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.