Wilson Act. Rosenberger v. Pacific Express Co.
Powers of: May exercise control over public lands to which
claims have attached under existing statutes. United
States v. Hemmer...
Had power to create Mississippi River Commission and
through it to build levees to improve navigation, and Gov-
ernment is not responsible to riparian owners for deflection
of water by reason thereof. Cubbins v. Mississippi River
Commission...
Interstate commerce which is subject to its control em-
braces the widest freedom, including the right to make all
contracts having proper relation to subject. Rosenberger v.
Pacific Express Co. ...
Under Carmack Amendment, duty to issue bills of lading
and the responsibilities thereunder is action of Congress and
necessarily excludes state action in regard thereto. Atchi-
son, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harold.
May require installation of safety appliances on cars used
on highways of interstate commerce, irrespective of the use
made of any particular car at any particular time. Texas &
Pacific Ry. v. Rigsby ...
Right of private action by employee injured while engaged
in duties unconnected with interstate commerce, but in-
jured by defect in a safety appliance required by act of Con-
gress, is within constitutional authority of. Id.
Attempt to make possession of article produced in any of the
States a crime would raise gravest question of power.
United States v. Jin Fuey Moy.
Quare, whether Congress can deal with crime of adultery
committed by tribal Indians within State. Southern Surety
Co. v. Oklahoma.....
Has power to regulate or prohibit traffic in intoxicating
liquor with tribal Indians within State, whether upon or off
reservation. United States v. Nice...
Tribal relations of Indians may be dissolved and guardian-
ship ended at such time and in such manner as Congress
shall determine. Id.
During trust period created by Indian allotment acts of
1887 and 1889, Congress has power to regulate or prohibit
sale of intoxicating liquor to allottees; and so held as to act
of 1897. Id.
Whether guarantee of republican form of government has
been disregarded by action of people of State in amending
its constitution presents no justiciable controversy, but in-
volves exercise by Congress of authority vested in it by Con-
stitution. Davis v. Ohio.
Has power to invest subordinate Federal courts with origi-
nal jurisdiction of suits at law or in equity arising under
Constitution, laws or treaties of United States. Bankers
Trust Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry......
When Congress enters field of regulation within its para-
mount authority, state regulation of that subject-matter is
excluded. Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Rigsby..
Intent of: Only definite words will warrant conclusion that
Congress intended to strain its powers to make great pro-
portion of citizens prima facie criminals by mere possession
of article. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy.....
Court will not assume that Congress intended to cut off op-
portunity to revise coubtful questions of law and fact by
imposing penalty for reasonable delay in payment caused
by appeal based on sufficient cause. Pacific Mail S. S. Co.
v. Schmidt...
Presumption that if Congress has purpose to take class of
suits out of usual jurisdictional restrictions relating thereto,
it will make its purpose plain. Bankers Trust Co. v. Texas &
Pacific Ry.
Nothing in Act of 1911, apportioning representation among
States, prevents people of State from reserving right of ap-
proval or disapproval by referendum of a state act redistrict-
ing State for purpose of congressional elections. Davis v. Ohio 565
Principal subject of responsibility in regard to matter
within its exclusive control embraced by an Act necessarily
carries with it the incidents thereto. Atchison, T. & S. F.
Ry. Co. v. Harold...
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS. See States.
CONGRESSMEN. See Members of Congress.
First ten Amendments are not concerned with state action
and deal only with Federal action. Minneapolis & St. Louis
R. R. v. Bombolis.....
Nothing in Constitution prevents inclusion in supplemental
condemnation proceedings properties omitted from original
proceeding. St. Louis & K. C. Land Co. v. Kansas City.... 419
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
II. Congress, Powers and Duties of. See Congress.
III. States.
Section 1770f, Wisconsin Statutes, providing for revoca-
tion of license of foreign corporation in case it removes, or
makes application to remove, any action commenced against
it by citizen of State into Federal court, is unconstitutional
as beyond power of State. Wisconsin v. Philadelphia &
Reading Coal Co.....
Commerce which is subject to the control of Congress em-
braces the widest freedom, including the right to make all
contracts having proper relation to subject. Rosenberger v.
Pacific Express Co.
Texas statute of 1907, imposing special license taxes on ex-
press companies maintaining offices for C. O. D. shipments
of intoxicating liquors, is an unconstitutional burden on and
interference with interstate commerce, and does not justify
an express company accepting such a shipment in refusing to
deliver the same. Id.
Attempt by State to prohibit interstate shipments C. O. D.
or prevent fulfillment of such contracts, is repugnant to the
Constitution. Id.
Exacts trial by jury according to course of common law,
that is, by unanimous verdict. Minneapolis & St. Louis R.
R. v. Bombolis...
Applies only to proceedings in Federal courts, and does not
in any manner govern or regulate trials by jury in state
courts, even in action brought under Federal act. Minneap-
olis & St. Louis R. R. v. Bombolis.....
St. Louis & S. F. R. R. v. Brown..
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Carnahan.
Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Stewart.
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Kelly...
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Gainey.
Verdict in state court in action under Employers' Liability
Act, which is not unanimous, but which is legal under laws
of State, is not illegal under Amendment. Minneapolis &
St. Louis R. R. V. Bombolis....
St. Louis & S. F. R. R. v. Brown..
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Carnahan..
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Stewart..
State court in enforcing right created by Federal statute
does not derive its authority as a court from the United
States, but from the State, and the Amendment does
not apply to it. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. v. Bom-
bolis....
Has no application to an assessment or condemnation pro-
ceeding in a state court. St. Louis & K. C. Land Co. v. Kan-
sas City....
YI. Fourteenth Amendment.
1. Generally: State act creating rebuttable presumption
having no foundation except on intent to destroy, held un-
constitutional under Amendment. McFarland v. American
Sugar Co. ...
2. Due process of law: Does not forbid a hearing upon a
transcript of evidence formerly heard in court, and where the
parties assented to the course pursued. De la Rama v. De
la Rama
All requirements of provision complied with if person con-
demned has had sufficient notice and adequate opportunity
to defend. Holmes v. Conway....
Does not control mere forms of procedure in state courts
or regulate practice therein. Id.
State may not, by mandamus, compel railroad to comply
with rates fixed by state law unless opportunity afforded to
test question of confiscation. Missouri v. Chicago, B. & Q.
R. R. Co. ...
In exerting public rate-making power State cannot, with-
out violating Constitution, make rates so low as to be con-
fiscatory. Missouri v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co......
A State may require all claimants to the same water to sub-
mit their claims to an administrative board and to pay a rea-
sonable fee for the expenses of such board in determining
the relative rights of the various claimants; and an opportu-
nity to be heard is not denied by accepting ex parte sworn
statements if all testimony is to be subsequently reviewed
by the court in a proceeding wherein testimony may be
taken, nor is it a denial of due process of law to make the
preliminary order of such a board effective pending final
determination by the court, with suitable bonds. Pacific
Live Stock Co. v. Oregon Water Board......
440
Property owner entitled to be heard as to amount of his
assessment for benefits, but not entitled to be heard as to
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
assessments of all other property owners. St. Louis & K. C.
Land Co. v. Kansas City....
The question under Amendment is one of state power and
not of state policy; of what State must accord, not what it
may grant or withhold in its discretion. Id.
Owner of property which may be assessed for benefits to
pay for property condemned, is not entitled to be made
party to condemnation proceedings or be heard as to amount
of awards; provision requires only those whose property is
to be taken to have prior notice. Id.
Law imposing license fee to operate employment agencies
and prohibiting agents from sending applicants to employer
who has not applied for labor, is not unconstitutional as dep-
rivation of property without due process of law. Brazee v.
Michigan....
Does not require State to provide for suspension of judg-
ment pending appeal, nor prevent it making it costly in case
judgment upheld; nor is due process denied by adding ten
per cent. on amount of judgment affirmed. Louisville &
Nashville R. R. Co. v. Stewart....
261
An attorney having obtained certain funds from clerk of
court, the court in a summary proceeding directed him,
after full hearing, to restore the same, which order was af-
firmed on appeal, a contention, on rehearing, that he had
been denied due process of law, held untenable. Holmes v.
Conway.....
Act No. 10 of Extra Session, 1915, Louisiana Assembly, re-
lating to business of sugar refining, held unconstitutional
under provision. McFarland v. American Sugar Co........ 79
Statutes of Oregon, establishing proceedings for ascertain-
ment and adjudication of relative rights of claimants to
same water, do not deny. Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Oregon
Water Board.
3. Equal protection of the law: Scheme of distribution of
taxes and assessments which is palpably arbitrary and con-
stitutes plain abuse may be condemned: mere fact that there
may be inequalities is not enough to invalidate action of
State. St. Louis & K. C. Land Co. v. Kansas City ... .... 419
Differences due to voluntary action and diverse individual
choice may arise under equal laws, and not amount to denial
of equal protection. St. Louis & K. C. Land Co. v. Kansas
City..
Law imposing license fee to operate employment agencies
|