💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › law › us&scon1.txt captured on 2020-10-31 at 17:11:36.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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.