CONGRESS-Continued.

PAGE

May so circumscribe its regulations in regard to matter
within exclusive jurisdiction as to occupy only limited field
and leave part of subject open to incidental legislation by
States. Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad Comm. of Indiana.... 439
Power to regulate interstate commerce, when exercised, is
exclusive and ipso facto supersedes existing state legislation
on subject. Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad Comm. of Indiana 439
Powers: May so control terminal facilities of carrier as will
prevent creation of monopolies within prohibitions and
limitations of Anti-trust Act. Pennsylvania Co. v. United
States.....

Order of Interstate Commerce Commission requiring inter-
state carrier to receive and transport over its terminals car-
load interstate freight from one carrier having physical con-
nection with its lines on same terms on which it performs
such service for other connecting carriers similarly situated,
is regulation of terminal facilities within power properly dele-
gated by Congress. Id.

May regulate interstate transportation by ferry. Wilming-
ton Transp. Co. v. California R. R. Comm.

...

Has power to prohibit importations in foreign commerce and
to punish knowingly concealing or moving merchandise un-
lawfully imported. Brolan v. United States....
Intent: Not likely to enact sweeping provision, attended
with serious consequences on failure to observe, without
using adequate language. United States v. Louisville &
Nashville R. R. Co....

See Construction.

Effect of action of branch: No authority beyond that already
conferred by Act to Regulate Commerce can be derived by
Interstate Commerce Commission from resolution passed by
only one branch of Congress. United States v. Louisville &
Nashville R. R. Co.....

CONSPIRACY:

Mere conspiracy without overt acts to effect its object not
indictable under § 37, Criminal Code. Joplin Mercantile Co.
v. United States....

Construction and sufficiency of indictment for conspiring to
introduce liquor into Indian country. Id.

Woman transported in violation of White Slave Act may be
guilty of conspiracy under § 37, Penal Code of 1899. United
States v. Holte....

351

151

216

318

318

531

140

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

I. General Principles.

1. Determination of constitutionality: Decision of constitu-
tionality of state statute not dependent upon form or de-
clared purpose of the law, but upon its operation and effect
as applied and enforced by State; and in these matters judg-
ment of state court is not controlling. Coppage v. Kansas..
In determining constitutionality of state police statute
question is reasonableness of its restrictions to proper pur-
pose. Miller v. Wilson ...
Public interest cannot be invoked as justification for de-
mands passing limits of constitutional protection. North-
ern Pacific Ry. v. North Dakota....

PAGE

1

373

585

Only alleged infractions of the constitutional rights of those
attacking statute can be considered in determining constitu-
tionality. Rail & River Coal Co. v. Ohio Industrial Comm... 338
Extent of obligation of county bonds issued under legislative
authority determined by state statutes and not by Federal
Constitution. Yost v. Dallas County..

50

248

75

2. Who can raise question of constitutionality: One not within
class penalized by state police statute cannot attack consti-
tutionality. Mutual Film Corp. v. Kansas
Person whose rights not directly affected or threatened not
entitled to call upon this court to construe orders, acts and
provisions of Constitution. Stearns v. Wood... ..
Importer of moving pictures without standing to attack
state statute penalizing exhibitors or those permitting exhi-
bitions; nor can he enlarge character of police statute by as-
serting constitutional rights. Mutual Film Corp. v. Kansas 248
That an exchange for moving pictures can more conveniently
subject films to censorship than exhibitors can does not give
non-exhibiting owner of exchange standing to attack statute
as to matters which affect only exhibitors. Id.

3. Generally: Judgment without process absolutely void
under Constitution and principles of natural justice. Simon
v. Southern Ry. Co. ...

State may require two railroads to make connection be-
tween their tracks to facilitate interchange of traffic without
affecting rights secured by Constitution. Michigan Cent. R.
R. v. Michigan Railroad Comm. .. . .

II. Congress, Powers and Duties of. See Congress.
III. States.

May protect established possession of property from dis-
turbance by anything other than process of law. Grant Tim-

115

615

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued.

ber Co. v. Gray..

May not indirectly strike down rights of liberty or property
by invoking police power to remove inequalities resultant
from such rights. Coppage v. Kansas.

....

May not render criminal normal and essentially innocent
exercise of personal liberty. Id.
See States.

IV. Contract Clause.

Where constitution of State reserves right, charter of cor-
poration may be repealed without impairing obligation of
contract. Ramapo Water Co. v. New York.

Legislation of State of New York of 1905, empowering city
to acquire lands for new water supply, not unconstitutional
as impairing obligation of contract of charter rights of cor-
poration authorized to acquire property in same watershed
under Railroad Act, no proceedings having been taken by it
beyond filing of map. Id.

Exercise of freedom of contract involves making engage-
ment, which if fulfilled prevents for the time any incon-
sistent course of conduct. Coppage v. Kansas.

V. Commerce Clause.

PAGE

133

1

579

1

1. What constitutes interstate commerce: Character of trans-
action controlled by substance, not form. Heyman v. Hays 178

Southern Operating Co. v. Hays....

188

The essential nature of the movement of freight and not
form of bill of lading determines character of commerce in-
volved. Illinois Central R. R. v. Louisiana R. R. Comm.... 157
Switching empty cars to and from connection with inter-
state railroad to side track within terminal of another rail-
road for purpose of loading with goods intended for inter-
state commerce, constitutes part of such commerce which
Congress has regulated to exclusion of States. Id.

2. State interference: State law interfering with right or act
of sending beer from one State to another, or with handling
same, conflicts with Constitution. Kirmeyer v. Kansas... 568
Kansas moving picture censorship act of 1913 does not inter-
fere with interstate commerce. Mutual Film Corp. v. Kan-

sas...

Ohio moving picture censor act of 1913 not violative of
Constitution as burden on interstate commerce. Mutual
Film Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Comm.. . . .

State may not impose privilege tax on concern doing strictly
interstate business because goods within State are capable of

248

230

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.

use in intrastate business and receive attention within
State. Heyman v. Hays....

Southern Operating Co. v. Hays.

Order 295 of Louisiana Railroad Commission, relative to
switching cars between connecting carriers and conformity
to rates established, held burden upon and attempt to regu-
late interstate commerce. Illinois Central R. R. v. Louis-
iana R. R. Comm..

PAGE

178

188

157

3. Generally: Principles governing the operation of the com-
merce clause of the Constitution. Heyman v. Hays...... 178
Southern Operating Co. v.
Hays...

Power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, when
exercised, is exclusive and ipso facto supersedes existing
state legislation on subject. Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad
Comm. of Indiana.....

See Interstate Commerce; States.

VI. Fifth Amendment.

Order of Interstate Commerce Commission requiring inter-
state carrier to receive and transport over its terminals car-
load interstate freight from one carrier having physical con-
nection with its lines on same terms on which it performs
such service for other connecting carriers similarly situated,
is not an appropriation of terminal property in violation of
due process provision of Fifth Amendment. Pennsylvania
Co. v. United States.

See infra, IX, XIV.
VII. Fourteenth Amendment.

1. Generally: Fourteenth Amendment inhibits state restric-
tion of liberty or property rights as public welfare. Coppage
v. Kansas...

Liberty and property are co-existent rights recognized by
Fourteenth Amendment and are without state interference.
Id.

Article 55, Code of Practice of Louisiana, relative to right of
one sued in possessory action to bring petitory action, is not
unconstitutional under Fourteenth Amendment. Grant
Timber Co. v. Gray. ..

2. Due process of law: Kansas statute of 1909, making it
unlawful for employers to coerce, etc., employés not to join
or remain members of labor organizations, as applied to this
case, held repugnant to due process clause of Fourteenth
Amendment. Coppage v. Kansas...

188

439

351

1

133

1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.

Section 2564, Rem. & Bal. Code of Washington, held not
unconstitutional as applied in case of one indicted for pub-
lishing article encouraging and inciting that which jury
found was breach of state laws against indecent exposure.
Fox v. Washington ...

Ohio moving picture censor act of 1913 not violative of
Constitution as depriving of due process of law. Mutual
Film Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Comm.. . . .

State police statute not declared unconstitutional as deny-
ing due process of law on ground that penalties are excessive
in suit brought to enjoin its enforcement not involving pen-
alties, nor where penalties do not prevent resort to courts.
Rail & River Coal Co. v. Ohio Industrial Comm.....
Hours of labor of women employed as pharmacists and
student nurses in hospitals is subject to legislative control;
and limiting such service to eight hours a day or maximum
of forty-eight hours a week is not unconstitutional as denial
of due process of law. Bosley v. McLaughlin. ...
Ohio Run of Mine or Anti-screen Law of 1914 is not uncon-
stitutional under due process provision of Fourteenth
Amendment; nor under provision of state constitution pre-
scribing power of legislature. Rail & River Coal Co. v. Ohio
Industrial Comm....

PAGE

273

230

338

385

338

Statute making findings and reparation order of Commis-
sion prima facie evidence of facts therein stated is merely
rule of evidence and not unconstitutional as denying due
process of law. Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R........ 412
Legislation of State of New York of 1905, empowering city
to acquire lands for new water supply, not unconstitutional
as depriving water company of its property without due
process of law. Ramapo Water Co. v. New York... ...... 579
Maximum intrastate rates on coal in carload lots fixed by
c. 51, Laws of North Dakota, held unreasonable and amount-
ing to attempt to take property of carrier without due proc-
ess of law. Northern Pacific Ry. v. North Dakota.. ... 585
Two cent a mile passenger rate established by c. 41, Acts of
1907 of West Virginia, held unreasonable and an attempt to
deprive carriers of property without due process of law. Nor-
folk & West. Ry. v. West Virginia...
605

State statute requiring interchange of freight cars between
carriers as to intrastate commerce is not so unreasonable as
to amount to taking property without due process of law.
Michigan Cent. R. R. v. Michigan Railroad Comm..

615