176 U.S. 167 101a, 278, 315
|
||
C.N.B.&L. Assn. v. Denson, 189 U.S. 408 3 08
|
||
C.N.0.&T.P. Ry. v. I. C. C., 162 U.S. 184 110, 111
|
||
Codlin v. Kohlhausen, 181 U.S. 151 228
|
||
Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S. 517 22, 41, 55, 69, 104
|
||
Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 204,205,206,210,214,
|
||
217,224,228, 236, 262
|
||
Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107 266, 283, 284
|
||
v. La Grange, 113 U.S.
|
||
Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113 39
|
||
Collet v. Collet, 2 Dall. 294 291
|
||
Commercial Bank v. chambers, 182 U.S. 556 50
|
||
Commissioners of Tippecanoe v. Lucas 93 U.S. 108 275
|
||
Commonwealth v. Caton, 4 Call, (Va.) 5 233
|
||
Conner v. Elliot, 18 How. 593 301
|
||
Connolly v. U.S.P. Co., 184 U.S. 540 41,126,204,233,314,316
|
||
Connors v. U.S., 158 U.S. 40 8 296
|
||
Contzen v. U.S., 179 U.S. 191 291
|
||
Converse, In re, 137 U.S. 624 276
|
||
Conway v. Taylor, 1 Bl. 603 82 100
|
||
Cook v. Hart, 146 U.S. 183 195
|
||
v. Moffat, 5 How. 295 147, 152
|
||
v. Pennsylvania, 97 U.S. 566 43, 62, 88
|
||
v. U.S., 138 U.S. 157 186, 254
|
||
Cook County v. C. & C. C. & D. Co. 138 U.S. 635 224
|
||
Cooke v. Avery, 147 U.S. 375 206
|
||
Cooley v. Board of Wardens. 12 How. 299 69, 76
|
||
Cooper v. Newell, 173 U. S: 555 283, 285, 287
|
||
v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308 285
|
||
In re, 143 U.S. 472 228
|
||
Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371 300
|
||
Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U.S. 418 29, 73
|
||
Corson v. Maryland, 120 U.S. 502 55, 91, 302
|
||
Cotting v. K. C. S. Y. co., 183, U.S. 79 278, 313
|
||
Coughran v. Bigelow, 164 U.S. 301 256
|
||
Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 110
|
||
County of Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U.S. 407 24
|
||
County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691 62, 169, 85, 86
|
||
County of Moultrie v. Rockingham T. C. S. Bank, 92 U.S. 631 138, 148, 154
|
||
County of Ralls v. Douglass , 105 U.S. 728 139
|
||
Covell v. Heyman, Ill U.S. 176 271. 272
|
||
Covington v. Kentucky, 173 U.S. 231 165
|
||
Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118 305
|
||
Coy, In re, 127 U.S. 731 296
|
||
C. P. Co. v. Beckwitb, 188 U.S. 567 282
|
||
C. P. R. v. California, 162 U.S. 91 47
|
||
v. Nevada, 162 U.S. 512 46
|
||
Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet, 411 189
|
||
Crandall v. Nevada 6 U.S. 47 55, 56, 93, 105, 305
|
||
C. Ry. v. R ., 166 U.S. 557 163. 165
|
||
C. R. & B. Co. v. Wright, 164 U.S. 327 53, 162, 166
|
||
C. S. Ry. v. Gebhard, 109 U.S. 527 308
|
||
v. Snell, 193 U.S. 30 318
|
||
v. Wright, 151 U.S. 470 317
|
||
C. T. Co. v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1 10, 257
|
||
v. Lander, 184 U.S. 1ll 45, 48
|
||
Cumming v. Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 298, 322
|
||
Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U.S. 410 83
|
||
v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 184, 185, 187. 188
|
||
v. National Bank, 101 U.S. 153 51
|
||
Cunningham v. M. & B. R., 109 U.S. 446 260
|
||
Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304 169, 262
|
||
Curtis v. Whitney, 13 Wall. 68 144
|
||
Ex parte, 106 U.S. 371 19
|
||
C. & A. R. v. W. F. Co., 108 U.S. 18 283
|
||
v. W. F. Co., 119 U.S. 615 229, 230. 282
|
||
C. & B. Co. v. New Orleans, 99 U.S. 97 45
|
||
Crenshaw v. U.S., 134 U.S. 99 17
|
||
C.,R.I.& P. Ry. v. Sturm, 174 U.S. 710 28
|
||
v. Zernecke, 183 U.S. 582 27
|
||
Cronin v. Adams, 192 U.S. 108 27
|
||
Cross v. Allen, 141 U.S. 528 210, 242, 243, 28
|
||
v. Harrison, 16 How. 164 2
|
||
v. North Carolina, 132 U.S. 131 269 272, 276
|
||
Crossley v. California,' 168 U.S. 640 225 269
|
||
Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U.S. 189 96, 100
|
||
Crow Dog, Ex parte, 109 U.S. 556 136
|
||
Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86 322
|
||
Cruickshank v. Bidwell, 176 U.S. 73 229
|
||
Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47 55,56,93,105,305
|
||
C. & C. B. Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204 66, 70, 84, 169
|
||
C. & G. T. Ry. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339 101a, 278
|
||
C. & L. T. R. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 53, 101a, 168, 174,
|
||
175 178, 304, 314, 315
|
||
C. & N. W. Ry. v. Chicago, 164 U.S. 454 224
|
||
C. & 0. Ry. v. Kentucky, 179 U.S. 388 78, 98
|
||
Daniel Ball, The, 10 Wall. 557 68, 77, 82, 209
|
||
D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165 284
|
||
Darrington v. Bank of Alabama, 13 How. 12 190
|
||
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518 147, 170, 178
|
||
Davenport Bank v. Davenport, 123 U.S. 83 49
|
||
Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 247, 277
|
||
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 309
|
||
v. Burke, 179 U.S. 399 225 274
|
||
v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U.S. 275 271
|
||
v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203 161, 259, 263
|
||
v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43 280
|
||
v. Packard, 7 Pet. 276 269
|
||
Day v. Gallup, 2 Wall. 97 273
|
||
D. C. & I. Co. v. Barton, 183 U.S. 23 304
|
||
Debs, In re, 158 U.S. 564 4, 126, 246, 274
|
||
In re. 64 Fed. 724 126
|
||
Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497 229
|
||
Delaware R. Tax Case, 18 Wall. 206 53, 566, 102, 174
|
||
De Limia v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 1 11,19,27,38,229, 238
|
||
Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 661 140, 141, 146
|
||
Den v. Jersey Co., 15 How. 426 71
|
||
Dennick v. R. Co., 103 U.S. 11 210
|
||
Denny v. Bennett, 128 U.S. 489 139, 153
|
||
v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121 215
|
||
Dent v. West Virginia 129 U.S. 114 278
|
||
Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U.S. 499 289
|
||
De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U.S. 216 224
|
||
De Treville v. Smalls, 98 U.S. 517 35
|
||
Detroit v. D. C. S. R., 184 U.S. 368 139, 178
|
||
v. Parker, 181 U.S. 399 273, 277, 316
|
||
Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U.S. 193 22, 24, 224, 273
|
||
D. G. Co. v. U.S. G. Co., 187 U.S. 611 140, 304, 306
|
||
Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U.S. 340 266
|
||
Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494 267
|
||
Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cr. 179 266
|
||
D. M. Co. v. Ontonagon, 188 U.S. 82 55
|
||
Dobbins v. Commissioners, 16 Pet. 435 44
|
||
Dodge v. Woolsey, IS How. 331 204
|
||
Doe v. Beebe, 13 How. 25 299
|
||
Dooley v. Pease, 180 U.S. 126 210, 241, 243
|
||
v. Smith, 13 Wall. 604 21
|
||
v. U.T. S., 183 U.S. 151 11, 19, 28, 73
|
||
Dorr v. U.S., 195 U.S. 138 11, 12
|
||
Douglas v. Kentucky, 168 U.S. 488 141, 178
|
||
Douglass v. County of Pike, 101 U.S. 677 139
|
||
Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U.S. 680 101a, 278, 315
|
||
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 1,4,11,13,19,27,37,234
|
||
Downham v. Alexandria Council, 10 Wall. 173 55, 92, 3O2
|
||
Doyle v. C. 1. Co., 94 U.S. 535 307
|
||
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 8, 215, 231,.291, 292
|
||
Drehman v. Stifle, 8 Wall. 595 144
|
||
Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71 224, 252, 280
|
||
Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410 63, 305, 306
|
||
Duncan v. Darst, 1 How. 301 271
|
||
v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377 184,187,274,275,298,322
|
||
Dupasseur v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. 130 289
|
||
Durousseau v. U.S., 6 Cr. 307 223
|
||
Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65 244
|
||
D. & H. C. Co. v. Pennsylvania. 156 U.S. 200 22, 23, 4
|
||
Eagle, The, 8 Wall. 15 20
|
||
Earle v. Conway, 178 U.S. 456 271, 272
|
||
v. Pennsylvania, 178 U.S. 449 272
|
||
East Hartford v. H. Bridge Co, 10 How. 511 170
|
||
Easton v. Iowa, 188 U.S. 220 238, 269
|
||
E. B. & L. Assn.v. Ebaugh, 185 U.S. 114 282
|
||
v. Williamson, 189 U.S. 122
|
||
Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 282 532, 208, 243, 255,
|
||
266, 269
|
||
v. Kearzey 96, U.S. 595 138
|
||
Effinger v. Kenney, 115 U.S. 566 146
|
||
E. I. Co. v. Ohio 153 U.S. 446 176
|
||
Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County 134 U.S. 31 274, 298
|
||
Eldridge v. Trezevant, 160 U.S. 452 278, 280, 317
|
||
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 291
|
||
E, L. L, CO. v. Brown. 155 U.S. 488 1, 215, 225
|
||
Ellenwood v. M. C. Co., 158 U.S. 105 1, 210, 243
|
||
Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328 284
|
||
Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat 152 282
|
||
Emblen v. L. L. Co., 184 U.S. 660 253
|
||
Embry v. Palmer, 107 U.S. 3 18, 289
|
||
Emert v. Missouri, 156 U.S. 296 55, 90, 92. 303
|
||
Ennis v. Smith, 14 How., 400 229, 285
|
||
Erb v. Morasch, 177 U.S. 584 99, 282, 283
|
||
Erie, Ry. v. Penna., 21 Wall. 492 53, 174
|
||
Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172 267, 272
|
||
E. Ry. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 282 58, 105
|
||
Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678 84, 100
|
||
Essex Pub. Road Board v. Skinkle, 140 U.S. 334 170
|
||
Etheridge v.Sperry, 139 U.S. 266 224, 270, 272
|
||
E.T.V. & G. Ry. v. I. C. C., 181 U.S. 1 113
|
||
Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U.S. 361 22
|
||
Evansville Bank v. Britton, 105 U.S. 322 5
|
||
Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U.S. 143 14
|
||
Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 247
|
||
Bollman and Swartwout, 4 Cr. 75 243, 25
|
||
Boyd, 105 U.S. 647 210
|
||
Christy, 3 How., 292 268
|
||
Clarke, 100 U.S. 399 296
|
||
Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 136
|
||
Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 19
|
||
Ferry Co., 104 U.S. 519 208, 243
|
||
Fonda, 117 U.S. 516 18
|
||
Garland, 4 Wall. 333 185, 188
|
||
Gordon, 104 U.S. 515 208, 243
|
||
Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 18
|
||
Kearney, 7 wheat. 38 250
|
||
Lange, 18 Wall. 163 250, 252
|
||
Madrazzo, 7 Pet. 627 261
|
||
Mason, 105 U.S. 696 244
|
||
McNiel, 13 Wall. 236 76, 266
|
||
Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 244, 245, 250
|
||
Parks, 93 U.S. 18 250
|
||
Reggel 4 U. 642 193, 195
|
||
Royall, 117 U.S. 241 18, 225
|
||
Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 296
|
||
Terry, 128 U.S. 289 250, 254
|
||
Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 295, 313
|
||
Wall, 107 U.S. 265 247
|
||
Wells, 18 How. 307 250
|
||
Wilson 114 U.S. 417 247
|
||
Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 18, 19, 250, 293, 296
|
||
Express Co. v. Kountze Bros., 8 Wall. 342 303
|
||
Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U.S. 521 268
|
||
Fairbank v. U.S., 181 U.S. 283 28, 30, 64, 74, 232
|
||
Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112 24, 277, 282
|
||
Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524 82, 100, 175
|
||
Fargo v. Hart, 193 U.S. 490 40, 57, 103
|
||
v. Michigan, 121 U.S. 230 58, 105
|
||
Farmers & Meehanical Bank v. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131 147, 150, 152
|
||
Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U.S. 679 162
|
||
F. C. & P. R. v. Reynolds, 183 U.S. 471 316, 321
|
||
Felsenheld v. U.S., 186 U.S. 126 70
|
||
Ferguson v. Harwood, 7 Cr. 408 283
|
||
Ferry Co., Ex parte, 104 U.S. 519 208, 243
|
||
Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Paxit, 97 U.S. 659 176, 178
|
||
F. G. L. S. Co. v. Springer, 185 U.S. 47 206
|
||
Ficklen v. Shelby County, 145 U.S. 1 55, 92, 303
|
||
Field v. B. A. P. Co., 194 U.S. 618 277, 316
|
||
Fielden v. Illinois, 143 U.S. 452 280
|
||
Filhiol v. Maurice, 185 U.S. 108 206
|
||
Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335 282
|
||
First National Bank v. Ayers, 160 U.S. 660 50
|
||
v. Louisville, 174 U.S. 438 51
|
||
Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U.S. 361 279, 321
|
||
Fisk v. Jefferson Police Jury, 116 U.S. 131 138, 148, 154, 179
|
||
Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516 263
|
||
Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603 26
|
||
Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cr. 87 147, 160,4K, 184, 232
|
||
Florida v. Georgia, 11 How. 293; 17 id. 478 191, 211
|
||
F. L. R. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525 46
|
||
P. M. L. Assn. v. Mettler, 185 U.S. 308 313, 318
|
||
Fok Yung Yo v. U.S., 185 U.S. 296 229, 297
|
||
Fonda, Ex part, 117 U.S. 516 18
|
||
Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698 19, 238, 254, 297
|
||
Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762 46
|
||
Ford v. D. & P. L. Co., 164 U.S. 662 24, 53, 166, 167
|
||
v. Surget, 97 U.S. 594 139, 191
|
||
Foster v. Davenport, 22 How. 244 77, 79, 101
|
||
v. Kansas, 112 U.S. 201 100
|
||
v. Master & Wardens of New Orleans, 94 U.S. 246 75
|
||
v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253 238
|
||
Fourteen Diamond Rings, Pepke, Claimant, v. U.S., 183 U.S. 176 11, 27, 38
|
||
Fouvergne v. New Orleans, 18 How. 470 210
|
||
Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411 262
|
||
Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 432 269
|
||
Francis Wright, The, 105 U.S. 381 223
|
||
Frederich, In re, 149 U.S. 70 215, 225
|
||
Frederickson v. Louisiana, 23 How. 445 239
|
||
Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160 183
|
||
Freeland v. Williams, 131 U.S. 405 148, 154, 274
|
||
Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U.S. 185 285
|
||
v. Howe, 24 How.450 271, 272
|
||
Fremont v. U.S., 17 How. 542 230
|
||
French v. B. A. P. Co., 181 U.S. 324 24, 277, 316
|
||
v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250 267
|
||
Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466 209
|
||
Friedlander v. T. & P. Ry., 130 U.S. 416 210, 243, 282
|
||
Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U. S . 282 308
|
||
Furman v. Nichol, 8 Wall. 44 169
|
||
F. W. Co. v. Freeport City, 180 U.S. 587 141,169,176, 177, 178
|
||
F. & C. P. R. v. Reynolds, 183 U.S. 471 40, 41
|
||
F. & M. Bank v. Sm;th, 6 Wheat. 131 147, 150, 152
|
||
F. & M. C. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U.S. 98 308
|
||
F. & M. I. Co. v. Dobney, 189 U.S. 301 313, 318
|
||
Gablenian v. P., D. & E. Ry., 179 U.S. 335 206, 270
|
||
Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U.S. 10 210
|
||
Gallup v. Schmidt, 183 U.S. 300 273, 277
|
||
Gantly v. Ewing, 3 How. 707 146
|
||
Garland, Ex parte, 4 Wall. 333 185, 188
|
||
G., C. & S. F. Ry. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 278, 304, 313, 314
|
||
v. Hefley, 158 U.S. 98 101, 113, 217, 238
|
||
Geer v. Connecticut, 1161 U.S. 519 72, 301
|
||
Gelpeke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175 139, 242
|
||
Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246 217, 228, 270
|
||
Genesee Chief, The, v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443 206, 209
|
||
Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 238
|
||
Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402 260
|
||
v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50 229
|
||
Georgia, Governor of, v. Madrazo, I Pet. 110 260, 261
|
||
G. F. C.. v. Pennsylvamia, 114 U.S. 196 57, 82, 106
|
||
Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 15, 54, 62, 64, 66,69, 77, 89, 97, 234, 235
|
||
Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565 184, 186, 295, 313
|
||
Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 293, 294
|
||
v. Teasley, 193 U.S. 146 293 295
|
||
Gilfillan v. U. C. Co., 109 U.S. 401 143
|
||
Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713 484, 217
|
||
v. Sheboygan, 2 Bl. 510 24, 154
|
||
Ginesi v. Cooper, 14 Ch. Div. 601 237
|
||
Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657 41, 273, 298, 316, 317
|
||
Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 99, 101
|
||
Glass v. Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall. 6 284
|
||
Glenn v. Garth, 147 U.S. 360 282
|
||
Glidden v. Harrington, 189 U.S. 255 277
|
||
Glide, The, 167 U.S. 606 209
|
||
Godfrey v. Terry, 97 U.S. 171 215
|
||
Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U.S. 1 298
|
||
Good v. Martin, 95 U.S. 90 9
|
||
Goodrich v. Detroit, 184 U.S. 432 24, 277
|
||
Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471 299
|
||
Goodwin v. C.M.I. Co. 110 U.S. 1 307
|
||
Gordon v. U.S., 2 Wall. 561 223
|
||
Ex parte, 104 U.S. 515 208, 243
|
||
Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, I Pet. 110 260, 261
|
||
Grace v. A. C. I. Co., 109 U.S. 278 215
|
||
Grand Lodge v. New Orleans, 166 U. S . 143 164
|
||
Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U.S. 74 298
|
||
Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1 142, 161, 169
|
||
v. Creighton, 23 How. 90 271
|
||
In re, 134 U.S. 377 296
|
||
Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U.S. 13 165
|
||
Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363 264
|
||
Gross v. U. S Mtge. Co., 108 U.S. 477 143, 279
|
||
Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449 292, 299
|
||
G. R. & 13. Co. v. Smith, 123 U.S. 174 175, 176, 177
|
||
G. R. & I. Ry. v. Osborn, 19& U.S. 17 174, 175, 178
|
||
G. S. F. H. Co. v. Jones, 193 U.S. 532 240, 280
|
||
G. S. & L. S. v. Dormitzer, 192 U.S. 125 284, 286
|
||
Guarantee Co. v. Board of Liquidation, 105 U.S. 622 144
|
||
Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U.S. 183 322
|
||
Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 610 138, 146
|
||
Gunnison County Comrs. v. Rollins, 173 U.S. 255 148, 149
|
||
Gut v. The State, 9 Wall. 35 186
|
||
Guthrie Nat. Bank v. Guthrie 173 U.S. 528 256
|
||
Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U.S. 434 55, 87, 90. 302
|
||
G. W. & W. Co. v. Keyes, 96 U.S. 199 206
|
||
G. & B. S. M. Co. v. Radcliffe, 1[2]7 U.S. 287 285
|
||
G. & S. R. v. Rewes, 183 U.S. 66 53, 140, 150, 162,164,
|
||
165,167
|
||
Hackett v. Ottawa, 99 U.S. 86 25
|
||
Hagan v. Lucas 10 Pet. 400 267, 272
|
||
Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U.S. 701 20, 277
|
||
Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52 260
|
||
Haines v. CarPenter, 91 U.S. 254 266
|
||
Hale v. Akers, 132 U.S. 544 224
|
||
v. Lewis, 181 U.S. 473 224
|
||
Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U.S. 485 78
|
||
v. Wisconsin, 103 U.S. 5 169
|
||
Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U.S. 314 274
|
||
Hamilton v. Dillin, 21 Wall. 73 18
|
||
v. V., S. & P. R., 119 U.S. 280 84
|
||
Hamilton Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632 45
|
||
Hammond v. Johnston, 142 U.S. 73 224
|
||
Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234 283
|
||
Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 64O 288
|
||
Hanford v. Davies, 163 U.S. 273 139, 140
|
||
Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1 230, 284 617 68, 102
|
||
Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181 138, 251, 274
|
||
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 181, 205, 262, 263
|
||
Hans Nielsen, Petitioner , 131 U.S. 176 250
|
||
Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371 72
|
||
Hare v. L. & N. R., & H. Ch. 80 131
|
||
Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 225, 266, 272
|
||
Harman v. Chicago, 147 U.S. 396 23, 87, 106
|
||
Harris v. Dennie, 3 Pet. 292 270
|
||
v. Hardeman, 14 How. 334 273, 284
|
||
Hartman v. Greenhow. 102 U.S. 672 169
|
||
Hauenstein v. Lynham , 100 U.S. 483 238
|
||
Havemeyer v. Iowa Coil -ty, 3 Wall. 294 139
|
||
Haver v. Yaker, 9 Wall . 32 239
|
||
Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S 197 12, 13
|
||
Hawthorne v. Calef, 2 Wall. 10 147
|
||
Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409 221, 223
|
||
Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68 320
|
||
v. Pratt, 147 U.S. 557 210
|
||
Hays v. P. M. S. S. Co., 17 How. 596 57, 103, 106
|
||
H. Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 141 U.S. 679 140
|
||
v. Henderson City, 173 U.S. 592 278
|
||
Head v. A. Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9 277
|
||
v. University, 19 Wall. 526 180
|
||
Head Money Cases, The, 112 U.S. 580 23, 36, 40, 102, 238
|
||
Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil Cloth Co., 112 U.S. 294 272
|
||
Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y., 92 U.S. 259 57, 105, 237
|
||
Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299 98 603 20
|
||
v. The School Directors, 23 Wall. 480 50, 51
|
||
F. I. Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 175 U.S. 91 210, 241, 243
|
||
G. L. Co. v. Hamilton City, 146 U.S. 258 148, 165, 175
|
||
Hibben v. Smith, 191 U.S. 310 277
|
||
Hickey's Lessee v. Stewart, 3 How. 750 284
|
||
H. I. Co. v. Augusta, 93 U.S. 116 53, 174
|
||
v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445 307
|
||
v. New York, 134 U.S. 594 45, 316
|
||
Higgins v. Butcher, Yelv. 89 208
|
||
Hills v. Exchange Bank, 105 U.S. 319 51
|
||
Hilton v. Guyot 159 U.S. 113 281
|
||
Hine, The, v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555 208, 209, 269
|
||
Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148 55, 92, 302
|
||
H. M. L. I. Co. v. Warren, 181 U.S. 73 320
|
||
Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108 209, 266
|
||
Hodgson v. Vermont, 168 U.S. 262 274
|
||
Holden v. Hardy 169 U.S. 366 248,274,278,298,314,
|
||
319
|
||
v. Minnesota, 137 U.S. 483 187, 28
|
||
Holland v. Challen, 110 U.S. 15 243
|
||
Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378 258
|
||
Hollins v. B. C * I. Co., 150 U.S. 371 243, 265
|
||
Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540 191, 292, 299
|
||
v. Walton, 9 N. J. L. 427 233
|
||
Holt v. I. Mfg. Co., 176 U.S. 68 206, 270
|
||
Holyoke Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 500 166
|
||
Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 93 U.S. 116 53, 174
|
||
v. New York, 134 U.S. 594 45
|
||
Hooe v. Jamieson, l66 U.S. 395 210
|
||
Hooker v. Burr, 194 U.S. 415 143, 146
|
||
v. Los Angeles, 188 U.S. 314 224, 276, 277
|
||
Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648 63 304, 306
|
||
Hopkins v. McLure, 133 U.S. 380 224
|
||
v. U.S., 171 U.S. 578 67, 123, 125, 128
|
||
Hopt v. People, 104 U.S. 631 251
|
||
v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574 186, 251
|
||
v. Utah, 114 U.S. 488, 120 id. 430 251
|
||
Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall . 648 9
|
||
Horner v. U.S. 143 U.S. 570 238
|
||
Hornthall v. The Collector 9 Wall. 560 215
|
||
Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1 4, 217, 244, 268
|
||
Howard v. De Cordova, 177 U.S. 609 285
|
||
v. Fleming, 191 U.S. 126 224, 258, 322
|
||
v. U.S. 184 U.S. 676 206
|
||
Hoyt v. Sprague, 103 U.S. 613 299
|
||
H. S. M. Co. v. New York, 143 U.S. 305 304, 305, 306. 315
|
||
Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat 489 238
|
||
Huling v. K. V. Ry. & Imp. Co., 130 U.S. 559 277
|
||
Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall. 244 162, 163, 167
|
||
Hunt v. Hunt, 131 U.S. clxv 148
|
||
v. Palao, 4 How. 589 223
|
||
Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657 288
|
||
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 517 274
|
||
Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543 23, 84, 87
|
||
Hyatt v. People. 188 U.S. 691 195
|
||
Hyde v. Stone, 20 How. 170 210, 271
|
||
Hylton v. U.S., 3 Dall. 171 30, 34
|
||
H. & T. C. R. v. Texas, 177 U.S. 66 141, 148, 149, 190,
|
||
215, 232
|
||
H. & T. C. v. Texas, 170 U.S. 243 139, 161
|
||
I. C. C. v. A. M. Ry., 168 U.S. 144 110, 112
|
||
v. A., T. & S. F. R. 149 U.S. 264 110,
|
||
v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25 113
|
||
v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447 109, 110
|
||
v. B. & O. R., 145 U.S. 263 111
|
||
v. C., N. O. & T. P. Ry., 167 U.S. 479 110
|
||
v. D., G. H. & M. Ry., 167 U.S. 633 111
|
||
v. L. & N. R., 190 U.S. 273 113
|
||
I. C. R. v. Adams, 180 U.S. 28 263
|
||
v. Chicago, 176 U.S. 646 141
|
||
v. Decatur 147 U.S. 190 24
|
||
v. Illinols, 146 U.S. 387 71, 148, 149
|
||
v. Illinois, 163 U.S. 142 99, 101
|
||
v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 77 71 149
|
||
I. C. Ry., v. Iowa, 160 U.S. 389 273, 274, 276
|
||
I.C. & I Co. v. Gibney, 160 U.S. 217 215
|
||
I.L.I. Co. v. Lewis, 187 U.S. 335 313, 318
|
||
Indiana V. Kentucky, 136 U.S. 479 211
|
||
In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 180, 261
|
||
Blake, 175 U.S. 114 267
|
||
Brown, 135 U.S. 701 143
|
||
Chapman, 166 U.S. 661 18
|
||
Converse, 137 U.S. 624 276
|
||
Cooper, 143 U.S. 472 228
|
||
Coy, 127 U.S. 731 296
|
||
In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 4, 126, 246, 274
|
||
Debs, 64 Fed. 724 126
|
||
Duncan, 139 U.S. 449 225, 282
|
||
Frederich, 149 U.S. 70 215, 225
|
||
Garnett, 141 U.S. 1 207, 243
|
||
Green, 134 U.S. 377 296
|
||
Hans Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 250
|
||
Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 257, 273, 298
|
||
Lennon, 166 U.S. 548 206
|
||
Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 298
|
||
Loney, 134 U.S. 372 215, 225, 270
|
||
Manning, 139 U.S. 504 276, 322
|
||
McKenzie, Petitioner, 180 U.S. 536 250
|
||
Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 18, 19, 206, 215, 225,
|
||
266, 270
|
||
Quarles and Butler, 158 U.S. 532 19
|
||
Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545 96
|
||
Rapier, 143 U.S. 110 18, 309
|
||
Ross, 140 U.S. 453 19, 246
|
||
Shibuya Jugiro, 140 U.S. 291 313
|
||
Swan, 150 U.S. 637 250
|
||
Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 272
|
||
Watts and Sachs, 190 U.S. 1 266
|
||
Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U.S. 1 211
|
||
I. S. S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U.S. 238 44, 75
|
||
Jackson v. Chew, 12 Wheat. 153 241
|
||
v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 280 143
|
||
Ex parte, 96 U.S. 727 18
|
||
Jackne v. New York, 128 U.S. 189 187
|
||
James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127 293
|
||
James Gray, The v. The John Fraser, 21 How. 184 78, 100
|
||
Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86 19, 232, 251, 297
|
||
Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Bl. 436 52, 141, 162, 175
|
||
Jennings v. C. R. C. Co., 147 U.S. 147 41, 43, 316
|
||
Johnson v. N. Y. L. I. Co., 187 U.S. 491 282
|
||
v. Powers, 139 U.S. 156 285 288
|
||
Johnson v. Risk 137 U.S. 300 224
|
||
v. Sayre, 158 U.S. 109 244, 247
|
||
Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327 215
|
||
v. Brim, 165 U.S. 180 274, 318
|
||
v. Soulard, 24 How. 41 71
|
||
v. U.S., 137 U.S. 202 216, 2 28
|
||
Joplin v. S. M. L. Co., 191 U.S. 150 175
|
||
Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 4, 19, 21, ?.34
|
||
Justices, The, v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274 257
|
||
Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125 212
|
||
Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 45
|
||
Kate, The, 164 U.S. 458 208
|
||
Kauffman v. Wooters, 138 U.S. 285 73
|
||
Kearney, Ex parte, 7 Wheat. 38 250
|
||
Keith v. Clark, 97 U.S. 454 2, 138, IL69
|
||
Kelley v. Rhoads, 188 U.S. 1 55, 57, 71
|
||
Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U.S. 78 24, 247, 277
|
||
Kemmler, In re, 136 U.S. 436 257, 273, 298
|
||
Kendall v. U.S., 12 Pet. 521 229
|
||
Kennard v. Nebraska, 186 U.S. 304 206
|
||
Kennett v. Chambers, 14 How. 38 228
|
||
Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66 193,194, 204, 213, 260
|
||
Kentucky R. Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321 277, 316
|
||
Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 251, 252
|
||
Keyes v. U.S., 109 U.S. 336 244
|
||
K. I. Co. v. Ilarbison, 183 U.S. 13 176, 279
|
||
Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U.S. 730 41, 306, 316
|
||
v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 278
|
||
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 18
|
||
Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U.S. 217 81, 300
|
||
King v. Mullins, 171 U.S. 404 40, 277
|
||
v. Portland, 184 U.S. 610
|
||
Kirtland v. Hotchkiss 100 U.S. 491 23, 41, 42
|
||
Knatchbull v. Hallett , l3 Ch. Div. 712 237
|
||
Knowles v. G. & C. Co., 19 Wall. 58 283, 287
|
||
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 31, 36
|
||
Knox v. Exchange Bank, 12 Wall. 379 140
|
||
Koenigsberger v. R. S. M. Co., 158 U.S. 41 210
|
||
Kohl v. U.S., 91 U.S. 367 19
|
||
Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U.S. 668 143, 146
|
||
K. P. R. v. A., T. & S. F. R.; 112 U.S. 414 206
|
||
Kreiger v. Shelbv R., 125 U.S. 39 140
|
||
Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221 184, 185
|
||
Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U.S. 276 273
|
||
K. W. CO. v. Knoxville, 189 U.S. 434 140, 178, 278
|
||
K. W. P. Co. v. G. B. & M. C. Co., 142 U.S. 254 215, 277, 278
|
||
K. & H. Bridge CO. v. Illinois 175 U.S. 626 54 85
|
||
K. & W. R. v. Missouri 152 U.S. 301 53, 150, 174
|
||
Laing v. Rigney, 160 U.S. 531 282
|
||
Lake County v. Graham, 130 U.S. 674 148, 149, 150
|
||
v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662 139, 148, 149
|
||
Lammon v. Feusier, ill U.S. 17 273
|
||
Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U.S. 276 206, 228
|
||
Landes v. Brant, 1G How. 348 283
|
||
Lane County v. 7 Wall. 71 20
|
||
Lange, Ex parte, 18 Wall. 163 250, 252
|
||
Langford v. U.S., 101 Ti. S. 341 3
|
||
Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U.S. 537 194
|
||
L. A. S. M. CO. v. U.S., 175 U.S. 423 228
|
||
Lawler v. Walker, 14 How. 149 215
|
||
Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. L. C. 133 274
|
||
L., C. & C. R. v. Letson. 2 How. 497 262, 303
|
||
League v. De Young, 11 How.185 138, 143
|
||
v. Texas, 184 U.S. 156 40, 182, 183, 277
|
||
Leeper v. Texas, 139 U.S. 462 273, 282
|
||
Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457 19, 20, 232
|
||
Leigh v. Green, 193 U.S. 79 277
|
||
Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 69, 91, 94, 96, 100
|
||
Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640 56, 135
|
||
Lem Moon Sing v. U.S., 158 U.S. 538 19
|
||
Lennon, In re, 166 U.S. 548 206
|
||
Lent v. Tillson, 140 U.S. 316 276, 277
|
||
Leon v. Galceran, 11 W 185 269
|
||
Leovy v. U.S., 177 U.S. 621 82, 84
|
||
Leroux v. Hudson, 109 U.S.468 266
|
||
Lessee of Hickey v. Stewart, 3 How. 750 284
|
||
L. G. Co. v. C. G. Co., 115 U.S. 683 169
|
||
L. G. L. Co. v. Murphy, 170 U.S. 78 177
|
||
License Cases, 5 How. 504 65, 95, 100
|
||
License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462 26, 53, 70, 174
|
||
L. I. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404 284, 286, 306
|
||
v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall.566 63, 303, 305, 306
|
||
Lincoln v. Power, 151 U.S.436 265
|
||
Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 262
|
||
Lionberger v. Rouse 9 Wall 468 49
|
||
Li Sing v. U.S., 180 U.S. 486 297
|
||
Livingston v. M. I. Co., 6 Cr. 274 229
|
||
v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469 182, 183
|
||
v. Story, 9 Pet. 632 243
|
||
L. I. W. CO. v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685 176, 277
|
||
Lloyd v. Matthews, 155 U.S. 222 282
|
||
L. N. A. & C. Ry. v. L. T. Co., 174 U.S. 552 303, 305
|
||
L., N. 0. & T. Ry. v. Mississippi 133 U.S. 587 78, 98
|
||
Loan Assn. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 24
|
||
Locke v. New Orleans, 4 Wall.172 183
|
||
Lockwood, In re, 154 U.S. 116 298
|
||
Loeb v. Columbia Township Trustees, 179 U.S. 472 139
|
||
Logan v. U.S., 144 U.S. 263 4, 19
|
||
Loney, In re, 134 U.S. 372 215, 225, 270
|
||
Looker v. Maynard, 179 U.S. 46 165
|
||
Lord v. S. S. Co., 102 U.S.541 68, 207
|
||
Los Angeles v. L. A. W. Co., 177 U.S. 558 148, 169, 178
|
||
Lottawanna, The, 21 Wall. 558 207, 208, 243, 266
|
||
Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321 64 119
|
||
Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317 9, 18, 27, 37
|
||
Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711 260, 261
|
||
v. Mayor of New Orleans, 109 U.S. 285 147, 148, 154, 275
|
||
v. New Orleans, 102 U.S. 203 148, 153, 155
|
||
v. Pilsbury, 105 U.S. 278 148, 153, 155
|
||
v. Steele, 134 U.S. 230 260, 262
|
||
v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1 212
|
||
Low v. Austin, 13 Wall. 29 43, 88
|
||
Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U.S. 81 274, 318
|
||
L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. Ohio, 165 U.S. 365 83, 84
|
||
v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285 99
|
||
v. Smith, 173 U.S. 684 101a,278,304, 313, 314
|
||
Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 228, 229, 327
|
||
Luxton v. N. R. Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 19
|
||
L. V. R. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U.S. 192 68, 104
|
||
L. W. Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 1 165
|
||
v. Easton, 121 U.S. 388 139, 140
|
||
Lyle v. Richards, 9 S. &. R. 356 235
|
||
Lyng v. Michigan, 135 U.S. 161 91
|
||
L. & G. W. S. Co. v. P. I. Co. 129 U.S. 397 223, 229, 243
|
||
L. & J. F. Co. v. Kentucky 188 U.S. 385 42, 277
|
||
L. & N. R. v. Behlmer, 175 U.S. 648 112
|
||
v. Eubank, 184 U.S. 27 101, 113
|
||
v. Kentucky, 161 U.S. 677 176
|
||
v. Kentucky, 183 U.S. 503 149, 175, 176, 177
|
||
178, 279, 313, 315,
|
||
321
|
||
v. Palmes, 109 U.S. 244 141
|
||
v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230 273, 274
|
||
v. Woodson, 134 U.S. 614 274
|
||
L. & P. Co. v. Mullen, 176 U.S. 126 23, 87, 89
|
||
Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U.S. 676 55, 92, 302
|
||
Mackin v. U.S., 117 U.S. 348 247
|
||
Madrazzo, Ex parte, 7 Pet. 627 261
|
||
Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490 22, 41
|
||
Magoun v. I. T. & S. Bank, 170 U.S. 283 40, 41, 316
|
||
Maguire v. Card, 21 How. 248 209
|
||
Mahon v. Justice, 127 U.S. 700 194
|
||
Maine v. G. T. Ry., 142 U.S. 217 55, 56, 103, 305
|
||
Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U.S. 589 184, 187, 320
|
||
Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240 72
|
||
Manning, In re, 139 U.S. 504 276, 322
|
||
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137 3, 204, 220, 229, 231,
|
||
232, 234
|
||
Markuson v. Boucher, 175 U.S. 184 225
|
||
Marrow v. Brinkley, 129 U.S. 178 276
|
||
Marsh v. N., S. & Co., 140 U.S. 344 206, 270
|
||
Marshall v. B. & 0. R., 16 How. 314 303
|
||
Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589 19, 225
|
||
Martin v. B. & 0. R., 151 U.S. 673 19, 225
|
||
v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 1, 2, 3, 7, 15, 19,
|
||
204, 205, 217, 218,
|
||
234, 265
|
||
v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19 244
|
||
v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367 71
|
||
Maryland v. B. & O. R., 3 How. 534 170
|
||
Mason v Haile, 12 Wheat. 370 143
|
||
v. Missouri, 179 U.S. 328 293
|
||
Ex parte, 105 U.S. 696 244
|
||
Massachusetts v. W. U. T. Co., 141 U.S. 40 54, 134
|
||
Matthew v. A. P. of N. Y. 136 N. Y. 333 125
|
||
Mattingly v. N. W. V. R., 158 U.S. 53 215
|
||
Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237 255
|
||
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 234, 237, 274, 298,
|
||
311, 320, 322
|
||
v. Stewart 22 Wall. 77 283, 284, 286
|
||
May v. New Orleans, 178 U.S. 496 88
|
||
Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheat. 129 284
|
||
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 148
|
||
Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247 204, 206, 225
|
||
v. Lord, 9 Wall. 409 267
|
||
McAllister v. U.S., 141 U.S. 174 8, 9
|
||
McCall v. California, 136 U.S. 104 56, 105, 305
|
||
McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598 270
|
||
McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. 608 146
|
||
MeCray v. U.S., 195 U.S. 27 26, 251
|
||
McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391 72, 299, 301, 302
|
||
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 1, 3, 4, 15, 16 17,
|
||
22, 48, 65 237
|
||
McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 141, 169
|
||
McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311 187, 317
|
||
McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312 283
|
||
McElrath v. U.S., 102 U.S. 426 209, 255
|
||
MeElvaine v. Brush, l42 U.S. 155 298
|
||
McGaheY v. Virginia, 135 U.S. 662 169, 181, 263
|
||
McGuire v. The Commonwealth. 3 Wall. 387 47, 70
|
||
McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 301
|
||
MeKenzie, Petitioner, In re, 180 U.S. 536 250
|
||
McKim v. Voorhies, 7 Cr. 279 270
|
||
McMillan v. McNeill, 4 Wheat. 209 147, 150, 152
|
||
McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 37 277
|
||
McNiel, Ex parte, 13 Wall. 236 76, 266
|
||
McNitt v. Turner, 16 Wall. 352 283
|
||
McNulty v. Batty, 10 How. 72 223
|
||
v. California, 149 U.S. 645 274
|
||
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 296
|
||
M. C. P. & S. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 151 U.S. 368 112
|
||
Medley, Petitioner, 134 U.S. 160 185, 215, 225
|
||
Meigs v. McClung's Lessee, 9 Cr. 11 264
|
||
Memphis v. U.S., 97 U.S. 293 148, 153, 155
|
||
Memphis Bank v. Tennessee. 161 U.S. 186 53, 164, 174
|
||
Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U.S. 138 49, 50
|
||
Merchants & Manufacturers' Bk. v. Pennsylvania, 167 U.S. 461 41, 52, 277, 316
|
||
Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U.S. 472 24, 148, 155
|
||
M. E. Ry. v. Minnesota, l34 U.S. 467 177, 278
|
||
Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586 206
|
||
Metropolitan Bank v. Clagggett, 141 U.S. 520 224
|
||
M. G. Co. v. Shelby County, 109 U.S. 398 41, 53, 174
|
||
Middleton v. Mullica Township, 112 U. S. 433 25
|
||
Miller v. C. R., 168 U.S. 131 282
|
||
v. State, 15 Wall. 478 166
|
||
Milligan, Ex parte, 4 Wall. 2 244, 245, 250
|
||
Mills v. Brown, 16 Pet. 525 215
|
||
v. Duryee , 7 Cr. 481 283
|
||
v. Green , 159 U.S. 651 228
|
||
v. St. Clair County, 8 How. 581 175
|
||
Minder v. Georgia, 183 U.S. 559 274, 322
|
||
Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313 81, 90, 237
|
||
v. Brundage, 180 U.S. 499 18, 225
|
||
v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373 213
|
||
v. N.S. Co., 184 U.S. 199 213
|
||
Minnesota v. N. S. Co., 194 U.S. 48 126, 215
|
||
Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 293, 311
|
||
Minot v. P., W. & B. R., 18 Wall. 206 53, 56, 102
|
||
Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475 229
|
||
Mississippi Mills v. Cohn, 150 U.S. 202 243, 265
|
||
Missouri v. Andriano, 138 U.S. 496 204, 224
|
||
v. Dockery, 191 U.S. 165 41, 316
|
||
v. Harris, 144 U.S. 210 140
|
||
v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 212
|
||
v. Iowa, 7 How. 660 191, 211
|
||
v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22 275, 322
|
||
v. Walker, 125 U.S. 339 169
|
||
Mitchell v. Clark, 110 U.S. 633 265
|
||
v. First Nat. Bank, 180 U.S. 471 282
|
||
v. Harmony, 13 How. 115 264
|
||
v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406 72, 206
|
||
M., K. & T. Ry. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613 81
|
||
v. May, 194 U.S. 267 316
|
||
v. McCann, 174 U.S. 580 99
|
||
v. Missouri R. & W. Comrs., 183 U.S. 53 210
|
||
M. L. 1. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U.S. 291 224
|
||
M. N. Co. v. U.S., 148 U.S. 312 253
|
||
Mobile v. Watson, 116 U.S. 289 148, 153, 155
|
||
Mogul S. S. Co. McGregor, 23 Q. B. D. 598 116
|
||
Montague v. Lowry, 193 U.S. 38 127
|
||
Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46 215
|
||
Montello, The, 20 Wall. 430 82, 209
|
||
Montgomery v. Portland, 190 U.S. 89 83
|
||
Moore v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 338 145
|
||
v. Illinois, 14 How. 13 269
|
||
v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673 275, 298, 317
|
||
v. U.S., 91 U.S. 270 235
|
||
Moran v. Horsky, 178 U.S. 205 224
|
||
v. New Orleans, 112 U.S. 69 57, 106
|
||
v. Sturges, 154 U.S. 256 208, 209, 269, 272
|
||
Morgan v. Louisiana 93 U.S. 217 52, 148, 150, 164
|
||
Morgan v. Louisiana, 118 U.S. 455 24, 80
|
||
v. Parham, 16 Wall. 471 57, 106
|
||
Morley v. L.S.&M.S. Ry., 146 U.S. 162 144, 146, 148, 154,
|
||
278
|
||
Mormon Church v. U.S., 136 U.S. 19 10, 19, 251, 309
|
||
Moses Taylor, The, 4 Wall. 411 205, 208, 209, 217,
|
||
218, 269
|
||
Motes v. U.S., 178 U.S. 458 255
|
||
M. P. Ry. v. Humes, 115 U.S. 512 100, 316
|
||
v. Mackey, 127 U.S. 205 100,278, 304, 314, 315
|
||
v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403 278, 280
|
||
M. S. Co. v. Louisiana, 118 U.S. 455 24, 80
|
||
M. S. S. Co. v. McGregor, 23 Q. B. D. 598 116
|
||
M. T. Co. v. Mobile, 187 U.S. 479 2, 72, 149, 299
|
||
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 100, 237, 278, 298
|
||
Muller v. Dows, 94 U.S. 444 215
|
||
Mumma v. The Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 281 175
|
||
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 98, 278, 315
|
||
Murdock v. Ward, 178 U.S. 139 31, 36
|
||
Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S 15 9, 187
|
||
Murray v. Charleston, 96 U.S. 432 53 169
|
||
Murray's Lessee v. H. L. & I Co., 18 How. 272 247 250
|
||
Myrick v. M. C. R., 107 U.S. 102 242
|
||
M. & L. R. v. C. R., 66 N. H. 100 131
|
||
M. & M. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U.S. 461 41, 52, 277, 316
|
||
M. & M. R. v. Ward, 2 Bl. 485 84
|
||
M. & 0. R. v. Tennessee, 153 U.S. 486 52, 141, 162
|
||
M. & St. L. R. v. Minnesota, 186 U.S. 257 101b, 313, 315
|
||
v. Minnesota, 193 U.S. 53 100, 279
|
||
M. & St. L. Ry. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 100,278, 304, 314, 316
|
||
v. Emmons, 149 U.S. 364 176, 316
|
||
M. & St L. Ry. v. Gardner, 177 U.S. 332 175
|
||
v. Herrick, 127 U.S. 210 278, 304, 314, 315
|
||
Nash v. Lull, 102 Mass. 60 270
|
||
Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U.S. 621 274, 321
|
||
Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73 55, 63
|
||
National Bank v. Chapman, 173 U.S. 205 49, 50
|
||
v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353 47, 48
|
||
v. U.S., 101 U.S. 1 31
|
||
Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 195 273, 285
|
||
N. B. Co. v. U.S., 105 U.S. 470 83
|
||
N. C. Ry. v. Maryland, 187 U.S. 258 53 164, 165, 168, 174
|
||
N., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Alabama, 128 U.S. 96 24, 98, 246, 278
|
||
Neagle, In re, 135 U.S. 1 18, 19, 206, 215, 225,
|
||
266, 270
|
||
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 295
|
||
Nebraska v. Iowa, 145 U.S. 519 211
|
||
Nelson v. St. Martins Parish, 11 U.S. 716 148, 153, 155
|
||
Nevada Bank v. Sedgwick, 104 U.S. 1ll 23
|
||
New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76 211, 261
|
||
New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet. 284 211
|
||
v. Wilson, 7 Cr. 164 52, 161
|
||
v. Yard, 95 U.S. 104 52, 162, 163, 165
|
||
New Orleans v. Citizens Bank, 167 U.S. 371 53, 167, 174
|
||
v. Morris, 105 U.S. 600 179
|
||
v. N. 0. W. W., 142 U.S. 79 148, 170
|
||
v. Paine, 147 U.S. 261 229
|
||
v. Stempel, 175 U.S. 309 40, 41
|
||
Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U.S. 548 179
|
||
New York v. Barker, 179 U.S. 279 321
|
||
v. Connecticut, 4 Dell. 1 211
|
||
v. Eno, 155 U.S. 89 255
|
||
New York v. Knight, 192 U.S. 21 56, 10
|
||
v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76 211, 261
|
||
v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102 78, 79, 101
|
||
v. Roberts, 171 U.S. 658 54, 55, 304, 306, 315
|
||
v. Squire, 145 U.S. 175 176, 278, 317
|
||
New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761 45
|
||
N. F. & P. W. v. 0. W. S. Co. 183 U.S. 216 206, 289
|
||
Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509 31, 36, 232
|
||
Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U.S. 176 250
|
||
Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S., 142 U.S. 651 297
|
||
N. J. N. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344 209
|
||
N. M. B. & L. Assn. v. Brahan, 193 U.S. 635 140, 224
|
||
N. M. R. v. Maguire, 20 Wall. 46 174
|
||
N., M. & Co. v. Ohio, 3 How. 720 97
|
||
Noble v. U. R. L. R., 147 U.S. 165 229 398 274
|
||
N. 0. C. & L. R. v. New Orleans, 143 U.S. 192 53, 174
|
||
v. New Orleans, 157 U.S. 219 142
|
||
N. 0. F. Inspectors v. Glover, 160 U.S. 170 228
|
||
N. 0. G. Co. v. L. L. Co., 115 U.S. 650 138, 169
|
||
North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U.S. 22 260, 262
|
||
Northern Securities Case, 193 U.S. 197 64, 67, 122, 124, 125,
|
||
127 129, 131
|
||
Norton v. Board of Comrs. of Brownsville, 129 U.S. 479 148, 149
|
||
v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 204, 232
|
||
Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269 24, 277, 316
|
||
N. 0. W. Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U.S. 336 140
|
||
N. 0. W. W. v. L. S. Co., 125 U.S. 18 140
|
||
v. Rivers, 115 U.S. 674 169
|
||
N. P. R. v. Amato, 144 U.S. 465 206
|
||
N. P. R. v. Colburn, 164 U.S. 383 206
|
||
v. Myers, 172 U.S. 589 46
|
||
N. S. Co. v. U.S., 193 U.S. 197 64, 67, 122, 124, 125,
|
||
127, 129, 131
|
||
Nugent v. Boyd, 3 How. 426 268
|
||
Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 553 63, 304
|
||
N. W. Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561 175
|
||
N.Y. L. E. & W. R. v. Pennsylvania, 153 U.S. 628 22, 23, 43, 176, 304
|
||
v. Pennsylvania, 158 U.S. 431 55, 103
|
||
N. Y. L. I. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U.S. 389 63, 304, 306
|
||
N. Y., N. H. & H. R. v . New York, 165 U.S. 628 99, 319
|
||
N. Y. & N. E. R. v. Baristol, 151 U.S. 556 165, 317
|
||
N. & W. R. v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 195 21
|
||
v. Pendleton, 156 U.S. 667 53, 168, 174, 173,
|
||
176, 178
|
||
v. Pennsylvania, 136 U.S. 114 56, 105, 304, 305
|
||
N. & W. R. v. Sims 191 U.S. 441 55, 92
|
||
Oates v. Nat. Bank, 100 U.S. 239 242
|
||
Ochiltree v. R. Co., 21 Wall. 249 144
|
||
Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213 147, 151, 153, 173,
|
||
182, 237
|
||
Ohio v. Dollison, 194 U.S. 445 247, 275, 298, 317
|
||
v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 18, 215, 225, 238, 270
|
||
O. I. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557 279, 303, 304,314, 319
|
||
Olcott v. The Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678 25, 139
|
||
O. L. 1. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416 139, 141, 175, 242
|
||
O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323 257
|
||
O. O. Co. v. Indiana, 177 U.S. 190 278
|
||
O. P. Co. v. Aiken, 121 U.S. 444 23, 87
|
||
Orr v. Gilman, 183 U.S. 278 40, 41,53,166,280,316
|
||
Osborn v. Bank of the U.S., 9 Wheat. 738 17,48,206,215,228,258,264
|
||
v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654 310
|
||
Osborne v. County of Adams, 106 U.S. 181, 109 id. 1 24
|
||
v. Florida, 164 U.S. 650 56, 103
|
||
v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479 135
|
||
Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606 321
|
||
Ottawa v. Carey, 108 U.S. 110 25
|
||
v. National Bank, 105 U.S. 343 25
|
||
O. W. Co. v. Oshkosh, 187 U.S. 437 140, 143, 144
|
||
Owensboro v. 0. W. S. Co., 191 U.S. 358 175, 177
|
||
Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U.S. 664 51
|
||
Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet. 607 229, 283
|
||
v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420 138
|
||
O. & M. R. v. Wheeler, 1 Bl. 286 215, 303, 304
|
||
Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 315
|
||
v. Burgess, 92 U.S. 372 29, 73
|
||
Pacific Nat. Bank v. Mixter, 124 U.S. 721 270
|
||
Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U.S. 559 23, 87
|
||
v. Keokuk, 95 17. U.S. 80 23, 87, 233
|
||
v. St. Louis, 100 IT. S. 423 23, 87
|
||
Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660 49, 50, 51, 277
|
||
Pana v. Bowler, 107 U.S. 529 242
|
||
Parish v. Ellis, 16 Pet. 451 243
|
||
Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487 24
|
||
Parkinson v. U.S., 121 U.S. 281 247
|
||
Parks, Ex parte, 93 U.S. 18 250
|
||
Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433 243, 255, 256
|
||
v. C. & N. W. Ry., l67 U.S. 447 111, 112
|
||
Passaic Bridge Case, The, 3 Wall. 782 84
|
||
Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283a 54, 57, 66. 105
|
||
Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 65. 70
|
||
Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608 31, 206
|
||
Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168 63,300,303,304,305,306
|
||
Paulsen v. Portland, 149, U.S. 30 277
|
||
Paup v. Drew, 10 How. 218 169
|
||
Payne v. Hook, 7 Will. 425 210
|
||
P. C., C. & St. L. Ry,. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421 40, 57. 277
|
||
v. Board of Pub. Works: 172 U.S. 32 54, 85
|
||
P. Co. v. Adams, 189 U.S. 420 56, 103 See Packet Co.
|
||
Peake v. New Orleans, 139 U.S. 342 24
|
||
Peale v. Phipps, 14 How. 368 267, 272
|
||
Pearce v. Texas, 155 U.S. 311 195
|
||
Pearsall v. G. N. Ry., 161 U.S. 646 142,149,165,176,177
|
||
Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U.S. 294 255, 277
|
||
Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595 242
|
||
Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612 267, 272
|
||
Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall. 581 44, 74, 81
|
||
Peik v. C. & N. W. Ry., 94 U.S. 164 98, 176
|
||
Pelton v. National Bank, 101 U.S. 143 51
|
||
Pennie v. Reis, 132 U.S. 464 179, 280
|
||
Penniman's Case, 103 U.S. 714 143
|
||
Pennoyer v. MeConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1 263
|
||
v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 249, 283, 285
|
||
Pennsylvania v. W. & B. Bridge Co., 9 How. 647, 11 id. 528 84
|
||
v. W. & B. Bridge Co., 13 How. 518 84, 239, 243
|
||
v. W. & B. B. Co., 18 How. 421 73, 83. 84
|
||
Pennsylvania College Case's, 13 Wall. 190 166
|
||
People v. C. G. T., 107 U.S. 59 57, 89, 105
|
||
v. Commissioners, 1o4 U.S. 466 56, 63
|
||
v. Commissioners of Taxes, 2 Bl. 620 44
|
||
v. Commissioners of Taxes. 94 U.S. 415 51, 52, 150
|
||
People v. Cook, 148 U.S. 397 53, 164, 165, 168, 174
|
||
v. The Commissioners, 4 Wall. 244 48
|
||
v. Weaver, 100 U.S. 539 50, 51
|
||
Pepke v. U.S., 183 U.S. 176 11, 27, 38
|
||
Permoli v. First Municipality, 3 How. 589 299
|
||
Perrine v. C. & D. C. Co., 9 How. 172 175
|
||
Pervear v. The Commonwealth. 5 Wall. 475 47, 70, 25 7
|
||
Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164 320
|
||
P. Ex. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U.S. 339 41, 56
|
||
P. P. A. v. New York, 119 U.S. 110 63, 304, 305, 306
|
||
P. F. & m. I. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 U.S. 174 53, 166, 174
|
||
P. G. Co. v. North Carolina, 171 U.S. 345 89
|
||
P. G. & C. Co. v. Chicago, 194 U.S. 1 168, 176, 178
|
||
Phelps v. Holker, 1 Dall. 261 285
|
||
Philadelphia v. The Collector, 5 Wall. 720 225
|
||
Picard v. P.S. C. Co., 117 U.S. 34 53, 166, 168, 174
|
||
Pickard v. P.S. C. Co., 117 U.S. 34 58, 105
|
||
P. I. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433 31
|
||
v. Tennessee, 161 U.S. 193 52, 140, 150, 164, 174
|
||
Pierce v. Carskadon, 16 Wall. 234 146, 185, 188
|
||
v. Indseth, 106 U.S. 546 229
|
||
Pinney v. Nelson, 183 U.S. 14l 14O, 308
|
||
Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 301 169
|
||
Pleasant Township v. A. L. I. Co., 138 U.S. 67 139, 141, 148, 149
|
||
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 280, 298, 310, 318
|
||
Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 61 47 96
|
||
Plummer v. Coler, 178 U.S. 115 44, 45
|
||
P. M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 304, 305, 314. 315
|
||
Poindexter v. Greenhow. See Virginia Coupon Cases.
|
||
Polk's Lessee v. Wendell, 9 Cr. 87 240
|
||
Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212 2, 72, 299
|
||
Pollock v. F. L. & T. Co., 157 U.S. 429 30, 34
|
||
v. F. L. & T. Co., 158 U.S. 601 34, 39, 233
|
||
Poole v. Fleeger , 11 Pet. 185 191
|
||
Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 292
|
||
Pound v. Turck 95 U.S. 459 84
|
||
Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678 315
|
||
P. P. C. Co. v. Hayward, 1 41 U.S. 36 103
|
||
v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 22, 40, 57, 103
|
||
P. R. v. Maguire, 20 Wall. 36 52, 16
|
||
v. Miller, 132 U.S. 75 176, 17
|
||
v. Napier S. Co., 166 U.S. 280 20
|
||
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 233, 29
|
||
Prevost v. Greneaux, 19 How. 1 23
|
||
Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539 19, 204, 235, 292, 29
|
||
Prout v. Starr, 188 U.S. 537 26
|
||
Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514 41, 53, 17
|
||
Provident Inst. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 611 4
|
||
Provident Inst. for Savings v. Jersey City, 113 U.S. 506 27
|
||
Provident Savings Society, v. Ford, 114 U.S. 635 20
|
||
P. R. Removal Cases , 115 U.S. 1 206
|
||
P. T. C. Co. v. Adams, 155 U.S. 688 54, 134, 305
|
||
v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482 210, 215, 221
|
||
v. Baltimore, 156 U.S. 210 24, 134
|
||
v. Charleston, 153 U.S. 692 56, 134
|
||
v. New Hope, 192 U.S. 55 24
|
||
v. Taylor, 192 U.S. 64 24, 134
|
||
P. T. Co. v. W. U. T. Co., 96 U.S. 1 62, 64, 134, 305
|
||
Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497 251
|
||
Pulliam v. Osborne, 17 How. 471 272
|
||
P. & S. C. Co. v. Bates, 156 U.S. 577 43, 55, 94, 104
|
||
v. Louisiana, 156 U.S. 590 54, 89
|
||
P. & S. S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326 57, 65, 105
|
||
Quarles and Butler, In re, 158 U.S. 532 19
|
||
Queensbury v. Culver, 19 Wall. 83 25
|
||
Rahrer, In re, 140 U.S. 545 96
|
||
Ralls County Court v. U.S., 105 U.S. 733 148, 153, 155
|
||
Randall v. Kreiger, 23 Wall. 137 143
|
||
Rapier, In re, 143 U.S. 110 18, 309
|
||
Rash v. Farley, 159 U.S. 263 55, 92, 303
|
||
Rasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U.S. 198 81
|
||
Ratterman v. W. U. T. Co., 127 U.S. 411 56, 134
|
||
R. B. Co., v. Brister, 179 U.S. 445 92
|
||
R. Co. v. Alabama, 101 U.S. 832 180
|
||
v. County of Otoe, 16 Wall. 667 25
|
||
v. Ellerman, 105 U.S. 166 170
|
||
v. Falconer, 103 U.S. 821 154
|
||
v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 560 98, 113.
|
||
v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 359 165
|
||
v. Hamersley, 104 U.S. 1 176
|
||
v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 168 142
|
||
v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465 81
|
||
v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262 42
|
||
v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 5 305
|
||
v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357 242
|
||
v. McClure, 10 Wall. 511 138, 140
|
||
v. Mississippi, 102 U.S. 135 203
|
||
v. Nat. Bank, 102 U.S. 14 242
|
||
v. Richmond, 96 U.S. 521 101, 321
|
||
v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177 140, 215
|
||
v. Schurmeir, 7 Wall. 272 71
|
||
v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337 180, 181
|
||
R. Cos. v. Gaines, 97 U.S. 697 52,53,150,164,166,167
|
||
Reagan v. F. L. & T. Co., 154 U.S. 362 101a, 177, 313, 315
|
||
v. M. T. Co., 154 U.S. 413 101a
|
||
Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505 187, 278
|
||
Reggel, Ex parte, 114 U.S. 642 193, 195
|
||
Reid v. Colorado, 187 U.S. 137 81, 232
|
||
Relfe v. Rundle, 103 U.S. 222 308
|
||
Removal Cases, 100 U. S, 457 225
|
||
Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U.S. 277 284
|
||
Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254 285, 286
|
||
v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 9, 254, 309
|
||
R. G. R. v. Gomila, 132 U.S. 478 272
|
||
Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657 2, 191, 211, 234, 235
|
||
Rice v. R. Co., 1 Bl. 358 174
|
||
Richmond v. S. B. T. Co., 174 U.S. 761 134
|
||
Rider v. U.S., 178 U.S. 251 84
|
||
Ridings v. Johnson, 128 U.S. 212 243
|
||
Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 166 267
|
||
Rippey v. Texas, 193 U.S. 504 317
|
||
Ritchie v. Mullen, 159 U.S. 235 281
|
||
Roanoke, The, 189 U.S. 185 208, 266
|
||
Ro Bards v. Lamb, 127 U.S. 58 274
|
||
Robb v. Connolly, 111 U.S. 624 195, 271
|
||
Robbins v. Shelby County. 120 U.S. 489 55, 69, 92, 93, 302
|
||
Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U.S. 80 195
|
||
v. U.S., 176 U.S. 221 229
|
||
Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 218, 310
|
||
v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646 215
|
||
Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212 243
|
||
v. Colehour, 146 U.S. 153 224
|
||
Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U.S. 226 295, 313, 319
|
||
v. Burlington 3 Wall. 654 25
|
||
Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 273
|
||
Pose v. Himely, 4 Cr. 241 228, 284
|
||
Rosen v. U.S., 161 U.S. 29 254
|
||
Rosenblatt v. Johnston, 104 U.S. 462 48
|
||
Ross, In re, 140 U.S. 453 19, 246
|
||
Rothschild v. Knight, 184 U.S. 334 224
|
||
Royall v. Virginia, 116 U.S. 572, 121 id. 102 169
|
||
Ex parte, 117 U.S. 241 18, 225
|
||
R. R. v. C. V. R., 159 U.S. 630 224
|
||
Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U.S. 526 176, 177
|
||
Rundle v. D. & R. C. Co., 14 How. 80 71
|
||
Runyan v. Coster, 14 Pet. 12 304, 305
|
||
R. W. Parsons, The, 191 U.S. 17 208, 209
|
||
Ry. Co. v. Philadelphia, 101 U.S. 528 53, 166
|
||
v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 276 208,210,215,243,266,303
|
||
Ryder v. Holt, 128 U.S. 525 63
|
||
R. & A. R. v. P. T. Co., 169 U.S. 311 99
|
||
R. & G. R. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 269 52, 162, 163
|
||
R. & P. R. v. L.R., 13 How. 81 175
|
||
Salt Co. v. East Saginaw, 13 Wall. 373 164
|
||
Salt Lake City v. Tucker, 166 U.S. 707 256
|
||
Sands v. M. R. 1. Co., 123 U.S. 288 23, 84, 87
|
||
Santa Clara County v. S. P. R., 118 U.S. 394 304, 314
|
||
Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Pet. 380 182, 183
|
||
Savings Society v. Multnomah County, 169 U.S. 421 22, 40, 41, 42
|
||
Sawyer v. Piper, 189 U.S. 54 206
|
||
Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180 215, 224
|
||
Schaefer v. Werling, 188 U.S. 516 316
|
||
Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 235, 246, 254
|
||
Schillinger v. U.S., 155 U.S. 163 209
|
||
Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331 31
|
||
Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U.S. 1 96, 315
|
||
Schurz v. Cook. See People v. Cook
|
||
S. Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522 208
|
||
v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450 76
|
||
v. Portwardens , 6 Wall. 31 44, 57, 74, 106
|
||
Scotland County Court v. U.S., 140 U.S. 41 153, 155
|
||
Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58 91, 96
|
||
v. Jones , 5 How. 343 138
|
||
v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34 274
|
||
v. Neely, 140 U.S. 106 210, 243
|
||
v.Sandford, 19 How. 393 8, 215, 231, 291, 292
|
||
Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141 253
|
||
S. C. S, Ry. v. Sioux City, 138 U.S. 9 8 53, 165, 174
|
||
Scudder v. Comptroller, 175 U.S. 32 224
|
||
S. D. L. & T. Co. v. Jasper, 189 U.S. 439 101b, 278
|
||
v. National City, 174 U.S. 739 101b, 278
|
||
Searight v. Stokes, 3 How. 151 97
|
||
Seeberger v. McCormick, 175 U.S. 274 224
|
||
Seibert v. Lewis, 122 U.S. 284 155
|
||
Seneca Nation v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 224
|
||
Sentell v. N. 0. & C. R., 166 U.S. 698 280
|
||
S. F. et A. des E. U. v. Milliken, 135 U.S. 304 305
|
||
Shaw v. Covington, 194 -U.S. 593 17
|
||
v. Robbins, 12 Wheat. 369 151, 15
|
||
Shelby County v. Union & Planters Bank, 161 U.S. 149 53, 141, 162, 167, 17
|
||
Sherlock v. Alling, 93 TJ. S. 99 20
|
||
Shibuya Jugiro, in re, 140 U.S. 291 31
|
||
Shields v. Ohio, 95 U.S. 319 52,150,165,174,175,17
|
||
Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 2 72, 299
|
||
Shotwell v. Moore, 129 U.S. 590 44
|
||
Shreveport v. Cole, 129 U.S. 36 139
|
||
Shriver's Lessee v. Lynn, 2 How. 43 284
|
||
Shumate v. Heman, 181 U.S. 402 316
|
||
Siebold, Ex parte, 100 U.S. 371 296
|
||
Simmons v. Saul, 138 U.S. 439 283, 284
|
||
Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427 273
|
||
Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227 77, 79, 101
|
||
Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 290, 291, 298, 300,
|
||
310, 311, 314
|
||
Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1 217, 270, 272, 27 3
|
||
S. L. & T. Co. v. Comptroller of New York, 177 U.S. 318 279
|
||
Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 235, 237
|
||
v. Condry, 1 How. 28 292
|
||
v. Indiana, 191 U.S. 138 228
|
||
v. Maryland, 18 How. 71 71, 72, 299
|
||
v. McIver, 9 Wheat. 532 272
|
||
v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 262
|
||
Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 101a, 101b, 129, 263,
|
||
278, 304, 313, 314
|
||
v. Ames, 171 U.S. 361 101b, 315
|
||
Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U.S. 249 39
|
||
Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. 594 45
|
||
Sonnentheil v. M. B. Co., 172 U.S. 401 206
|
||
Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 237, 321
|
||
South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U.S. 4 73, 85, 211
|
||
South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U.S. 286 211 919
|
||
S. P. Co. v. Denton, 146, U.S. 202 307
|
||
Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U.S. 345 24, 40, 277, 282
|
||
Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131 224, 275, 298
|
||
Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U.S. 90 77, 233
|
||
Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 31, 34, 250
|
||
Springville v. Thomas, 166 U.S. 707 256
|
||
Sprott v. U.S., 20 Wall. 459 191
|
||
S. Ry. v. Allison 190 U.S. 326 215, 303, 305
|
||
S. S. Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450 76
|
||
v. Portwardens, 6 Wall. 31 44 57, 74, 106
|
||
S. S. R. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 31
|
||
Stacy v. Thrasher. 31 6 How. 44 288
|
||
St. A.F.W.P.Co., v. St. Paul W. Comrs., 168 U.S. 349 2, 71
|
||
Stanislaus County v. S.J.&K.R.C.&I.Co., 192 U.S. 201 101b, 175, 176, 178,
|
||
278, 315
|
||
Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U.S. 255 209
|
||
v. Supervisors, 121 U.S. 535 51
|
||
State v. Parkhurst, 9 N. J. L. 51 427 233
|
||
State Bank v. Knopp, 16 How. 369 141
|
||
State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232 22, 58, 65. 105
|
||
State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300 41, 42, 147
|
||
State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284 57, 105
|
||
State Tonnage Tax Cases. 12 Wall. 204 44, 74
|
||
St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350 285, 286, 306
|
||
St. Clair County v. I. S. & C. T. CO., 192 U.S. 454 82
|
||
S. T. Co. v. B. R. Nat. Bank, 187 U.S. 211 210, 242
|
||
Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall 450 76
|
||
Steamship Co. v. Portwardens. 6 Wall. 31 44, 57, 74, 106
|
||
Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S.S. 223 52,53,141,162,164,165
|
||
Stein v. B. & W. S. Co., 1 41 U.S. 67 175
|
||
Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445 184
|
||
Stevens v. Griffith, 111 U.S. 48 139
|
||
v. Nichols, 130 U.S. 230 215
|
||
St. J. & G. I. R.,v. Steele, 167 U.S. 659 210, 215, 303
|
||
St. Lawrence, The, 1 Bl. 522 207, 209
|
||
St. L. C. C. Co. v. Illinois: 185 U.S. 203 280, 321
|
||
St. L., I. M. & St. P. Ry. v. Paul, 173 U.S. 404 319
|
||
St. Louis v. W. F. Co.. 11 Wall. 423 41, 57, 82, 106
|
||
v. W.U T. Co. 148 U.S. 92 24, 134
|
||
St.L.& S.F. Ry v. Gill, 156 U.S. 156 649 53, 101a, 174,
|
||
175, 178, 278, 315
|
||
v. James, 161 U.S. 545 192,210,215, 303, 305
|
||
v. Mathews, 165 U.S. 1 176, 177, 278, 318
|
||
Stockard v. Morgan, 185 U.S. 27 55 92
|
||
Stockdale v. I. Cos., 20 Wall. 323 184
|
||
Stone v. F. L . & T. Co., 116 U.S. 307 98, 101a, 176, 177
|
||
v. I. C. R., 116 U.S. 347
|
||
v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 178
|
||
N. O. & N. E. R., 116 U.S. 352 98
|
||
Storti v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 138 215, 225
|
||
St. P. G. L. Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U.S. 142 139, 141
|
||
St. P., M. & M. Ry. v. Todd County, 142 U.S. 282 140
|
||
Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 93 292
|
||
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 295, 313
|
||
Streitwolf v. Streitwolf, 181 U.S. 179 286
|
||
Strother v. Lucas, 6 Pet. 763 299
|
||
Stuart v. Laird, I Cr 299 234
|
||
Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 2,4,63,138,142,147,
|
||
150,152,159,217,235
|
||
St. T. W. W. v. N. 0. W. W. 120 U S 64 169
|
||
Sully v. American Nat. Bank, 178 U.S. 289 303, 304, 319
|
||
Supervisors v. Durant, 9 Wall 415 267
|
||
v. Stanley , 105 U.S. 305 50, 51
|
||
v. U.S. 154 U.S. 576 267
|
||
Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67 147, 151 271
|
||
S. V. W. W. v. Schottler 110 U.S. 347 177
|
||
Swafford v. TempIeton, 185 U.S. 487 206, 293, 294
|
||
Swan, In re 150 U.S. 637 250
|
||
Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 242, 243
|
||
S. W. W. Co. v. Skaneateles, 184 U.S. 354 169
|
||
Talbot v. S.C. First Nat. Bank, 185 U.S. 172 206
|
||
v. Seeman, 1 Cr. 1 229
|
||
Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 247
|
||
Tappan v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 19 Wall. 490 51
|
||
Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. 397 271
|
||
Tarrance v. Florida, 188 U.S. 519 313, 319
|
||
Taylor v. Carry], 20 How. 583 272
|
||
v. Ypsilanti, 105 U.S. 60 25
|
||
Taylor and Marishall v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 280, 327
|
||
T. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 23, 87
|
||
v. Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273 54, 66, 82, 106
|
||
Teal v. Felton, 12 How. 284 268
|
||
Telco v. Texas, 105 U.S. 460 64
|
||
Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257 205, 216, 225
|
||
v. P. S. C. Co., 117 U.S. 51 58, 105
|
||
v. Sneed, 96 U.S. 69 145
|
||
v. Union & Planters' Bank,152 U.S. 454 215
|
||
v. Virginia, 177 U.S. 501 211
|
||
Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270 228
|
||
Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cr. 43 161
|
||
Terry v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 628 143
|
||
Ex parte, 128 U.S. 289 250, 254
|
||
Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700 2, 213, 229, 327
|
||
The Albany Bridge Case- See Albany Bridge Case.
|
||
The Belfast. Bee Belfast, The.
|
||
The China. See China, The.
|
||
Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264 238
|
||
v. U.S., 192 U.S. 363 31
|
||
Thomson v. P. R., 9 Wall. 579 47
|
||
Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U.S. 380 187
|
||
v. U.S., 155 U.S. 271 252
|
||
v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343 10, 185
|
||
v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457 284, 287
|
||
Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490 247, 298
|
||
Thormann v. Frame, 176 U.S. 350 284
|
||
T. I. Co. v. Connecticut, 185 U.S. 364 300
|
||
Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U.S. 123 55, 303
|
||
Timmons v. E. L. Co., 139 U.S. 378 215
|
||
Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101 225, 274, 322
|
||
Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall. 460 53, 168
|
||
v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454 165
|
||
Tonawanda v. Lyon, 181 U.S. 389 24, 273
|
||
Town of Venice v. Murdock, 92 U.S. 494 242
|
||
Townsend v. Todd, 91 U.S. 452 241
|
||
Trade Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 63, 233
|
||
Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 23, 87
|
||
v. Wheeling 99 U.S. 273 54, 63, 82, 106
|
||
Trask v. Maguire, 18 Wall. 391 52, 150, 164
|
||
Trevett v. Weeden, 2 Arnold, 525 233
|
||
Trigg v. Drew, 10 How. 224 169
|
||
Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527 46, 53, 166, 174
|
||
Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Shepard, 185 U.S. 1 148
|
||
Tullis v. L. E. & W. R., 175 U.S. 348 315
|
||
Tullock v. Mulvaiae, 184 U.S. 497 206
|
||
Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U.S. 418 289
|
||
Turner v. Maryland, 107 U.S. 38 44, 89
|
||
v. New York, 168 U.S. 90 279
|
||
v. Wilkes County Comrs., 173 U.S. 461 140, 243, 282
|
||
v. Williams. See U.S. v. Williams.
|
||
Turnpike Co. v. State, 3 Wall. 210 175
|
||
Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U.S. 504 29, 73
|
||
v. Lemon, 187 U.S. 51 228, 277
|
||
Twin City Ba]ak v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 23, 40
|
||
Twitchell v. The Commonwealth. 7 Wall. 321 224, 254
|
||
Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 404 228
|
||
In re, 149 U.S. 197 109,112
|
||
T. P. Ry. v. cody, 166 U.S. 606 206
|
||
v. Cox, 145 id. 593 243
|
||
v. I.C.C., 162 U.S. 197 109, 112
|
||
University v. People, 99 U.S. 309 52, 140, 162, 163
|
||
U. P. R. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5 47
|
||
Upshur County v. Rich, 135 U.S. 467 228
|
||
U. R. v. City of New York, 193 U.S. 416 148
|
||
U. R. T. Co. v. Lynch, 177 U.S. 149 40, 54, 47, 103
|
||
Urtetiqui v. D'Arbel 9 Pet. 692 288
|
||
U.S. v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392 282
|
||
v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691 239
|
||
v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 251, 252
|
||
v. B. B. B. Co., 176 U.S. 211 83, 84
|
||
v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336 73, 216
|
||
v. Black, 128 U.S. 40 229
|
||
v. Blaine, 139 U.S. 306 229
|
||
v. Burr, 4 Cr. 470 235
|
||
v. B. & 0. R., 17 Wall. 322 39
|
||
v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415 216, 239
|
||
v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 217, 291, 294, 309
|
||
v. De Walt 128 U.S. 393 247
|
||
v. Dewitt 9 Wall. 41 70, 216
|
||
v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S.. 1 67, 128, 131
|
||
v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40 223
|
||
v. Fisher, 2 Cr. 358 18
|
||
v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U.S. 188 136, 238
|
||
v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315 298
|
||
v. Fox, 95 U.S. 670 186, 216, 217
|
||
v. G. E. Ry., 160 U.S. 668 19, 232
|
||
v. Haas, 3 Wall. 407 135
|
||
v. Hall, 98 U.S. 343 18
|
||
v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17 250
|
||
v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 3, 232, 233 310 322
|
||
v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407 135
|
||
U.S. v. Hudson, 7 Cr. 32 216, 220, 239
|
||
v. Isham, 17 Wall. 506 132
|
||
v. J. T. A., 171 U.S. 505 67, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129
|
||
v. Jung Ah Lung, 124 U.S. 621 297
|
||
v. Keehler, 9 Wall. 83 191
|
||
v. Le Bris , 121 U.S. 278 136
|
||
v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 264
|
||
v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213 238
|
||
v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 253
|
||
v. Marigold, 9 How. 560 18, 269
|
||
v. Memphis, 97 U.S. 284 179
|
||
v. Michigan, 190 U.S. 379 209, 213
|
||
v. M.R. Co., 189 U.S. 391 72, 299
|
||
v. New Orleans, 98 U.S. 381 94
|
||
v. North Carolina, 136 U.S. 211 209
|
||
v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467 206, 220
|
||
v. P. D. M. Co., 176 U.S. 317 266
|
||
v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 251
|
||
v. Perkins, 163 U . S. 625 42, 45
|
||
v. Perot 98 U.S. 428 230
|
||
v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121 221
|
||
v. Peters, 5 Cr. 115 263, 266
|
||
v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 217, 293
|
||
v. Reid, 12 How. 361 265
|
||
v. R. G. D. & I. Co., 174 U.S. 690 84
|
||
v. Rice, 4 Wheat. 246 26
|
||
v. Rickert 188 U.S. 432 46
|
||
v. Schooner Peggy 1 Cr. 103 238
|
||
v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 229
|
||
v. Singer, 15 Wall. 111 31
|
||
v. Sing Tuck, 194 IT. S, 161 225, 297
|
||
v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621 228, 265
|
||
v. T. M. F. A., 166 U.S. 290 67 112, 123, 125, 127, 129
|
||
v. U. P. R., 91 U.S. 72 236
|
||
v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76 19, 250
|
||
v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 251, 254, 309
|
||
U.S. v. Windom, B7 U.S. 636 229
|
||
v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 235, 291, 297, 298
|
||
v. Zucker, 161 U.S. 475 254
|
||
Van Allen v. The Assessors, 3 Wall. 573 48, 49
|
||
Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151 46
|
||
Vance v. Vance, 108 U.S. 514 143
|
||
v. W. A. V. Co., 170 U.S. 438 90
|
||
Van Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 552 145
|
||
Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304 204
|
||
Vaughan v. Northup, 15 Pet. 1 267
|
||
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533 17, 31, 40
|
||
v. Moor, 14 How. 568 78, 85
|
||
Venice v. Murdock, 92 U.S. 494 242
|
||
Vicksburg v. Tobin, 100 U.S. 430 23, 87
|
||
Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 3B 295, 313
|
||
v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 192, 211
|
||
v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39 191, 192, 211
|
||
Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U.S. 269 169, 190, 233, 264
|
||
Virginia, Ex parte, 100 U.S. 339 295, 3B
|
||
Voight v. Wright, 14l U.S. 62 90, 91
|
||
Voigt v. Detroit 184 U.S. 115 24, 277
|
||
Voorhees v. Bank of the U.S. 10 Pet. 449 284
|
||
V. W. Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U.S. 65 206
|
||
Wadsworth v. Supervisors, 102 U.S. 534 148, 149
|
||
Wagonner v. Flack, 188 U.S. 595 141, 142
|
||
Waite v. Dowley, 94 U.S. 527 52
|
||
v. Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302 148
|
||
Wales v. Stetson, 2 Mass. 146 165
|
||
v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564 244
|
||
Walker v. Sauvinet 92 U.S. 90 255, 274
|
||
Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314 146
|
||
Wall, Ex parte, 107 U.S. 265 247
|
||
Walla Walla v. W. W. W. Co., 172 U.S. 1 139, 169
|
||
Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Pet. 136 271, 272
|
||
Walling v. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446 55, 91, 302
|
||
Walsh v. C., H. V. & A. R., 176 U.S. 469 141
|
||
Walston v. Nevin, 128 U.S. 578 277, 316
|
||
Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 55, 90, 302
|
||
Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441 209, 217
|
||
v. The Mayor, 8 Wall. 110 88
|
||
Warner v. S. & H. Co., 191 U.S. 195 63
|
||
Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 266
|
||
v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 88 182, 183
|
||
Watts and Sachs, In re, 190 U.S. 1 266
|
||
Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 265
|
||
W. B. Co. v. Hatch, 125 U.S. 1 84
|
||
Webber v. Virginia, 103 U.S. 344 47, 55, 90, 302
|
||
Weber v. Harbor Comrs., 18 Wall. 57 71, 72, 299
|
||
v. Rogan, 188 U.S. 10 148
|
||
Webster v. Cooper, 14 How. 41 488
|
||
v. Reid, 11 How. 437 285
|
||
Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U.S. 573 285
|
||
Welch v. Cook, 97 U.S. 541 164
|
||
Wellii v. Savannah, 181 U.S. 531 52, 53, 166
|
||
Wells, Ex parte, 18 How. 307 250
|
||
Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275 55, 69, 90, 302
|
||
Werlein v. New Orleans, 177 U.S. 390 289
|
||
West v. Aurora City, 6 Wall. 139 225
|
||
v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258 275
|
||
Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 44
|
||
Weyerhaueser v. Minnesota, 176 U.S. 550 277
|
||
W. F. Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U.S. 365 53, 54, 66, 82, 106, 166
|
||
Wharton v. Wise, 153 U.S. 155 192
|
||
Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 239, 243
|
||
Wheeler v. Jackson, 137 U.S. 245 143, 279
|
||
Wbitbeck v. Mercantile Bank, 127 U.S. 193 51
|
||
White v. Hart, 13 Wall 646 2, 138, 146, 310
|
||
v. Schloerb, 178 U.S. 542 272
|
||
Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U.S. 146 255
|
||
Whitman v. Oxford Nat. Bank, 176 U.S. 559 288
|
||
Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 238
|
||
Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U.S. 231 195, 225
|
||
Wickliffe v. Owings, 17 How. 47 215
|
||
Wight v. Davidson, 181 U.S. 371 251
|
||
v. U.S., 167 U.S. 512 Ill
|
||
Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498 264, 284
|
||
Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58 293, 294
|
||
Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 257
|
||
Wilkes County v. Coler, 180 U.S. 506 139, 140, 282
|
||
Wilkes County Comrs. v. Coler, 190 U.S. 107 25
|
||
Williams v. Benadict, 8 How. 107 267, 272
|
||
v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176 139, 191
|
||
v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270 56, 320
|
||
v. Heard, 140 U. S. 529 224, 268
|
||
v. Louisiana, 103 U.S. 637 141
|
||
v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 313, 319
|
||
v. Parker, 188 U.S. 491 278
|
||
v. Wingo , 177 U.S. 601 168, 175
|
||
Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495 284
|
||
v. New Jersey, 130 U.S. 189 170
|
||
v. Suydam, 6 Wall. 723 143
|
||
Wilson v. The B. B. C. M. Co., 2 Pet. 245 84
|
||
Wilson v. Eureka City, 173 U.S. 32 280, 332
|
||
v. Iseminger, 185 U.S. 55 143
|
||
Wilson v. Lambert, 168 U.S. 611 251
|
||
v. McNamee, 102 U.S. 572 76
|
||
v. North Carolina, 169 U.S. 586 280
|
||
v. Standefer, 184 U.S. 399 141
|
||
Ex parte, 114 U.S. 417 247
|
||
Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 223
|
||
Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U.S. 379 85, 211
|
||
v. P. I. Co., 127 U.S. 265 212 213, 288
|
||
Wise v. Withers, 3 Cr. 33l 244
|
||
Wisewall v. Sampson, 14 How. 52 267, 272
|
||
Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84 85, 247
|
||
Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. 210 40
|
||
W., M. & P. R. v. Jacobson, 179 U.S. 287 100
|
||
Wolff v. NeW Orleans, 103 U.S. 358 148, 153, 155
|
||
Wong Wing v. U.S., 163 U.S. 228, 238, 251, 254, 297
|
||
v. Brady, 150 U.S. 18 140
|
||
Woodruff v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 291 141, 148
|
||
v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123 28, 29, 54, 64, 73, 88 90, 94, 104, 106
|
||
v. Trapnall, 10 How. 190 169
|
||
Worcester v. Georgia 6 Pet. 515 135, 224
|
||
Workman v. New York, 179 U.S. 552 206, 209
|
||
W. P. O. Co. v. Texas, 177 U.S. 28 304
|
||
W.P. S. C. v. Casperson, 193 U.S. 189 298
|
||
W. R. v. Defiance, 167 U.S. 88 176, 177. 280
|
||
Wright v. M. M. L. I. Co., 193 U.S. 657 165
|
||
Wright v. Nagle, 101 U.S. 791 141. 175
|
||
W., S. L. & P. Ry. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 101, 113
|
||
Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U.S. 606 277
|
||
W, U. T. Co. v. A. A. R., 178 U.S. 239 206. 215
|
||
v. Alabama, 132 U.S. 472 56, 135
|
||
v. C. P. Co. 181 U.S. 92 210, 239, 243
|
||
W. U. T. Co. v. Indiana, 165 U.S. 304 35, 40
|
||
v. James, 162 U.S. 650 64, 134
|
||
v. Massachusetts, 125 U.S. 530 40, 57, 135
|
||
v. Missouri, 190 U.S. 412 40, 57, 103, 134
|
||
v. New Hope, 187 U.S. 419 24, 134
|
||
v. Pendleton, 122 U.S. 347 134
|
||
v. Taggart, 163 U.S. 1 22, 40, 54, 57, 134
|
||
v. Texas, 105 U.S. 460 44, 58, 134
|
||
Wynehamer v. The People, 13 N. Y. 428 10
|
||
W. & B. Bridge Co. v. W. B. Co., 138 U.S. 287 175, 176
|
||
W. & M. Ry. v. Powers, 191 U.S. 379 164
|
||
W. & St. P. L. Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U.S. 526 53, 166, 167, 277
|
||
W. & St. P. R. v. Blake, 94 U.S. 180 176
|
||
W. & W. R. v. Alsbrook, 146 U.S. 279 52, 53, 162, 166, 168, 174
|
||
v. King, 91 U.S. 3 146
|
||
v. Reid, 13 Wall. 264 52, l62
|
||
Yarbrough, Ex parte, 110 U.S. 651 18, 19, 250, 293, 296
|
||
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 311, 312
|
||
York v. Texas, 137 U.S. 15 273
|
||
Young v. Clarendon Township, 132 U.S. 340 25
|
||
v. Parker, 132 U.S. 267 225
|
||
Y. & M. V. R. v. Thomas, 132 U.S. 174 53, 166
|
||
Y. & M. V. Ry. v. Adams, 180 U.S. 1 224
|
||
Zane v. Hamilton County, 189 U.S. 370 148, 149
|
||
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER 1.
|
||
THE RELATION OF THE STATES AND OF THE TERRITORIES
|
||
TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO EACH OTHER.
|
||
|
||
1. The Sanction of the Constitution.
|
||
2. The Indissolubility of the Union.
|
||
3. The Autonomy of the States.
|
||
4. The Delegated Character and Limited Powers of the Government of the
|
||
United States.
|
||
5. The Federal Supremacy.
|
||
6. The Restraints upon the States.
|
||
7. The Force and Effect of the Preamble to the Constitution.
|
||
8. The Territories.
|
||
|
||
The Sanction of the Constitution.
|
||
1. The Constitution, though framed by a convention whose members were elected by the legislatures of the states, was ratified in the several states by conventions whose members were elected by the people of their respective states. It derives its whole authority from that ratification, and when thus adopted, it was of complete obligation and it thenceforth bound the states, and the citizens of each state.'
|
||
|
||
The Indissolubility of the Union.
|
||
2. The union of the states under the Constitution was, from and after the ratification of that instrument, indissoluble, and, until an amendment be adopted, authorizing a dissolution of the union, or a withdrawal of a state from the union, it is not possible for a state, without violating the constitutional compact, to withdraw from the union, or to deprive itself of its rights as one of the United States, or to emancipate itself from the restraints imposed by the Constitution on freedom of state action. (2)
|
||
|
||
The Autonomy of the States.
|
||
3. The thirteen original states were existing governments when the Constitution was ratified; and states admitted to the union under the Constitution have as regards the United States and the other states, in all respects in which the effect of that instrument has not been changed by amendment, the same rights, powers and obligations as the thirteen original states.(3) There- fore, in so far as the states are not controlled by the expressed or implied restrictions contained in the Constitution of the United States, they may severally exercise all the powers of independent governmernts.(4) The states, though united under the sovereign authority of the Constitution, are, so far as their freedom of action is not controlled by that instrument, foreign to and independent of each other.(5)
|
||
|
||
The Delegated Character and Limited Powers of the Federal Goverment.
|
||
4. The government of the United States, in its relation to the several states and to the citizens of those states, is one of delegated and limited Dowers. which Ire. expressly or by necessary implication granted by its written Constitution." The Constitution has created a government, divided into three departments, legislative, executive and judicial. As the chief function of the executive department, apart from its participation in legislation by the exercise of a qualified veto, is that of administering the laws of Congress, and as the primary duty of the judicial department is that of expounding the Constitution and the laws in their application to subject-matters of judicial cognizance, either civil or criminal, it is obvious that the powers conferred by the Constitution upon the government of the United States are, in the main, powers of legislation. The powers granted by the Constitution to the government of the United States are either expressed or implied. The expressed powers are those which are specifically stated in the Constitution. The implied powers are those which authorize the use of appropriate means, which are consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, for the accomplishment of legitimate ends, which are not prohibited, and which are within the scope of the Constitution.(7) The powers granted by the Constitution to the United States are subject to certain expressed exceptions, which are, in the main, contained in the 9th section of Article I of the Constitution and in the first eleven of its amendments.
|
||
|
||
The Federal Supremacy.
|
||
5. Article VI of the Constitution declares that "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." By force of this constitutional provision, the government of the United States, as Marshall, C. J., said in McCulloch v. Maryland,(8) "though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action and to the extent, and in the exercise, of the powers delegated to it, it is a sovereignty.(9)
|
||
|
||
The Restraints upon the States.
|
||
6. The restraints imposed by the Constitution upon the states are either expressed or implied. The expressed restraints are those which are specifically stated in the Constitution. The implied restraints are those which result from the express grant by the Constitution of certain powers whose nature, or the terms of whose grant, require that they should be exclusively exercised by the United States.(10) The expressed restraints are, first, those which affect the relations of the several states to other states, foreign and domestic; and, second, those which have reference to the relations between the states and their citizens, and which limit the exercise by the states of their powers of legislation.The expressed restraints of the first class include the Prohibition of treaties, alliances, confederations, agreements, or compacts with another state or with a foreign power; the obligation not to issue letters of marque and reprisal, or to maintain troops or ships of war in times of peace, or to engage in war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay; the requirements that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, and that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states, and that fugitives from justice shall be surrendered from one state to another. The expressed restraints of the second class include the prohibition of the grant of titles of nobility, of the coinage of money, of the emission of bills of credit, of the establishment of any legal tender other than gold and silver coin, of the imposition of duties of tonnage and duties on imports or exports, excepting such as may be absolutely necessary for the execution of inspection laws; of the rehabilitation of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime; of the deprivation of any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; of the denial to any person of the equal protection of the law; of disfranchisement on account of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude, or for any cause, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, of any of the male inhabitants of a state who are twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States; of the election or the appointment to office under a state of any person who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, 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, " and whose disabilities shall not have been removed by a vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress; of the assumption or payment of any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or of any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; "and of the enactment of bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
|
||
The implied restraints limit the action of the states with regard to taxation, the regulation of commerce, and the personal and property rights of their citizens, and of the citizens of other states.
|
||
Many of the restraints are so clear in their terms, and so little require judicial construction, that no question has ever been raised as to their legal effect, but others of those restraints have been frequently subjects of litigation. For the purposes of this treatise it is unnecessary to make further reference to the restraints with regard to the issue of letters of marque or reprisal, the maintenance of troops or ships of war in time of peace, the engagement in war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay, the grant of titles of nobility, or the coinage of money. As, happily for the peace and prosperity of the country, slavery is of past, and not of present, interest, it is not deemed necessary to refer to that subject further than to note that the XIll Amendment has abolished it in every form, and forbidden its re-establishment.
|
||
|
||
The Force and Effect of the Preamble to the Constitution.
|
||
7. The preamble to the Constitution declares that "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That the true signiificance of that declaration may be understood, it must be remembered that the people, whose ratification of the instrument gave it its legal validity, were citizens of independent states, which had been theretofore bound together in a confederation, and which were thenceforth to be united under a government which, though limited in its action by the reservation to the several states of all powers not delegated to the United States, should yet be supreme within its defined bounds.(11)
|
||
Therefore, the government created by the Constitution to the extent of the powers vested in that government, national in its character, and, by force of the rights reserved to the states, it is also a league of sovereign and independent states; and every citizen of each state, while owing allegiance to his state in all matters not controlled by the powers granted to the United States, owes also a paramount allegiance to the United States in all that is made by the Constitution of federal obligation. In view of this dual, and yet undivided, allegiance due by those who are citizens of the United States and
|
||
also citizens of a state, it was, in the hour of its formation and it has ever since been, essential to the right administration of the government of the United States under the Constitution that there should be a clear appreciation of the complex character of that government and a careful maintenance of the balance of power as between the government of the United States and the governments of the several states.
|
||
|
||
The Territories.
|
||
8. The Constitution (12) dealt with the territory owned at the time of its adoption and with future acquisitions of territory, by providing that "new states may be admitted by the Congress into the Union," and that (13) "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.'' In Dred Scott v. Sandford (14) the court held that the power of making rules and regulations was intended to operate only in the territory belonging to the United States in 1787, and not to extend to subsequently acquired territory; but that narrow view is inconsistent with the judgment in the earlier case of A. I. Co. v. Canter (15) and with the doctrine of many later cases, and has never been recognized in the administration of the government. There is nothing in the words of the Constitution, nor in the history of the times, to show that the framers of the Constitution looked upon any territory of the United States, excepting the future seat of government, in any other light than as territory to be organized into state's so soon as the increase of population should render that advisable.(16) The relation between the United States and the states obviously differs from the relation between the United States and the territories, in that, while the reservation to the states of the right of local self-government forbids the United States to exercise within a state any power of local government, the United States may, as respects any territory, under the express power of making rules and regulations, govern and administer that territory. In other words, Congress holds a single relation to the states, but it holds a two-fold relation to the terri- tories. It regulates the foreign and interstate relations of the states and their relations with the territories. It also regulates the relations of the territories with foreign countries, with the states, and with each other, and in addition to that, it regulates the internal affairs of each territory. Congress is, therefore, the paramount and sole authority for every territory. As such, it may for any territory, as it has by an unbroken line of precedents from the adoption of the Ordinance of the Confederation for the government of the Northwest Territory to the Porto Rico Act in 1900, create a territorial form of government, and limit or deny the exercise of merely political rights, such as the right of suffrage; (17) establish courts, wbich are local courts, and not courts of the United States, and whose judges hold their offices for such terms (18) and under such conditions (19) as Congress may prescribe; impose taxation; (20) and, generally, exercise all powers of government in matters of merely local concern. But it does not follow from this that Congress may exercise, even within a territory, arbitrary or despotic power. Bradley, J., said, (21) "Doubtless Congress, in legislating for the territories, would be subject to those fundamental limitations in favour of personal rights which are formulated in the Constitution and its Amendments; but such limitations would exist rather by inference and the general spirit of the Constitution from which Congress derives all its po@ers, than by, any express and direct application of its provisions." Similar dicta of other eminent jurists could be quoted.(22) The objection to Mr.Justice Bradley's view is that, upon every principle of construction, the power in the Constitution to make rules and regulations for the territory of the United States is a power to make only such rules and regulations as may be made in conformity with the other provisions of the Constitution. That Constitution is the only standard of statutory validity, and its powers and restrictions are to be found only in its words as judicially construed. As the Court of Appeals of New York said in a well-con-
|
||
sidered case (23) "If the courts may imply limitation, there is no bound to implication except judicial discretion, which must place the courts above the legislature and also the Constitution itself. "This principle necessarily excludes any reliance upon inference from, or reference to, the general spirit of the Constitution as a satisfactory ground of restraint upon legislative freedom of action. Indeed, it is inconceivable that men who had signed, or approved, the Declaration of Independence, who had fought in the War of the Revolution, or rejoiced in the victory then won for free government, could ever have contemplated the acquisition by the United States of any territory whose laws should be such only as Congress might arbitrarily impose. Those men who had successfully rebelled against the English crown tolerated no despotism benevolent or otherwise. They believed in a reign of law. With Junius, (24) they thought that "laws are made to guard against what men may do, not to trust to what they will do." They therefore, framed their written constitution, and they looked to it, and to it only, for an enumeration of the powers which the sovereign people delegated to their government.In conformity with these principles, it has been decided that constitutional restrictions are in force in the territories and in the District of Columbia so far as regards trial by jury (25), and so far as regards the rights secured by the V Amend-
|
||
ment (26) if such be the correct view with regard to the legislative power of Congress over the internal affairs of the territories, the case would seem to be even clearer with regard to the regulation of the relations between any one territory and the states and other territories. The main reason for the adoption of the Constitution was to establish a common athority, which would in the interest of the whole country impartially regulate foreign and internal commerce, and secure to the citizens of each state and of every territory equal rights of person and of property in every other state and territory; and to that end the United States was vested with powers, and restrained in the exercise of those powers by certain expressed limitations. No one doubts that, so far as regards the states, Congress, being the creature of the Constitution, cannot exercise any power of legislation other than that which is, expressly, or by necessary implication, vested in it by the, Constitution. It would also seem that even if Congress could, in the exercise of the power of making rules and regulations in its untrammeled discretion, create, and provide for the administration of, local governments in the territories, it can, nevertheless, only regulate commerce as between the states and the territories, and impose duties on exports and imports to and from the states and the territories under the powers, and subject to the restrictions, of the Constitution. Nevertheless, in the Insular Cases, (27) the Supreme Court has decided, several of the justices dissenting, that Congress could, after the acquisition of Porto Rico as territory of the United States, (28) impose duties upon importations into ports of the United States from Porto Rico, and into ports of Porto Rico from the United States and foreign Countries, differingfrom the duties imposed upon importations into the United States from foreign countries. In Hawaii v.Mankichi (29) the court also held that a citizen of Hawaii could, after the acquisition of that island as territory of the United States, be legally convicted of crime without indictment by a grand jury and by the verdict of only a majority of a petit jury.
|
||
In Dorr v. U. S.,(30) the question was, whether in the absence of a statute of Congress expressly conferring the right, trial by jury is a necessary incident in judicial procedure in the Philippine Islands, where demand for trial by that method has been made by the accused and denied by the courts established in the islands. A majority of the court held that a trial by jury is not necessary to the validity of a conviction, sentence, and punishment for crime in the Philippine Islands. (31) It is possible that a mistake was made in these cases in not distinguishing between the congressional powers of general, and of local, government as affecting the territories, and in not holding that the Act of 12th April, 1900, was, in so far as it imposed duties, an act of general, and not of local, legislation, and, as such, subject to constitutional restrictions, and in not holding that the Constitution equally protects every inhabitant of any state or territory in his rights of person and of property. Mr. Justice White, (32) concedes that a duty levied in the United States on goods coming from Porto Rico is not a local tax and, therefore, not an exercise of the power of local government, but he supports the validity of such a tax upon the theory that Porto Rico had not been "incorporated" into the United States. Mr. Chief Justice Fuller (33) seems to answer this view by calling attention to the provisions of the act imposing the duty, and at the same time creating a civil government for Porto Rico, constituting its inhabitants a body politic, giving it a governor and other officers, a legislative assembly, and courts with the right of appeal there from to the Supreme Court of the United States, and thereby making that island, whatever its situation before, then and thence forth an organized territory of the United States; and Mr. Justice Harlan (34) pertinently suggests, that "if Porto Rico, although a territory of the United States, may be treated as if it were not a part of the United States, then New Mexico and Arizona may be treated as not parts of the United States, and subject to such legislation as Congress may choose to enact without any reference to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution." The same learned justice also said (35) that the doctrine of the Insular Cases means, "that, if the principles now announced should become firmly established, the time may not be far distant when, under the exactions of trade and commerce, and to gratify an ambition to become the dominant political power in all the earth, the United States will acquire territories in every direction, which are inhabited by human beings, over which territories, to be called 'dependencies' or 'Outlying possessions,' we will exercise absolute dominion and whose inhabitants will be regarded as 'subjects' or 'dependent peoples,' to be controlled as Congress may see fit, not as the Constitution requires, nor as the people governed may wisb."
|
||
It may well be doubted whether the advantages, commercial and otherwise, obtainable by the acquisition and retention of foreign colonial possessions will ever compensate the country for their cost in lives and in money, and for the difficulties to be encountered in the extension of free institutions and constitutional government to peoples, whose history and traditions are foreign to any such system. But as we have acquired colonial possessions, and have, by reason of such acquisition, assumed obligations to them, and to foreign nations, all that can now be done is to govern those peoples kindly, justly, and firmly, and to educate them as rapidly as possible for the duties of citizenship.
|
||
|
||
(1) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, I Wheat. 304, 324; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404. See also Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 251, 285, 359, 376.
|
||
(2)Texas v. White, 7 WaII. 700; White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646; Keith v. Clark, 97 U.S. 454.
|
||
(3)Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1; St. A. F. W. P. Co. v. St. Paul W. Comrs., 168 id. 349; Bolln v. Nebraska, 176 id. 83; M. T. Co. v. Mobile, 187 id. 479.
|
||
(4)Amendments to the Constitution, Articles IX and X; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 325; Sturges v. Crowminshield, 4 Wheat. 193; Texas v.White, 7 Wall. 700, 721.
|
||
(5)Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet.. 586, 590; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 722.
|
||
(6) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 326; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137, 176; Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 317; U.S. v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629; Langford v. U.S., 101 id. 341.
|
||
(7)Infra, Chapter II; Constitution, Article 1, Section 8; MeCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 421.
|
||
(8) Wheat. 316, 405.
|
||
(9) Alexander Hamiltons argument of 23d February, 1791, as to the constitutionality of a national bank. 3 Lodge's Hamilton's Works, 18l;
|
||
Juilliard v+. Greenman, 110 U. S. 421; Logan v. U. S., 144 id. 263; In re
|
||
Debs, 158 id. 564; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 id. 288.
|
||
(10) Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 193 ; Houston v. M
|
||
(11) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 325.
|
||
(12) Art. IV, Bee. 3, Par. 1.
|
||
(13) Art. IV, Sec. 3, Par. 2.
|
||
(14) 19 How. 393.
|
||
(15) 1 Pet. 511.
|
||
(16) McAllister v. U.S. 141 U.S. 174, 187.
|
||
(17) Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15.
|
||
(18) A. I. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511; Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235; Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434; Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 id. 648; Good v. Martin, 95 U. S. 90; Reynolds v. U. S., 98 id. 145; City of Panama, 101 id. 453.
|
||
(19) McAllister v. U. S., 141 U. S. 174.
|
||
(20) Loughborough v. BLake, 5 Wheat. 317.
|
||
(21) Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S. 44.
|
||
(22) Many are cited in the able paper of the late Richard C. Dale on "Implied Limitations upon the Exercise of the Legislative Power," 24 American Bar Association Proceedings, 295.
|
||
(23) Wynehamer v. The People, 13 N. Y. 428.
|
||
(24) Letter to Sir William Blackstone.
|
||
(25) Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540; Thompson v. Utah, 170 id. 343 ;
|
||
(26) Baunian v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548.
|
||
(27) Downes v. Biowell, 182 U. S. 244; De Lima v. Biowell, ibid. 1; Dooley v. U. S., ibid- 222; Dooley v. U. S., 183 id. 151; Fourteen Diamond Rings, Emil J. Pepke, Claimant, v. U. S., ibid. 176. In Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138, 154, Peckham, J., said that Downes v. Bidwell, supra, "is authority only for the proposition that the plaintiff therin was not entitled to recover the amount of duties he had paid under protest upon the importation into the city of New York of certain oranges from the Port of San Juank, in the island of Porto Rico, in November, 1900, after the passage of the act known as the Foraker Act. The various reasons advanced by the judges in reaching this conclusion, which were not concurred in by a majority of the court, are plainly not binding." In that view Fuller, C.J., and Brewer, J., concurred.
|
||
(28) Act of 12th April, 1900, 31 Stat. 77, C. 191.
|
||
(29) 190 U. S. 197. Fuller, C. J., and Harlan, Brewer and Peckham, JJ.,
|
||
dissented.
|
||
(30) 195 U. S. 138.
|
||
(31) Day, J., delivered the judgment of the court, and Fuller, C. J., and Brewer and Peckham, JJ., concurred in the result upon the authority of Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197. Harlan , J., dissented, saying, p.154: "In my opinion, guaranties for the protection of life, liberty, and property, as embodied in the Constitution, are for the benefit of all, of whatever race or nativity, in the states composing the Union, or in any territory, however acquired, over the inhabitants of whieh the government of the United States may exercise the
|
||
(32) 182 U. S. 299.
|
||
(33) Ibid. 372.
|
||
(34) Ibid. 389. 35 Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197, 240
|
||
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER II.
|
||
THE IMPLIED POWERS.
|
||
9. The Necessity of their Existence.
|
||
10. Their Constitutional Recognition.
|
||
11. The Test of the Relation of the Means to the End.
|
||
12. Illustrations of the Exercise of the Implied Powers.
|
||
13. The Legal Tender Question.
|
||
|
||
The Necessity of their Existence.
|
||
9. The Constitution was not framed to meet only the exigencies of the period of its formation, nor does it purport to be a code which with minute detail prescribes all that may be done and all that may not be done by Congress in the execution of the powers specifically granted.(1) As Mr. Webster said in his argument in Gibbous v. Ogden,(2) and as Marshall, C. J., repeated in his judgment in that cause,(3) the Constitution enumerates, but does not define, the powers which it grants, nor does it prescribe the means which may rightfully be used in executing those powers, and without whose use the grant of the powers would be nugatory.(4) Therefore, if the Constitution contained no clause recognizing the existence of powers which are subsidiary or incidental to the powers expressly granted, it would be impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is an implied grant of such incidental powers, for otherwise the powers expressly granted would be practically inoperative. Nor is the force of this conclusion at all affected by the X Amendment, for while that amendment in terms forbids the exercise by Congress of any undelegated power, it does not forbid the exercise of powers which are delegated by implication.(5)
|
||
|
||
Their Constitutional Recognition.
|
||
10. Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution declares that "the Congress shall have power ..... to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " But, it may be said, who is to conclusively determine whether or not any statute is, within the terms of the Constitution, "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" a power granted by the Constitution to Congress? If Congress can so determine, obviously any and every act of Congress must be regarded as constitutional. If in the exercise of judicial jurisdiction the final determination of that question is to be made by the court, what principles are to guide the judges in coming to a conclusion, and by what test are they to determine the relation between the means and the end, and the degree of the necessity and the propriety of the use of the particular means ?
|
||
|
||
The Test of the Relation of the Means to the End.
|
||
11. The result of the authorities, so far as they afford an answer to this question, can be best stated by the quotation of a famous dictum originated by Mr. Hamilton (6) and paraphrased by Chief Justice Marshall in the judgment in McCulloch v. Maryland, (7) and which, in its final perfected form, is as follows: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to the end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." (8) This dictum means that Congress may, in the execution of a power expressly granted, adopt any means which (1) are not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, nor (2) inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and which are (3) not the only possible means, nor an absolutely or indispensably necessary means, but an appropriate and plainly adapted means, to the attainment of an end authorized by the Constitution. From this it follows, that if the relation of the means to the end be shown to exist, and if the use of the particular means be not expressly or impliedly forbidden by the Constitution, the question of the degree of its appropriateness, of its greater or less adaptation, and of its relative or absolute necessity is purely political, and the determination of Congress. with regard thereto is binding upon the courts.
|
||
|
||
Illustrations of the Exercise of the Implied Powers.
|
||
12. Under the doctrine of the implied powers, it has been held that Congress may enact statutes creating banking corporations as fiscal aids to the government; (9) imposing upon national and state banks a tax upon the amount of the notes of state banks paid out by them; (10) giving priority to the United States as a creditor in the distribution of the assets of a bankrupt; " declaring that the embezzlement by a guardian of his ward's, pension granted by the United States is a crime against the United States;(12) taxing lands in the District of Columbia; (13) declaring it to be a crime to bring into the United States from a foreign place counterfeit coins forged in the similitude of coins of the United States; (14) constituting a judicial system to carry into execution the judicial powers vested by the Constitution in the United States; (15) regulating the carriage of the mails and determining what may be transported and what must be excluded from the mails; (16) punishing for contempt others than members of Congress; (17) protecting citizens of the United States in the exercise of the rights of suffrage at elections for members of Congress; (18) authorizing a limited intercourse on prescribed conditions with the enemy in time of war; (19) prescribing the effect to be given in state courts to judgments and decrees rendered in courts of the United States; (20) authorizing the issue by courts of the United States of writs of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in cases of restraint of personal liberty under the process of state courts issued in violation of rights claimed under the Constitution or laws of the United States; 21 authorizing the removal to the courts of the United States of causes depending in state courts and involving questions of federal cognizance; (22) exercising the right of eminent domain with regard to land within the bounds of a state and held in private ownership; (23) in order to protect purchasers under the homestead laws of lands belonging to the, United States but situated within the limits of a state, punishing those who conspire to intimidate such purchasers and drive them away from the land so purchased; (24) prohibiting, under penalties, officers of the United States from requesting, giving to, or receiving from any other officer money or property, or other things of value, for political purposes; (25) protecting against unlawful violence prisoners accused of committing crimes against the United State (26) and private citizens giving information against prisoners so held; (27) providing for the acquisition of territory(28) establishing consular tribunals in foreign lands; (29) and providing for the exclusion (30) or expulsion (30) of aliens from the limits of the United States.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Legal Tender Question.
|
||
13. It has also been held that Congress may issue a paper currency and declare that that currency shall be a legal tender in payment of debts. Until in 1862 the financial needs of the government in carrying on a war for the suppression of the rebellion rendered it, in the opinion of Congress, necessary that the treasury notes of the United States should be made a legal tender in the payment of debts, neither statesmen nor jurists had asserted that Congress had, under the Constitution, the power of making anything but gold or silver coin a legal tender. The acts of Congress of 25th February, 1862, 11th July, 1862, and 3d March, 1863 (32) declared that the notes issued thereunder should be "lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except duties on imports, etc." Under these acts it has been decided that neither taxes imposed by state authority, (33) nor private obligations payable by their terms in gold or silver coin, (34) are debts within the terms of the acts of Congress dischargeable by payment in legal tender notes. In Hepburn v. Griswold (35) the court held that the Legal Tender Acts applied to debts contracted before as well as to debts contracted after the enactment of those statutes, and that, so far as they applied to debts contracted before their passage, the statutes were unconstitutional, but in the Legal Tender Cases 36 Hepburn v. Griswold was overruled, so far as regards the second branch of the proposition laid down in it, and the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Acts was sustained, the ground of decision being that the power to impress the notes of the government with the quality of legal tender, though not expressed in the Constitution, was "necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the express powers to "Coin money .... to regulate the value thereof," "to pay the debts," "to borrow money, " " to raise and support armies, " and " to provide and maintain a navy;" that the Constitution does not expressly prohibit the issue of legal tender notes by the United States; that their issue is not inconsistent with the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, and that the end being constitutional and the means being appropriate, the degree of its appropriateness is subject to legislative, and not judicial, determination. The Legal Tender Cases are followed and supported by Dooley v. Smith, (37) Bigler v. Waller (38 N. & W. R. v. Johnson (39) and Julliard v. Greenman,(40) in the last of which cases it was held, that the power to make treasury notes a legal tender exists in time of peace as well as in time of war, and that legal tender notes when redeemed by the Treasury and reissued under the Act of 31st May, 1878, retain their legal tender quality.
|
||
The legal tender which the law compels a creditor to accept in satisfaction of a debt payable in money should never be anything other than that money which has market value as a commodity, independently of any governmental fiat and of all legal tender laws. The giving of the legal tender quality to currency of inferior purchasing power has never succeeded in increasing that purchasing power, but it has in many instances enabled debtors to defraud creditors.
|
||
|
||
(1)McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 406; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 id. 326.
|
||
(2) 6 Webster's Works, 9.
|
||
(3) 9 Wheat, 189.
|
||
(4) McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 407.
|
||
(5)Mr. Hamilton's argument as to a national bank. 3 Lodge's Hamilton's
|
||
Works, 183; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 406.
|
||
(6)Argument as to a national bank. 3 Lodge's ton's Works, 190.
|
||
(7) 4 Wheat. 421.
|
||
(8) The opposing view, sustaining the strict construction of the Constitution,
|
||
is, perhaps, most strongly put by Mr. Jefferson. Memoirs, Vol. IV, pp. 197,
|
||
207, 526; 4 Elliot's Debate-S, 609.
|
||
(9) McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316; Osborn v. The Bank of the U. S.,
|
||
9 id. 738.
|
||
(10) Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533.
|
||
(11) U. S. v. Fisher, 2 Cr. 358.
|
||
(12) U. S. v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343.
|
||
(13) Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317.
|
||
(14) U. S. v. Marigold, 9 How. 560.
|
||
(15) Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 521.
|
||
(16) Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727; In re Rapier, 143 id. 110.
|
||
(17) Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204; In re Chapman, 166 U. S. 661. But see Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 id. 168.
|
||
(18) Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651.
|
||
(19) Hamilton v. Dillin, 21 Wall. 73.
|
||
(20) Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3.
|
||
(21) Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241; Ex parte Fonda, ibid. 516; In re Neagle,
|
||
135 id. 1; Ohio v. Thomas, 173 id. 276; Boske v. Comingore 177 id. 459; cf. Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 id. 499.
|
||
(22) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 349; Bock v. Perkins, 139 U.S.
|
||
628; Marshall v. Holmes, 141 id. 589; Martin v. B. & 0. R., 151 id. 673.
|
||
(23) Kohl v. U.S., 91 U. S. 367; Luxton v. N. R. Bridge Co., 153 id. 525; Chappell v. U.S., 160 id. 499; U.S. v.. G. E. Ry., ibid. 668.
|
||
(24) U.S. v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76.
|
||
(25) Ex Parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371; Stat. 15th Aug., 1876, c. 287, sec. 6.
|
||
For further illustrations of the implied powers of legislation which Congress may exercise, see the judgements of Story, J., in Prigg v. Penna., 16 Pet. 619; of Strong, J., in The Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 535; of Gray, J., in Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 444; of Miller, J., in Ex parte Yarbrough, ibid. 658, and in In re Neagle, 135 id. 1, and of Bradley, J., in Mormon Church v. U.S., 136 id. 1. In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 id. 244, and again in Dooley v. U.S., 183 id. 151, the court sustained an act of Congress which imposed duties for the exclusive benefit of those who were not citizens of the United States.
|
||
(26) Logan v. U.S., 144 U.S. 263.
|
||
(27) In re Quarles and Butler, 158 U.S. 532.
|
||
(28) A. 1. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511; De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1.
|
||
(29) In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453.
|
||
(30) Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581; Lem Moon Sing v. U.S., 158 id. 538.
|
||
(31) Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698; Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 id. 86.
|
||
(32) 12 Stat. 345, 532, 709.
|
||
(33) Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71; Hagar v. Reclamation District,
|
||
111 U. S. 701.
|
||
(34) Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229; Butler v. Horwitz, ibid. 258; Bronson
|
||
v. Kimpton, 8 id. 444.
|
||
(35) 8 Wall 603.
|
||
(36) 12 Wall. 457.
|
||
(37) 13 Wall. 604.
|
||
(38) 14 Wall. 297.
|
||
(39) 15 Wall. 195.
|
||
(40) 110 U.S. 421.
|
||
|