\ i C77 BOUGHT WITH- THE INCOME OF THE FISKE ENDOWMENT FUND THE BEQUEST OF . . * • WILLARD FISKE LIBRARIAN OF THE UNIVERSITY 1868-1883 1905 Digitized by Microsoft® OCT •? • ms tLii l^^^SO ^ ' HF1455 .C77" ""™*""'' '■"'™^ ^''*IIIH?SllllffiiilfiteLSj,,te, federal Const olin 3 1924 032 501 219 Digitized by Microsoft® This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in cooperation witli Cornell University Libraries, 2007. You may use and print this copy in limited quantity for your personal purposes, but may not distribute or provide access to it (or modified or partial versions of it) for revenue-generating or other commercial purposes. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® THE COMMERCE CLAUSE Federal Constitution BY FREDERICK H. COOKE Of the New York Bar AUTHOR OF "The Law of Life Insurance," " The Law of Trade AND Labor Combinations," Etc. NEW YORK BAKEE, VOOBHIS & COMPANY 1908 FT ^ Digitized by IVIicro^pft® \b-2.^^l7 Copyright, 1908, By Fredkeick H. Cooke. '"/-, , "/^ Digitized by Microsoft® PREFACE. THREE years ago " the power of Congress to regulate commerce " was declared by the United States Su- preme Court to be " perhaps the most benign gift of the Constitution," it being even said in this connection that " without it the Constitution would not have been adopted." This accords with the suggestion made by Chief Justice Mar- shall more than three-quarters of a century earlier, that none of " the evils proceeding from the feebleness of the Federal government, contributed more to that great revolution which introduced the present system, than the deep and general conviction, that commerce ought to be regulated by Con- gress." It seems, then, little less than astonishing that for eighty years after the adoption of the Constitution the power con- ferred on Congress by the commerce clause was, as stated in Prentice & Egan's Commerce Clause, page 1, " comparatively unimportant." But latterly such power, as it has been said, " has been so developed that it is now, in its nationalizing tendency, perhaps the most important and conspicuous power possessed by the Federal government." (Id.) The facts just noted may, in part at least, account for the not altogether satisfactory course of development of the law applicable to the commerce clause. During such period of eighty years the provision was applied by the Supreme Court at comparatively infrequent intervals, to matters that seem not to have been regarded at the time as very closely re- lated, thus, steamboat navigation^ license taxes, construction of dams, immigration, sale of intoxicating liquors, pilotage. Rules applicable to such matters grew up in a somewhat sporadic, haphazard fashion, with what seems to me to have been inadequate comprehension of unifying principles. But, during the last four decades, the commerce clause has, with enormously increased frequency, come to be applied to a great variety of matters, and there has become almost pain- iii Digitized by Microsoft® iv Preface. fully apparent the lack of such unifying principles, or the insufficiency of what may be regarded as attempted declara- tions thereof by the courts. Under these conditions, it seems especially desirable that one at all comprehensively writing on the subject I have chosen, should at least attempt to make a statement of such principles. Obviously a clear comprehension of just what is commerce, that is the subject of regulation, is of vital importance. Finding the approved definitions unsatisfactory, I have de- fined commerce, as the word is used in the commerce clause, fas transportation (not necessarily all transportation hut cer-~ tainly) including transportation of persons, tangible property r and (at least under certain conditions) of intelligence. In-> brief, so far as we are here concerned, com,merce is transpor- tation, and it seems to me to tend to breed confusion, to re- gard it, according to what seems to be the most approved definition, as essentially " consisting in intercourse and traffic/' including " purchase, sale and exchange." To me it seems reasonably clear that the founders of the Constitution intended, and perhaps wisely, that the power to regulate commerce or transportation, conferred upon Congress, should be a merely concurrent power, the powers re- served to the States including the power to likewise regulate such commerce in any case otherwise within their jurisdic- tion. But the settled construction of the commerce clause being otherwise, I have contended throughout that the power of Congress is exclusive, not merely in some cases, but in all) cases; that in no case can commerce within the scope of the) commerce clause he regulated under authority of a State;' that, though action taken under authority of a State may properly affect such commerce, in every case this is merely the incidental result of the exercise of some other distinct power reserved to the States. The view just stated is by no means a novel one, though it has failed of sanction by the Supreme Court. Proceeding on the assumption of its soundness, I have endeavored to re- move what may be, or seem to be, difficulties in the way of application thereof. I have ventured the suggestion that the Digitized by Microsoft® Peeface. V powers reserved to the States, the exercise of which may affect, without, strictly speaking, regulating such commerce or transportation, may be resolved into a few tolerably well defined classes, which I have characterized as power (1) to establish and maintain tneans of transportation; (2) to con- trol persons and property; (3) to regulate the conduct and l iabili ty of those engaged in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause. I here confine my attention to the third class, as the one that has produced the most difficulty. For the purpose of determining whether, in any given case, the power to regulate the conduct and liability of those engaged in such transportation is within the power conferred by the commerce clause, I have suggested as a basis of dis- tinction (which, if not here stated for the first time, has not thus far been emphasized} that the question for considera- tion in each case is for whose benefit such conduct or liability is to be regulated; that there are at least three classes of per- sons for whose benefit it may be regarded as regulated: (1) the public; (2) those enjoying the benefit of jtransportation wholly within the State; (3) those enjoying the benefit of transportation within the scope of the commerce clause. The difficulty has chiefly arisen as to the third class, and in this connection I have contended throughout that it is beyond the power of a State to regulate the conduct and liability of those engaged in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, solely for the benefit of such class. I have pointed out, however, that though for a time the decisions of the Su- preme Court seemed to sanction this rule, as conspicuously, in -the matter of rate regulation, yet, in view of later decisions of the court, the contrary, and in my view, utterly unsound rule, must be regarded as reasonably well established, at least as to certain classes of cases, though the court has, as it seems to me, failed to consistently apply it. Applying conversely to legislation by Congress the rule that I have contended for, the Safety Appliance Act of 1893, for instance, is within the constitutional power of Congress, as, indeed, it is established to be, while on the other hand the Employers' Liability Act of 1906 is not. (I here take no account of the particular ground on which the latter provision was recently held by the Su- Digitized by Microsoft® vi Pkeface. preme Court to be unconstitutional.) At any rate, it seems not yet to have been demonstrated that it is for the benefit of those enjoying the benefit of transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, that is, passengers or shippers. I have freely, even severely, criticized views expressed by those doubtless far more likely than myself to reach correct conclusions in these matters. But I trust that, even if my conclusions be erroneous, a statement thereof may assist toward ascertairment of the truth. If in any instance my criticism has transgressed the bounds of propriety, I here take occasion to make my amende honorable. " Not as adventitious therefore will the wise man regard the faith which is in him. The highest truth he sees he will fearlessly utter ; knowing that, let what may come of it, he is thus playing his right part in the world — knowing that if he can effect the change he aims at — well : if not — well also, though not so well." FEEDERICK H. COOKE. 52 William St., New York City, March, 1908. Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE. The Subject of Regulation 3 Section 1. Historical antecedents. 2. 'Congress as the authority vested with the power to regulate. 3. Judicial action in aid of power. 4. Commerce defined. 5. Commerce as including intercourse. 6. Commerce as including contracts. 7. Contracts of insurance. 8. Contracts for personal services. 9. Traffic or sales. 10. Transportation of property. 11. Transportation of persons. 12. Transportation (or transmission) of intelligence; e. g., by telegraph or telephone. 13. Transportation by water; /, e., navigation. 14. Transportation along navii^able waters within limits of State. 15. Commencement of transportation. 16. Termination of transportation. 17. The " original package " doctrine. 17a. Leisy v. Hardin. 18. Breaking of original package. 19. Sale in original package. 20. Wliat constitutes original package. 20a. Austin v. Tennessee. 21. Boxes and receptacles containing bottles. 22. Commerce as " among " the States. 23. Transportation wholly v^ithin limits of State. 24. Transaction within limits of State, when included. 2.5. Other transactions than transportation; e. g., sale and manufacture, wholly within limits of State. 26. Transportation by different and independent agencies. 26a. The Daniel Ball. 27. Transportation between points both within, but over route partly outside of, State. 28. State as including Territory or District of Columbia. 29. Commerce " with foreign nations." 30. Commerce " with the Indian tribes." vii Digitized by Microsoft® viii Table of Contents. CHAPTER II. PAGE. The Poweb of Congress 65 Section 31. Nature of power to regulate. 32. Exercise of power, as limited by other constitutional pro- visions; e. g., rifth Amendment; prohibition of prefer- ence to ports of State. 33. Power to prohibit. 34. Exclusion or expulsion of aliens. 35. "Rule of free competition;" legislation against restric- tions upon competition; Anti-Trust Act. 36. Registration of trade-marks. 37. Inspection. 38. Conduct and liability of those engaged in commerce; Inter- state Commerce Act. 39. The same; relations 'aetween carrier and employees. 40. Punishment of crimes. 41. Regulation of rates of transportation. 42. Exercise of power, as determined by agencies by which commerce is carried on, whether by individuals or by corporations. 43. Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. 44. Limitation of liability of owner of vessel. 45. Regulation of vessels. 46. The same ; vessels engaged in transportation between points in the same State. 47. Establishment and maintenance of means of transporta- tion; creation and licensing of corporations. 48. Removing or prohibiting obstructions to navigation. 49. Authorizing placing of obstructions to navigation. 50. Effectuating improvements in navigation. 51. Duty to make compensation for property taken in exer- cise of power to improve navigation. 52. Authorization of construction of bridges. CHAPTER III. PAGE. POWEE OF CONGBESS AND OF THE STATES RESPECTIVELY 108 Section 53. Exercise of power by Congress, as exclusive of exercise of power by State. 54. Exclusion of exercise of power of State, in absence of exercise of power by Congress. 55. Power of Congress whether exclusive in all cases. 56. Alleged distinction between " matters national " and " matters of local interest." 57. Power as exclusive of application of common-law rules. 58. Incidental effect of exercise of reserved powers of State. 59. The same; police power. 60. The same; promotion of public convenience. Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Contents. ix Section 61. Transportation into, and transportation out of, State. 62. Character of person engaged in transportation; whether resident or nonresident of State. 63. The same; whether individual or corporation. 64. Transportation by domestic corporation. 65. Transportation by foreign corporation. 66. Power of eminent domain. 67. Regulation of rates of transportation. 68. Combinations among corporations; i. e., consolidation. 69. Invalidity of restrictions imposed under authority of State. 70. Restriction by way of tax or other condition. 71. The same; restriction upon transportation of persons; immigration. 72. The same; restriction upon navigation; vessels enrolled and licensed under authority of Congress. 73. Restriction as to transaction not within scope of com- merce clause, though imposed upon one engaged in trans- portation within scope thereof. 73a. Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Go. 74. The same; in case of one engaged in public employment. ' 75. Restriction upon contract of sale. 75a. Robhins v. Shelby Taxing District. 76. The same; in case of transportation not within scope of commerce clause. 77. The same; in case of property transported into State and remaining in original package. 78. Discrimination against articles transported into State, or against nonresident. CHAPTER IV. PAGE. The Powers of the States Speceficallt Considered 169 Section 79. Establishing and maintaining means of transportation. 80. The same; transportation within scope of commerce clause. 81. The same; transportation wholly within State. 82. Ferries. 83. Bridges. 84. Improvements in navigation. 85. Internal improvements; e. g., dams. 86. Control of persons and property. 87. Production, sale, and use of property. 88. Transportation of " article of commerce." 89. Transportation of persons. 90. Power as depending on deleterious quality; e. g., disease in cattle. 91. Prevention of fraud or deception. Digitized by Microsoft® X Table of Contents. Section 91a. Plumley v. Massachusetts. 92. Prevention of sale of adulterated articles. 93. Inspection. 94. The same ; in case of transportation out of State. 95. Quarantine regulations. 96. Transportation of property the subject of common ownership ; e. g., game. 97. The same; transportation into State. 98. Transportation of intoxicating liquors. 99. The same; Wilson act. 100. Conduct and liability of those engaged in transporta- tion. 101. The same; regulation for benefit of public; e. g., as to speed of trains; transportation on Sabbath. 102. The same; for benefit of those enjoying benefit of transpoitation wholly within State ; e. g., prescribing qualifications of those engaged in business of trans- portation. 10.3. The same; for benefit of those enjoying benefit of transportation within scope of commerce clause. 104. The same ; requirements as to stopping trains. 105. Regulation of liability for loss or injury in course cf transportation. 106. The same; for failure of duty to transport. 107. Pilotage. CHAPTER r. PAGE. Taxes and Otiieb Charges 248 Section 108. Power to tax, as depending on presence of property within territorial jurisdiction. 109. Exemption of property in transit or temporarily within jurisdiction. 110. Original package doctrine; distinction between com- merce " among the States " and " with foreign nations." 111. Vessels. 112. Property emploj'ed in transportation within scope of commerce clause. 113. The same; proportionate valuation. 114. Property acquired (e. g., earnings or receipts) in course of transportation within scope of commerce clause. 11.5. The same; "intangible property." 116. Charge for special facilities: r. g., for wharfage; charge for governmental supervision. Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages.] A. Re Abel, 10 Idaho, 288, 77 Pac. 621 ( 1904) 161 The Abercorn, 26 Fed. 877 (D. C. Oreg., 1886) 246 Abilene Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas & P. Ey. Co. See Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. V. Abilene Cotton Oil Co. Adair v. U. S. (Supm. U. S., 1908), reversing U. S. v. Adair, 152 Fed. 737 (D. C. Ky., 1907) 84 Adams v. Lytle, 154 Fed. 876 (C. C. Oreg., 1907) 196 Adams v. Ulmer, 91 Me. 47, 39 Atl. 347 (1897) 99, 177 Adams Express Co. v. Commonwealth, 96 S. W. 593 (Ct. App. Ky., 1906) 155 Adams Express Co. v. Commonwealth, 103 S. W. 352 ( Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 221 Adams Express Co. v. Commonwealth, 103 S. W. 721 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 221 Adams Express Co. v. Iowa, 196 U. S. 147, 25 Supm. 185, 49 L. ed. 424 ( 1905 ) 154, 219 Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 171, 17 Supm. 527, 41 L. ed. 900 ( 1897 ) 262 Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 206 U. S. 129, 27 Supm. 606, 51 L. ed. 987 (1907), reversing 87 S. W. 1111 (Ct. App. Ky., 1905 ) 220, 221 Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 206 U. S. 138, 27 Supm. 608, 51 L. ed. 992 (1907), reversing 92 S. W. 932, 5 L. R. A. X. S..630 (Ct. App. Ky., 1906) 221 Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 17 Supm. 305, 41 L. ed. 683 (1897), affirming Sanford v. Poe, 69 Fed. 546, 16 C. C. A. 305, 60 L. E. A. 641 (6th C. 1895) ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Poe, 64 Fed. 9 (C. C. Ohio, 1894). See 61 Fed. 449 (C. C. Ohio, 1894). Subsequent decision in 166 U. S. 185, 17 Supm. 604, 41 L. ed. 965 (1897) 142, 259, 262, 263 264, 268, 269, 270 Adams Express Co. v. State, 161 Ind. 328, 67 N. E. 1033 <1903) ... 43 Addison v. Saulnier, 19 Cal. 82 (1861) 203 Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211, 20 Supm. 96, 44 L. ed. 136 (1899), affirming U. S. v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 Fed. 271, 29 C. C. A. 141, 46 L. R. A. 122 (6th C. 1898), which reversed 78 Fed. 712 (C. C. Tenn., 1S97) ... .9, 41, 46 65, 67, 69, 75 Digitized by Microsoft® xii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Adkins v. City of Riclimond, 98 Va. 91, 34 S. E. 967, 47 L. R. A. 583, 8 Am. St. Kep. 702 ( 1900) 158 Adler-Weinberger S. S. 'Co. v. Rothschild, 123 Fed. 145 (C. C. Pa., 1903) 15 jEtna Ins. Co. v Aldrich. See Aldrich v. ^tna Co. Em parte Ah Cue, 101 Cal. 197, 35 Pac. 556 (1894) 144 Re Ah Fong, 3 Sawy. 144, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 102 ( 1874) ...'. 144 Alabama & Vicksburg Ry. Co. v. Mississippi R. R. Comm., 203 U. S. 496, 27 Supm. 163, 51 L. ed. 289 ( 1906) 44 Alabama Great Southern R. R. Co. v. City of Bessemer, 113 Ala. 668, 21 So. 64 (Nov. T. 1896) 148 The Alameda, 31 Fed. 366 (D. C. Cal., 1887) 246 The Alameda v. Neal, 32 Fed. 331 ( C. C. Cal., 1887 ) 246 The Alaska, 3 Ben. 391, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 129 (1869) 246 Albany Bridge Case. See Coleman v. Hudson River Bridge Co. Albertson v. Wallace, 81 N. C. 479 (1879) 165 The Alcalde, 30 Fed. 133 (D. C. Oreg., 1887) 246 Aldrich v. ^tna Co., 8 Wall. 491, 19 L. ed. 473 (Dec. 1869), reversing .^tna Ins. Co. v. Aldrich, 26 N. Y. 92 (1862) 92 Alexander v. State, 86 Ga. 246, 12 S. E. 408, 10 L. R. A. 859 ( 1890) . 120 Alexander v. Wilmington, etc:, R. R. Co., 3 Strobh. Law (S. C), 594 (1849) 275 Allen V. Labsap, 188 Mo. 692, 87 S. W. 926 ( 1905) 164 Allen V. Newberry, 21 How. 244, 16 L. ed. 110 (Dec. T. 1858) 88 Allen V. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 658, 11 Supm. 682, 3S L. ed. 303 (1891) 141 Allen V. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 191 U. S. 171, 24 Supm. 39, 48 L. ed. 134 ( 1903) 141, 142, 146, 148, 152 Allen V. Tyson- Jones Buggy Co., 91 Tex. 22, 40 S. W. 393 (1897) 132, 133 Allgeyer V. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 17 Supm. 427, 41 L. ed. 832 (1897), reversing State v. Allgeyer, 48 La. Ann. 104, 18 So. 904 (1896) 14, 130 Almy V. State of California, 24 How. 169, 16 L. ed. 644 (Dec. T. I860) 256 The Alzena, 14 Fed. 174 (D. C. Pa., 18®2) 246 The America, 1 Low. 176, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 289 (1867) 244 American Express Co. v. Indiana, 165 U. S. 255, 17 Supm. 991, 41 L. ed. 707 (1897), affirming State v. Adams Express Co., 144 Ind. 549, 42 N. E. 483 (1895) 262, 269 American Express Co. v. Iowa, 196 U. S. 133, 25 Supm. 182, 49 L. ed. 417 (1905), reversing State v. American Express Co., 118 Iowa, 447, 92 N. W. 66 ( 1902) 154, 219 American Express Co. v. Kentucky, 206 U. S. 139, 27 Supm. 609, 51 L. ed. 993 (1907), reversing 97 S. W. 807 (Ct. App. Ky., 1906) . . 221 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xiii [The references are to pages.] American Express Co. v. People, 133 111. 649, 24 N. E. 758, 9 L. R. A. 138, 23 Am. St. Rep. 641 (1890) 211 American Express Co. v. Southern Indiana Express Co., 167 Ind. 292, 78 N. E. 1021 (1906) 43 American Fertilizing Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 43 Fed. 609, 11 L. R. A. 179 (C. C. N. c., 1890) 154, 157, 168, 192, 203, 256 American Harrow Co. v. Sliaffer, 68 Fed. 750 (C. C. Va., 1895); ap- peal dismissed in 166 U. S. 718, 17 Supm. 991, 41 L. ed. 1187 (1897) 160, 165 American Rapid Tel. Co. v. Hess, 125 N. Y. 641, 26 N. E. 919, 13 L. R. A. 454, 21 Am. St. Rep. 764 (1891) 226 American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70, 19 Supm. 599, 43 L. ed. 899 (1899), affirming Hall v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 24 Colo. 291, 51 Pac. 421, 56 L. R. A. 89, 65 Am. St. Rep. 223 ( 1897 ) 262 American Smelting & Refining Co. v. People, 34 Colo. 240, 82 Pac. 531 ( 1905 ) 148 American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500, 24 Supm. 365, 48 L. ed. 538 (1904), affirming 110 Tenn. 524, 75 S. W. 1037, 100 Am. St. Rep. 814 (1903) 254, 255 American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Harborcreek Township, 23 Pa. Super. 437 (1903) 226 American Transp. Co. v. Moore. See Moore v. American Transp. Co. American Union Express Co. v. City of St. Joseph, 66 Mo. 675, 27 Am. Rep. 382 (1877) 266 American Union Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 67 Ala. 26, 42 Am. Rep. 90 (Dec. T. 1880) 96, 131 Ames V. Kirby, 71 N. J. Law, 442, 59 Atl. 558 (1904) 120 Ames V. People, 25 Colo. 508, 55 Pac. 725 ( 1898) 165 Ames V. Union Pac. Ry. Co. See Smyth v. Ames. Anderson v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 62 Fed. 46 (C. C. Ky., 1894) 140, 231 Anderson v. U. S., 171 U. S. 604, 19 Supm. 50, 43 L. ed. 300 (1898). 47 The Ann Ryan, 7 Ben. 20, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 428 ( 1873) 272, 275 The Anna M. Fahy, 153 Fed. 866 (C. C. A. 2d C. 1907) 100 Appeal Tax Court v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 50 Md. 452 (1879) . . 251 Applegarth v. State, 89 Md. 140, 42 Atl. 941 ( 1899) 50 Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 Fed. 616, 51 C. C. A. 122, 65 L. R. A. 864 (6th C. 1902) ; appeal dismissed in 191 U. S. 405, 24 Supm. 148, 48 L. ed. 239 (1903) 200, 201 Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co. See State v. Kansas & T. Coal Co. Arkansas & L. Ry. Co. v. Lee, 96 S. W. 148 (Supm. Ct. Ark., 1906), 244 Arkansas Southern Ry. Co. v. German National Bank, 77 Ark. 482, 92 S. W. 522, 113 Am. St. Rep. 160 (1906) 243 Digitized by Microsoft® siv Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Armour Packing Co. v. Lacy, 200 U. S. 226, 26 Supm. 232, 50 L. ed. 451 (1906), affirming Lacy v. Packing Co., 134 N. C. 567, 47 S. E. 53 ( 1904) 146 Armour Packing Co. v. Snyder, 84 Fed. 136 (C. C. Minn., 1897).. 199 Armour Packing Co. v. U. S., 153 Fed. 1, 82 C. C. A. 135 (8th C. 1907) 61,70, 82 Armstrong v. Galveston, Harrisburg, etc., Ry. Co., 92 Tex. 117, 46 S. ^Y. 33 ( 1898 ) 239 Arnold v. Eastin, 116 Ivy. 686, 76 S. W. 855 (1903) 92 Arnold v. Yanders, 56 Ohio St. 417, 47 N. E. 50, 60 Am. St. Eep. 753 ( 1897) 164 Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S. 129, 9 tsupm. 1, 32 L. ed. 368 (1888), reversing 23 Tex. Ct. App. Itep. 662, 5 S. VV. 91 (1887) 157 Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 430, 14 Supm. 865, 38 L. ed. 773 (1894), affirming 49 Ohio St. 504, 31 N. E. 721 (1892) 130 AtchisoU) Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. Co. v. Denver & New Orleans R. R. Co. See Denver & N. 0. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. Atlanta Xat. Building & Loan Assoc, v. Stewart, 109 Ga. 80, 35 S. E. 73 ( 1900) 12 Atlantic & Pacific R. R. Co. v. Lesueur, 2 Ariz. 428, 19 Pac. 157, 1 L. R. A. 244 (1888) 59 Atlantic & P. E. R. Co. v. U. S., 76 Fed. 186 (D. C. Cal., 1896) . . 86 Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160, 23 Supm. 817, 47 L. ed. 995 (1903); previous decision in City of Phila- delphia i. Atlantic & P. Tel. Co., 102 Fed. 254, 42 C. C. A. 325 (3d C. 1900) 115, 141, 259, 270, 277 Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Wharton, 207 U. S. 328, 28 Supm. 121 (1907) 236 Atlee V. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389, 22 L. ed. 619 (Oct. 1874) 187 Attorney General v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 188 Mass. 239, 74 N. E. 467 (1905) 131, 147 Attorney General v. Western Union Tel. Co. See Western Union Tel. Co. V. Massachusetts. Aultman v. Holder, 68 Fed. 467 (C. C. Mich., 1895) 157, 168 Austin V. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343, 21 Supm. 132, 45 L. ed. 224 (1900), affirming 101 Tenn. 563, 48 S. W. 30.5, 50 L. R. A. 478, 70 Am. St. Rep. 703 ( 1898) 35, 36, 37, 38, 122, 164 189, 191, 192, 205 Avery v. Fox, 1 Abb. U. S. 246, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 674 (1868) 106 Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. Kentucky, 202 U. S. 409, 26 Supm. 679, 50 L. ed. 1082 (1906); previous decisions in Commonwealth v. Ayer & Lord Tie Co., 117 Ky. 161, 77 S. W. 686 (1903), 79 S. W. 290 (Ct. App. Ky. 1904) 91, 257, 258 Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. Keown, 93 S. W. 588 (Ct. App. Ky. 1906). 253 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xv [The references are to pages.] B. Bacon V. Arthur, 4 Watts (Pa.), 437 (1835) 187 Bacon v. Locke, 42 Wash. 215, 83 Pac. 721 ( 1906) 165 Bagg V. Wilmington, Columbia, etc., R. R. Co., 109 N. C. 279, 14 S. E. 79, 14 L. R. A. 596, 26 Am. St. Rep. 569 (1891) 233 Bailey v. Philadelphia, Wilmington, etc., R. R. Co., 4 Harr. (Del.) 389, 44 Am. Dec. 593 ( 1846) 177, 179 Bailey Liquor Co. v. Austin, 82 Fed. 785 (C. C. S. C, 1897) 218 Bain v. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., 105 N. C. 363, 11 S. E. 311, 8 L. R. A. 299, 18 Am. St. Rep. 912 ( 1890) 251 Baird v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. 592 (C. C. Ark., 1890) 135 Baird v. Shore Line Ry. Co., 6 Blatchf. 276, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 758 (1868) 179 Baker v. Wise, 16 Gratt. (Va.) 139 (1861) 143 Ballock V. State, 73 Md. 1, 20 Atl. 184, 8 L. R. A. 671, 25 Am. St. Rep. 559 (1890) 122 Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. State, 45 Md. 596 (1877) 266 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 10 L. ed. 274 (Jan. T. 1839) 170, 171 Banner v. Wabash R. R. Co., 131 Iowa, 405, 108 N. W. 759 (1906). 118 Banta v. McNeil, 5 Ben. 74, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 966 ( 1871 ) 246 Re Barber. See Minnesota v. Barber. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Field, 188 Mo. 182, 86 S. W. 860 (1905) 122 Barnaby v. State, 21 Ind. 450 (1863) 244 Barnhard v. Morrison, 87 S. W. 376 (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 148 Barrett v. Delano, 14 Atl. 288 (Supm. Ct. Me., 1888) 217 Bartlett v. Lockwood, 160 U. S. 357, 16 Supm. 334, 40 L. ed. 455 (1896).. 209 Bateman v. Western Star Milling Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 90, 20 S. W. 931 (1892) 132 Baxter v. Thomas, 4 Okla. 60.5, 46 Pac. 479 ( 1896) 158 Beall v. State, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 107 ( 1835) 163 Beardsley v. N. Y., Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., 15 App. Div. 251, 44 N. Y. Suppl. 175 (1897), reversed in 162 N. Y. 230, 56 N. E. 488 (1900) 43, 139 Bedford v. U. S., 192 U. S. 217, 24 Supm. 238, 48 L. ed. 414 (1904), affirming 36 Ct. of CI. 474 ( 1901 ) 106 Re Beine, 42 Fed. 545 (C. C. Kan., 1890) 31, 38 Beitzell v. District of Columbia, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 49 (1903). 59, 111 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 19 L. ed. 266 (Dec. 1868) 88 Belle City Manuf. Co. v. Frizzell, 11 Idaho, 1, 81 Pac. 58 (1905) . . 132 Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 22 Supm. 747, 46 L. ed. 1058 (1902) 69, 76 Digitized by Microsoft® xvi Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Benedict v. Columbus Constr^iction Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 23, 23 Atl. 485 (1891) 227 Benedict v. Vanderbilt, 2,3 How. Pr. 209 (X. Y. Super. Ct. Gen. T. 1863). . 273 Benjamin v. Manistee River Improvement Co., 42 ilich. 628, 4 N. W. 483 ( 1880 ) 182 Bennett v. American Express Co., 83 Me. 236, 22 Atl. 159, 13 L. R. A. 33, 23 Am. St. Rep. 774 (1891) 126, 211 Bennett v. Boggs, Baldw. 60, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1319 (1830) 51 Re Bergen, 115 Fed. 339 (C. C. Kan., 1900) 221 Berwind & White Coal Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Jersey City, 67 Atl. 181 ( Supm. Ct. X. J., 1907 ) 250 Best v. Staple, 61 X. Y. 71 ( 1874) 92 Beverwick Brewing Co. v. Oliver, 69 Vt. 323, 37 Atl. 1110 (1897) . . 217 Biddle v. Commonwealth, 13 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 405 (1825) 255 Bigham v. Port Arthur Canal, etc., Co., 97 S. W. 686 (Supm. Ct. Tex., 1906), reversing 91 S. W. 848 (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 183 Bigley v. X. Y. & P. R. S. S. Co. See PIuus v. X. Y. & Porto Rico Steamship Co. Re Blackbird, 109 Fed. 139 (D. C. Wis., 1901 ) 64 Black River Improvement Co. v. La Crosse Booming, etc., Co., 54 Wis. 659, 11 X. W. 443, 41 Am. Rep. 66 (1882) 183 Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 23 Supm. 277, 47 L. ed. 439 (1903) 250 Blanchard v. The Martha Washington, 1 Cliff. 463, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1513 (1860), affirming The Martha Washington, 3 Ware, 245, 16 Fed. Cas. X"o. 9148 (1860) 92 Bland v. People, 32 Colo. 319, 76 Pac. 359, 65 L. R. A. 424, 105 Am. St. Rep. 80 (1904) 190 Blauiield v. State, 103 Tenn. 593, 53 S. W. 1090 (1899) 37, 192 Bluthenthal v. McWhorter, 131 Ala. 642, 31 So. 559 (Nov. T. 1901). 217 Bluthenthal v. Southern Ry. Co., 84 Fed. 920 (C. C. Ga., 1898) 214 Board of Assessors of Parish of Orleans v. Pullman's Palace-Car Co., 60 Fed. 37, 8 C. C. A. 490 (5th C. 1894), affirming Pull- man's Palace-Car Co. v. Board of Assessors, 55 Fed. 206 (C. C. La., 1893) 262 Board of Hay Inspectors v. Pleasants, 23 La. Ann. 349 (1871) ,. 203 Board of Selectmen v. Spalding, 8 La. Ann. 87 (1853) 227 Boardman v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., 84 X. Y. 157 (1881) 138 Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 139 Fed. 155 (C. C. N. Y., 1905) . . .49, 76 Boehm v. Allen, 66 Atl. 474 (Supm. Ct. Me., 1906) 217 Bogan V. State, 84 Ala. 449, 4 So. 355 (Dec. T. 1887) 214 Bogart V. State, 10 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 365 (1888) 272 Boggs V. Commonwealth, 76 Va. 989 ( 1882) 51 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xvii [The references are to pages.] Boland v. Combination Bridge Co., 94 Fed. 888 (D. C. Iowa, 1899) . 226 Booth V. Davis. See Davis v. Booth. Bowlby V. Shively. See Shively v. Bowlhy. Bowman v. Chicago & iSTorthwestern Ey. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 Supm. 689, 1062, 31 L. ed. 700 ( 1888) 19, 30, 60, 67, 109, 114, 115 119, 123, 167, 190, 191 204, 214, 215 Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629, 3 Supm. 434, 27 L. ed. 1056 (1884). 25 88 Boykin v. Shaffer, 13 La. Ann. 129 ( 1858) 181, 183 Bradford v. Floyd, 80 Mo. 207 ( 1883 ) 195 Bradley v. Northern Transp. Co., 15 Ohio St. 653 (1864) 81 Branch v. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., 77 N. C. 347 (1877) . . 233 Brass v. North Dakota ex rel. Stoeser, 153 U. S. 391, 14 Supm. 857, 38 L. ed. 757 (1894), affirming State v. Brass, 2 N. D. 482, 52 N. W. 408 ( 1892 ) 48 Erechbill v. Randall, 102 Ind. 528, 1 N. E. 362, 52 Am. Rep. 695 (1885) 120 Brennan v. Emery-Bird-Thayer Co., 99 Fed. 971 (C. C. ilo., 1900) . 78 Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S. 289, 14 Supm. 829, 38 L. ed. 719 (1894), reversing City of Titusville v. Brennan, 143 Pa. St. 642, 22 Atl. 893, 14 L. R. A. 100, 24 Am. St. Rep. 580 (1891) . . .111, 157 Bridge Co. v. U. S., 105 U. S. 470, 26 L. ed. 1143 (Oct. 1881) 180 The Bright Star, 1 Woohv. 266, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1880 (1868) 93 Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78, 11 Supm. 213, 34 L. ed. 862 (1891), affirming Re Rebman, 41 Fed. 867 (C. C. Va., 1890) .204, 205 Brin v. Wachusetts Shirt Co., 43 S. W. 295 (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) . 133 Broadnax v. Baker, 94 N. C. 675, 55 Am. Rep. 633 (1886) 172 Brockway v. American Express Co., 168 ilass. 257, 47 N. E. 87 ( 1897) 80 Broeck v. Barge John M. Welch, 2 Fed. 364 (C. C. N. Y., 1880), reversing The John M. \^'clch, 9 Ben. 507, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7359 (1878) 275 Brooks v. Cedar Brook, etc.. Improvement Co., 82 Me. 17, 19 Atl. 87, 7 L. R. A. 460, 17 Am. St. Rep. 459 ( 1889) 183 Brooks V. Southern Pac. Co. See How^ard v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. Brooks v. Tripp, 135 N. C. 159, 47 S. E. 401 (1904) 51 Re Brosnahan, 18 Fed. 62 (C. C. Mo., 1883) 165 Ex parte Brown, 48 Fed. 435 (D. C. N. C, 1891) 30, 165, 256 Brown v. Adair, 104 Ala. 652, 16 So. 439 (Nov. T. 1894) 203 Brown v. Commonwealth, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 273 (1817) 187 Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, 5 Supm. 1091, 29 L. ed. 257 (1885), affirming 33 La. Ann. 843, 39 Am. Rep. 284 (1881) 60, 111, 114, 115, 252, 256 Digitized by Microsoft® xviii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678 (1827).... 4, 27, 28 30, 37, 38, 40, 08, 153, 254, 255, 256 Brown v. Memphis & C. R. Co., 5 Fed. 499 (C. C. Tenn., 1880) . . 232 Brown v. Wieland, 116 Iowa, 711, 89 N. W. 17, 61 L. R. A. 417 (1902) 217 Re Bruudage, 96 Fed. 963 (C. C. Minn., 1899), reversed in Min- nesota V. Brundage, 180 U. S. 499, 21 Supm. 455, 45 L. ed. 639 (1901) 199 Budd V. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 12 Supm. 468, 36 L. ed. 247 (1892), affirming People v. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1, 22 N. E. 670, 682, 5 L. R. A. 559, 15 Am. St. Rep. 460 (1889) 48 Buffalo & Erie R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 386 ( 1871 ) . . 265 Bullard v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 10 Mont. 168, 25 Pac. 120, 11 L. R. A. 246 (1890) 69 Burdick v. People, 149 111. 600, 36 N. E. 948, 24 L. R. A. 152, 41 Am. St. Rep. 329 (1894) 234 Burgess v. Western Union Tel. Co., 92 Tex. 125, 46 S. W. 794, 71 Am. St. Rep. 833 (1898), reversing in part Western Union Tel. Co. V. Burgess, 43 S. W. 1033 (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 239 Burkhardt v. Striger, 113 Ky. Ill, 67 S. W. 270 (1902) 203 Burlington & Henderson County Ferry Co. v. Davis, 48 Iowa, 133, 30 Am. Rep. 390 ( 1878 ) 174 Burlington, Cedar Rapids, etc., Ry. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312, 48 N. W. 98, 12 L. R. A. 436, 31 Am. St. Rep. 477 (1891) 58 Burlington Lumber Co. v. Willetts, 118 111. 559, 9 N. E. 254 (1886). 252 Burns v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 104 Wis. 646, 80 N. W. 927 (1899) 80 Burrows v. Delta Transp. Co., 106 Mich. 582, 64 X. W. 501, 29 L. R. A. 468 (1895) 81, 226 Ex parte Rutin, 28 Tex. Ct. App. Rep. 304, 13 S. W. 10 (1889) 160 Butler V. Boston Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527. 9 Supm. 612, 32 L. ed. 1017 (1889) 90 Butler Shoe Co. v. U. S. Rubber Co., 156 Fed. 1 (C. C. A., 8th C. 1907); previous decision in U. S. Rubber Co. v. Butler Shoe Co., 132 Fed. 398 (C. C. Colo., 1904) 17, 19, 131, 133 Butner v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Okla. 234, 37 Pac. 1087 (1894) 59, 242 Buttfield v. Bidwell, 192 U. S. 498, 24 Supm. 356, 48 L. ed. 536 (1904) 79 Buttfield v. Stranahan, 102 U. S. 470, 24 Supm. 349, 48 L. ed. 525 (1904) 60,61,62,67,68, 79 Buttfield v. U. S., 192 U. S. 499, 24 Supm. 356, 48 L. ed. 537 (1904) 79 Ex parte Byers, 32 Fed. 404 (D. 0. Mich., 1887 ) 86 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xix [The references are to pages.] C. Cable V. U. S. Life Ins. Co., 191 U. S. 288, 24 Supm. 74, 48 L. ed. 188 (1903) ■ 130 Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622, 23 Supm. 229, 47 L. ed. 336 (1903), reversing State v. Caldwell, 127 N. C. S21, 37 S. E. 138 (1900) ; 155, 156 Caldwell v. St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co., 1 La. Ann. 85 (1846) 91 Caldwell v. State, 1 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 327 (1832) 64 The Caldy, 153 Fed. 837 (C. C. A., 4th C. 1907) 100 California v. Central Pacific K. E. Co., 127 U. S. 1, 8 Supm. 1073, .32 L. ed. 150 ( 1888 ) 95 California Shipping Co. v. City of San Francisco, 88 Pac. 704 ( Supm. Ct. Cal., 1907 ) 257 Calumet Grain & Elevator Co. v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 431, 23 Supm. 477, 47 L. ed. 532 ( 1903) 102 Camden & Amboy R. R. Co. v. Briggs, 22 N. J. Law, 623 (1850) . . 129 Cameron v. Territory, 16 Okla. 634, 8 Pac. (1906) 213 Camp V. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 499, 61 S. W. 401 (1901) 163 Campbell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 86 Iowa, 587, 53 N. W. 351, 17 L. R. A. 443 (1892) 58 Canada Southern Ry. Co. v. International Bridge Co., 8 Fed. 190 (D. C. N. Y., 1881) 97 Candler v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 493 (1828) 144 Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577, 22 L. ed. 417 (Oct. 1874), reversing 27 La. Ann. 16 ( 1875) 275 Cantini v. Tillman, 54 Fed. 969 (C. C. S. C, 1893) 222 Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 22 Supm. 120, 46 L. ed. 171 (1902) 48 Cardwell v. American Bridge Co., 113 U. S. 205, 5 Supm. 423, 28 L. ed. 959 (1885), affirming 19 Fed. 562 (C. C. Cal., 1884) 113 114, 115, 119, 176, 178, 180, 181 Cargill Co. See W. W. Cargill Co. Carlisle v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 8 Colo. 320, 7 Pac. 164, 54 Am. Rep. 553 (1885) 250 Carondelet Canal, etc., Co. v. Parker, 29 La. Ann. 430, 29 Am. Rep. 339 (1877) 182,186 Carpenter v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 72 Me. 388, 39 Am. Rep. 340 (1881) 232 Carrey v. Spencer, 36 N. Y. Suppl. 886 (Supm. Ct. Kings Sp. T., 1895 ) 231 Carrier v. Gordon, 21 Ohio St. 605 ( 1871 ) 253 Carroll v. Campbell, 108 Mo. 550, 17 S. W. 884 (1891), 110 Mo. 557, 19 S. W. 809 (1892) 174, 175 Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 199 U. S. 401, 26 Supm. 66, 50 Ii. ed. 246 (1905), reversing Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 125 Fed. 121 (C. C. Iowa, 1903) 68 Digitized by Microsoft® XX Table of Cases. The references are to pages.] Carson River Lumbering Co. v. Patterson, 33 Cal. 334 (1867) 145 Carstairs v. O'Donnell, 154 Mass. 357, 28 N. E. 271 (1891) 32 Carton v. Commissioners of Uinta County, 10 Wyom. 416, 69 Pac. 1013 (1902) 251 Carton v. Illinois Central E. E. Co., 59 Iowa, 148, 13 N. W. 67, 44 Am. Rep. 672 (1882) 135 Catlin, etc., Co. v. Schuppert, 130 Wis. 642, 110 N. W. 818 (1907) . 12 Cauble V. Craig, 94 Mo. App. 675, 69 S. W. 49 (1902) 174 Central of Georgia Ey. Co. v. Kavanaugh, 92 Fed. 56, 34 C. C. A. 203 (5th C. 1899) 240 Central of Georgia Ey. Co. v. Murphey, 196 U. S. 194, 25 Supm. 218, 49 L. ed. 444 (1905), reversing 116 Ga. 863, 43 S. E. 265, 60 L. R. A. 817 (1903) 240, 241 Central R. R. Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 49 N. J. Law, 1, 7 Atl. 306 ( 1886) 249 Central Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 113, 55 C. C. A. 63, 63 L. E. A. 213 (6th C. 1902), affirmed in 192 U. S. 568, 24 Supm. 339, 48 L. ed. 565 (1904) 232, 233 Central Union Tel. Co. v. State, 118 Ind. 194, 19 N. E. 604, 10 Am. St. Eep. 114 (1889) 21, 44 Chae Chan Ping v. U. S. See Chinese Exclusion Case. Challiss V. Davis, 56 Mo. 25 (1874) 175 Chambers v. Church, 14 R. I. 398, 51 Am. Eep. 410 ( 1884) 51 Chambers v. The Clymene, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 603 (1881) 246 Champion v. Ames. See Lottery Case. Chan Gun v. U. S., 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 290 (1896) 74 Chapman v. Miller, 2 Speers (S. C), 769 (1844) 245 Chappell V. Waterworth. See Hawkins Point Light-House Case. Charge to Grand Jury, 2 Spr. 279, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,256 (1861) . 86 Charge to Grand Jury, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,269a (C. C. Ga., 1859) . 21 Charles v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 58 S. E. 927 (Supm. Ct. S. C, 1907) 239 The Charles A. Sparks, 16 Fed. 480 (D. C. Pa., 1883) 246 Charlotte, Columbia, etc., R. R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386, 12 Supm. 255, 35 L. ed. 1051 (1892) 276 The Chase, 14 Fed. 854 (D. C. Fla., 1882) 244 Cheboygan Lumber Co. v. Delta Transp. Co., 100 Mich. 16, 58 N. W. 630 ( 1894) 81, 119 The Cheeseman v. Two Ferryboats, 2 Bond, 363, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,633 (1870) 26, 88, 173 Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 23 Supm. 115, 47 L. ed. 183 (1902) 64 Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry. Co., 135 U. S. 641, 10 Supm. 965, 34 L. ed. 295 (1890) 62, 95, 133 Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 8 L. ed. 25 (Jan. T. 1831) 62 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xxi [The references are to pages.] Chesapeake & 0. Fuel Co. v. U. S. See U. S. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Fuel Co. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kentucky, 179 U. S. 388, 21 Supm. 101, 45 L. ed. 24-t (1900), affirming 51 S. W. 160 (Ct. App. Ky., 1899) 43 Chiapella v. Brown, 14 La. Ann. 189 ( 1859) 173 Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. City of Carlinville, 200 111. 314, 65 N. E. 730, 60 L. R. A. 391, 93 Am. St. Rep. 190 (1902) 225 Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Erickson, 91 111. 613, 33 Am. Rep. 70 (1S79) 195 Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Gasaway, 71 111. 570 (1874) 195 Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. People, 105 III. 657 (1883) 236 Chicago & Atchison Bridge Co. v. Pacific Mutual Tel. Co., 36 Kan. 113, 12 Pac. 535 (1887) 96 Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. Co. v. State, 153 Ind. 134, 51 N. E. 924 (1899) 130 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Attorney-General, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,666 (C. C. Iowa, 1875), affirmed in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. V. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. ed. 94 (Oct. 1876) 43, 71 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ey. Co. v. Babcock, 204 U. S. 585, 27 Supm. 3-26, 51 L. ed. 636 ( 1907 ) 262, 264 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy E. R. Co. v. Iowa. See Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. V. Attorney-General. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Jones, 149 111. 361, 37 N. E. 247, 24 L. R. A. 141, 41 Am. St. Rep. 278 ( 1894) 139 Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Slattery, 107 N. W. 1045 (Supm. Ct. Neb., 1906) 80 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Becker, 32 Fed. 849 (C. C. Minn., 1887) 43, 46 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133, 18 Supm. 289, 42 L. ed. 688 (1898), affirming Solan v. Chicago, IMilwaukee, etc., Ey. Co., 95 Iowa, 260, 63 N. W. 692, 28 L. R. A. 718, 58 Am. St. Rep. 430 (1895) 119, 238, 239 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Tompkins, 90 Fed. 363 (C. C. S. D., 1898) 44 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Voelker. See Voelker v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ey. Co. Chicago Portrait Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Macon, 147 Fed. 967 (C. C. Ga., 1809) 157, 160 Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburg R. R. Co. v. Wolcott, 141 Ind. 267, 39 N. E. 451, 50 Am. St. Rep. 320 (1895) 43 Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Becker, 35 Fed. 883 (C. C. Minn., 1»88) 56 Chicago Union Traction Co. v. State Board, 114 Fed. 557 (C. C. III., 1902) 271 Digitized by Microsoft® xxii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Chiles v. Chesapeake & O. Ey. Co., 101 S. W. 386 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 232 Chilvers v. People, 11 Mich. 43 ( 1862) 174 Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581, 9 Supm. 623, 32 L. ed. 1068 { 1889 ) 73 Chisolm V. Caines, 67 Fed. 285 (C. C. S. C. 1894) 25 Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County v. State, 24 N. J. Law, 718, (1853), affirming State v. Freeholders of Hudson County, 23 Id. 206 (1851) 137 Re Christian, 39 Fed. 636 (Minn. 1889) 204 Chrystal v. Mayor, etc., of Macon, 108 Ga. 27, 33 S. E. 810 (1899) . 160 Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 550 (Oct. 1875) . .144, 193 Cincinnati, etc.. Packet Co. v. Bay, 200 U. S. 179, 26 Supm. 208, 50 L. ed. 428 ( 1906) 47, 58 Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. E. Co. v. Commonwealth, 104 S. W. 394 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 58, 220 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Greening, 100 S. W. 825 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 80 Cincinnati, New Orleans, etc., Ky. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U. S. 184, 16 Supm. 700, 40 L. ed. 935 (1896), affirming Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 9 C. C. A. 689 (5th C. 1894), which reversed 56 Fed 925 (C. C. Ga., 1893) 52 Cisco V. Roberts, 36 N. Y. 292 (1867), reversing 6 Bosw. 494 ( I860) 244 City Council of Charleston v. Rogers, 2 McCord (S. C), 495, 13 Am. Dec. 751 (1823) 203 City of Alma v. Clow, 146 Mich. 443, 109 N. W. 853 (1906) 160 City of Anniston v. Southern Ry. Co., 112 Ala. 557, 20 So. 915 (Nov. T. 1896) 148 City of Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry, etc., 127 Fed. 23, 61 C. C. A. 387, 64 L. R. A. 721 (6th C. 1903) ; previous decision in 101 Fed. 900 (C. C. Tenn., 1900) 76 City of Bangor v. Smith, 83 Me. 422, 22 Atl. 379, 13 L. R. A. 686 (1891) 143 City of Bloomington v. Bourland, 137 111. 534, 27 N. E. 692, 31 Am. St. Rep. 382 (1891) 158, 168 City of Buffalo v. Reavey, 37 App. Div. 228, 55 N. Y. Suppl. 792 (1899) 32, 165 City of Carrollton v. Bazzette, 159 111. 284, 42 N. E. 837, 31 L. R. A. 522 ( 1896) 161 City of Carthage v. Duvall, 202 111. 234, 66 N. E. 1099 (1903) 155 City of Carthage v. Munsell, 203 111. 474, 67 N. E. 831 (1903) 155 City of Chicago v. Law, 144 111. 569, 33 N. E. 855 (1893) 99 City of Chicago v. McGinn, 51 111. 266 (1869) 177 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xxiii [The references are to pages.] City of Council Bluffs v. Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 338 24 Am. Rep. 773 ( 1876 ) 139 City of Covington v. Pullman Co., 89 S. W. 116 (Ct. App. Ky., 1905) 262 City of Dubuque v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 56 (1874) . . 250 City of Fort Scott v. Pelton, 39 Kan. 764, 18 Pac. 954 (1888) 158 City of Huntington v. Mahan, 142 Ind. 695, 42 N. E. 463, 51 Am. St. Rep. 200 ( 1895) 156 City of Indianapolis v. Bieler, 138 Ind. 30, 36 N. E. 857 (1894) 224 City of Keokuk v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co., 45 Iowa, 196 (1876) 272 City of Laurens v. Elmore, 55 S. C. 477, 33 S. E. 560, 45 L. R. A. 249 (1899) 160 City of Louisville v. Wehmhoff, 116 Ky. 812, 76 S. W. 876, 79 Id. 201 (1903) 120 City of Madison v. Abbott, 118 Ind. 337, 21 N. E. 28 (1889) 174 City of Marshalltown v. Blum, 58 Iowa, 184, 12 N. W. 266, 43 Am. Rep. 116 (1882) 165 City of Milwaukee v. Gimbel, 130 Wis. 31, 110 N. W. 7 (1906) 185 City of Mobile v. Phillips, 146 Ala. 158, 40 So. 826 (1906) 223 City of Muscatine v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co., 45 Iowa, 185 (1876) 273 City of Muskegon v. Hanes, 112 N. W. 1077 (Supm. Ct. Mich., 1907) 160 City of Muskegon v. Zeeryp, 134 Mich. 181, 96 N. W. 502 (1903) ... 160 City of New Orleans v. Eclipse Tow-Boat Co., 33 La. Ann. 647, 39 Am. Rep. 279 ( 1881 ) 145 City of New Orleans v. Wilmot, 31 La. Ann. 65 ( 1879) 275 City of Newport v. Berry, 19 S. W. 238 (Ct. App. Ky., 1892) 257 City of Newport v. Taylor. See Conway v. Taylor. City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 9 L. ed. 648 (Jan. T. 1837) 193 City of Ogdensburgh v. Lyon, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 215 (1872) 120 City of Philadelphia v. Atlantic & P. Tel. Co. See Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia. City of Philadelphia v. Postal Cable Co., 67 Hun, 21, 21 N. Y. Suppl. 556 (1892) 277 City of Philadelphia v. Western Union Tel. Co., 40 Fed. 615 (C. C. Pa., 1889) 277 City of Philadelphia v. Western Union Tel. Co., 82 Fed. 797 (C. C. Pa., 1897) 277 City of Philadelphia v. Western Union Tel. Co., 89 Fed. 454, 32 C. C. A. 246 (3d C. 1898) 277 City of Richmond v. Southern Bell Tel. Co., 85 Fed. 19, 28 C. C. A. 659 (4th C. 1898) 226 City of St. Louis v. Boffinger, 19 Mo. 13 (1853) 208 Digitized by Microsoft® xxiv Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] City of St. Louis v. Consolidated Coal Co., 158 Mo. 342, 59 S. W. 103, 51 L. R. A. 850, 81 Am. St. Rep. 310 (1900) 48, 146, 274 City of St. Louis v. McCoy, 18 Mo. 238 (1853) 208 City of St. Louis v. Waterloo-Carondelet Turnpike, etc., Co., 14 Mo. App. 216 ( 1883 ) 174 The City of Salem, 37 Fed. 846, 2 L. R. A. 380, 38 Fed. 762, 4 L. R. A. 125 (D. C. Greg., 1889) 88, 92, 93 City of San Bernardino v. Southern Pacific Co., 107 Cal. 524, 40 Pac. 796, 29 L. R. A. 327 (1895) 141 City of Shreveport v. Red River & Coast Line, 37 La. Ann. 562, 55 Am. Rep. 504 ( 1885) 275 City of South Bend v. Martin, 142 Ind. 31, 41 N. E. 315, 29 L. R. A. 531 (1895) 160 City of Titusville v. Brennan. See Brennan v. Titusville. City of Toledo v. Western Union Tel. Co., 107 Fed. 10, 46 C. C. A. Ill (6th C. 1901) 134 City of York v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 56 Neb. 572, 76 N. W. 1065 ( 1898) 148 Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 3 Supm. 18, 27 L. ed. 835 (1883) . . 81 Clark V. Board of Health, 30 La. Ann. 1351 (1878) 203 Clark V. Boston & Maine R. R., 64 N. H. 323, 10 Atl. 676 (1887) . . 225 Clarke v. Philadelphia, Wilmington, etc., R. R. Co., 4 Houst. ( Del. ) 158 ( 1870) 142 Clements v. Town of Casper, 4 Wyom. 494, 35 Pac. 472 (1894) . . 159 Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 439, 14 Supm. 1122, 38 L. ed. 1041 (1894), afiBrming 133 Ind. 513, 33 N. E. 421, 18 L. R. A. 729 (1893) 258, 261, 270, 271 Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 177 U. S. 514, 20 Supm. 722, 44 L. ed. 868 (1900), reversing 175 111. 359, 51 N. E. 842 (1898) 236,237 The Clinton Bridge, 10 Wall. 454, 19 L. ed. 969 (Dec. 1870), affirming 1 Woolw. 150, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,900 ( 1867) 180 The Clover, 1 Lo-n". 342, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,908 (1869) 230 Clyde S. S. Co. v. City Council of Charleston, 76 Fed. 46 (C. C. S. C, 1896) 46, 131 The Clymene,.12 Fed. 346 (C. C. Pa., 1882), affirming 9 Fed. 164 (D. C. Pa., 1881) 246 C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Town of Loraine, 22 Fed. 54 (C. C. Wis., 1884) 253 Cobb V. Commissioners of Lincoln Park, 202 111. 427, 67 N. E. 5, 63 L. R. A. 264, 95 Am. St. Rep. 258 ( 1903) 101 Coe V. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 6 Supm. 475, 29 L. ed. 715 (1886), affirming 62 N. H. 303 ( 1882) 26, 252 Coit V. Sutton, 102 Mich. 324, 60 N. W. 690, 25 L. R. A. 819 (1894) 132 Cole V. Randolph, 31 La. Ann. 535 ( 1879 ) 161 Digitized by Microsoft® Table op Cases. xxv [The references are to pages.] Coleman v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 5 Blatclif. 56, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,983 (1862), affirmed in Albany Bridge Case, 2 Wall. 403, 17 L. ed. 876 (Dec. 1864) 179 Collier v. Burgin, 130 N. C. 632, 41 S. E. 874 ( 1902) 156 Collins V. City of Louisville, 2 B. Monr. (Ky.) 134 (1841) 203 Collins V. Hills, 77 Iowa, 181, 41 N. W. 571, 3 L. R. A. 110 (1889) . 30 Collins V. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30, 18 Supm. 768, 43 L. ed. 00 (1898), reversing State v. Collins, 67 N. H. 540, 42 Atl. 51 (1893) 198 Columbia Delaware Bridge Co. v. Geisse, 38 N. J. Law, 39 (1875) . 175 Columbus Ins. Co. v. Gurtenius, 6 McLean, 209, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,045 ( 1853 ) 181 Columbus Ins. Co. v. Peoria Bridge Assoc., 6 McLean, 70, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,046 (1853) 181 Commissioners v. Board of Public Works, 39 Ohio St. 628 ( 1884) 177, 181 Commissioners of Escambia County v. Board of Pilot Commis- sioners, 42 So. 697 (Supm. Ct. Fla., 1906) 183 Commissioners of Homochitto River v. Withers. See Withers v. Buckley. Commissioners of Immigration v. Brandt, 26 La. Ann. 29 (1874) . . 144 Commissioners of Parks, etc., of Detroit v. Common Council of Detroit, 80 Jlieh. 663, 45 N. W. 508 ( 1890) 107 Commissioners of Pilotage v. Steamboats Cuba, etc. See Sinnot v. Davenport. Commissioners of Pilots v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 52 N. Y. 609 (1873) 246 Commissioner of Railroads v. Wabash R. R. Co., 123 Mich. 669, 82 N. W. 526 ( 1900) 43 Commissioner of Railroads v. Wabash R. R. Co., 126 Mich. 113, 85 N. W. 466 (1901) 136, 150 Commissioners of St. Joseph County v. Pidge, 5 Ind. 13 (1854) . . . 177 Commissioners of Sinking Fund v. Green & Barren River Naviga- tion Co., 79 Ky. 73 (1880) 182, 185 Commissioners of Talbot County v. Commissioners of Queen Anne's County, 50 Md. 245 ( 1879) , 177 Commonwealth v. Amer. Dredging Co., 122 Pa. St. 386, 15 Atl. 443, 1 L. R. A. 237, 9 Am. St. Rep. 116 (1888) 257 Commonwealth v. Ayer & Lord Tie Co. See Ayer & Lord Tie Co. V. Kentucky. Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 96 S. W. 914 (Ct. App. Ky., 1906).. 155 Commonwealth v. Bishman, 138 Pa. St. 639, 21 Atl. 12 (1891)... 35 Commonwealth v. Breed, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 460 (1827) 177 Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 190 Mass. 355, 76 N. E. 955, 112 Am. St. Rep. 334 (1906) 163 Commonwealth v. Calhane, 154 Mass. 115, 27 N. E. 881 (1891).. 218 Digitized by Microsoft® xxvi Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Commonwealth v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ey. Co., 101 Ky. 159, 40 S. W. 250 (1897) 120 Commonwealth v. Clapp, 5 Gray (Mass.), 97 (1855) 140 Commonwealth v. Covington & C. Bridge Co. See Covington & Cin- cinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky. Commonwealth v. Crowell, 156 Mass. 215, 30 N. E. 1015 (1892).. 197 Commonwealth v. D. & H. Canal Co., 150 Pa. St. 245, 24 Atl. 599 (1892) 130 Commonwealth v. Dunham, 191 Pa. St. 73, 43 Atl. 84 (1899) .... 161 Commonwealth v. Eclipse Hay Press Co., 104 S. W. 224 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 158 Commonwealth v. Gagne, 153 Mass. 205, 26 N. E. 449, 10 L. R. A. 442 (1891) ..: 140 Commonwealth v. Gardner, 133 Pa. St. 284, 19 Atl. 550, 7 L. R. A. 666, 19 Am. St. Rep. 645 ( 1890) 161 Commonwealth v. Gloucester Ferry Co. See Gloucester Ferry Co. V. Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Gregory, 89 S. W. 168 (Ct. App. Ky., 1905)... 15 Commonwealth v. Griffin, 3 B. Monr. (Ky.) 208 (1842) 143 Commonwealth v. Harmel, 166 Pa. St. 89, 30 Atl. 1036, 27 L. E. A. 388 (1895) 32, 163,197 Commonwealth v. Hogan, 74 S. W. 737 (Ct. App. Ky., 1903) ..132, 158 Commonwealth v. Holbrook, 10 Allen (Mass.), 200 (1865) 214 Commonwealth v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 143 Mass. 264, 9 N. E. 547 (1887) 136 Commonwealth v. Huntley. See Plumley v. Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 101 S. W. 894 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 220 Commonwealth v. Inhabitants of Taunton, 7 Allen (Mass.), 309 (1863) 177 Commonwealth v. Keary, 198 Pa. St. 500, 48 Atl. 472 (1901), affirming 14 Pa. Super. 583 ( 1900) 234 Commonwealth v. Kimball, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 359, 35 Am. Dec. 326(1837) 32 Commonwealth v. King, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 448 ( 1836) 204 Commonwealth v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. See Lehigh Valley R. E. Co. V. Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. McCann, 14 Pa. Super. 221 ( 1900) 200 Commonwealth v. Manchester. See Manchester v. Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Mobile & O. R. R. Co., 64 S. W. 451, 54 L. R. A. 916 (Ct. App. Ky., 1901) 130 Commonwealth v. Myer, 92 Va. 809, 23 S. E. 915, 31 L. R. A. 379 (1896) 165 Commonwealth v. Newhall, 164 Mass. 338, 41 N. E. 647 (1895) ... 197 Common-wealth v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 150 Pa. St. 234, 24 Atl. 609 ( 1892) 130 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xxvii [The references are to pages. J Commonwealtli v. N. Y., P. & 0. R. R. Co. See N. Y., Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Ober, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 493 ( 1853) 161 Commonwealth v. Paul, 148 Pa. St. 559, 24 Atl. 78 (1892). See Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Pearl Laundry Co., 105 Ky. 259, 49 S. W. 26 (1899) 17 Commonwealth v. Petrauieh, 183 Mass. 217, 66 N. E. 807 (1903).. 215 Commonwealtli v. Proprietors of New Bedford Bridge, 2 Gray (Mass.), 339 (1854) 177 Commonwealth v. Read Phosphate Co., 113 Ky. 32, 67 S. W. 45 (1902) 133 Commonwealth v. Rearick. See Rearick v. Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. R. I. Sherman Manuf. Co., 189 Mass. 76, 75 N. E. 71 (1905) 121 Commonwealth v. Savage, 155 Mass. 278, 29 N. E. 468 (1892) 212 Commonwealth v. Schollenberger, 156 Pa. St. 201, 27 Atl. 30, 22 L. R. A. 155, 36 Am. St. Rep. 32 (1893) 30 Commonwealth v. Selliger, 98 S. W. 1040 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) .. 61 Commonwealth v. Silverman, 138 Pa. St. 642, 21 Atl. 13 ( 1891 ) . . 216 Commonwealth v. Simons, 15 Pa. Co. 550 ( 1894) 165 Commonwealth v. Smith, 6 Bush. (Ky.) 303 (1869) 159 Commonwealth v. Smith, 92 Ky. 38, 17 S. W. 187, 36 Am. St. Rep. 578 (1891) 142,260 Commonwealth v. Strauss, 191 Mass. 545, 78 N. E. 136 (1906).. 153 Commonwealth v. Vandyke, 13 Pa. Super. 484 (1900) 200 Commonwealth v. Walker, 14 Pa. Co. 586 ( 1894) 158 Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 139 Pa. St. 298, 21 Atl. 14 (1891) . . 212 Commonwealth v. Wilson, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 384 (1880) 234 Commonwealth v. Zelt, 138 Pa. St. 615, 21 Atl. 7, 11 L. R. A. 602 (1891) 216 Compagnie Francaise de Navigation, etc. v. Louisiana State Board of Health, 186 U. S. 380, 22 Supm. 811, 46 L. ed. 1209 (1902), affirming 51 La. Ann. 645, 25 So. 591, 56 L. R. A. 795, 72 Am. St. R«p. 458 (1899) 110, 207, 209 Conley v. Chedic, 7 Nev. 336 ( 1872) 250 Connecticut River Lumber Co. v. Columbia, 62 N. H. 286 (1882) . . 250 Connell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 108 Mo. 459, 18 S. W. 883 ( 1891 ) 244 Connery v. Quincy, Omaha, etc., R. R. Co., 92 Minn. 20, 99 N. W. 365, 64 L. R. A. 624, 104 Am. St. Rep. 659 (1904) 122 Conway v. Taylor, 1 Black, 603, 17 L. ed. 191 (Dec. T. 1801), affirming City of Newport v. Taylor, 16 B. Monr. (Ky.) 699 (1856) 174,175 Cook V. Marshall County, 196 U. S. 261, 25 Supm. 233, 49 L. ed. 471 (1905), affirming 119 Iowa, 384, 93 N. W. 372, 104 Am. St. Rep. 283 (1903) 5,28,34,35,36, 38 Digitized by Microsoft® xxviii Table op Cases. [The references are to pages.] Cook V. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. ed. 1015 (Oct. 1878).. 4 154, 163, 255 Cook V. Rome Brick Co., 98 Ala. 409, 12 So. 918 (Nov. T. 1892-3) . 131 Cooley V. Port Wardens, 12 How. 299, 13 L. ed. 996 (Dec. T. 1851) 23, 66, 80, 114, 116, 244, 245, 246 Coonley v. City of Albany, 132 N. Y. 145, 30 N. E. 382 (1892) ... 183 Cooper Manuf. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727, 5 Supm. 739, 28 L. ed. 1137 (1885) 130 Corbin v. Houlehan, 100 Me. 246, 61 Atl. 131, 70 L. R. A. 568 (1905) 217 Corbin v. McConnell, 71 N. H. 350, 52 Atl. 447 (1902) 217, 221 Corcoran v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 101 S. W. 1185 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 54 Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,230 (1823). 51 Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U. S. 418, 24 Supm. 383, 48 L. ed. 504 ( 1904) 256 Corporation of Georgetown v. Davidson, 6 D. C. 278 (1868) 204 Corrigan Transit Co. v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 137 Fed. 851, 70 C. C. A. 381 (7th C. 1905), aflBrming 125 Fed. 611 (D. C. 111., 1903) 101, 184 Corson v. Maryland, 120 U. S. 502, 7 Supm. 655, 30 L. ed. 699 (1887), reversing 57 Md. 251 (1881) ' 157 Cotting V. Kansas City Stock- Yards Co., 79 Fed. 079, 82 Fed. 839, 850 (C. C. Kan., 1897) 47, 72, 79, 80, 136 Coulter V. Weir, 127 Fed. 897, 62 C. C. A. 429 (6th C, 1904) . .264, 270 County of Galveston v. Gorham, 49 Tex. 279 ( 1878) 166 County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 26 L. ed. 238 (Oct. 1880) 4, 9, 10, 17, 2.3, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 182, 184, 245 Covington k C. Bridge Co. v. City of Covington, 89 S. W. 296 ( Ct. App. Ky. 1903 ) 269 Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 14 Supm. 1087, 38 L. ed. 962 (1894), reversing 22 S. W. 851 (Ct. App. Ky., 1893) ; previous decision in Commonwealth v. Coving- ton & C. Bridge Co., 21 S. W. 1042 (Ct. App. Ky., 1893) 20, 41, 111, 114, 117, 119, 135, 175, 258 Covington & Lexington Turnpike Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 17 Supm. 158, 41 L. ed. 560 (1896) 43 Covington Harbor Co. v. Phoenix Bridge Co., 10 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 657 (1889) 106 Cowden v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 94 Cal. 470, 29 Pac. 873, 18 L. R. A. 221, 28 Am. St. Rep. 142 (1892) 57 Cowles V. Brittain, 2 Hawks (N. C), 204 (1822) 161 Cox V. Collector. See State Tonnage Tax Cases. Cox V. State, 3 Blackf. (lad.) 193 (1833) 183 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xxix [The references are .to pages.] Cox V. Texas, 202 U. S. 446, 26 Supm. 671, 50 L. ed. 1099 (1906) 164, 215 Coxe V. State, 144 N. Y. 396, 39 N. E. 400 ( 1895) 104 Craig V. Kline, 65 Pa. St. 399, 3 Am. Rep. 636 (1870) 227 Crandall v. State of Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L. ed. 745 (Dee. 1867), reversing 1 Nev. 294 ( 1865 ) 126, 142 Crawford v. Southern Ry. Co., 56 S. C. 136. 34 S. E. 80 ( 1899 ) . . . 239 Crescent Liquor Co. v. Piatt, 148 Fed. 894 (C. C. W. Va., 1906) 155, 220 Cribb V. State, 9 Fla. 409 ( 1861 ) 245, 246 Crigler v. Commonwealth, 120 Ky. 512, 87 S. W. 276 (1905) 216 Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189, 24 Supm. 234, 48 L. ed. 401 (1904), affirming 171 N. Y. 329, 63 N. E. 1097, 98 Am. St. Rep. 599 (1902), 57 App. Div. 393, 68 N. Y. Suppl. 311 (1901) 200 Crow V. State, 14 Mo. 237 ( 1851 ) 165 Croy V. Obion County, 104 Tenn. 525, 58 S. W. 235, 51 L. R. A. 254, 78 Am. St. R«p. 931 (1900) 32, 160 Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 11 Supm. 851, 35 L. ed. 649 (1891), reversing 89 Ky. 6, 12 S. W. 141 (1889) 60, 69, 119 124, 127, 128, 130, 141 Cuban Steamship Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 66 Fed. 63 (C. C. La., 1895) . 227 Culberson v. American Trust & Banking Co., 107 Ala. 457, 19 So. 34 (Nov. T. 1894) 131 Cumberland & Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. State, 92 Md. 668, 48 Atl. 503, 52 L. R. A. 764 ( 1901 ) 150 Re Cumminga, 32 Fed. 75 (C. C. N. Y., 1887) 74 Cummlngs v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 410, 23 Supm. 472, 47 L. ed. 525 (1903) , 67, 102 Cunningham v. Tucker, 14 Fla. 251 ( 1873) 92 Currie v. R. R. Co., 135 N. C. 535, 47 S. E. 654 (1904) 233 Cutting V. Florida Ry. & Nav. Co., 46 Fed. 641 (C. C. Fla.. 1891) . . 56 The Cynosure, 1 Spr. 88, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,529 (1844) 143 D. Danciger v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 154 Fed. 379 (C. C. Mo., 1907) .. 118 Daniel v. Trustees of Richmond, 78 Ky. 542 ( 1880) 167 The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 19 L. ed. 999 (Dec. 1870). . . .24, 25, 26 55, 91, 93 Darden v. Thompson. See Thompson v. Darden. Darnell v. City of Memphis, 116 Tenn. 424, 95 S. W. 816 (1906) 164, 252 Re Davenport, 102 Fed. 540 (C. C. Wash., 1900) 212 Ex parte Davis, 21 Fed. 396 (C. C. Ky., 1884) 159 Davis v. Booth, 131 Fed. 31, 65 C. C. A. 269 (6th C. 1904), affirming Booth v. Davis, 127 Fed. 875 (C. C. Mich., 1904) 49 Digitized by Microsoft® sxx Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Davis V. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ey. Co., 93 Wis. 470, 67 N. W. 16, 1132, 33 L. R. A. 654, 57 Am. St. Rep. 935 (1896) .. 118 Davis V. DasMel, Phil. Law (N. C.) 114 (1867) 166 Davis V. Texas & Pacific Ey. Co., 12 Tex. Civ. App. 427, 34 8. W. 144 (1896) 72 Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 15 Supm. 900, 39 L. ed. 1092 (1895); previous decision in U. S. v. Debs, 64 Fed. 724 (C. C. 111., 1894) 7, 10, 17, 23, 76, 87 Decker v. Baltimore & N. Y. Ry. Co., 30 Fed. 723 (C. C. N. Y., 1887) 107 Decuir v. Benson. See Hall v. DeCuir. Re Deininger, 108 Fed. 623 (C. C. Oreg., 1901) 212 Delamater v. South Dakota, 205 U. S. 93, 27 Supm 447, 51 L. ed. 724 (1907), affirming State v. Delamater, 104 N. W. 537, 8 L. R. A. N. S. 774 (Supm. Ct. S. D.. 1905) 221, 223 Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Commonwealth, 1 Monag. (Pa.) 36, 17 Atl. 175, 1 L. R. A. 232 (1888) 250, 266 Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Lawrence, 2 Hun, 163 (1873), affirmed in 56 N. Y. 612 ( 1874) 187, 188 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Frank, 110 Fed. 689 (C. C. N. Y., 1901) 76 Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206, 21 L. ed. 888 (Oct. 1873), affirming Minot v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 2 Abb. U. S. 323, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9.645 ( 1870) 265 Denver & N. 0. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 15 Fed. 650 (C. C. Colo., 1883), reversed in Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. Co. V. Denver & New Orleans R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 4 Supm. 185, 28 L. ed. 291 ( 1884) 43 Denver k Rio Grande Ry. Co. v. Church, 17 Colo. 1, 28 Pac. 468, 31 Am. St. Rep. 252 ( 1891 ) 250 Depew V. Trustees of Wabash & Erie Canal, 5 Ind. 8 ( 1854) 181 Devoe v. Penrose Ferry Bridge Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,845 (C. C. Pa., 1854) 177 DeWitt V. Berger Manuf. Co., 81 S. W. 334 (Tex. Civ. App. 1904). 158 Diamond Glue Co. v. U. S. Glue Co., 187 U. S. 611, 23 Supm. 206, 47 L. ed. 328 (1903), affirming 103 Fed. 838 (C. C. Wis., 1900) 50, 120 Diamond Match Co. v. Ontonagon, 188 U. S. 82, 23 Supm. 266, 47 L. ed. 394 (1903) 253 Dickinson v. Cunningham, 140 Ala. 527, 37 So. 345 (Nov. T. 1903) . 122 Dieterich v. Fargo, 119 App. Div. 315, 104 N. Y. Suppl. 334 (1907). 212 Dillon V. Erie R. R. Co., 19 Misc. 116, 43 N. Y. Suppl. 320 (App. T. 1897) 139 Dimmitt v. Kansas City, St. Joseph, etc., R. R. Co., 103 Mo. 433, 15 S. W. 761 ( 1890) 240 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xxxi [The references are to pages.] Dinsmore v. N. Y. Board of Police, 12 Abb. N. C. 436 (N. Y. Super. Ct. Sp. T. 1882) 226 District of Columbia v. Humason, 2 MacArthur (D. C), 158 ( 1875 ) 157 Dittman Boot & Shoe Co. v. Mixon, 120 Ala. 206, 24 So. 847 (Nov. T. 1897) 130 Dize V. Lloyd, 36 Fed. 651 (C. C. Md., 1888) 51 Re Doane, 197 111. 376, 64 N. E. 377 (1902) 255 Doherty v. Cotter, 68 N. H. 37, 38 Atl. 499 (1894) 32 Donald v. Scott, 67 Fed. 854 (C. C. S. C, 1895), 74 Fed. 859 (C. C. S. C, 1896), 76 Fed. 554 (C. C. S. C, 1895) 214, 222 See Scott v. Donald. Donley v. State, 89 S. W. 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1905) 155, 220 Dooley v. U. S., 183 U. S. 151, 22 Supm. 62, 46 L. ed. 128 (1901) . 61 Dorman v. State, 34 Ala. 216 (1859) 31 Doucette v. Little Falls Inaprovement, etc., Co., 71 Minn. 206, 73 N. W. 847 ( 1898) 187 Dougherty v. U. S., 108 Fed. 56, 47 C. C. A. 195 (3d C. 1901) .. 79 Dover v. Portsmouth Bridge, 17 N. IL 200 (1845) 177, 178 Dow V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 8 Supm. 1028, 31 L. ed. 841 (1888) 43 Dryden v. Commonwealth, 16 B. Monr. (Ky.) 598 (1856) 245, 246 Ducat V. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410, 19 L. ed. 972 (Dec. 1870) 14, 130 Dueber Watch-Case Manuf. Co. v. Howard Watch & Clock Co., 66 Fed. 637, 14 C. C. A. 14 (2d C. 1895) 49 Dugan V. State, 125 Ind. 130, 25 N. E. 171, 9 L. R. A. 321 (1890) . 42 Duluth Brewing & Malting Co. v. City of Superior, 123 Fed. 353, 59 C. C. A. 481 (7th C. 1903) 223 Duluth Lumber Co. v. St. Louis Boom, etc., Co., 17 Fed. 419 (C. C. Minn., 1883) 186 Dunbar v. Locke, 62 N. H. 442 (1883) 221 Duncan v. State, 105 Ga. 457, 30 S. E. 755 (1898) 160 Dunham v. Lamphere, 3 Gray (Mass.) , 268 ( 1855) 51 Durkee v. Moses, 67 N. H. 115, 23 Atl. 793 ( 1891 ) 221 E. E. A. Chatfield Co. v. City of New Haven, 110 Fed. 788 (C. C. Conn., 1901) 99, 107 Eager Co. v. Burke, 74 Conn. 534, 51 Atl. 544 (1902) 221 Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68, 24 L. ed. 373 (Oct. 1877) 273 The E. B. Ward, 16 Fed. 255 (C. C. La., 1883) 241 Ecton v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 102 S. W. 575 (Ct. App. Mo., 1907) 80 Ex parte Edgerton, 59 Fed. 115 (C. C. S. C, 1893) 220 Edye v. Robertson. See Head Money Cases. Egan V. Hart, 45 La. Ann. 1358, 14 So. 244 (1893) 181 Digitized by Microsoft® xxxii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Ca3e Co. See Illinois Watch-Case Co. v. Elgin Nat. Watch Co. Elkison v. Deliesseline, Brunner, Col. Cas. 431, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,366 (1823) 143 Ellerman v. McMains, 30 La. Ann. 190, 31 Am. Eep. 218 (1878) . . 273 Ellis V. Inman, 131 Fed. 182, 65 C. C. A. 488 (9th C. 1904), re- versing 124 Fed. 956 (C. C. Oreg. 1903) 76 Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296, 15 Supm. 367, 39 L. ed. 430 (1895), affirming State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 241, 15 S. W. 81, 11 L. R. A. 219 (1890) 160, 162, 163 Endleman v. U. S., 86 Fed. 456, 30 C. C. A. 186 (9th C. 1898) .. 59 Erb V. Morasoh, 177 U. S. 584, 20 Supm. 819, 44 L. ed. 897 ( 1900 ) , affirming 60 Kan. 251, 56 Pao. 133 ( 1899 ) 225 Erie Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 282, 21 L. ed. 164 (Dec. 1872) 265 Erie Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall. 492, 22 L. ed. 595 (Oct. 1874) 265 Erie R. R. Co. v. Purdy. See Purdy v. Erie R. R. Co. Erie Ry. Co. v. State, 31 N. J. Law 531, 86 Am. Dec. 226 (1864). 265 Bscanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678, 2 Supm. 185, 27 L. ed. 442 (1883), affirming 12 Fed. 777 (C. C. 111., 1882) 24,25,111, 113 114, 115, 119, 177, 178, 180 The Eudora. See Patterson v. Bark Eudora. Evansville & Henderson Traction Co. v. Henderson Bridge Co., 141 Fed. 51, 72 C. C. A. 539 (6th C. 1905) 135 Express Co. v. State, 55 Ohio St. 69, 44 N. E. 506 (1896) 148 F. Fairbank v. U. S., 181 U. S. 283, 21 Supm. 648, 45 L. ed. 862 ( 1901 ) 12, 61 Fairfjanks v. Macleod, 8 Colo. App. 190, 45 Pac. 282 (1896) 131 Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524, 14 L. ed. 1043 (Dec. T. 1853) .. 175 Fargo V. Hart, 193 U. S. 490, 24 Supm. 498, 48 L. ed. 761 (1904) 249,261,262,263,264 Fargo V. Michigan, 121 U. S. 230, 7 Supm. 857, 30 L. ed. 888 (1887), reversing 57 Mich. 598, 24 N. W. 538 (1885) .41, 67, 150, 266 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Stone. See Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Farragut, 6 Blatchf. 207, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4677 (1868) 48 Farrell v. U. S., 110 Fed. 942, 49 C. C. A. 183 (8th C. 1901) 63 Farris v. Henderson, 1 Okla. 384, 33 Pac. 380 (1893) 59 Fay Fruit Co. v. McKinney, 103 Mo. App. 304, 77 S. W. 160 (1903) 160 Fecheimer v. City of Louisville, 84 Ky. 306, 2 S. W. 65 (1886) 167 Ficklen v. Shelby County Taxing District, 145 V. S. 1, 12 Supm. 810, 36 L. ed. 601 (1892) 149, 156, 258 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xxxiii [The references are to pages.] Field V. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 194 U. S. 618, 24 Supm. 784, 48 L. ed. 1142 (1904) 122 Fielder v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 42 S. W. 362 (Tex. Civ. App. 1897), affirmed in 92 Tex. 176, 46 S. W. 633 (1898) 45 First Municipality v. Pease, 2 La. Ann. 538 ( 1847 ) 274 Fisher v. Insurance Co., 136 N. C. 217, 48 S. E. 667 (1904) 14 Fitch V. Livingston, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 492 ( 1851) 93, 230 Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Co., 41 Neb. 374, 59 N. W. 838 (1894) 70 Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 63 Vt. 169, 22 Atl. 76, 13 L. R. A. 70 (1890) 70 Flanagan v. City of Philadelphia, 42 Pa. St. 219 (1862) 176 Fleming v. Fire Assoc, of Philadelphia, 147 Mich. 404, 110 N. W. 9.33 (1907) 92 Re Flinn, 57 Fed. 496 (C. C. N. C, 1893) 157 Ee Florio, 43 Fed. 114 (C. C. N. Y., 1890) 74 Folsom V. U. S., 4 Ct. of CI. 366 (Dec. T. 1868) 68 Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S. 698, 13 Supm. 1016, 37 L. ed. 905 (1893) 73 Foppiano v. Speed, 199 U. S. 501, 26 Supm. 138, 50 L. ed. 288 (1905), affirming 113 Tenn. 167, 82 S. W. 222 (1904) 218, 219 Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Lillard, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. 123 ( 1890) 243 Fort Worth & Denver City Ry. Co. v. Whitehead, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 595, 26 S. W. 172 (1894) 53 Foster v. Chamberlain, 41 Ala. 158 (1867) 92 Foster v. Commissioners of Blue Earth County, 7 Minn. 140 (1862) . 63 Foster v. Davenport, 22 How. 244, 16 L. ed. 248 (Dec. T. 1859) . .47, 145 Foster v. Master & Wardens, 94 U. S. 246, 24 L. ed. 122 (Oct. 1876), reversing Master & Wardens of Port of New Orleans v. Foster, 26 La. Ann. 105 ( 1874) 202, 274 Fox v. State, 89 Md. 381, 43 Atl. 775, 73 Am. St. Rep. 192 (1899) 199, 201 Francis v. U. S., 188 U. S. 375, 23 Supm. 334, 47 L. ed. 508 (1903), reversing Reilley v. U. S., 106 Fed. 896, 46 C. C. A. 25 (6th C. 1901) 20, 72 Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Stevens, 102 Iowa, 60, 71 N. W. 186 (1897) 12, 218 Freeman v. The Undaunted, 37 Fed. 662 (C. C. Cal., 1889) 246 French v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 222, 58 S. W. 1015, 52 L. R. A. 160 (1900) 162 Frere v. Von Schoeler, 47 La. Ann. 324, 16 So. 808, 27 L. R. A. 414 (1895) ■ 145 Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466, 13 L. ed. 1068 (Dec. T. 1851) 88 Ex parte Fritz, 86 Miss. 210, 30 So. 722, 109 Am. St. R«p. 700 (1905) 50 iL Digitized by Microsoft® xxxiv Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Frost V. Washington County R. R. Co., 96 Me. 76, 51 Atl. 806, 59 L. R. A. 68 (1901) 25, 102, 106 Fry V. State, 63 Ind. 5-52, 30 Am. Rep. 238 ( 1878) 234 Fuller V. Chicago & X. W. R. R. Co. See Railroad Co v. Fuller. Fuqua v. Pabst Brewing Co., 90 Tex. 298, 38 S. W. 29, 750, 35 L. R. A. 241 (1897) 31, 218 G. Gale Manuf. Co. v. Finkelstein, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 241, 54 S. W. 619 (1899) 132 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Davidson, 93 S. W. 436 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906) 140, 150 Galveston, Harrisburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. Fales, 33 Te;x. Civ. App. 457, 77 S. W. 234 (1903) 238 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Herring, 36 S. W. 129 (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 239 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 29 S. W. 428 (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 239 Ganz V. Ohio Postal Tel. Cable Co., 140 Fed. 692, 72 C. C. A. 186 (6th C. 1905) 226 The Garden City, 26 Fed. 766 (D. C. N. Y., 1886) 90 Re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 11 Supm. 840, 35 L. ed. 631 (1891) 90 Garrison v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 404 ( 1861 ) 143 Gatton V. Chicago, Rock Island k Pacific Ry. Co., 95 Iowa, 112, 63 N. W. 589, 28 L. R. A. 556 (1895) 118 Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 16 Supm. 600, 40 L. ed. 793 (1896), affirming State v. Gear, 61 Conn. 144, 22 Atl. 1012, 13 L. R. A. 804 (1891) 42, 122, 210, 2i2 Gelpi V. Schenck, 48 La. Ann. 1535, 21 So. 115 (1896) 255 The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, 13 L. ed. 1058 (Dec. T. 1851) ... 88 George D. Shore v. Baltimore &, O. R. Co., 57 S. E. 626 ( Supm. Ct. S. C, 1907) 122 The George S. Wright, Deady, 591, 10 Fed. Gas. No. 5,340 (1869) . . 246 Georgia Packing Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Macon, 60 Fed. 774, 22 L. R. A. 775 (C. C. Ga., 1893) 165, 168, 205 Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 9 Supm. 47, 32 L. ed. 377 (1888) 43 Gteraghty v. Hackley. See Hackley v. Geraghty. Gerdan v. Davis, 67 N. J. Law, 88, 50 Atl. 586 (1901) 255 Getz V. Federal Salt Co., 147 Cal. 115, 81 Pac. 416 (1905) 76 Gibbons v. Livingston, 6 N. J. Law, 236 ( 1822 ) 145 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23 (1824), reversing 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 488 (1820), which affirmed Ogden v. Gibbons, 4 Johns. Ch. 150 (1819) .. ..5, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 30, 40, 41, 60 61, 67, 70, 109, 111, 112, 143, 145, 173, 205, 206, 207, 209, 245 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xxxv [The references are to pages.] Gibbs V. McNeeley, 102 Fed. 594 (C. C. Wash., 1900), 107 Fed. 210 (C. C. Wash., 1901) ; reversed in 118 Fed. 120, 55 C. C. A. 70, 60 L. R. A. 152 (9th C. 1902) 49, 50 Gibson v. U. S., 166 U. S. 269, 17 Supm. 578, 41 L. ed. 996 (1897), affirming 29 Ct. of CI. 18 (1894) 104, 105 Gibson County v. Pullman South. Car Co., 42 Fed. 572 (C. C. Tenn., 1890) 141, 147 Oilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713, 18 L. ed. 96 (Dec. 1865) ..91, 97 98, 109, 114, 115, 176, 178, 179, 180 Gilmore v. Hannibal &, St. Joseph R. R. Co., 67 Mo. 323 (1878) . . 195 Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 427, 17 Supm. 627, 41 L. ed. 1064 (1897), affirming State v. Gladson, 57 Minn. 385, 59 N. W. 487, 24 L. R. A. 502 ( 1894) 235 Globe Elevator Co. v. Andrew, 144 Fed. 871 (C. C. Wis., 1906) 203 Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 5 Supm. 826, 29 L. ed. 158 (1885), reversing Commonwealth v. Gloucester Ferry Co., 98 Pa. St. 105 (1881) . .20, 23, 41, 45, 66, 87, 111, 114, 115 123, 173, 175, 186, 249, 259, 273 Glover v. Board of Flour Inspectors, 48 Fed. 348 (C. C. La., 1891) . 205 Glover v. Powell, 10 N. J. Eq. 211 (1854) 25, 187 Glover v. State, 126 Ga. 594, 55 S. E. 592 (1906) 215 Be Gooch, 44 Fed. 276, 10 L. R. A. 830 (C. C. Minn., 1890) 32 Goodrel v. Kreichbaum, 70 Iowa, 362, 30 N. W. 872 (1886) 132 Re Goodrich Transp. Co., 26 Fed. 713 (D. C. Wis., 1886) 89 The Gordon Campbell, 131 Fed. 963 (D. C. N. Y., 1904) 92 Governor Robert McLane v. U. S. See Oyster Police Steamers of Maryland. Graffty v. City of Rushville, 107 Ind. 502, 8 N. E. 609, 57 Am. Rep. 128 (1886). 165 Graham v. Township of St. Joseph, 67 Mich. 652, 35 ^f. W. 808 (1888) 257 Re Grand Jury, 62 Fed. 840 (D. C. Cal., 1894) 17 Matter of Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 2 Interst. Com. R. 496 (1889) . . 60 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Backus, 46 Fed. 211 (C. C. Mich., 1891). 25, 99 Greek-American Sponge Co. v. Richardson Drug Co., 124 Wis. 469, 102 N. W. 888, 109 Am. St. Rep. 961 (1905) 33, 127, 159 Ex parte Green, 114 Fed. 959 (C. C. Ky., 1902) 157 Green v. City of Bridgeton, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,754 (D. C. Ga., 1879) 118 Green v. Mayor, etc. of Savannah, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 368 (1832) . 203 Green v. Steamer Helen, 1 Fed. 916 (D. C. Md., 1880) 230 Green & Barren River Nav. Co. v. Chesapeake, Ohio, etc., R. R. Co., 88 Ky. 1, 10 S. W. 6, 2 L. R. A. 540 (1888) 177, 178 Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U. S. 58, 19 Supm. 97, 43 L. ed. 364 (1898) 103 Re Greene, 52 Fed. 104 (C. C. Ohio, 1892) 49 Digitized by Microsoft® xxxvi Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Carroll. See Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co. The Gretna Green, 20 Fed. 901 (D. C. Ohio, 1883) 94 Griffing v. Gibb, 1 MoAll. 212, 11 Fed. Gas. No. 5,819 (1857), reversed in 2 Black, 519, 17 L. ed. 353 (Dec. T. 1862) 187 Grimes v. Eddy, 126 Mo. 168, 28 S. W. 756, 26 L. R. A. 638, 47 Am. St. Eep. 653 (1894) 165, 195 Groton v. Hurlburt, 22 Conn. 178 ( 1852) 25 Grousendorf v. Howat, 77 Iowa, 187, 41 N. W. 573 (1889) 30 Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449, 10 L. ed. 800 (Jan. T. 1841) 143 Guckenheimer v. Sellers, 81 Fed. 997 (C. C. S. C, 1897) 35, 39 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ky. Co. v. Dwyer, 75 Tex. 572, 12 S. W. 1001, 7 L. E. A. 478, 16 Am. St. Eep. 926 (1890) 243 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe By. Co. v. Eddins, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 116, 26 S. W. 161 (1894) 239 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ey. Co. v. Fort Grain Co., 72 S. W. 419 (1903), 73 S. W. 844 (Tex. Civ. App. 1903 ) .' 42, 54 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ey. Co. v. Gray, 87 Tex. 312, 28 S. W. 280 (1894) 80 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ey. Co. v. Gray, 24 S. W. 837 (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 233 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ey. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 15 Supm. 802, 39 L. ed. 910 (1895) 109, 243 Gulf, C. &, S. F. Ey. Co. v. McCown, 25 S. W. 435 (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 243 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ey. Co. v. Nelson, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 345, 23 S. W. 732 ( 1893) 243 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. State, 72 Tex. 404, 10 S. W. 81, 1 L. E. A. 849, 13 Am. St. Rep. 815 (1888) 138 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403, 27 Supm. 360, 51 L. ed. 540 (1907), affirming 97 Tex. 274, 78 S. W. 495 (1904), 32 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 73 S. W. 429 (1903) . .42, 53, 54, 55 Gulf, W. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Barry, 45 S. W. 814 (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 55 Gunn V. White Sewing Machine Co., 57 Ark. 24, 20 S. W. 591, 18 L. E. A. 206, 38 Am. St. Eep. 223 (1892) 131 Gunther v. Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 55 Md. 457 ( 1881) 257 Guy V. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434, 25 L. ed. 743 (Oct. 1879) .40, 164, 275 H. Hackley v. Geraghty, 34 N. J. Law, 332 (1870), affirmed in Geraghty V. Hackley, 36 Id. 459 ( 1872) 275 Hadley Dean Plate Glass Co. v. Highland Glass Co., 143 Fed. 242, 74 C. C. A. 462 (8th C. 1906) 153 Hagan v. City of Eiehmond, 104 Va. 723, 52 S. E. 385, 3 L. R. A. N. S. 1120 (1905) 90, 185 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xxxvii [The references are to pages.] Halderman v. Beckwith, 4 JIcLean, 286, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,907 (1847) 230 Haldy v. Tomoor-Haldy Co., 4 Oldo Dec. 118 ( 1896) 132 Haley v. State, 42 Neb. 556, CO N. W. 962, 47 Am. St. Rep. 718 ( 1894) 39 Hall V. American Eefrigerator Transit Co. See American Refrig- erator Transit Co. v. Hall. Hall V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 149 Fed. 564 {C. C. Iowa, 1906) 85 Hall V. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485, 24 L. ed. 547 (Oct. 1S77), reversing Decuir v. Benson, 27 La. Ann. 1 (1875) Ill, 115, 117, 230, 231 Hall V. South Carolina Ry. Co., 25 S. C. 564 (1886) 234 Hall V. State, 39 Fla. 637, 23 So. 119 (1897) 161 Halliday Milling Co. See H. L. Halliday Milling Co. Hallwood Cash Register Co. v. Berry, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 554, 80 S. W. 857 (1904) 132 The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, 28 Supm. 133 (1907) 90, 238 Hamilton v. Dillin, 21 Wall. 73, 22 L. ed. 528 (Oct. 1874) 71 Hamilton v. Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Co., 119 U. S. 280, 7 Supm. 206, 30 L. ed. 393 (1886), affirming 34 La. Ann. 970, 44 Am. Rep. 451 (1882) 181 Hancock v. Sturges, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 331 (1816) 204 Handel v. Chaplin, 111 Ga. 800, 36 S. E. 979, 51 L. R. A. 720 (1900) 121 Haney v. Compton, 36 N. J. Law, 507 (1873) 50, 166 Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 187 U. S. 617, 23 Supm. 214, 47 L. ed. 333 (1903), afiSrming Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. R. R. Commrs. of Arkansas, 106 Fed. 353 (C. C. Ark., 1901) .19, 20 57, 58 Ex parte Hanson, 28 Fed. 127 (D. C. Oreg., 1886) 59, 159, 168 Harbor Commissioners v. Pashley, 19 S. C. 315 (1883) 275 Harbor Improvements 22 Op. Atty.-Gen. 646 (1899) 103 Harbor Line Commrs. v. State. See Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Commrs. Harbor Master & Port Wardens of Mobile v. Southerland, 47 Ala. 511 ( 1872) 273 Hardy v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. Co., 32 Kan. 698, 5 Pac. 6 (1884) 135 Harkins v. State, 75 S. W. 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1903) 158 Harman v. Chicago, 147 U. S. 396, 13 Supm. 306, 37 L. ed. 216 (1893), reversing 140 IlL 374, 29 N. E. 732 (1892) . . . .25, 48, 145 146, 185 Re Harmon, 43 Fed. 372 (C. C. Miss., 1890) 39 Harmon v. City of Chicago, 110 111. 400, 51 Am. Rep. 698 (1884) 48, 226 Digitized by Microsoft® xxxviii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Harrell v. Speed, 113 Tenn. 224, 81 S. W. 840, 1 L. R. A. N. S. 639, 106 Am. St. Rep. 814 ( 1904) 219 Harrigan v. Conn. River Lumber Co., 129 Mass. 580, 37 Am. Rep. 387 (1880) 227 Harrill v. Southern Ry. Co., 144 N. C. 534, 57 S. E. 382 (1907) . . 233 Harrison v. Mayor, etc. of Viclcsburg, 11 Miss. 581, 41 Am. Dec. 633 ( 1844) 255 Harrison v. State, 91 Ala. 62, 10 So. 30 (Nov. T. 1890) 35 Hart V. Chicago & K. W. Ry. Co., 69 Iowa, 485, 29 N. W. 597 ( 1886) 238 Hart V. State, 100 Md. 595, 60 Atl. 457 (1905) 231 Hart V. State, 87 Miss. 171, 39 So. 523, 112 Am. St. Rep. 437 (1905) 221 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Perkins, 125 Fed. 502 (C. C. S. D., 1903) . 14 Hartranft v. Du Pont, 118 U. S. 223, 6 Supm. 1188, 30 L. ed. 205 (1886) 91 Harvey v. Huffman. See Hoffman v. Harvey. Hastings Industrial Co. v. Moran, 143 Mich. 679, 107 N. W. 706 (1906) 133 Hatch V. Reardon. See N. Y. ex rel. Hatch v. Rsardon. Hatch V. Wallamet Iron Bridge Co. See Willamette Iron Bridge Co. V. Hatch. Hathaway v. McDonald, 27 Wash. 659, 68 Pac. 376, 91 Am. St. Rep. 889 (1902) 200 Haug V. Third Nat. Bank of Detroit, 77 Mich. 474, 43 N. W. 939 (1889) 92 Havens v. Geddes Co. v. Diamond, 93 111. App. 557 (1901) 132, 158 Hawkins Point Light-House Case, 39 Fed. 77 (C. C. Md., 1889), reversed in Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102, 15 Supm. 34, 39 L. ed. 85 (1894) 105 Hays V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 17 How. 596, 15 L. ed. 254 (Dec. T. 1854) 250, 257 Hazard v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 27 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 296 (Supm. Ct. Albany Sp. T. 1863) 179 Hazel V. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paiil Ry. Co., 82 Iowa, 477, 48 N. W. 926 ( 1891 ) 238 The Hazel Kirke, 25 Fed. 601 (C. C. N. Y., 1885) 25, 81, 93 Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 5 Supm. 247, 28 L. ed. 798 (1884), affirming 18 Fed. 135 (C. C. N. Y., 1883) 74 Heerman v. Beef Slough Manuf. Co., 1 Fed. 145 (C. C. Wis. ). 187 Matter of Heff, 197 U. S. 488, 25 Supm. 506, 49 L. ed. 848 (1905) 63, 64 Heiserman v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids, etc., Ry. Co., 63 Iowa, 732, 18 N. W. 903 (1884) 118 Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y., 92 U. S. 259, 23 L. ed. 543 (Oct. 1875) 7, 21, 23, 29, 60, 66, 114, 124, 143, 193 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xxxix [The references are to pages.] Henderson v. Ortte, 114 La. 523, 38 So. 440 (1905) 35, 1U2 Henderson v. Spofford, 59 N. Y. 131 ( 1874 ) 246 Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 141 U. S. 679, 12 Supm. 114, 35 L. ed. 900 (1891) 259 Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 173 U. S. 592, 19 Supm. 553, 43 L. ed. 823 (1899) 259 Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 150, 17 Supm. 532, 41 L. ed. 953 (1897), affirming 99 Ky. 623, 31 S. W. 486, 29 L. R. A. 73 (1895) 259, 269 Hennessy v. Braunschweiger, 89 Fed. 664 (C. C. Cal., 1898) 78 Re Hennick. See Stoutenburgh v. Hennick. Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299, 16 Supm. 1086, 41 L. ed. 166 (1896), affirming 90 Ga. 396, 17 S. E. 1009 (1892). .123, 225, 226 Henry v. Roberts, 50 Fed. 902 (C. C. Md., 1892) 273 Heyman v. Southern Ry. Co., 203 U. S. 270, 27 Supm. 104, 51 L. ed. 178 (1906), reversing Southern Ry. Co. v. Heyman, 118 Ga. 616, 45 S. E. 491 (1903) 219, 220 Hickcox V. State, 85 S. W. 1198 (Tex. Crim. App. 1905) 155 Hicks V. Ewhartonah, 21 Ark. 106 ( 1860 ) 63 Higgins V. Rinker, 47 Tex. 381 (1877) 165 Higgins V. Rinker, 47 Tex. 393 ( 1877 ) 166 Higgins V. 300 Casks of Lime, 130 Mass. 1 ( 1880) 205 The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 18 L. ed. 451 (Dee. 1866) 88 Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148, 19 L. ed. 387 (Dec. 1868), affirming 40 Ala. 123 (1866) 31, 164 H. L. Halliday Milling Co. v. Louisiana & N. W. R. Co., 98 S. W. 374 (Supm. Ct. Ark., 1906) 117, 118 Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108, 9 L. ed. 363 (.Jan. T. 1836) 245 Hoboken v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 124 U. S. 656, 8 Supm. 643, 31 L. ed. 543 (1888) 104 Hoeft V. Seaman, 46 How Pr. 24 (N. Y. Super. Ct. 1873) 188 Hoffman v. Harvey, 128 Ind. 600, 28 N. E. 93 (1891), affirming Harvey v. Huffman, 39 Fed. 646 (Ind.) 204 Hogg V. Zanesville Canal, etc., Co., 5 Ohio, 410 (1832) 181, 187 Ex parte Holman, 36 Tex. Crim. 255, 36 S. W. 441 ( 1896) 158 Holyoke & South Hadley Falls Ice Co. v. Ambden, 55 Fed. 593, 21 L. R. A., 319 (C. C. Mass., 1893) 143 Holy Trinity Church v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 12 Supm. 511, 36 L. ed. 226 (1892) 74 Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594, 10 Supm. 593, 33 L. ed. 1025 (1890) 136 Honduras Commercial Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 54 N. J. Law, 278, 23 Atl. 668 ( 1892) 140 Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 15 Supm. 207, 39 L. ed. 297 (1895) 14, 130 Hopkins v. Fachant, 130 Fed. 839, 65 C. C. A. 1 (9th C. 1904) .... 74 Digitized by Microsoft® xl Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Hopkius 1?. Lewis, 84 Iowa, 690, 51 N. W. 255, 15 L. R. A. 397 (1892) 33 Hopkins v. U. S., 171 U. S. 578, 19 Supm. 40, 43 L. ed. 290 (1898), reversing U. S. v. Hopkins, 82 Fed. 529 (C. C. Kan., 1897) 47, 66 Hopkins v. Wyckoff, 1 Daly (N. Y.), 170 (1861) 246 Horn Silver Mining Co. v. Xew York, 143 U. S. 305, 12 Supm. 403, 36 L. ed. 164 (1892) 130, 147 Hospes V. O'Brien, 24 Fed. 145 (C. C. Minn., 1885 ) 185 Ex parte Hough, 69 Fed. 330 (C. C. N. C, 1895) 157 Re Houston, 47 Fed. 539, 14 L. E. A. 719 (C. C. Mo., 1891) 148 Houston & Galveston Nav. Co. v. Dwyer, 29 Tex. 376 ( 1867 ) 94 Houston & Texas Central Ey. Co. v. Davis, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 24, 31 S. W. 308 ( 1895) 55, 239 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Everett, 86 S. W. 17 (Tex. Civ. App. 1905), reversed in 89 S. W. 761 (Supm. Ct. Tex., 1905) 232 Houston & Texas Central R. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321, 26 Supm. 491, 50 L. ed. 772 (1900), reversing 36 Tex. Civ. App. 606, 83 S. W: 53 (1904) 232 Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 31 S. W. 556 (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 238 Houston Direct Navigation Co. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 89 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 889, 30 L. R. A. 713, 59 Am. St. Rep. 17 (1895), reversing 31 S. W. 560 (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 55, 90 Houston, East & West Texas Ey. v. Peters, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 515, 40 S. W. 429 ( 1897 ) 243 Howard v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. (Supm. Ct. U. S., 1908), affirming 148 Fed. 997 (C. C. Ky., 1906), also affirming Brooks V. Southern Pac. Co., 148 Fed. 986 (C. C. Tenn., 1907) ..42, 67, 84 85, 86, 112 Howe Machine Co. v. Cage. See Machine Co. v. Gage. Hughes v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. See Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hughes. Ex parte Hull, 153 Fed. 459 ( C. C. Ala., 1907 ) 158, 165 Humboldt Lumber Manufc. Assoc, v. Christopherson, 73 Fed. 239, 19 C. C. A. 481, 46 L. E. A. 264 (9th C. 1896), affirming 60 Fed. 428 (D. C. Cal., 1894) 241 Hurford v. State, 91 Tenn. 669, 20 S. W. 201 (1892) 158 Huse V. Glover, 119 U. S. 543, 7 Supm. 313, 30 L. ed. 487 (1886), affirming 15 Fed. 292 (C. C. 111., 1883) 184, 186, 276 Husen v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co. See Railroad Co. v. Husen. Hutchinson v. Thompson, 9 Ohio, 52 (1839) 177, 181 Huus V. N. Y. & Porto Rico Steamship Co., 182 U. S. 392, 21 Supm. 827, 45 L. ed. 1146 (1901), affirming Bigley v. N. Y. & P. R. S. S. Co., 105 Fed. 74 (D. C. N. Y., 1900) 246 Hynes v. Briggs, 41 Fed. 468 (C. C. Ark., 1890) 161 Digitized by Microsoft® Table or Cases. xli [The references are to pages.] I. Illinois Central E. R. Co. v. Edwards, 203 U. S. 531, 27 Supm. 159, 51 L. ed. 305 ( 1906) 72 Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142, 16 Supm. 1096, 41 L. ed. 107 (1896), reversing 143 111. 4.34, 33 N. E. 173, 19 L. R. A. 119 (1892) 236 Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Illinois. See State v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. McKendree, 203 U. S. 514, 27 Supm. 153, 51 L. ed. 298 (1906) 72 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mississippi R. R. Comm., 138 Fed. 327, 70 C. C. A. 617 (5th C. 1905), affirmed in Mississippi R. R. Comm. V. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 203 U. S. 335, 27 Supm. 90, 51 L. ed. 209 (1906) 236 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Stone. See Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. Illinois River Packet Co. v. Peoria Bridge Assoc, 38 111. 467 (1865) 179, 181 Illinois Watch-Case Co. v. Elgin Nat. Watch Co., 94 Fed. 667, 35 C. C. A. 237 (7th C. 1899), affirmed in Elgin National Watch Co. V. Illinois Watch Case Co., 179 U. S. 665, 21 Supm. 270, 45 L. ed. 365 (1901) 78 Improvement of Navigable Waters, 16 Op. Atty.-Gen. 534 (1880) . . 105 Improvement of Navigable Waters, 17 Op. Atty.-Gren. 109 (1881) . . 103 Improvement of Navigable Waters, 16 Op. Atty.-Gen. 535 (1880), 17 Id. 109 (1881), 18 Id. 64 (1884) 105 Indiana ex rel. v. American Exp. Co., 7 Biss. 227, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,021 ( 1876) 266 Indianapolis & Vincennes Ry. Co. v. Backus, 133 Ind. 609, 33 N. E. 443 (1893) 262 Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238, 24 L. ed. 118 (Oct. 1876) 276 Insurance Co. of North America v. Commonwealth, 87 Pa. St. 173, 30 Am. Rep. 352 ( 1878) 14 International Mercantile Marine Co. v. Stranahan, 155 Fed. 428 (C. C. N. Y., 1907) 74 International Text-Book Co. v. Inhabitants of Auburn, 155 Fed. 986 (C. C. Me., 1907) 22, 153 International Text-Book Co. v. Peterson, 113 N. W. 730 (Supm. Ct. Wis., 1907) 22 International Trust Co. v. Leschen, 92 Pac. 727 (Supm. Ct. Colo., 1907) 158 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 145 U. S. 263, 12 Supm. 844, 36 L. ed. 699 (1892), affirming 43 Fed. 37 (C. C. Ohio, 1890) 83 Digitized by Microsoft® xlii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Interstate Commerce Commission v. Bellaire, etc., Ey. Co., 77 Fed. 942 ( C. C. Ohio, 1897 ) 52 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 14 Supm. 1125, 38 L. ed. 1047 (1894) 5, 11, 67, 68, 71, 83 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co. See Cincinnati, New Orleans, etc., Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com- merce Commission. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Detroit, Grand Haven, etc., Ry. Co., 167 U. S. 633, 17 Supm. 986, 42 L. ed. 306 (1897) ..87, 109 Interstate Conimerce Commission v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 613 (G. C. Ga., 1902) 52 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Reichmann, 145 Fed. 235 (C. C. 111., 1906) 86 Interstate Stock-Yards Co. v. Indianapolis U. Ry. Co., 99 Fed. 472 (C. C. Ind., 1900) 52, 80 lovca Falls Manuf. Co. v. Farrar, 19 S. D. 632, 104 N. W. 449 ( 1905) 133 Iron Mountain R. Co. v. City of Memphis, 96 Fed. 113, 37 CCA. 410 (6th C 1899) 118 Irvin v. New Orleans, St. Louis & Chicago R. R. Co., 94 111. 105, 34 Am. Rep. 208 ( 1879 ) 257 J. Jackson Mining Co. v. Auditor General, 32 Mich. 488 (1875) 126 Jacobson v. Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc., R. R. Co. See Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific R. R. Co. v. Jacobson. The James Gray v. The John Fraser, 21 How. 184, 16 L. ed. 106 (Dec. T. 1858) 229 Jamieson v. Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co., 128 Ind. 555, 28 N. E. 76, 12 L. R. A. 652 ( 1891 ) 227 Re Jarvis, 66 Kan. 329, 71 Pac. 576 ( 1903) 167 Jarvis v. Riggin, 94 111. 164 ( 1879 ) 195 Javins v. U. S., 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 345 (1897) 21^ Jennings v. Big Sandy & C. R. Co., 57 S. E. 272 (Supm. Ct. App. W. Va., 1907) 136 Ex parte Jervey, 66 Fed. 957 (C C. S. C, '1895) 220, 222 Jervey v. The Carolina, 66 Fed. 1013 (C. C. S. C, 1895) 220 Jewett V. Smail, 105 N. W. 738 (Supm. Ct. S. D., 1905) 197 John Deere Plow Co. v. Wyland, 69 Kan. 255, 76 Pac. 863 ( 1904) 132, 133 John Hancock Ice Co. v. Rose, 67 N. J. Law, 86, 50 Atl. 364 (1901) 253 The John M. Welch. See Broeck v. Barge John M. Welch. Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388, 7 Supm. 254, 30 L. ed. 447 ( 1886 ) 70, 146 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases, xliii [The references are to pages.] Johnson v. De Bary-Baya Merchants' Line, 37 Fla. 499, 19 So. 640, 37 L. R. A. 518 (1896) 257 Johnson v. Drummond, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 419 ( 1871) 276 Johnson v. Loper, 46 N. J. Law, 321 ( 1884) 50 Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U. S. 1, 25 Supm. 158, 49 L. ed. 872 (1904), reversing 117 Fed. 462, 54 C. C. A. 508 (8th C. 1902) 81 Johnson v. Union Pac. R. Co., 145 Fed. 249 (C. C. R. I., 1906) 121 Johnstown v. Central District, etc., Tel. Co., 23 Pa. Super. 381 ( 1903) i-i9 Jolly V. Terre Haute Draw-Bridge Co., 6 McLean, 237, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,441 (1853) 179,181 Jones V. Eisler, 3 Kan. 134 ( 1865) 63 Jones V. Hard, 32 Vt. 481 ( 1860 ) 31 Jones V. Oemler, 110 Ga. 202, 35 S. E. 375 (1900) 50 Jones V. Surprise, 64 N. H. 243, 9 Atl. 384 (1886) 221 Jones V. U. S. See U. S. v. Jones. Jonesville Manuf. Co. v. Southern Ry., 58 S. E. 422 (Supm. Ct. S. C, 1907) 241 Re Jordan, 49 Fed. 238 (D. C. Iowa, 1892) 218 Joseph V. Randolph, 71 Ala. 499, 46 Am. Rep. 347 (Dec. T. 1882 ) 16 J. S. Keator Lumber Co. v. St. Croix Boom Co., 72 Wis. 62, 38 N. W. 529, 7 Am. St. Rep. 837 (1888) 181, 183, 187 Matter of Julius, 26 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 423 ( 1904) 155 Jung Brewing Co. v. Commonwealth, 98 S. W. 307 (Ct. App. Ky., 1906) 165 K, Kaeiser v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 18 Fed. 150 (C. C. Iowa, 1883) ... 135 Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham R. R. Co. v. Wiygul, 82 Miss. 223, 33 So. 965, 61 L. R. A. 578 (1903) 98, 178 Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Brooks, 105 S. W. 93 (Supm. Ct. Ark., 1907) 135 Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. R. R. Comm'rs of Arkansas. See Hanley V. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. The Katie, 40 Fed. 480 (D. C. Ga., 1889) 90 Kavanaugh v. Southern Ry. Co., 120 Ga. 62, 47 S. E. 526 (1904) . . 240 Kehrer v. Stewart, 197 U. S. 60, 25 Supm. 403, 49 L. ed. 663 (1905), affirming 117 Ga. 969, 44 S. E. 854 (1903) 146, 153 Keith V. State, 91 Ala. 2, 8 So. 353, 10 L. R. A. 430 (Nov. T. 1890) 33, 35, 36, 39, 40 Kelley v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 152 Fed. 211 (C. C. Minn., 1907 85 Digitized by Microsoft® xliv Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Kelley v. Ehoads, 188 U. S. 1, 23 Supm. 259, 47 L. ed. 359 (1903), reversing 9 Wyom. 352, 63 Pac. 935, 87 Am. St. Eep. 959 (1901) ; previous decision in 7 Wyom. 237, 51 Pac. 593, 39 L. K. A. 594, 75 Am. St. Eep. 904 (1898) 251, 253 Kellogg V. Union Co., 12 Conn. 7 ( 1837 ) 186 Kemp V. Western Union Tel. Co., 28 Neb. 661, 44 N. W. 1064, 26 Am. St. Eep. 363 (1890) 244 Kenney v. Blake, 125 Fed. 672, 60 C. C. A. 362 (9th C. 1903), affirming The Troop, 117 Fed. 657 (D. C. Wash., 1902) 84 Kenney v. Hann. & St. Jo. E. E. Co., 62 Mo. 476 (1876) 195 Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. E. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 2 L. E. A. 289 (C. C. Ky., 1889) 69 Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Illinois, 175 U. S. 626, 20 Supm. 205, 44 L. ed. 299 (1900), affirming 167 111. 15, 47 N. E. 313 (1897); subsequent decision in 176 111. 267, 52 N. E. 117 (1898) 269 The Kestor, 110 Fed. 432 (D. C, Del. 1901) 84 Kidd V. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 9 Supm. 6, 32 L. ed. 346 (1888), affirming Pearson v. International Distillery, 72 Iowa, 348, 34 N. W. 1 (1887) 48, 50 Ex parte Kieffer, 40 Fed. 399 (C. C. Kan., 1889) 205 Re Kimmel, 41 Fed. 775 (D. C. Minn., 1890) 157 Kimmell v. State, 104 Tenn. 184, 56 S. W. 854 (1900) 32, 154, 160 Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U. S. 217, 9 Supm. 277, 32 L. ed. 695 (1889) 196 Kindel v. Beck & Pauli Lithographing Co., 19 Colo. 310, 35 Pac. 538, 24 L. E. A. 311 (1893) 131 King v. American Transp. Co., 1 Flip. 1, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,787 (1859) 89 King v. McEvoy, 4 Allen (Mass.), 110 (1862) 34 Kinnavey v. Terminal E. Assoc, of St. Louis, 81 Fed. 802 (C. C. Mo., 1897) 118 Ex parte Kinnebrew, 35 Fed. '52 (C. C. Ga., 1888) 214 Re Kinyon, 9 Idaho, 642, 75 Pac. 268 (1904) 158 Kirkpatrick v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 459, 60 S. W. 762 (1901) .... 162 Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491, 25 L. ed. 558 (Oct. 1879) ... 12 Kneeland v. Korter, 40 Wash. 359, 82 Pac. 608, 1 L. E. A. N. S. 745 (1905) 104 Knowlton v. Doherty, 87 Me. 518, 33 Atl. 18, 47 Am. St. Eep. 349 ( 1895) 217 Knudsen v. Benn, 123 Fed. 636 (C. C. Minn., 1903) 7 Ex parte Koehler, 25 Fed. 73 (C. C. Oreg., 1885), 30 Fed. 867 (C. C. Oreg., 1887) 53, 56 Kohl V. U. S., 91 U. S. 367, 23 L. ed. 449 (Oct. 1875) 133 Kohn V. Melcher, 29 Fed. 433 (C. C. Iowa, 1887) 165, 214 Kolb V. Mayor, etc., of Boonton, 64 N. J. Law, 163, 44 Atl. 873 (1899) 161 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xlv [The references are to pages.] L. Lacey v. Palmer, 93 Va. 159, 24 S. E. 930, 57 Am. St. Rep. 795 (1896) 120 Lacy V. Packing Co. See Armour Packing Co. v. Lacy. Lafarier v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada, 84 Me. 286, 24 Atl. 848, 17 L. R. A. HI ( 1892) 232 Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 365, 17 Supm. 357, 41 L. ed. 747 ( 1897 ) 99 Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 19 Supm. 465, 43 L. ed. 702 (1899) 124, 125, 230, 234, 235, 237 Lancer v. Anchor Line, 155 Fed. 433 (D. C. N. Y., 1907) 85 Landa v. Hoick, 129 Mo. 663, 31 S. W. 900, 50 Am. St. Rep. 459 (1895) 121 Lane v. Harbor Comm'rs, 70 Conn. 685, 40 Atl. 1058 (1898) 183 Lane v. Smith, 71 Conn. 65, 41 Atl. 18 (1898) 99, 183 Lang V. Lynch, 38 Fed. 489, 4 L. R. A. 831 (C. C. N. H., 1889) 159 Re Langford, 57 Fed. 570 (C. C. S. C, 1893) 220, 222 La Plaisance Bay Harbor Co. v. City of Monroe, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 155 (1843) 181,183 Larabee Flour Mills Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 74 Kan. 808, 88 Pac. 72 (1906) 26, 46, 118 Lasater v. Purcell Mill & Elevator Co., 22 Tex. Civ. App. 33, 54 S. W. 425 (1899) 33,133 Lawrence v. Hodges, 92 N. C. 672, 53 Am. Rep. 436 (1885) 91, 92 Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 14 Supm. 499, 38 L. ed. 385 (1894) 51 Leathers v. Aiken, 9 Fed. 679 (C. C. La., 1881) 272 Leavell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 116 N. C. 211, 21 S. E. 391, 27 L. R. A. 843, 47 Am. St. Rep. 798 (1895) 58 Re Lebolt, 77 Fed. 587 (C. C. 111., 1896) 216 Lee V. State of New Jersey, 207 U. S. 67, 28 Supm. 22 (1907) 51 Lees V. U. S., 150 U. S. 476, 14 Supm. 163, 37 Fed. 1150 (1893) ... 74 Lehigh & Wilkesbarre Coal Co. v. Borough of Junction, 66 Atl. 923 (Supm. Ct. N. J., 1907) 252 Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192, 12 Supm. 806, 36 L. ed. 672 (1892), affirming Commonwealth v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 129 Pa. St. 308, 18 Atl. 125 (1889) 58, 268 Leidersdorf v. Flint, 8 Biss. 327, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,219 (1878) ... 78 Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 Supm. 681, 34 L. ed. 128 (1890), reversing 78 Iowa, 286, 43 N. W. 188 (1889) 29, 30, 33 40, 66, 67, 109, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116 124, 191, 192, 200, 214, 217, 218, 254 Leloup V. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 8 Supm. 1380, 32 L. ed. 311 (1888), reversing Port of Mobile v. Leloup, 76 Ala. 401 (Dec. T. 1884) 21, 141, 259 Digitized by Microsoft® xlvi Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y. 562 (1860), affirming 26 Barb. 270 (1857) 143 Lem Moon Sing v. U. S., 158 U. S. 538, 15 Supm. 967, 39 L. ed. 1082 (1895) 73 Leovy v. U. S., 177 U. S. 621, 20 Supm. 797, 44 L. ed. 914 (1900), reversing 92 Fed. 344, 34 C. C. A. 392 (5tli C. 1899) 24 The Lewellen, 4 Biss. 156, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,307 ( 1868) 91 The License Cases, 5 How. 504, 12 L. ed. 256 (Jan. T. 1847) 30, 116 214, 216, 256 License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 18 L. ed. 497 (Dec. 1866) 51 Lightburne v. Taxing District, 4 Lea (Tenn.), 219 (1880) 141 Lincks v. Amend, 32 Atl. 755 (Ct. Ch. N. J., 1895) 106 Lindsay & Phelps Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126, 20 Supm. 325, 44 L. ed. 400 (1900) 182, 185 Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 534 (1862) 144 Lipfeld V. Charlotte, etc., R. R. Co., 41 S. C. 285, 19 8. E. 497 ( 1894) 241 Re Lipschutz, 95 N. W. 157 (Supm. Ct. N. D., 1903) 161 Lister v. Newark Plank Road Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 477 (1883) 177 Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry. Co. v. Hanniford, 49 Ark. 291, 5 S. W. 294 (1887) 243 Little Rock, Mississippi River, etc., R. R. Co. v. Brooks, 39 Ark. 403, 43 Am. Rep. 277 (Nov. T. 1882) 179 Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566, 19 L. ed. 1029 (Dec. 1870) 14, 130 Livingston v. Ogden, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 48 ( 1819) 143 Livingston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 507 (1812) 145 The Lizzie E., 30 Fed. 876 (C. C. La., 1887) 275 Ex parte Loeb, 72 Fed. 657 (C. C. S. C, 1896) 214, 216, 221 Lonergan v. Mississippi River Bridge Co., 5 Fed. 777 (C. C. Mo., 1881 ) 103 Lord V. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541, -20 L. ed. 224 (Oct. 1880) . . 23 57, 89 Lett V. Mobile Trade Co. See State Tonnage Tax Cases. Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames), 188 U. S. 321, 23 Supm. 321, 47 L. ed. 492 (1903) 9, 10, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 67, 68, 71, 72 The Louisa Simpson, 2 Sawy. 57, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,533 (1871) .. 59 Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1, 26 Supm. 408, 50 L. ed. 913 (1906) 51 Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 20 Supm. 251, 44 L. ed. 347 (1900) 209 Louisville & Jeffersonville Ferry Co. v. Commonwealth, 108 Ky. 717, 57 S. W. 624 (1900) 270 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Baldwin, 85 Ala. 619, 5 So. 311, 7 L. R. A. 266 (Dec. T. 1888) 228 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xlvii [The references are to pages.] Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 648, 20 Supm. 209, 44 L. ed. 309 ( 1900) 52 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co., 97 S. W. 778 (Ct. App. Ky., 1906) 45 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Eubank, 184 U. S. 27, 22 Supm. 277, 46 L. ed. 416 ( 1902) 136 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Go. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677, 16 Supm. 714, 40 L. ed. 849 (1896), affirming 97 Ky. 675, 31 S. W. 476 (1895) 122,138 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 22 Supm. 95, 46 L. ed. 298 (1902), affirming 106 Ky. 633, 51 S. W. 164, 1012, 90 Am. St. Rep. 236 ( 1899) 43, 137 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. R. R. Comm. of Tennessee, 19 Fed. 679 (C. C. Tenn., 1884) 135 Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Ry. Co. v. Mississippi, 133 U. S. 587, 10 Supm. 348, 33 L. ed. 784 (1890), affirming 66 Miss. 662, 6 So. 203, 5 L. R. A. 132, 14 Am. St. Rep. 599 (1889) 42 Loverin &, Brown Co. v. Tansil, 102 S. W. 77 (Supm. Ct. Tenn., 1907) 35, 155 Low V. Austin, 13 Wall. 29, 20 L. ed. 517 (Dec. 1871) 255 Low V. Commissioners of Pilotage, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 302 (1830). 244 Lowe V. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 63 S. C. 248, 41 S. E. 297, 90 Am. St. Rep. 678 ( 1902 ) 232 Lowndes v. U. S., 105 Fed. Soo (C. C. S. C, 1901) 106 Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Assoc. See Montague v. Lowry. Lumberville Bridge Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 55 N. J. Law, 529, 26 Atl. 711, 25 L. R. A. 134 ( 1893) 140 Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U. S. 525, 14 Supm. 891, 38 L. ed. 808 ( 1894) 106 Lyng V. Michigan, 135 U. 8. 161, 10 Supm. 725, 34 L. ed. 130 (1890) 30 M. Re McAllister, 51 Fed. 282 (C. C. Md., 1892) 32, 33 McAllister v. State, 94 Md. 290, 50 Atl. 1046 (1902) 199 McCall V. California, 136 U. S. 104, 10 Supm. 881, 34 L. ed. 391 ( 1890) 9, 41, 141 MeCandless v. Richmond, etc. R. R. Co., 38 S. C. 103, 16 S. E. 429, 18 L. R. A. 440 ( 1892) 241 McCann v. Eddy. See Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. McCarni. McCarter v. Hudson County Water Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 524, 61 Atl. 710 (1905), affirmed in 70 N. J. Eq. 695, 65 Atl. 489 (1906) 211 McClellan v. Pettigrew, 44 La. Ann. 356, 10 So. 853 (1892) 158 Digitized by Microsoft® xlviii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] McClellaad v. Mayor, etc., of Marietta, 96 Ga. 749, 22 S. E. 329 ( 1895 ) 158 McConn v. Roberts, 25 Iowa, 152 ( 1868 ) 252 McCray v. U. S., 195 U. S. 27, 24 Supm. 769, 49 L. ed. 78 ( 1904) 199 McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, 24 L. ed. 248 (Oct. 1876), affirming 27 Gratt. (Va.) 985 (1876) 50 McCreary v. State, 73 Ala. 480 (Dec. T. 1883) 214 McCulloch V. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579 (1819) 68 McCullough V. Brown, 41 S. C. 220, 19 S. E. 458, 23 L. R. A. 410 ( 1894) 222 McDaniel v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 24 Iowa, 412 ( 1868 ) 238 McDonald v. Southern Express Co., 134 Fed. 282 (C. C. S. C, 1904) 211 McDonald v. State, 81 Ala. 279, 2 So. 829, 60 Am. Rep. 158 (Dec. T. 1886) 228 McGregor v. Cone, 104 Iowa, 465, 73 N. W. 1041, 39 L. R. A. 484, 65 Am. St. Rep. 522 ( 1898 ) 35, 39 McGuinness v. Bligh, 11 R. I. 94 ( 1874) 34 McGuire v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 131 Iowa, 340, 108 N. W. 902 (1906) 227 McGuire v. State, 42 Ohio St. 530 ( 1885 ) 164 Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676, 25 L. ed. 754 (Oct. 1879), affirming Howe Machine Co. v. Cage, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 518 (1876) Ib'J 162 McLaughlin v. City of South Bend, 126 Ind. 471, 26 N. E. 185, 10 L. R. A. 357 (1891) 158 McLean v. Charlotte, Columbia, etc., R. R. Co., 96 N. C. 1, 4 S. E. 769 (1887) 136 McManus v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co., 118 Mo. App. 152, 94 S. W. 743 (1906) 119 McNaughton v. McGirl, 20 Mont. 124, 49 Pac. 651, 38 L. R. A. 367, 63 Am. St. Rep. 610 (1897) 126, 132 McNeill V. Southern Ry. Co., 202 U. S. 543, 26 Supm. 722, 50 L. ed. 1142 (1906), affirming Southern Ry. Co. v. Greensboro Ice & Coal Co., 134 Fed. 82 (C. C. N. C, 1904) 45 Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236, 20 L. ed. 624 (Dec. 1871) 244 McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co., 90 Fed. 360 (C. C. Wash., 1898) . . 257 McReynolds v. Smallhouse, 8 Bush (Ky.), 447 (1871) 185 Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490. 12 L. ed. 1168 (Jan. T. 1850) . . .253, 256 Magner v. People, 97 111. 320 (1881) 212, 214 Ex parte Maier, 103 Cal. 476, 37 Pac. 402, 42 Am. St. Rep. 129 (1894) 213 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. xlix [The references are to pages.] Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 142 U. S. 217, 12 Supm. 121, 103, 35 L. ed. 994 ( 1891 ) 136, 149, 150, 267 Maine Water Co. v. Knickerbocker Steam Towage Co., 99 Me. 473, 59 Atl. 953 ( 1905 ) 100 Malott V. Hood, 201 111. 202, 66 N. E. 247 ( 1903) 82 Mancliester v. Massachusetts, 139 Mass. 240, 11 Supm. 559, 35 L. ed. 159 (1891), affirming Commonwealth v. Manchester, 152 Mass. 230, 25 N. E. 113, 9 L. R. A. 236, 23 Am. St. Rep. 820 (1890) 51 Manigault v. Springs, 199 U. S. 473, 26 Supm. 127, 50 L. ed. 274 (1905), affirming Manigault v. Ward, 123 Fed. 707 (C. C. S. C, 1903) 183, 186, 188 Manistee River Improvement Co. v. Sands. See Sands v. Manistee River Improvement Co. Manufacturers Gas & Oil Co. v. Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co., 155 Ind. 545, 58 N. E. 706, 53 L. R. A. 134 (1900) 126 Marshall v. Grimes, 41 Miss. 27 ( 1866 ) 174 The Martha Washington. See Blanchard v. The Martha Wash- ington. Ex parte Martin, 7 Nev. 140, 8 Am. Rep. 707 ( 1871 ) 12 Martin v. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co., 203 U. S. 284, 27 Supm. 100, 51 L. ed. 184 (1906) 238 Martin v. Town of Rosedale, 130 Ind. 109, 29 N. E. 410 (1891) ... 158 161, 165 Massachusetts v. Western Union Tel. Co., 141 XJ. S. 40, 11 Supm. 889, 35 L. ed. 628 ( 1891 ) 261 Ex parte Massey, 92 S. W. 1086 (Tex. Crim. App., 1906) 140, 221 Master and Wardens of Port of New Orleans v. Foster. See Foster v. Master and Wardens. Master and Wardens of Port of New Orleans v. Prats, 10 Rob. (La.) 459 (1845) 274 Master and Wardens of Port of New Orleans v. Ship Martha J. Ward, 14 La. Ann. 289 (1859) 274 Master and Wardens of Port of N. Y. v. Cartwright, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 236 (1850) 274 Re Mattson, 69 Fed. 535 (C. C. Oreg., 1895) 51 Re May, 82 Fed. 422 (C. C. Mont., 1897) 30, 38, 168, 256 May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496, 20 Supm. 976, 44 L. ed. 1165 (1900), affirming 51 La. Ann. 1064, 25 So. 959 (1899) 32, 254 Mayor, etc., of Mobile v. Waring. See Waring v. Mayor. Mayor, etc., of New Iberia v. Erath, 118 La. 306, 42 So. 945 (1907) 223 Mayor, etc.. of N. Y. v. Furgueson, 23 Hun (N. Y.), 594 (1881) . . 120 Mayor, etc., of N. Y. v. Staples, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 169 (1826) 144 Mayor, etc., of N. Y. v. Starin, 106 N. Y. 1, 12 N. E. 631 (1887) . . 172 Mayor, etc., of Savannah v. State, 4 Ga. 26 ( 1848) 183 Digitized by Microsoft® 1 Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Mearshon v. Pottsville Lumber Co., 187 Pa. St. 12, 40 Atl. 1019, 67 Am. St. Rep. 560 (1898) 132 Memphis & Little Rock R. Co. v. Nolan, 14 Fed. 532 (C. C. Tenn., 1882) 142 Menke v. State, 70 Neb. 669, 97 N. W. 1020 ( 1904) 156 Mercantile Trust Co. v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 63 Fed. 513 (C. C. Cal., 1894) 134 Mercer v. Kansas City, St. Joseph, etc., R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 397 (1875) 195 Merchant's Transfer Co. v. Board of Review of Des Moines, 128 Iowa, 732, 105 N. W. 211, 2 L. R. A. N. S. 662 (1905) 254 Merrill v. Boston & Lowell R. R., 63 N. H. 259 ( 1884) 136 Merriman v. Knox, 99 Ala. 93, 11 So. 741 (Nov. T. 1892) 203 Merritt v. People, 169 111. 218, 48 N. E. 325 (1897) 212 Merz Capsule Co. v. U. S. Capsule Co., 67 Fed. 414 (C. C. Mich., 1895) 49 Meservey v. Gray, 55 Me. 540 (1867) 217 Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 400 ( 1863) 67 Metz V. Hagerty, 51 Ohio St. 521, 38 N. E. 11 ( 1894) 38 Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Savage, 41 S. W. 663 (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 55, 238 Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Ware, 60 S. W. 343 (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) . 238 Meyer v. City of Mobile, 147 Fed. 843 (C. C. Ala., 1906) 223, 256 Michigan Tel. Co. v. City of Charlotte, 93 Fed. 11 ("C. C. Mich., 1899) 22, 96, 226 Midland Terminal & Ferry Co. v. Wilson, 28 N. J. Eq. 537 (1877) . 174 Milan Milling, etc., Co. v. Gorten, 93 Tenn. 590, 27 S. W. 971, 26 L. R. A. 135 ( 1894) 132 Milburn Wagon Co. v. Commonwealth, 104 S. W. 323 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 161 Miller v. Goodman, 91 Tex. 41, 40 S. W. 718 (1897) 132 Miller v. Mayor of N. Y., 109 U. S. 385, 3 Supm. 228, 27 L. ed. 971 (1883), affirming 10 Fed. 513 (C. C. N. Y., 1880) ; previous decision in 13 Blatchf. 469, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,585 (1876).. 24, 25 176, 180 Miller Brewing Co. v. Stevens. See Fred Miller Brewing Co. V. Stevens. Mills V. St. Clair County, 8 How. 569, 12 L. ed. 1201 (Jan. T. 1850), affirming 7 111. 197 (1845) 175 Mills V. U. S., 46 Fed. 738, 12 L. R. A. 673 (D. C. Ga., 1891) 106 Milnor v. N. J. R. Co. See The Passaic Bridges. Minneapolis Brewing Co. v. McGillivray, 104 Fed. 258 (C. C. S. D., 1900) 165, 223 Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. v. JOlner, 57 Fed. 276 (C. C. Mich., 1893) 208, 209 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. li [The references are to pages.] Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 10 Supm. 862, 34 L. ed. 455 (1890), affirming Be Barber, 39 Fed. 641 (C. C. Minn., 1889).. 126 168, 204, 205 Minnesota v. Brundage. See Re Brundage. Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Pratt, 112 N. W. 395 (Supm. Ct. Minn., 1907) 99 Ke Minor, 69 Fed. 233 (C. C. W. Va., 1895) 32, 38, 157, 192 Minot V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. See Delaware Railroad Tax. The Minot I. Wilcox (Scow No. 9), 152 Fed. 548 (D. G. Mass., 1907) 100 Mississippi & Missouri R. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485, 17 L. ed. 311 (Dec. T. 1862) 177 Mississippi E. R. Comm. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. See Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mississippi R. E. Comm. Mississippi River Bridge Co. v. Lonergan, 91 111. 508 (1879) 103 Missouri, K. & T. Ey. Co. of Texas v. Fookes, 40 S. W. 858 (Tex. Civ. App. 1897 ) , 234 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 18 Supm. 488, 42 L. ed. 878 (1898), affirming 56 Kan. 694, 44 Pac. 632 (1896) 72, 110, 122, 196 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. McCann, 174 U. S. 580, 19 Supm. 755, 43 L. ed. 1093 (1899), affirming McCann v. Eddy, 133 Mo. 59, 33 S. W. 71, 35 L. R. A. 110 (1896) 240 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ey. Co. v. Simonson, 64 Kan. 802, 68 Pac. 653, 57 L. E. A. 765, 91 Am. St. Rep. 248 (1902) 233 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ey. Co. v. Withers, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 506, 40 S. W. 1073 (1897) 239 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 172 U. S. 351, 19 Supm. 179, 43 L. ed. 474 (1899) 122 Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Finley, 38 Kan. 550, 16 Pac. 951 (1888) 196 Missouri Pacific Ey. Co. v. International Marine Ins. Co., 84 Tex. 149, 19 S. W. 459 ( 1892) 238 Missouri Pacific Ey. Co. v. Sherwood, 84 Tex. 125, 19 S. W. 455, 17 L. E. A. 643 (1892) 238 Re Mitchell, 62 Fed. 576 (D. C. Wis., 1894) 157 Mitchell V. Steelman, 8 Cal. 363 (1857) 92 Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Dismukes, 94 Ala. 131, 10 So. 289, 17 L. E. A. 113 (Nov. T. 1891) 135 Mobile & O. E. Co. v. Sessions, 28 Fed. 592 (C. C. Miss., 1886) .... 135 Mobile Ins. Co. v. Columbia, etc., R. R. Co., 41 S. C. 408, 19 S. E. 858, 44 Am. St. Rep. 725 (1894) 241 Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City R. E. Co. v. Bromberg, 141 Ala. 258, 37 So. 395 (Nov. T. 1904) 82 Moline Plow Co. v. Wilkinson, 105 Mich. 57, 62 N. W. 1119 (1895) 132 Digitized by Microsoft® lii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Monongaliela Navigation Co. v. U. S., 148 U. S. 312, 13 Supm. 622, 37 L. ed. 463 (1893) 103, 105, 182, 184 Montague v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38, 24 Supm. 307, 48 L. ed. 608 (1904), affirming W. W. Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 115 Fed. 27, 52 C. C. A. 621, 63 L. R. A. 58 (9tlx C. 1902), which affirmed Lowry v. Tile, ilantel & Grate Assoc, 106 Fed. 38 (C. C. Cal., 1900) ; previous decision in 98 Fed. 817 (C. C. Cal., 1899) 49, 75 The Montello, 20 Wall. 430, 22 L. ed. 391 (Oct. 1874) 25 Montgomery v. Portland, 190 U. S. 89, 23 Supm. 735, 47 L. ed. 965 ( 1903 ) 102 Moog V. State, 145 Ala. 75, 41 So. 166 ( 1906) 221 Moore v. American Transp. Co., 24 How. 1, 16 L. ed. 674 (Dec. T. 1860), aflSrming American Transp. Co. v. Moore, 5 Mich. 368 ( 1858 ) 90 Moore v. Bahr, 82 Fed. 19 (C. C. S. C, 1897) 222 Moore v. City of Eufaula, 97 Ala. 670, 11 So. 921 (Nov. T. 1892-93 ) 149 Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U. S. 69, 5 Supm. 38, 28 L. ed. 653 ( 1884) 145, 258 Morgan v. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 812, 35 S. E. 448 (1900) 51 Morgan v. King, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 277 (1854) 187 Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall. 471, 21 L. ed. 303 (Dec. 1872) 250 257, 259 Morgan's Steamship Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455, 6 Supm. 1114, 30 L. ed. 237 (1886), affirming 36 La. Ann. 666 (1884) 70, 115, 124, 208, 209, 276 Mork V. Commonwealth, 6 Bush (Ky.), 397 (1870) 159 Morrill v. State, 38 Wis. 428, 20 Am. Kep. 12 (1875) 161 Morris v. State, 62 Tex. 728 ( 1884) 186 Morris-Scarboro-Moffit Co. v. Southern Express Co., 59 S. E. 667 (Supm. Ct. N. C, 1907) 239 Re Mosler, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 82 ( 1894) 197 Mottley V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 150 Fed. 406 (C. C. Ky., 1907) . . 70 Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Supm. 273, 31 L. ed. 205 (1887) 214 Mullen V. Western Union Beef Co., 173 U. S. 116, 19 Supm. 404, 43 L. ed. 635 (1899), dismissing writ of error from 9 Colo. App. 497, 49 Pae. 425 (1897) 72 Munn V. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L.ed. 77 (Oct. 1876) 46 Murphy Varnish Co. v. Connell, 10 Misc. 553, 32 N. Y. Suppl. 492 ( Supm. Ct. Onondaga Circuit, 1894) 132 Ex parte Murray, 93 Ala. 78, 8 So. 868 (Nov. T. 1890) 158 Murray v. Chicago & N. W. Ey. Co., 62 Fed. 24 (C. C. Iowa, 1894), affirmed in 92 Id. 868, 35 C. C. A. 62 (8th C, 1899) 117 Murray ». Clark, 4 Daly (N. Y.) , 468 ( 1873) 246 Murray v. Wooden, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 531 ( 1837 ) 62 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. liii [The references are to pages.] Muskogee Nat. Tel. Co. v. Hall, 118 Fed. 382, 55 C. C. A. 208 (8th C. 1902), reversing 4 Ind. T. 18, 64 S. W. 600 (1901) 22, 96 Myers v. County Commrs. of Baltimore County, 83 Md. 385, 35 Atl. 144, 34 L. R. A. 309, 55 Am. St. Rep. 349 ( 1896) 252 Re Myers Excursion & Navigation Co., 57 Fed. 240 (D. C. N. Y., 1893) 90 N. The Narragansett Indians, 20 R. I. 715, 40 Atl. 347 (1898) 64 Nashville, Chattanooga, etc., Ry. v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96, 9 Supm. 28, 32 L. ed. 352 (1888), affirming 83 Ala. 71, 3 So. 702 (Dec. T. 1887) 228 Nashville, Chattanooga, etc., Ry. Co. v. Alabama City, 134 Ala. 414, 32 So. 731 (Nov. T. 1901 ) 148 Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73, 12 L. ed. 992 (Jan. T. 1850), affirming State v. Nathan, 12 Rob. (La.) 332 (1845) 12, 260 National Dredging Co. v. State, 99 Ala. 462, 12 So. 720 (Nov. T. 1892) 257, 258 Navigable Waters, 22 Op. Atty.-Gen. 332 ( 1899 ) 99 Navigable Waters. — Harbor Lines, 22 Op. Atty.-Gen. 501 (1899) . . 103 Neaderhouser v. State, 28 Ind. 257 ( 1867 ) 26, 181 Neil V. Wilson, 14 Oreg. 410, 12 Pac. 810 (1887) 59, 246 Neilson v. Garza, 2 Woods, 287, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10091 (1876) ... 203 Nelms V. Edinburg American Land Mortgage Co., 92 Ala. 157, 9 So. 141 (Nov. T. 1890) 12 Nelson v. Cheboygan Nav. Co., 44 Mich. 7, 5 N. W. 998, 38 Am. Rep. 222 (1880) 182 Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48, 16 L. ed. 269 (Dec. T. 1859) 26 The Nevada, 7 Ben. 386, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,130 (1874) 244 New Castle v. Cutler, 15 Pa. Super. 612 ( 1901 ) 156 New England Dredging Co. v. U. S. (Scow No. 30), 144 Fed. 932, 75 C. C. A. 572 (1st C. 1906) 100 New Hope Borough v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 202 Pa. St. 532, 52 Atl. 127 (1902) 277 New Mexico ex rel. McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 203 U. S. 38, 27 Supm. 1, 51 L. ed. 78 (1906), affirming Territory ex rel. v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 12 N. M. 425, 78 Pac. 74, 79 Pac. 295 ( 1904) 122, 203, 206, 207, 256 New Orleans & Memphis Packet Co. v. James, 32 Fed. 21 (C. C. La., 1887) 131 N. Y. ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 27 Supm. 188, 51 L. ed. 415 (1907), affirming People ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 184 N. Y. 431, 77 N. E. 970, 8 L. R. A. N. S. 314, 112 Am. St. Rep. 628 ( 1906) 18, 19 New York ex rel. Burke v. Wells, 28 Supm. 193 (1908), affirming People ex rel. Burke v. Wells, 184 N. Y. 275, 77 N. E. 19 (1906), 107 App. Div. 15, 95 N. Y. Suppl. 100 (1905) 250, 254 Digitized by Microsoft® liv Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] N. Y. & Cuba Mail S. S. Co. v. U. S., 125 Fed. 320 (D. C. N. Y., 1903) 61 N. Y. Cent. & H. R. E. K. Co. v. Chosen Freeholders, 65 Atl. 860 (Supm. Ct. N. J., 1907) 137 N. Y., Lake Erie & Western R. E. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U. S. 431, 15 Supm. 896, 39 L. ed. 1043 (1895), affirming Common- wealth V. N. Y., P. & 0. R. Co., 145 Pa. St. 38, 22 Atl. 212 (1891) 267 N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S. 389, 20 Supm. 962, 44 L. ed. 1116 (1900) 14 N. Y., New Haven & Hartford E. E. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628, 17 Supm. 418, 41 L. ed. 853 (1897), affirming People v. N. Y., New Haven, etc.. E. E. Co., 142 N. Y. 646, 37 N. E. 568 (1894); previous decision in 55 Hun, 409, 8 N. Y. Suppl. 672 (1890), affirmed in 123 N. Y. 635, 25 N. E. 953 (1890) 229 New York State v. Eoberts, 171 U. S. 658, 19 Supm. 58, 43 L. ed. 323 (1898), affirming People ex rel. Parke, Davis & Co. v. Eoberts, 91 Hun, 158, 36 N. Y. Suppl. 368 (1895), which was affirmed in 149 N. Y. 603, 44 N. E. 1127 (1896) 127, 130, 147 166, 167 Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Cornell, 110 Fed. 816 (C. C. Neb., 1901) . . 69 Re Nichols, 48 Fed. 164 (C. C. Pa., 1891) 157 Nichols V. Chicago & West Michigan Ry. Co., 125 Mich. 394, 84 N. W. 470 (1900) 82 Nishimura Ekiu v. U. S., 142 U. S. 651, 12 Supm. 336, 35 L. ed. 1146 (1892) 73 Nixon v. Reid, 8 S. D. 507, 67 N. W. 57, 32 L. R. A. 315 (1896) . . 174 Noble v. Mitchell, 164 TJ. S. 367, 17 Supm. 110, 41 L. ed. 472 (1896), affirming 100 Ala. 519, 14 So. 581, 25 L. R. A. 238 (Nov. T. 1893) 14 The Nonpariel, 149 Fed. 521 (D. C. N. Y., 1905) 179 Norfolk & Western Ey. Co. v. Board of Public Works, 97 Va. 23, 32 S. E. 779 (1899) 258 N. & W. E. R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 88 Va. 95, 13 S. E. 340, 13 L. E. A. 107, 29 Am. St. Rep. 705 (1892) 226 Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 93 Va. 749, 24 S. E. 837, 34 L. R. A. 105, 57 Am. St. Rep. 827 (1896) 226 Norfolk & Western R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 136 U. S. 114, 10 Supm. 958, 34 L. ed. 394 (1890), reversing 114 Pa. St. 256, 6 Atl. 45 (1886) 44, 131, 134 Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Sims, 191 U. S. 441, 24 Supm. 151, 48 L. ed. 254 (1903), reversing Sims v. Norfolk & Western R. E. Co., 130 N. C. 556, 41 S. E. 673 (1902) 153, 154, 15» Norris v. City of Boston. See Passenger Cases. North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co. v. U. S., 88 Fed. 664, 32 C. C. A. 84 (9th C. 1898), affirming U. S. v. North Bloomfield Gravel- Min. Co., 81 Fed. 243 (C. C. Cal., 1897) 97 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Iv [The references are to pages.] Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Barnes, 2 N. D. 310, 51 N. W. 386 (1892) 268 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Bamesville & M. E. Co., 4 Fed. 172 (C. C. Minn., 1880) 177 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Keyes, 91 Fed. 47 (C. C. N. D., 1898) .44, 136 Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Raymond, 5 Dak. 356, 40 N. W. 538, 1 L. R. A. 732 (1888) 266 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 104 Fed. 691, 44 C. C. A. 135, 59 L. R. A. 80 (8th C. 1900) 99 Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197, 24 Supm. 436, 48 L. ed. 679 (1904), affirming U. S. v. Northern Securities Co., 120 Fed. 721 (C. C. Minn., 1903) 5, 12, 20, 49, 67, 69, 71, 75, 87 North River Steam Boat Co. v. Hoffman, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y. ) 300 ( 1821 ) 145 North River Steam Boat Co. v. Livingston, Hopk. Ch. (N. Y. ) 149 (1824), 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 713 (1825) 145 North Western Lumber Co. v. Chehalis County, 25 Wash. 95, 64 Pac. 909, 54 L. R. A. 212, 87 Am. St. Rep. 747 (1901) 258 Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee, etc., Ry. Co., 76 Minn. 334, 79 N. W. 315 (1899) 134 Northwestern Tel. Exchange Co. v. City of St. Charles, 154 Fed. 386 (C. C. Minn., 1907) 135 Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis. See Packet Co. v. St. Louis. Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, 20 L. ed. 585 (Dec. 1871) . . 89 Nutting V. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 553, 22 Supm. 238, 46 L. ed. 324 (1902) 14,130 O. Oakland Sugar Mill Co. v. Fred W. Wolf Co., 118 Fed. 239, 55 C. C. A. 93 (6th C. 1902) 127, 133. 147 The Oconto, 5 Biss. 460, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,421 (1873) 94 Ogden V. Gibbons. See Gibbons v. Ogden. Ogden City v. Grossman, 17 Utah, 66, 53 Pac. 985 (1898) 149 Ogilvie V. Crawford County, 7 Fed. 745 (C. C. Iowa, 1881) 253 Ohio & Mississippi Ry. Co. v. Tabor, 98 Ky. 503, 32 S. W. 168, 36 S. W. 18, 34 L. R. A. 685 (1895) 238 Ohio Valley Ry. v. Lander, 104 Ky. 431, 47 S. W. 344. 882 (1898) . 43 Oilure Manuf. Co. v. Pidduck-Ross Co., 38 Wash. 137, 80 Pac. 276 (1905) 161 Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Gilmore. See The Hamilton. Old Dominion Steamship Co. v. Virginia, 198 U. S. 299, 25 Supm. 686, 49 L. ed. 1059 (1905), affirming 102 Va. 576, 46 S. E. 783, 102 Am. St. Rep. 835 ( 1904) 257, 258 Oliver Finney Grocery Co. v. Speed, 87 Fed. 408 (C. C. Tenn., 1898) 140,254 Digitized by Microsoft® Ivi Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Olsen V. Smith, 195 U. S. 332, 25 Supm. 52, 49 L. cd. 224 (1904), affirming 68 S. W. 320 (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 244 Olson V. City, etc. of San Francisco, 148 Cal. 80, 82 Pac. 850, 2 L. R. A. N. S. 197, 113 Am. St. Rep. 191 (1905) 257 O'Neil V. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323, 12 Supm. 693, 36 L. ed. 450 (1892), dismissing writ of error from State v. O'Neil, 58 Vt. 140, 2 Atl. 686, 56 Am. St. Rep. 557 (1885) 216 Order of R. R. Telegraphers v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 148 Fed. 437 (C. C. Ky., 1906) 84 Oregon & Cal. R. R. Co. v. Jackson County, 38 Oreg. 589, 64 Pac. 307, 65 Pac. 369 (1901) 271 Oregon City Transp. Co. v. Columbia St. Bridge Co., 53 Fed. 549 (D. C. Oreg., 1892) 99, 179 Organ v. State, 56 Ark. 267, 19 S. W. 840 (1892) 210 Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 19 Supm. 281, 43 L. ed. 5.52 (1899) 130 Ormerod v. N. Y., West Shore & BuflTalo R. Co., 13 Fed. 370 (C. C. N. Y., 1882) 187 Orr V. Quimby, 54 N. H. 590 ( 1874) 104 Osborn v. Nicholson, 1 Dill. 219, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,595 (1870) . . 143 Osborne v. Florida, 164 U. S. 650, 17 Supm. 214, 41 L. ed. 586 (1897), affirming 33 Fla. 162, 14 So. 588, 39 Am. St. Rep. 99 (1894) 148 Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479, 21 L. ed. 470 (Dee. 1872), affirm- ing 44 Ala. 493 (1870) 142 Otis Co. V. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 112 Mo. 622, 20 S. W. 676 (1892) 239 Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S. 444, 7 Supm. 907, 30 L. ed. 976 (1887), affirming 16 Fed. 890 (C. C. La., 1883) 272 273, 274, 276 Overton v. City of Vicksburg, 70 Miss. 558. 13 So. 226 (1893) 158 Oyster Police Steamers of Maryland, 31 Fed. 763 (D. C. Med., 1887), affirmed in Governor Robert McLane v. U. S., 35 Fed. 926 ( C. C. Md., 1888) 68, 93 P. Pabst Brewing Co. v. City of Terre Haute, 98 Fed. 330 (C. C. Ind., 1899) 223, 224 Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw, 198 U. S. 17, 25 Supm. 552, 49 L. ed. 925 (1905), affirming 120 Fed. 144 (C. C. Mo., 1903) 222 Pace v. Burgess, 92 U. S. 372, 23 L. ed. 657 (Oct. 1875) 01 Pacific Coast Steam Ship Co. v. R. R. Commrs., 18 Fed. 10 (C. C. Cal., 1883) 57 Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 12 Supm. 250, 35 L. ed. 10.35 (1892), affirming 44 Fed. 310 (C. C. Mo., 1890) 268 Pacific R. R. Co. v. Cass County, 53 Mo. 17 (1873) 251 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ivii [The references are to pages.] Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 559, 26 L. ed. 1169 (Oct. 1881) 272 Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80, 24 L. ed. 377 (Oct. 1877) . .273, 274 Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423, 25 L. ed. 688 (Oct. 1879), affirming Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 4 Dill. 10, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,345 ( 1877 ) 272, 273, 274 Padelford v. Mayor, etc. of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854) 255 Paine Lumber Co. v. U. S., 55 Fed. 854 (C. C. Wis., 1893) 106 Palmer v. Cuyahoga County, 3 McLean, 226, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,688 (1843) 181 The Panama, Deady, 27, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,702 (1861) ..... .245, 246 Parker Mills v. Jacot, 8 Bosw. (N. Y.) 161 (1861) 92 Parks V. Nez Perce County, 89 Pac. 949 (Supm. Ct. Idaho, 1907) . . 254 The Passaic Bridges (Milnor v. N. J. E. Co.), 3 Wall. 782 (Ap- pendix), 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,620 (C. C. N. J., 1857) ; see 3 Wall. 721, 794 177, 179, 180 Passenger Cases (Smith v. Turner), 7 How. 283, 12 L. ed. 702 (Jan. T. 1849), reversing Norris v. City of Boston, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 282 (1842) 112, 143, 193 Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345, IS Supm. 862, 43 L. ed. 191 (1898), affirming 52 Fed. 690 (C. C. N. C, 1892) 202, 206, 207 Patee v. Adams, 37 Kan. 133, 14 Pac. 505 ( 1887) 196 Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190 U. S. 169, 23 Supm. 821, 47 L. ed. 1002 (1902), reversing The Eudora, 110 Fed. 430 (D. C. Pa., 1901) 84 Paul V. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 19 L. ed. 357 (Dec. 1868) 12, 14, 16 87, 130 Pearson v. International Distillery. See Kidd v. Pearson. Pearson v. Williams, 202 U. S. 281, 26 Supm. 608, 50 L. ed. 1029 (1906) 73 Pedrick v. Railroad, 143 N. C. 485, 55 S. E. 877, 10 L. R. A. N. S. 554 (1906) 100 Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall. 581, 22 L. ed. 201 (Oct. 1873) 276 Pegues V. Ray, 50 La. Ann. 574, 23 So. 904 ( 1898) 162 Peik V. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 24 L. ed. 97 (Oct. 1876) 43 Peirce v. Van Dusen, 78 Fed. 693, 24 C. C. A. 280, 69 L. R. A. 705 (6th C. 1897) 242 Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Supm. 737, 31 L. ed. 650 (1888) 130 Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v. Baltimore & N. Y. Ry. Co., 37 Fed. 129 (C. C. N. Y., 1888) 107 Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 3 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 128 (1860) 265 Digitized by Microsoft® Iviii TabliE of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477, 24 Supm. 132, 48 L. ed. 268 (1903), affirming Hughes v. Pennsylvania E. R. Co., 202 Pa. St. 222, 51 Atl. 990, 63 L. R. A. 513, 90 Am. St. Rep. 713 (1902) 117,118,237 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. N. Y. & L. B. R. Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,953 (C. C. N. J., 1873) 177 Matter of Pennsylvania Tel. Co., 48 N. J. Eq. 91, 20 Atl. 846, 27 Am. St. Rep. 462 (1891) 22, 267 Pensaeola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. ed. 708 (Oct. 1877) 10, 11, 21, 95, 96, 199, 134 People V. Babcock, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 586 ( 1834) 174 People ex rel. Bijur v. Barker, 155 N. Y. 330. 49 N. E. 940 (1898), affirming 21 App. Div. 480, 48 N. Y. Suppl. 641 (1897) . 255 People V. Bishopp, 106 App. Div. 206, 94 N. Y. Suppl. 773 (1905), affirming 44 Misc. 12, 89 N. Y. Suppl. 709 (1904) 194 People V. Board of Supervisors, 122 111. App. 40 (1905) 99 People V. Booth, 42 Misc. 321, 86 N. Y. Suppl. 272 (1903), re- versed in 105 App. Div. 184, 93 N. Y. Suppl. 425 (1905) 212 People V. Bootman, 180 N. Y. 1, 72 N. E. 505 (1904), affirming 95 App. Div. 469, 88 N. Y. Suppl. 887 ( 1904) 212 People V. Brooks, 4 Den. (N. Y. ) 469 ( 1847 ) 143 People V. Budd. See Budd v. New York. People V. Buffalo Fish Co., 164 N. Y. 93, 58 N. E. 34, 52 L. R. A. 803, 79 Am. St. Rep. 622 (1900), affirming 45 App. Div. 631, 62 N. Y. Suppl. 1143 (1899), 30 Misc. 130, 62 N. Y. Suppl. 543 (1899) 212 People V. Bunker, 128 Mich. 160, 87 N. W. 90 (1901) 158 People V. Butler Street Foundry, etc., Co., 201 111. 236, 66 N. E. 349 (1903) 41 People ex rel. Dunkirk, Allegheny Valley, etc., R. R. Co. v. Campbell, 74 Hun, 210, 26 N. Y. Suppl. 832 (1893) 150 People ex rel. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Campbell, 70 Hun, 507, 24 N. Y. Suppl. 208 (1893) 149 People ex rel. Stead v. Chicago, Indianapolis, etc., Ry. Co., 223 111. 581, 79 N. E. 144 (1906) 109, 228 People V. City of St. Louis, 10 111. 351, 48 Am. Dec. 339 (1848) . . 183 People V. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46, 60 Am. Dec. 581 ( 1854) 255 People ex rel. Treat v. Coler, 166 N. Y. 144, 59 N. E. 776 (1901) . 164 People ex rel. Sisco v. Commissioners of Pilots, 23 Hun (N. Y.), 603 (1881) 246 People ex rel. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 58 N. Y. 242 ( 1874) 257 People V. Compagnie G6n6rale Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59, 2 Supm. 87, 27 L. ed. 383 (1883), affirming 10 Fed. 357 (C. C. N. Y., 1882) 74, 109, 144, Z.(S5 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. lix [The references are to pages.] People V. Downer, 7 Cal. 169 ( 1857) 143 People V. Edye, 11 Daly (N. Y.), 132 (1882) 144, 205 People ex rel. N. Y. Central, etc., R. E. Co. v. Feitner, 38 Misc. 204, 77 N. Y. Suppl. 218 (Supm. Ct. N. Y. Sp. T., 1902) 271 People V. Hawkins, 157 N. Y. 1, 51 N. E. 257, 42 L. R. A. 490, 68 Am. St. Kep. 736 (1898) 49,164 People V. Hawkins, 85 Hun, 43, 32 N. Y. Suppl. 524 ( 1895 ) 164 People ex rel. Hill v. Hesterberg, 184 N. Y. 126, 76 N. E. 1032, 3 L. R. A. N. S. 163 (1906), reversing 109 App. Div. 295, 96 N. Y. Suppl. 286 (1905) 212, 213 People V. Hicks, 40 Hun, 598 ( 1886) 271 People V. Jenkins, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 469 (1841) 225 People V. Kelly, 76 N. Y. 475 ( 1879) 106 People ex rel. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Knight. See State ex rel. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Knight. People V. Lassen, 142 Mich. 597, 106 N. W. 143 (1906) 212 People V, Meyer, 89 App. Div. 185, 85 N. Y. Suppl. 834 (1903).. 200 People ex rel. Connecting Terminal R. R. Co. v. Miller, 178 N. Y. 194, 70 N. E. 472 ( 1904) 46 People ex rel. N. Y. Central, etc., R. R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U. S. 584, 26 Supm. 714, 50 L. ed. 1155 (1906) 250 People ex rel. N. Y. Central, etc., R. R. Co. v. Miller, 94 App. Div. 587, 88 N. Y. Suppl. 373 (1904) 53 People V. Moring, 3 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 539 (1867) 255 People V. Naglee, 1 Cal. 232, 52 Am. Dec. 312 (1850) 29 People V. National Fire Ins. Co. v. Hartford, 27 Hun (N. Y.) 188 (1882) 15 People v. N. Y., New Haven, etc., R. R. Co. See N. Y., New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. New York. People V. Niagara Fruit Co., 75 App. Div. 11, 77 N. Y. Suppl. 805 (192), affirmed in 173 N. Y. 629, 66 N. E. 1114 (1903).. 48, 50, 200 People V. Niles, 35 Cal. 282 ( 1868) 257 People V. O'Neil, 110 Mich. 324, 68 N. W. 227, 33 L. R. A. 696 (1896) 212, 213, 214 People ex rel. Bunker v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 16 Fed. 344 (C. C. Cal., 1883) 144 People V. Potrero & Bay View R. R. Co., 67 Cal. 166, 7 Pac. 445 (1885) 181 People V. Prillen, 73 App. Div. 207, 76 N. Y. Suppl. 821 (1902), reversed in 173 N. Y. 67, 65 N. E. 947 (1903) 229 People V. Raymond, 34 Cal. 492 ( 1868) 126, 142 People ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon. See N. Y. ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon. People V. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co., 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33 (1836) 177 Digitized by Microsoft® Ix Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] People ex rel. American Soda Fountain Co. v. Roberts, 158 N. Y. 168, 52 N. E. 1104 (1899), reversing 29 App. Div. 585, 51 N. Y. Suppl. 487 (1898) 148 People ex rel. H. B. Smith Co. v. Roberts, 27 App. Div. 455, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 355 (1898) 45, 158 People ex rel. International Elevating Co. v. Roberts, 116 App. Div. 30, 101 N. Y. Suppl. 184 (1906) 148, 150 People ex rel. Klipstein v. Roberts, 167 N. Y. 617, 60 N. E. 1117 (1901), affirming 36 App. Div. 597, 55 N. Y. Suppl. 950 (1899) . 148 People ex rel. Lembeck, etc.. Brewing Co. v. Roberts, 22 App. Div. 282, 47 N. Y. Suppl. 949 (1897) 45 People ex rel. Matheson v. Roberts, 158 N. Y. 162, 52 N. E. 1102 (1899) 32 People ex rel. Parke, Davia & Co. v. Roberts. See New York State V. Roberts. People ex rel. State Harbor Commrs. v. Roberts, 25 Pae. 496 (Supm. Ct. Cal., 1891) 272, 275 People V. Sawyer, 106 Mich. 428, 64 N. W. 333 (1895) 161 People V. Smith, 147 Mich. 391, 110 N. W. 1102 (1907) 154 People V. Sperry, 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 170 ( 1867 ) 245 People ex rel. Haneman v. Tax Commissioners, 10 Hun, 255 (1877), affirmed in 73 N. Y. 607 (1878) 256 People V. Thurber, 13 HI. 554 ( 1852) 15 People V. Van Pelt, 130 Mich. 621, 90 N. W. 424 (1902) 211 People V. Voorhis, 131 Mich. 398, 91 N. W. 624 (1902) 165, 223 People V. Waldorf-Astoria Hotel Co., 118 App. Div. 723, 103 N. Y. Suppl. 434 ( 1907 ) 212 People v. Walling. See Walling v. Michigan. People V. Walsh, 117 N. Y. 621, 22 N. e. 682 (1889) 48 People ex rel. Tyroler v. Warden of City Prison, 26 App. Div. 228, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 56 (1898), reversed in 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006, 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 763 ( 1898) 234 People ex rel. Burke v. Wells. See New York ex rel. Burke v. Wells. People ex rel. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Wemple, 138 N. Y. 1, 33 N. E. 720, 19 L. R. A. 694 (1893) 20, 45, 131, 141 People ex rel. Piatt v. Wemple, 117 N. Y. 136, 22 N. E. 1046, 6 L. R. A. 303 (1889) 148 People ex rel. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Wemple, 131 N. Y. 64, 29 N. E. 1002, 27 Am. St. Rep. 542 (1892), affirming 61 Hun, 83, 15 N. Y. Suppl. 446 (1891) 147 People V. Wilmerding, 62 Hun, 391, 17 N. Y. Suppl. 102 (1891) . . 32 Perkins v. Emerson, 59 Me. 319 ( 1871 ) 92 Perlberg v. Smith, 70 N. J. Eq. 638, 62 Atl. 442 (1905) 78 Perry v. Torrence, 8 Ohio, 521, 32 Am. Dec. 725 (1838) 257 Peters v. New Orleans, etc., E. E. Co., 56 Ala. 528 (Dec. T. 1876) . 177 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixi [The references are to pages] Peterson v. State, 112 N. W. 306 (Supm. Ct. Neb., 1907) 225 Peterson v. Walsh, 1 Daly (N. Y.), 182 (1861) 245 Phelps V. Racey, 60 N. Y. 10, 19 Am. Rep. 140 (1875) 212 Phenix Ins. Co. v. Burdett, 112 Ind. 204, 13 N. E. 705 (1887) 15 Philadelphia v. American Union Tel. Co., 167 Pa. St. 406, 31 Atl. 628 (1895) 277 Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. Winliler, 4 Pen. (Del.) 387, 56 Atl. 112 (1903) 82 Philadelphia & Southern Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 7 Supm. 1118, 30 L. ed. 1200 (1887), reversing 104 Pa. St. 109 (1883) 129, 150,266 Philadelphia Fire Assoc, v. New York, 119 U. S. 110, 7 Supm. 108, 30 L. ed. 342 (1886) 14, 130 Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R. Co. v. Appeal Tax Court, 50 Md. 397 (1879) 251 Phillips V. Ida Portland Cement Co., 125 Fed. 593, 61 C. C. A. 19 (8th C. 1903) 47 Phillips V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 130 N. C. 513, 41 S. E. 1022, 89 Am. St. Rep. 868 ( 1902) 134 Phillips V. Town of Bloomington, 1 G. Greene (Iowa), 498 (1848) . 174 Pickard v. Pullman Southern Car Co., 117 U. S. 34, 6 Supm. 635, 29 L. ed. 785 (1886) ; previous decision in Pullman Southern Car Co. V. Nolan, 22 Fed. 276 (C. C. Tenn., 1884) 141 Piedmont R. R. Co. v. Town of Reidsville, 101 N. C. 404, 8 S. E. 124, 2 L. R. A. 284 ( 1888) 148 Pierce v. New Hampshire. See The License Cases. Pierson v. State, 39 Ark. 219 (Nov. T. 1882) 214,219 Re Pitkin, 193 111. 268, 61 N. E. 1048 ( 1901 ) 255 Pittman v. Pacific Express Co., 24 Tex. Civ. App. 595, 59 S. W. 949 (1900) 238 Pittsburg & Southern Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 577, 15 Supm. 415, 39 L. ed. 538 (1895), aflBrming 40 La. Ann. 226, 3 So. 642, 8 Am. St. Itep. 519 (1888) 60, 111, 114, 115, 252 Pittsburg & Southern Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590, 15 Supm. 459, 39 L. ed. 544 (1895), affirming State v. Pittsburg & Southern Coal Co., 41 La. Ann. 465, 6 So. 220 (1889), 122, 203, 256 Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co. v. Backus, 154 XJ. S. 421, 14 Supm. 1114, 38 L. ed. 1031 (1894), afiirming 133 Ind. 625, 33 N. E. 432 (1893) 262, 263 Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Board of Public Works of West Virginia, 172 U. S. 32, 19 Supm. 90, 43 L. ed. 354 (1888) 259 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Hartford City, 82 N. E. 787 (Supm. Ct. Ind., 1907) 227 Plessy V. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 16 Supm. 1138, 41 L. ed. 256 (1896) 43 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Plumb V. Christie, 103 Ga. 686, 30 S. E. 759, 42 L. R. A. 181 (1898) 21S Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 15 Supm. 154, 39 L. ed. 223 (1894), affirming Commonwealth v. Huntley, 156 Mass. 236, 30 N. E. 1127, 15 L. R. A. 839 (1892) 122, 164, 198, 200 Plummer v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 152 Fed. 206 (C. C. Wash., 1907) 85 Pollard V. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 11 L. ed. 565 (Jan. T. 1845) 91 Ex parte Pool, 2 Va. Cas. 276 ( 1821 ) 84 Poree v. Cannon, 14 La. Ann. 501 ( 1859 ) 81 Port Clinton Borough w. Shafer, 5 Pa. Dist. 583 (1896) 161 Port of Mobile v. Leloup. See Leloup v. Port of Mobile. Porter v. Charleston & Savannah Ry. Co., 63 S. C. 169, 41 S. E. 108, 90 Am. St. Rep. 670 ( 1902) 239 Portland Co. v. Hall & Grant Constr. Co., 121 App. Div. 779, 106 N. Y. Suppl. 649 ( 1907 ) 154 Port Wardens. See Master & Wardens of Port. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 15 Supm. 360, 39 L. ed. 311 (1895), affirming 71 Miss. 555, 14 So. 36, 42 Am. St. Rep. 476 ( 1893 ) 259 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S. 692, 14 Supm. 1094, 38 L. ed. 871 (1894), affirming Western Union Tel. Co. v. City Council of Charleston, 56 Fed. 419 (C. C. S. C, 1893) 149 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. City of Newport, 76 S. W. 159 (Ct. App. Ky., 1903) 96, 272 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. City of Norfolk, 101 Va. 125, 43 S. E. 207 (1903) 149 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. City of Richmond, 99 Va. 102, 37 S. E. 789, 86 Am. St. Rep. 877 ( 1901 ) 260 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 94 Fed. 234 (C. C. Ohio, 1899) 134 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 79 Md. 502, 29 Atl. 819, 24 L. R. A. 161 (1894),- affirmed in 156 U. S. 210, 15 Supm. 306, 39 L. ed. 399 ( 1895) 272 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Morgan's Louisiana, etc., R. R. Co., 49 La. Ann. 58, 21 So. 183 ( 1897) 96 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. New Hope, 192 U. S. 55, 24 Supm. 204, 48 L. ed. 338 ( 1904) 277 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 89 Fed. 190 (C. C. N. C, 1898) 134 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Taylor, 192 U. S. 64, 24 Supm. 208, 48 L. ed. 342 ( 1904) 277 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Umstadter, 103 Va. 742, 50 S. E. 259 (1905) 244 Pound V. TuTck, 95 U. S. 459, 24 L. ed. 525 (Oct. 1877) 186 Powell V. City of Madison, 21 Ind. 335 (1863) 251 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixiii [The references are to pages.] Powell V. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 8 Supm. 992, 1257, 32 L. ed. 253 (1888) 197, 198 Powell V. State, 69 Ala. 10 (Dec. T. 1881) 214 Preston v. Finley, 72 Fed. 850 (C. C. Tex., 1896) 31, 256 Price Co. v. City of Atlanta, 105 Ga. 358, 31 S. E. 619 (1898) ... 160 Re Pringle, 67 Kan. 364, 72 Pac. 864 ( 1903 ) 32, 160 The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black, 574, 17 L. ed. 107 (Dec. T. 1861) 88 Prosaer v. Northern Pacific R. E., 152 U. S. 59, 14 Supm. 528, 38 L. ed. 352 (1894) 182 Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co. v. Hill Manuf. Co., 109 U. S. .578, 3 Supm. 379, 617, 27 L. ed. 1038 (1883) 89 Providence Coal Co. v. Providence & Worcester R. R. Co., 15 R. I. 303, 4 Atl. 394 (1886) 136 Pullman Co. v. Adams, 189 U. S. 420, 23 Supm. 494, 47 L. ed. 877 (1903), affirming 78 Miss. 814, 30 So. 757, 84 Am. St. Rep. 047 ( 1901 ) 148, 152 Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Board of Assessors. See Board of Assessors of Parish of Orleans v. Pullman Palace-Car Co. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Cain, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 503, 40 S. W. 220 (1897) 231 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Commonwealth, 107 Pa. St. 148 (1884) 265 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Hayward, 141 U. S. 36. 11 Supm. 8S3, 35 L. ed. 621 (1891) 258, 262 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18, 11 Siipm. 876, 35 L. ed. 613 (1891), affirming 107 Pa. St. 156 (1884) 257 258, 262 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Twombly, 29 Fed. 658 (C. C. Iowa, 1887) 262 Pullman Southern Car Co. v. Gaines, 3 Tenn. Ch. 587 (1877) 141 Pullman Southern Car Co. v. Nolan. See Pickard v. Pullman Southern Car Co. Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 20 L. ed. 557 (Dec. 1871) 183 Purdy V. Erie E. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 42, 56 N. E. 508, 48 L. R. A. 669 (1900), dismissed for want of jurisdiction in Erie R. R. Co. V. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148, 22 Supm. 605, 46 L. ed. 847 (1902) 43 R. Racine Iron Co. v. McCommons, 111 Ga. 536, 36 S. E. 866, 51 L. R. A. 1.34 (1900) 15.''/ Rae V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 14 Fed. 401 (C. C. Mich., 1882) .... 233 Raguet V. Wade, 4 Ohio, 107 (1829) 255 Re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545, 11 Rupm. 865, 35 L. ed. 572 (1891), reversing 43 Fed. 556, 10 L. R. A. 444 (C. C. Kan., 1890) .... Ill 114, 191, 218 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixiv Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Railroad v. Ferguson, 105 Tenn. 552, 59 S. W. 343, SO Am. St. Rep. 90S (1900) 179 Railroad v. Harris, 99 Tenn. 684, 43 S. \V. 115, 53 L. R. A. 921 (1S97) 148 Railroad Comm'rs v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 74 S. C. 80, 54 S. E. 224 ( 1906) 235 Railroad Comm'rs v. R. R. Co., 22 S. C. 220 (1S85) 136 Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 560, 21 L. ed. 710 (Oct. 1873), affirming Fuller v. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co., 31 Iowa, 1S7 (1871) 229 Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65, 20 L. ed. 354 (Dec. 1870) .. 170 Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 24 L. ed. 527 (Oct. 1S77), reversing Husen v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 226 (1875) 19, 124, 194, 195 Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456, 22 L. ed. 678 (Oct. 1874), affirming State v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 34 JId. 344 (1S71) 23, 266 Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584, 22 L. ed. 173 (Oct. 1873) . 69 Railway Co. v. Renwick, 102 U. S. 180, 26 L. ed. 51 (Oct. 18S0) .. 185 Range Co. v. Campen, 135 N. C. 506, 47 S. E. 658 (1904) 162 Raritan & Delaware Bay R. R. Co. v. Delaware & Raritan Canal, etc., R. R. Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 546 ( 1867 ) 129, 134, 265 Rash V. Farley, 91 Ky. 344, 15 S. W. 862, 34 Am. St. Rep. 233 (1891) 161 Rash V. Halloway, 82 Ky. 674 ( 1885) 165 Rasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U. S. 198, 21 Supm. 594, 45 L. ed. 820 (1901), affirming State v. Rasmussen, 7 Idaho, 1, 59 Pac. 933, 52 L. R. A. 78, 97 Am. St. Rep. 234 ( 1900) 195, 196 Ratterman v. Express Co., 49 Ohio St. 608, 32 N. E. 754 (1892) .. 266 Ratterman v. Western Union Tel. Co., 127 U. S. 411, 8 Supm. 1127, 32 L. ed. 229 (1388) 206,268 Reading R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania. See State Freight Tax; State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts. Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S. 507, 27 Supm. 159, 51 L. ed. 295 (1906), reversing Commonwealth v. Rearick, 26 Pa. Super. 384 (1904) 29, 32, 126, 154, 155 Re Rebman. See Brimmer v. Rebman. Iteed V. Walker, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 92, 21 S. W. 687 (1893) 132 Reed v. Western Union Tel. Co., 56 Mo. App. 168 (1894) 244 Reed v. Western Union Tel. Co., 135 Mo. 661, 37 S. W. 904, 34 L. R. A. 492, 58 Am. St. Rep. 609 ( 1896) 242 Reeves v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 11 Tex. Civ. App. 514, 32 S. W. 920 (1895) 239 Reid V. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137, 23 Supm. 92, 47 L. ed. 108 (1902), affirming 29 Colo. 333, 68 Pac. 228, 93 Am. St. Rep. 69 (1902) 72, 109, 124, 195 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixv [The references are to pages.] Eeilley v. U. S. See Francis v. U. S. Reinhart v. McDonald, 76 Fed. 403 (C. C. Gal., 1896) 262 Renfrew v. XJ. S., 3 Okla. 161, 41 Pac. 88 ( 1895 ) 63 Reymann Brewing Co. v. Brister, 179 U. S. 445, 21 Supm. 201, 45 L. ed. 269 (1900), affirming 92 Fed. 28 (C. C. Ohio, 1899) 223 Reynolds v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 40 Wash. 163, 82 Pac. 161, 111 Am. St. Rep. 883 (1905) 80 Rhea v. Newport N. & M. V. R. Co., 50 Fed. 16 (C. C. Ky., 1892) . 177 Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, 18 Supm. 664, 42 L. ed. 1088 (1898) 218,219 Richardson v. State, 11 So. 934 (Supm. Ct. Miss., 1892) 158 Richardson v. U. S., 100 Fed. 714 (C. C. Va., 1900) 103, 106 Richmond v. Dubuque & Sioux City R. R. Co., 33 Iowa, 422 (1872) 95,107 Richmond & Alleghany R. R. Co. v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co., 169 U. S. 311, 18 Supm. 335, 42 L. ed. 759 (1898), affirming 92 Va. 670, 24 S. E. 261, 41 L. R. A. 511 (1896) 239, 240 Rider v.U. S., 178 U. S. 251, 20 Supm. 838, 44 L. ed. 1057 (1900) . 99 See U. S. V. Rider. Rieman v. Shepard, 27 Ind. 288 ( 1866) 2ai Robbjns v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489, 7 Supm. 592, 30 L. ed. 694 (1887), reversing 13 Lea (Tenn.), 303 (1884) 5, 16, 111, 114, 115, 123, 126, 157, 167 The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17, 24 Supm. 8, 48 L. ed. 17 (1903) 88 Roberts v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 158 U. S. 1, 15 Supm. 756, 39 L. ed. 873 (1895) 95 Robertson v. Commonwealth, 101 Ky. 285, 40 S. W. 920 (1897) .. 120 Ex parte Robinson, 12 Nev. 263 ( 1877 ) 159 Robinson v. Rice, 3 Mich. 235 ( 1854) 92 Robinson v. Suburban Brick Co., 127 Fed. 804, 62 C. C. A. 484 (4th C. 1904) 49 Eodgers v. Kent Circuit Judge, 115 Mich. 441, 73 N. W. 381 (1897) 165 Rodgers v. McCoy, 6 Dak. 238, 44 N. W. 990 (1889) 165 Rogers Sand Co. v. Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co., 139 Fed. 7, 71 C. C. A. 419 (3d C. 1905) 98, 100 Ex parte Rollins, 80 Va. 314 ( 1885) 165 Rollins V. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, 87 N. C. 229 (1882) . 64 Roselle v. Farmers' Bank of Norborne, 141 Mo. 36, 39 S. W. 274, 64 Am. St. Rep. 501 (1897) 192 Rosenbaum Grain Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & T. Ry. Co., 130 Fed. 46 (C. C. Tex., 1903) 135 Ex parte Rosenblatt, 19 Nev. 439, 14 Pac. 298, 3 Am. St. Rep. 901 (1887) 158 Eosney v. Erie R. Co., 135 Fed. 311. 68 C. C. A. 155 (2d C. 1905) . . 81 III Digitized by Microsoft® Ixvi Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Roth V. State, 51 Ohio St. 209, 37 X. E. 259, 46 Am. St. Rep. 566 (1894) 213 Rothermel v. Meyerle, 136 Pa. St. 250, 20 Atl. 583, 9 L. R. A. 366 (1890) 139, 253, 256 Rouse V. Youard, 1 Kan. App. 270, 41 Pac. 426 (1895) 196 Re Rozelle, 57 Fed. 155 (C. C. Ark., 1893) 157 Re Rudolph, 2 Fed. 65 (C. C. Nev., 1880) 159, 168 Rutz V. City of St. Louis, 10 Fed. 338 (C. C. Mo., 1882) 188 Ryan v. Knorr, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 540 (1880) 64 Ryder v. Holt, 128 U. S. 525, 9 Supm. 145, 32 L. ed. 529 (1888) . . 78 Ryman Steamboat Line Co. v. Commonwealth, 101 S. W. 403, 10 L. R. A. N. S. 1187 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 132, 145 S. St. Clair County v. Interstate Sand & Car Transfer Co., 192 XJ. S. 454, 24 Supm. 300, 48 L. ed. 518 (1904) ; previous decision in 109 Fed. 741 (C. C. 111., 1901) 172, 174, 175, 176 St. Joseph & Grand Island R. R. Co. v. Palmer, 38 Neb. 463, 56 N. W. 957, 22 L. R. A. 335 (1893) 110, 128, 239 St. Louis V. Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423, 20 L. ed. 192 (Dec. 1870) .. 259 St. Louis V. Western Union Tel. Co., 148 U. S. 92, 13 Supm. 485, 37 L. ed. 380 (1893), reversing 39 Fed. 59 (C. C. Mo., 1889) .134, 272 St. Louis & St. Paul Packet Co. v. Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co., 31 Fed. 755 (C. C. Iowa. 1887) 107 St. Louia, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 132 Fed. 029 (C. C. Ark., 1904) 262 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Moon, 103 S. W. 1178 (Tex. Civ. App. 1907 ) 121 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Neal, 98 S. W. 958 (Supm. Ct. Ark., 1906 ) 82 St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas & T. Grain Co., 95 S. W. 656 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906) 56, 233 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Garden, 34 S. W. 145 (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 243 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Dolan, 77 S. W. 415 (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 80 St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Smith. See Smith v. St. Louis & Southwestern Ry. Co. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Wester, 96 S. W. 769 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906) 121 Salzenstein v. Mavis, 91 111. 391 ( 1879) 195 Samuelson v. State, 116 Tenn. 470, 95 S. W. 1012, 115 Am. St. Rep. 805 (1906) 234 Re Sanders, 52 Fed. 802, 18 L. R. A. 549 (C. C. N. C, 1892) 205 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixvii [The references are to pages.] Sands v. Manistee River Improvement Co., 123 U. S. 288, 8 Supm. 113, 31 L. ed. 149 (1887), affirming Manistee River Improvement Co. V. Sands, 53 Mich. 593, 19 N. W. 199 (1884) ..42, 182, 184, 185 Sanford v. Poe. See Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor. Sang Lung v. Jackson, 85 Fed. 502 (C. C. Cal.. 1898) 79 Santo v. State, 2 Iowa, 165, 63 Am. Dec. 487 ( 1855 ) 30 Sarrazin v. Irby Cigar, etc., Co., 93 Fed. 624, 35 C. C. A. 496, 46 L. R. A. 541 (5th C. 1899) 78 Saulsbury v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 90, 63 S. W. 568, 96 Am. St. Rep. 837 (1901) 160, 161, 162 Sawrie v. State of Tennessee, 82 Fed. 615 (C. C. Tenn., 1897) . .32, 38 192 Sayre Borough v. Phillips, 148 Pa. St. 482, 24 Atl. 76, 16 L. R. A. 49, 33 Am. St. Rep. 842 ( 1892) 166 Scammon v. Kansas City, St. Joseph, etc., R. R. Co., 41 Mo. App. 194 (1890) 42 Re Schechter, 63 Fed. 695 (C. C. Minn., 1894) 153 Re Scheitlin, 99 Fed. 272 (C. C. Mo., 1900) 200 Scheurer v. Columbia-Street Bridge Co., 27 Fed. 172 (C. C. Oreg., 1886) 177, 178, 181 Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester, etc., Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 1, 27 Supm. 407, 51 L. ed. 681 (1907) 81 Schmidt v. City of Indianapolis, 80 N. E. 632 (Supm. Ct. Ind., 1907) 165, 224 Schmidt v. People, 18 Colo. 78, 31 Pac. 498 ( 1892) 204 Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 18 Supm. 757, 43 L. ed. 49 (1898), reversing Common-wealth v. Paul, 170 Pa. St. 284, 33 Atl. 82, 30 L. R. A. 396, 50 Am. St. Rep. 776 (1895) 30, 32, 34, 36, 190, 191, 198, 201, 202 Re Schwartz, 119 La. , 44 So. 20 (1907) 210 The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 26 L. ed. 1001 (Oct. 1881) 89 Ex parte Scott, 66 Fed. 45 (C. C. Va., 1895) 199 Scott V. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 17 Supm. 265, 41 L. ed. 632 (1897). 222 See Donald v. Scott. Scott V. Wilson, 3 N. H. 321 ( 1825) 227 Scow No. 9. See The Minot I. Wilcox. Scow No. 36. See New England Dredging Co. v. XJ. S. Scranton v. Wheeler, 57 Fed. 803, 6 C. C. A. 585 (6th C. 1893), reversed in 163 U. S. 703, 16 Supm. 1266, 41 L. ed. 318 (1896) ; subsequent decision in 179 U. S. 141, 21 Supm. 48, 45 L. ed. 126 (1900), affirming 113 Mich. 565, 71 N. W. 1091, 67 Am. St. Rep. 484 (1897) 105 Seale v. State, 126 Ga. 644, 55 S. E. 472 (1906) 226 Sears v. Commissioners of Warren County, 36 Ind. 267, 10 Am. Rep. 62 (1871) 166 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixviii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Seawell v. Kansas City, Fort Scott, etc., R. E. Co., 119 Mo. 222, 24 S. W. 1002 ( 1893) 58 Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 202 U. S. 246, 26 Supm. 619, 50 L. ed. 1013 ( 1906) 14, 130 Sedgwick v. Slate, 85 S. W. 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1905) 154 Selkirk v. Stephens, 72 Minn. 335, 75 N. W. 386, 40 L. R. A. 759 (1898) 210 Selvege v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., 135 Jlo. 163, 36 S. W. 652 (1896) 1,95 Seneca Nation v. Christie, 126 N. Y. 122, 27 N. E. 275 ( 1891 ) 62 Seymour v. State, 51 Ala. 52 ( 1874) 161 Shaw V. McCandless, 36 Miss. 296 ( 1858) 92 Shaw Piano Co. v. Ford, 41 S. W. 198 (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 159 Sheldon v. Wabash R. Co., 105 Fed. 785 (C. C. 111., 1900) 118, 136 Shelton v. Piatt. See U. S. Exp. Co. v. Allen. Sheppard v. Bowling, 127 Ala. 1, 28 So. 791, 85 Am. St. Rep. 68 (Nov. T. 1899) 214 Shepperd v. County Comm'rs of Sumter, 59 Ga. 535, 27 Am. Rep. 394 (1877) 16 Sherlock v. Ailing, 93 U. S. 99, 23 L. ed. 819 (Oct. 1876) 122, 237 Shipper v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 47 Pa. St. 338 (1864) 166 Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 14 Supm. 548, 38 L. ed. 331 (1894), affirming Bowlby v. Shively, 22 Oreg. 410, 30 Pac. 154 (1892) . . 104 Siegfried v. Raymond, 190 111. 424, 60 N. E. 868 (1901) 255 Silliman v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 4 Blatchf. 395, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,852 (1859), see on certificate of division of opinion in 1 Black, 582, 17 L. ed. 81 (Dec. T. 1861) 179, 180 Silliman v. Troy & W. T. Bridge Co., 11 Blatchf. 274, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,853 (1873) 179, 186 Simmons Hardware Co. v. McGuire, 39 La. Ann. 848, 2 So. 592 (1887) 158 Sims V. Norfolk & Western R. R. Co. See Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. V. Sims. Sinclair v. State, 69 N. C. 47 ( 1873) 165 Singer Manuf. Co. v. Hardee, 4 N. M. 676, 16 Pac. 605 (1888) 132 Singer Manuf. Co. v. Wright, 33 Fed. 121 (C. C. Ga., 1887) 260 Singer Manuf. Co. v. Wright, 97 Ga. 114, 25 S. E. 249, 35 L. R. A. 497 (1895) 252 Re Sing Lee, 54 Fed. 334 (D. C. Mich., 1893) 73 Re Sing Tuck, 126 Fed. 386 (C. C. N. Y., 1903) 74 Sinniekson v. Johnson, 17 N. J. Law, 129, 34 Am. Dec. 184 (1839) . 186 Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227, 16 L. ed. 243 (Dec. T. 1859), reversing Commissioners of Pilotage v. Steamboats Cuba, etc., 28 Ala. 185 (1856) 91, 145 Skipper v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 75 S. C. 276, 55 ■ S. E. 454, 7 L. R. A. N. S. 388 (1906) 240 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixix [The references are to pages.] Slaughter v. Tliacker Coal & Coke Co., 55 W. Va. 642, 47 S. E. 247, 65 L. R. A. 342, 104 Am. St. Rep. 1013 ( 1904) 49 Slingerland v. International Contracting Co., 169 N. Y. 60, 61 N. B. 995, 56 L. R. A. 494 (1901), affirming 43 App. Div. 215, 60 N. Y. Siippl. 12 (1899) 106 Sloman v. William D. C. Moebs Co., 139 Mich. 334, 102 N. W. 854 (1905) 220 Smith V. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 8 Supm. 564, 31 L. ed. 508 (1888), affirming 85 Ala. 341, 6 So. 928 (Dec. T. 1888) 228 Smith V. Boston & Maine R. R., 63 N. H. 25 (1884) 241 Smith V. Clark, 122 Ga. 528, 50 S. E. 480 ( 1905) 146 Smith V. Jackson, 103 Tenn. 673, 54 S. W. 981, 47 L. R. A. 416 (1899) 16, 18 Smith V. Lowe, 121 Fed. 753, 59 C. C. A. 185 (9th C. 1903) 196 Smith v. Marston, 5 Tex. 426 ( 1849) 143 Smith V. St. Louis & Southwestern Ry. Co., 181 U. S. 248, 21 Supm. 603, 45 L. ed. 847 (1901), affirming St. Louis South- western Ry. Co. V. Smith, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 49 S. W. 627 ( 1899 ) 194, 195, 207, 209 Smith V. State, 54 Ark. 248, 15 S. W. 882 (1891) 39 Smith V. State, 100 Tenn. 494, 46 S. W. 566, 41 L. R. A. 432 (1898) 231 Smith V. State of Maryland, 18 How. 71, 15 L. ed. 269 (Dec. T. 1855) 51 Smith V. Turner. See Passenger Cases. Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Supm. 418, 42 L. ed. 819 (1898), affirming Ames v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 64 Fed. 165 (C. C. Neb., 1894) 44 Snead v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 151 Fed. 608 (C. C. Ga., 1907) 85 Soil under Navigable Waters, 16 Op. Atty.-Gen. 479 (1880) 105 Solan V. Chicago, Milwaukee, etc., Ry. Co. See Chicago, Mil- waukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Solan. Somerville v. Marks, 58 HI. 371 ( 1871 ) 195 The South Cambria, 27 Fed. 525 (D. C. Del., 1886) 246 South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S. 423, 23 L. ed. 782 (Oct. 1876) 98, 101, 103 South Carolina v. U. S., 199 XJ. S. 437, 26 Supm. 110, 50 L. ed. 261 (1905) 222 South Carolina Police Bill, 1 Op. Atty.-Gen. 659 (1824), 2 Td. 426 (1831) 143 Southern Bell Telephone, etc., Co. v. City of Richmond, 78 Fed. 858 (C. C. Va., 1897) 96 Southern Building & Loan Assoc, v. Norman, 98 Ky. 294, 32 S. W. 952, 31 L. R. A. 41, 56 Am. St. Rep. 367 (1895) 208 Digitized by Microsoft® •Ixx Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] fcjouthern Express Co. v. Goldberg, 101 Va. 619, 44 S. E. 893, 62 L. R. A. 669 (1903) 136 Southern Express Co. v. Hood, 15 Rich. Law (S. C), 66, 94 Am. Dec. 141 (1867) 267 Southern Exp. Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Ensley, 116 Fed. 756 (C. C. Ala., 1902) 142 Southern Express Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Mobile, 49 Ala. 404 ( 1873 ) . 142 Southern Express Co. v. State, 114 Ga. 226, 39 S. E. 899 (1901) ■ . 219 Southern Flour & Grain Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 127 Ga. 626, 56 S. E. 742, 9 L. R. A. N. S. 853 (1907) 121 Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Burgess Co., 99 S. W. 189 (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 239 Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. State, 99 S. W. 166 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906) 43 Re Southern Pac. Co., 155 Fed. 1001 (C. C. Cal., 1907) 84 Southern Pac. Co. v. Arnett, 126 Fed. 75, 61 C. C. A. 131 (8th C. 1903) 80 Southern Pac. Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co., 144 Fed. 160 (C. C. Cal., 1906) 103 Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Haas, 17 S. W. 600 (Supm. Ct. Tex., 1891) 136 Southern Ry. Co. v. City of Asheville, 69 Fed. 359 (C. C. N. C, 1895) 141,147 Southern Ry. Co. v. Greensboro Ice & Coal Co. See McNeill v. Southern Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co. v. Heyman. See Heyman v. Southern Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co. v. Mitchell, 139 Ala. 629, 37 So. 85 (Nov. T. 1903) 148 Southern Ry. Co. v. Simmons, 105 Va. 651, 55 S. E. 459 (1906) . . 82 Southern Wire Co. v. St. Louis Bridge & Tunnel R. R. Co., 38 Mo. App. 191 (1889) 70 Re Spain, 47 Fed. 208, 14 L. R. A. 97 (C. C. N. C, 1891 ) 156 Spain V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 151 Fed. 522 (C. C. Ark., 1907) . 85 Spalding v. Baton Rouge, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,200 (C. C. La., 1853) 148 Speer v. Commonwealth, 23 Gratt. (Va.) 935, 14 Am. Rep. 164 (1873) 166 Spellman v. City of New Orleans, 45 Fed. 3 (C. C. La., 1891) 165 Re Spickler, 43 Fed. 653, 10 L. R. A. 446 (C. C. Iowa, 1890) 218 Spooner v. McConnell, 1 McLean, 337, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,245 (1838) 181, 187 Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90, 6 Supm. 988, 30 L. ed. 115 (1886), reversing Thompson v. Spraigue, 69 Ga. 409. 47 Am. Rep. 760 (1883) 246 Spratlin v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 76 Ark. 82, 88 S. W. 836 (1905) 243 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixxi [The references are to pages.] Standard Oil Co. v. Bachelor, 89 Ind. 1 ( 1883 ) 253 Standard Oil Co. v. City of Fredericksburg, 105 Va. 82, 52 S. E. 817 (1906) 256 Standard Oil Co. v. Combs, 96 Ind. 179, 49 Am. Rep. 156 (1884) . . 251 Standard Oil Co. v. State, 117 Tenn. 618, 100 S. VV. 705, 10 L. R. A. N. S. 1015 (1907) 27, 139 Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Attorney-General, 46 N. J. Eq. 270, 19 Atl. 733, 19 Am. St. Rep. 394 ( 1889 ) 50 Stanley v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co., 100 Mo. 435, 13 S. W. 109, 8 L. R. A. 549 ( 1890) 232 Starace v. Rossi, 69 Vt. 303, 37 Atl. 1109 (1897) 217, 218 State V. Adams Express Co. See American Express Co. v. Indiana. State V. Addington, 77 Mo. 110 (1882), affirming 12 Mo. App. 214 (1882) 199 State V. Agee, 83 Ala. 110, 3 So. 856 (Dec. T. 1887) 158 State V. Aiken, 42 S. C. 222, 20 S. E. 221, 26 L. R. A. 345 (1894) . 222 State V. Allgeyer, 110 La. Ann. 839, 34 So. 798 (1903) 61 See AUegeyer v. Louisiana. State V. American Book Co., 65 Kan. 847, 69 Pae. 563 (1902) 132 State V. American Express Co. See American Express Co. v. Iowa. State V. Amery, 12 R. L 64 (1878) 140 State V. Ames, 92 Pac. 137 (Supm. Ct. Wash., 1907) 245 State V. Applegarth, 81 Md. 293, 31 Atl. 961, 28 L. R. A. 812 (1895) 50 State T. Asbell, 74 Kan. 397, 86 Pac. 457 ( 1906) 203 State V. (Baltimore & Ohio) R. R. Co., 24 W. Va. 783, 49 Am. Rep. 290 (1884) 226 State V. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. See Railroad Co. v. Mary- land. State V. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1, 62 S. W. 828 ( 1901 ) 223 State V. Blackwell, 65 Me. 556 ( 1876 ) 30 State ex rel. Gelpi v. Board of Assessors, 46 La. Ann. 145, 15 So. 10, 49 Am. St. Rep. 318 (1894) 35, 255 State V. Bollam, 47 Oreg. 639, 84 Pae. 479 (1906) 234 State V. Boiler, 47 Fed. 415 ( C. C. N. J., 1889) 107 State V. Bowman, 78 Iowa, 519, 43 N. W. 302 ( 1889) 30 State V. Bowman, 79 Iowa, 566, 44 N. W. 813 ( 1890) 30 State V. Bracco, 103 N. C. 349, 9 S. E. 404 (1889) 158 State V. Brass. See Brass v. Stoeser. State V. Bruce, 55 W. Va. 384, 47 S. E. 146 ( 1904) 198 State V. Burns, 82 Me. 558, 19 Atl. 913 ( 1890) 31 State V. Caldwell. See Caldwell v. North Carolina. State V. Campbell, 53 Minn. 354, 55 N. W. 553, 21 L. R. A. 169 (1893) 64 State V. Caraleigh Phosphate, etc.. Works, 119 N. C. 120, 25 S. E. 795 (1896) 203 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] State V. Carrigan, 39 N. J. Law, 35 ( 1876 ) 250 State V. Chapman, 1 S. D. Hi, 47 N. W. 411, 10 L. R. A. 432 (1890) 39 State V. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 70 Iowa, 162, 30 N. W. 398 (1886) 135 State V. Chicago, JI. & St. P. Ey. Co., 33 Fed. 391 (C. C. Iowa, 1887) 43, 45, 46 State V. Chicago, St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 267, 41 N. W. 1047, 3 L. R. A. 238, 12 Am. St. Rep. 730 (1889) 57 State V. City of Eau Claire, 40 Wis. 533 ( 1876) 187 State V. City Council of Charleston, 4 Rich. Law (S. C), 286 (1851) 273 State V. C. N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co., 47 Ohio St. 130, 23 N. E. 928, 7 L. R. A. 319 ( 1890) 118, 128 State V. Cohen, 65 Kan. 849, 70 Pac. 600 ( 1902) 162 State V. Collins. See Collins v. New Hampshire. State V. Coonan, 82 Iowa, 400, 48 N. W. 921 (1891) 39 State V. Corbett, 57 Minn. 345, 59 N. W. 317, 24 L. R. A. 498 ( 1894) 234 State V. Corrick, 82 Iowa, 451, 48 N. W. 808 (1891) 30 State V. Corson, 67 N. J. Law, 178, 50 Atl. 780 ( 1901 ) 50 State V. Creeden, 78 Iowa, 556, 43 N. W. 673, 7 L. R. A. 295 (1889) 219 State T. Cumberland & Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 40 Md. 22 ( 1873 ) . 265 State T. Cumberland & P. R. Co., 66 Atl. 458 (Ct. App. Md., 1907 ) 129, 137, 266 State V. Davidson, 50 La. Ann. 1297, 24 So. 324, 69 Am. St. Rep. 478 (1898) 32 State V. Delamater. See Delamater v. South Dakota. State V. Deschamp, 53 Ark. 490, 14 S. W. 653 (1890) 215 State V. Doxtater, 47 Wis. 278, 2 N. W. 439 (1879) 64 State V. Duckworth, 5 Idaho, 642, 51 Pac. 456, 39 L. R. A. 365, 95 Am. St. Rep. 199 ( 1897 ) 205 State V. Edwards, 94 Minn. 225, 102 N. W. 697, 69 L. R. A. 667 (1905) 121 State V. Emert. See Emert v. Missouri. State v. Engle, 34 N. J. Law, 425 ( 1871 ) 250 State V. Fagan, 22 La. Ann. 545 ( 1870) 230 State T. Faudre, 54 W. Va. 122, 46 S. E. 269, 63 L. R. A. 877, 102 Am. St. Rep. 927 (1903) 175 State v. Fitzpatrick, 16 E. I. 54, 11 Atl. 767 (1888) 126 State V. Foreman, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 256 (1835) 64 State v. Fosdick, 21 La. Ann. 256 ( 1869) 203 State V. Frappart, 31 La. Ann. 340 (1879) 219 State v. Eraser, 1 N. D. 425. 48 N. W. 343 ( 1891 ) 218 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixxiii [The references are to pages.] State V. Freeholders of Hudson County. See Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County v. State. State V. French, 109 N. C. 722, 14 S. E. 383, 26 Am. St. Rep. 590 (1891) 149 State v. Fulker, 43 Kan. 237, 22 Pac. 1020, 7 L. R. A. 183 (1890) . 30 State V. Fullerton, 7 Rob. (La.) 210 ( 1844) 142 State V. Furbush, 72 Me. 493 ( 1881 ) 165 State V. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ey. Co., 97 S. W. 71 (Supm. Ct Tex., 1906) 149^ 152 State V. Geer. See Geer v. Connecticut. State V. Gladson. See Gladson v. Minnesota. State V. Goetze, 43 \V. Va. 495, 27 S. E. 225, 64 Am. St. Rep. 871 <1S97) 38 State V. Gorham, 115 N. C. 721, 20 N. E. 179. 25 L. R. A. 810, 44 Am. St. Rep. 494 (1894) .' 154 State V. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 44 S. W. 542 (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) , 55, 56 State V. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 (1853) 30, 33 State V. Hanaphy, 117 Iowa, 15, 90 N. W. 601 (1902) 221 State V. Harbourne, 70 Conn. 484, 40 Atl. 179, 40 L. R. A. 607, 66 Am. St. Rep. 126 ( 1898) 120 State V. Harris, 47 Wis. 298, 2 N. W. 543 ( 1879) 04 State V. Harrub, 95 Ala. 176, 10 So. 752, 15 L. R. A. 761, 36 Am. St. Rep. 195 (Dec. T. 1891) 210 State V. Heger, 194 Mo. 707, 93 S. W. 252 ( 1906) 213 State V. Hickox, 64 Kan. 650, 68 Pac. 35 (1902) 221 State V. Holleyman, 55 S. C. 207, 31 S. E. 362, 33 S. E. 366, 45 L. R. A. 567 ( 1899) 20, 166, 220 State V. Hoyt, 71 Vt. 59. 42 Atl. 973 ( 1898) 167 State V. Hunt, 129 N. C. 686, 40 S. E. 216, 85 Am. St. Rep. 758 (1901) 16 State V. Illinois Cent. R. E. Co., 33 Fed. 730 (C. C. 111., 1888), af- ffirmed in Illinois Central R. E. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 13 Supm. 110, 36 L. ed. 1018 ( 1892) 104 State V. Indiana & Illinois Southern R. R. Co., 133 Ind. 69, 32 N. E. 817. 18 L. E. A. 502 (1892) 229 Slate V. Indiana & Ohio Oil, etc., Co., 120 Ind. 575, 22 N. E. 778, 6 L. R. A. 579 (1889) 126, 192 State V. Insley, 64 Md. 28. 20 Atl. 1031 (1885) 211 State V. International & Great Northern E. R. Co.. 31 Tex. Civ. App. 219, 71 S. W. 994 (1903) 42, 56 State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 83 Me. 158, 21 Atl. 840 (1891) 31 State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 94 Me. 335. 47 Atl. 531 (1900) 220 State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 95 Me. 140, 49 Atl. 670 (1901) 219 State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 96 Me. 415. 52 Atl. 911 (1902) .... 219 State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 98 Me. 464, 57 Atl. 798 (1904) 220 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxiv Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 101 lie. 430, 64 Atl. 812 (1906).. 154, 219 State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 66 Atl. 393 (Supm. Ct. Me., 1906) . 220 State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 67 Atl. 312 (Supm. Ct. Me., 1907) . 219 State V. Ivey, 73 S. C. 2S2, 53 S. E. 428 ( 1906) 159 State V. Jack, 69 Kan. 387, 76 Pac. 911, 1 L. R. A. N. S. 167 (1904). 41 State V. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 377, 27 So. 225 (1899). 228 State V. Jones, 51 Ohio St. 492, 37 N. E. 945 (1894) 269 State V. Judge, 44 La. Ann. 770, 11 So. 74 (1892) 231 State V. Judy, 7 Mo. App. 524 ( 1879) 212 State V. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 96 Fed. 353 (C. C. Ark., 1899), reversed in Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co., 183 U. S. 185, 22 Supm. 47, 46 L. ed. 144 (1901) 48, 122, 193 State V. Kennedy, 19 La. Ann. 397 ( 1867 ) 255 State V. Kenney, 57 S. E. 823 (Supm. Ct. App. W. Va., 1907) 221 State V. Kibling, 63 Vt. 636, 22 AtL 613 (1891) 139, 219 State V. Klein, 126 Ind. 68, 25 N. E. 873 (1890) 204 State ex rel. Pennsylvania K. E. Co. v. Knight, 192 U. S. 21, 24 Supm. 202, 48 L. ed. 325 (1904), affirming People ex rel. Penn- sylvania R. R. Co. V. Knight, 171 X. Y. 354, 64 N. E. 152, 98 Am. St. Rep. 610 (1902), 67 App. Div. 398, 73 N. Y. Suppl. 790 (1901) 46, 47, 52, 55, 56, 89, 147 State V. Lagarde, 60 Fed. 186 (C. C. La., 1894) 157, 203 State V. Leech, 119 La. Ann. 446, 44 So. 285 (1907) 245, 246 State V. Leighton, 83 Me. 419, 22 Atl. 380 (1891) 177 State V. Liehtenstein, 44 W. Va. 99, 28 S. E. 753 (1897) 158, 221 State V. Little Whirlwind, 22 Mont. 425, 56 Pac. 820 (1899) 64 State V. Long, 95 N. C. 582, 59 Am. Rep. 263 (1886) 159, 165 State V. Looney, 97 S. W. 934 (Supm. Ct. Mo., 1906) 160 State V. Lord, 66 N. H. 479, 29 Atl. 556 (1891) 218 State V. Lowry, 166 Ind. 372, 77 N. E. 728, 4 L. R. A. N. S. 528 ( 1906) 19, 29, 32, 33, 192 State V. McGee, 55 S. C. 247, 33 S. E. 353, 74 Am. St. Rep. 741 ( 1899) 219 State V. McGinnis, 37 Ark. 362 (Nov. T. 1881 ) 165 State v. McGregor, 76 Fed. 956 (C. C. Iowa, 1896) 38 State v. Marsh, 37 Ark. 356 (Nov. T. 1881 ) 215 State V. Marshall, 64 X. H. 549, 15 AtL 210, 1 L. R. A. 51 (1888) . 198 State V. Medbury, 3 R. I. 138 (1855) 50 State V. Miller, 86 Iowa, 638, 53 N. W. 330 ( 1892 ) 39 State V. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 100 S. W. 146 (Supm. Ct. Tex., 1907) 150 State ex rel. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 92 Pac. 606 (Supm. Ct. Kan., 1907 ) 43 State V. Jlitchell, 97 Me. 66, 53 Atl. 887, 94 Am. St. Rep. 481 (1902) 167 State V. Montgomery, 92 Me. 433, 43 Atl. 13 (1899) 32, 160 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixxv [The references are to pages.] State V. Montgomery, 94 Me. 192, 47 Atl. 165, SO Am. St. Eep. 386 (1900) 161,167 State V. Moody, 70 S. C. 56, 49 S. E. 8 ( 1904) 220 State V. Morgan, 2 S. D. 32, 48 N. W. 314 (1891) 22 State V. Muncie Pulp Co., 104 S. W. 437 ( Supm. Ct. Tenn., 1907 ) . 24 State V. Myers, 42 W. Va. 822, 26 S. E. 539, 35 L. R. A. 844, 57 Am. St. Rep. 887 ( 1896) 198 State V. Napier, 63 S. C. 60, 41 S. E. 13 ( 1902) 16 State V. Nash, 97 N. C. 514, 2 S. E. 645 (1887) 215 State V. Nathan. See Nathan v. Louisiana. State V. Nevada Central R. R. Co., 26 Nev. 357, 68 Pac. 294, 69 Pao. 1042 (1902) 271 State V. N. Y., New Haven & Hartford R. E. Co., 60 Conn. 326, 22 Atl. 765 (1891) 262 State V. Nilea, 78 Vt. 266, 62 Atl. 795, 112 Am. St. Rep. 917 ( 1906) 211 State V. Norris, 78 N. C. 443 (1878) 203 State V. North, 27 Mo. 464 ( 1858 ) 165 State V. Northern Pacific Express Co., 58 Minn. 403, 59 N. W. 1100 ( 1894) 210 State V. Northern Pacific Express Co., 27 Mont. 419, 71 Pac. 404, 94 Am. St. Rep. 824 (1903) 142, 147 State of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 123 Fed. 692 (C. C. Minn., 1903) 138 State V. O'Connor, 5 N. D. 629, 67 N. W. 824 (1896) 140, 158 State V. Omaha & Council -Bluflfs Ry., etc., Co., 113 Iowa, 30, 84 N. W. 983, 52 L. R. A. 315, 86 Am. St. Rep. 357 (1901) 164 State V. Omaha Elevator Co., 110 N. W. 874 (Supm. Ct. Neb., (1906) , 48 State V. O'Neil. See O'Neil v. Vermont. State V. Otis, 60 Kan. 248, 56 Pac. 14 ( 1899) 232 State V. Parsons, 124 Mo. 436, 27 S. W. 1102, 46 Am. St. Rep. 457 (1894) 39,163 State V. Peckham, 3 R. I. 289 ( 1838) 31 State V. Pennsylvania Co., 133 Ind. 700, 32 N. E. 822 ( 1892 ) 229 State V. Penny, 19 S. C. 218 ( 1883) 245 State V. Pfieajor, 81 Iowa, 759, 46 N. W. 1063 (1890) .' 30 State V. Philadelphia, Wilmington, etc., R. R. Co., 45 Md. 361, 24 Am. Rep. 511 (1876) 266 State V. Phipps, 50 Kan. 609, 31 Pac. 1097, 18 L. R. A. 657, 34 Am. St. Rep. 52 (1893) 14 State V. Pinclcney, 10 Rich. Law (S. C), 474 (1857) 255 State V. Pittsburg & Southern Coal Co. See Pittsburg & Southern Coal Co. V. Louisiana. State V. Potterfleld, 47 S. C. 75, 25 S. E. 39 (1896) 222 State V. Pratt, 59 Vt. 590, 9 Atl. 556 ( 1887) 163 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxvi Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] State V. Preferred Tontine Mercantile Co., 184 Mo. 160, 82 S. W. 1075 (1904) 12 State ex rel. Yesler v. Prosser. See Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Commrs. State V. Pullman Co., 90 Pac. 319 (Supm. Ct. Kan., 1907) 148 State V. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 64 Wis. 89, 23 N. W. 871 ( 1885 ) 268 State of Indiana v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 16 Fed. 193 (C. C. Ind., 1883 ) 268 State V. Railroad, 141 N. C. 846, 54 S. E. 294 (1906) 196 State V. Randolph, 1 Mo. App. 15 ( 1876) 212, 213, 214 State V. Rankin, 11 S. D. 144, 76 N. W. 299 (1898) 158 State V. Rasmussen. See Rasmussen v. Idaho. State V. Richards, 32 W. Va. 348, 9 S. E. 245, 3 L. R. A. 705 (1889) 161 State V. Robinson, 49 Jle. 285 ( 1862 ) 34 State V. Rocky Mountain Bell Tel., 27 Mont. 394, 71 Pac. 311 (1903) 149 State V. Rogers, 95 Me. 94, 49 Atl. 564, 85 Am. St. Rep. 395 (1901) 200 State V. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 58, 73 S. W. 572 (1903) 42 State V. Saunders, 19 Kan. 127, 27 Am. Rep. 98 (1877) 211 State V. Sehuman, 36 Oreg. 16, 58 Pac. 661, 47 L. R. A. 153, 78 Am. St. Rep. 754 (1899) 214 State V. Scott, 98 Tenn. 254, 39 S. W. 1, 36 L. R. A. 461 (1897) . . 158 State V. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 48 Fla. 129, 37 So. 314 (1904) . . 44 State V. Seagraves, 111 Mo. App. 353, 85 S. W. 925 (1905) 58 State V. Shapleigh, 27 Mo. 344 ( 1858) 27 State V. Shattuck, 96 Minn. 45, 104 N. W. 719 (1905) 213 State V. Sickmann, 65 Mo. App. 499 (1896) 137 State V. Smiley, 65 Kan. 240, 69 Pac. 199. 67 L. R. A. 903 (1902) . 69 State V. Smith, 56 S. E. 528 (Supm. Ct. App. W. Va., 1907) 221 State V. Smithson, 106 Mo. 149. 17 S. W. 221 ( 1891 ) 163 State V. Snoddy, 128 Mo. 523, 31 S. W. 36 (1895) 158, 161 State V. Southern Kan. Ry. Co., 49 S. W. 252 (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 65 State V. Southern Ry. Co., 119 N. C. 814, 25 S. E. 862, 56 Am. St. Rep. 689 ( 1896) 226 State V. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33, 55 Pac. 1026 (1899) 64 State V. State Board of Assessment, 3 R. D. 338, 53 N. W. 192 (1892) 267 State V. Steamship Constitution, 42 Cal. 578, 10 Am. Rep. 303 (1872) 144 State V. Stevenson, 109 N. C. 730, 14 S. E. 385, 26 Am. St. Rep. 595 ( 1891 ) 149, 165 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixxvii [The references are to pagea.] State V. Stripling, 113 Ala. 120, 21 So. 409. 36 L. R. A. 81 (Nov. T. 1896) 120 State V. Stucker, 58 Iowa, 496, 12 S. W. 483 (1882) 215 State V. Taber Lumber Co., 112 N. W. 214 (Supm. Ct. Minn., 1907 ) 253 State V. Tassels, Dudley (Ga.), 229 (1830) 62 State V. Thompson, 85 Me. 189, 27 Atl. 97 ( 1892 ) 51 State V. Thompson, 47 Oreg. 492, 84 Pac. 476, 4 L. E. A. N. S. 480 (1906) 234 State V. Trotman, 142 N. C. 662, 55 S. E. 599 ( 1906 ) 155 State V. Underground Cable Co., 18 Atl. 581 (Ct. Ch. N. J., 1889) . 129 State V. Union Tank Line Co., 94 Minn. 320, 102 N. W. 721 (1905) 250 State V. U. S. Express Co., 81 Minn. 87, 83 N. W. 465, 50 L. R. A. 667, 83 Am. St. Eep. 366 ( 1900) 44 State V. Virginia & Truckee K. R. Co., 23 Nev. 283, 46 Pac. 723, 35 L. R. A. 759 ( 1896) 271 State V. Wade, 63 Vt. 80, 22 Atl. 12 ( 1890) 27 State V. Wagener, 77 Minn. 483, 80 N. W. 633, 778, 1134, 46 L. R. A. 442, 77 Am. St. Rep. 681 ( 1899) 121 State V. Welton. See Welton v. Missouri. State V. Wessell, 109 N. C. 735, 14 S. E. 391 (1891) 160 State V. Western Union Tel. Co., 113 N. C. 213, 18 S. E. 389, 22 L. R. A. 570 (1893) 58 State V. Western Union Tel. Co., 90 Pac. 299 (Supm. Ct. Kan., 1907 ) 96, 149, 152 State V. Western Union Tel. Co. See Western Union Tel. Co. v. Missouri. State V. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 290 ( 1856) 30 State of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518, 14 L. ed. 249 (Dec. T. 1851), IS How. 421, 15 L. ed. 435 (Dec. T. 1855) 70, 180 State V. Wheelock, 95 Iowa, 577, 64 N. W. 620, 30 L. R. A. 429, 58 Am. St. Rep. 442 (1895) 163, 168 State V. Willingham, 9 Wyom. 290, 62 Pac. 797, 52 L. R. A. 198, 87 Am. St. Rep. 948 (1900) 156 State V. Winters, 44 Kan. 723, 25 Pac. 235, 10 L. R. A. 616 (1890) 38 State V. Wise, 70 Minn. 99, 72 S. W. 843 (1897) 63 State V. Woodruff Sleeping & Parlor Coach Co., 114 Ind. 155, 15 N. E. 814 (1888) 262 State V. W. W. Cargill Co. See W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota. State V. Zimmerman, 78 Iowa, 614, 43 N. W. 458 (1889) 30 State V. Zophy, 14 S. D. 119, 84 N. W. 391, 86 Am. St. Rep. 741 ( 1900) 165 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxviii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] State Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. 232, 21 L. ed. 146 (Dec. 1872), reversing Tonnage Tax Cases, 62 Pa. St. 286, 1 Am. Eep. 399 (1869) 19, 65 State Tax on Eaihvay Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284, 21 L. ed. 164 (Dee. 1872) 265 State Toll on Government Property, 23 Op. Atty.-Gen. 299 (1900) . 273 State Tonnage Tax Cases (Cox v. Collector), 12 Wall. 204, 20 L. ed. 370 (Dec. 1870), reversing Lott v. Mobile Trade Co., 43 Ala. 578 (1869) 276 Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522, 21 L. ed. 369 (Dec. 1872) . . 238 Steamship Co. v. Joliflfe, 2 Wall. 450, 17 L. ed. 805 (Dec. 1864).. 245 Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. 31, 18 L. ed. 749 (Dec. 1867) 274,275 Steamboat N. Y. v. Rea, 18 How. 223, 15 L. ed. 359 (Dec. T. 1855) . 230 Stedman v. State, 64 Ind. 597 ( 1878) 234 Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 19 Supm. 722, 43 L. ed. 1041 (1899) 64 Sternberger v. Cape Fear & Yadkin Valley R. R. Co., 29 S. C. 510, 7 S. E. 836, 2 L. R. A. 105 (1888) 57 Bternweis v. Stilsing, 52 N. J. Law, 517, 20 Atl. 65 (1890) 216 Sterrett v. City of Houston, 14 Tex. 153 (1855) 273 Stevens v. Brown, 58 111. 289 ( 1871 ) 195 Stevens v. State, 93 Fed. 793 (C. C. Ohio, 1899) 221 Stevens v. State, 89 Md. 669, 43 Atl. 929 (1899) 212, 213 Stevens v. State, 61 Ohio St. 597, 56 N. E. 478 (1899) 215, 222 Stewart v. Harry, 3 Bush (Ky.), 438 (1868) 238 Stilwell V. Raynor, 1 Daly (N. Y.), 47 (1860) 244 Stockard v. Morgan, 185 U. S. 27, 22 Supm. 576, 46 L. ed. 785 (1902), reversing 105 Tenn. 412, 58 S. W. 1061 (1900). 126, 156, 157 Ex parte Stockton, 33 Fed. 95 (D. C. Tex., 1887) 157 Stockton V. Baltimore & X. Y. R. Co., 32 Fed. 9 (C. C. N. J., 1887) 94, 105, 107 Stockton V. Powell, 29 Fla. 1, 10 So. 688, 15 L. R. A. 42 (1892) . . 184 Stone V. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 116 U. S. 307, 6 Supm. 334, 1191, 29 L. ed. 636 (1886), reversing Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Stone, 20 Fed. 468 (C. C. Miss., 1884) ; previous decision in Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Stone, Id. 270 (C. C. Miss., 1884. 44 Stone V. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co., 206 U. S. 267, 27 Supm. 615, 51 L. ed. 1057 (1907) 98 Stone V. State, 117 Ga. 292, 43 S. E. 740 (1903) 155 Stone V. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., 62 Miss. 607, 52 Am. Rep. 193 (1885) 43 Stoughton V. State, 5 Wis. 291 ( 1856) 187 Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 TJ. S. 141, 9 Supm. 256, 32 L. ed. 637 (1889), affirming Re Hennick, 5 Mackey (D. C), 489 (1887) 59, 157 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixxix [The references are to pages.] Stratford v. City Council of Montgomery, 110 Ala. 619, 20 So. 127 (Nov. T. 1895) 158 Stubbs V. People, 90 Pac. 1114 (Supm. Ct. Colo., 1907) 19, 29, 189 The Sunswick, 6 Ben. 112, 23 Fed. Caa. No. 13,624 (1872) 93 Sweatt V. Boston, H. & E. R. Co., 3 Cliff. 339, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,684 (1871) 20 Sweeney v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul By. Co., 60 Wis. 60, 18 N. W. 756 ( 1884) 179, 181 Sweeney v. Otis, 37 La. Ann. 520 ( 1885) 273 Swift V. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 58 Fed. 858 (C. C. 111., 1893) ; subsequent decision in 64 Id. 59 (C. C. 111., 1894) 118 Swift V. Sutphin, 39 Fed. 630 (C. C. 111., 1889) 204 Swift V. U. S., 196 U. S. 375, 25 Supm. 276, 49 L. ed. 518 (1905), affirming U. S. v. Swift, 122 Fed. 529 (C. C. 111., 1903) ..29, 46, 49 76, 254 Re Sydow, 4 Ariz. 207, 36 Pac. 214 ( 1894) 165 T. Taggart v. State, 85 S. W. 1155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1905) 154 Talbutt V. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 64, 44 S. W. 1091 ( 1898) 158 Taylor v. Drew, 21 Ark. 485 ( 1860) 63 Taylor Borough v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 202 Pa. St. 583, 52 Atl. 128 (1902) 277 Telegraph Co. v. Mellon, 100 Tenn. 429, 45 S. W. 443 (1898) . .117, 242 Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. ed. 1067 (Oct. 1881), reversing Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 55 Tex. 314 (1881) ; subsequent decision in 62 Tex. 630 (1884) 266 Tennessee v. Pullman Southern Car Co., 117 U. S. 51, 6 Supm. 643, 29 L. ed. 791 (1886) 141 Territory ex rel. v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co. See New Mexico ex rel. McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co. Territory v. Evans, 2 Idaho, 658, 23 Pac. 115, 7 L. R. A. 288 (1890) 210 Territory v. Farnsworth, 5 Mont. 303, 5 Pac. 869 ( 1885 ) 159, 167 Territory v. Guyott, 9 Mont. 46, 22 Pac. 134 (1889) 63 Territory v. Nelson, 2 Idaho, 651, 23 Pac. 116 (1890) 210 Territory v. Russell, 86 Pac. 551 (Supm. Ct. N. M.,' 1906) 161 Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Parsons, 74 Fed. 408, 20 C. C. A. 481 (8th C. 1896) 107 Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 27 Supm. 350, 51 L. ed. 553 (1907), reversing Abilene Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 85 S. W. 1052 (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) . 118 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Allen, 98 S. W. 450 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906) . . 232 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Avery, 33 S. W. 704 (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) . . 55 Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Berchfield, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 228, 46 S. W. 900 (1898) 80 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxx Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Texas & Pacific Ey. Co. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 204 U. S. 449, 27 Supm. 358, 51 L. ed. 562 ( 1907) 118 Texas & P. Ey. Co. v. City of Baton Eouge, 36 Fed. 845 (C. C. La., 1888) 174 Texas & P. Ey. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 40 Fed. Ill (C. C. La., 1889) 188 Texas & Pacific Ey. Co. v. Clark, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 611, 23 S. W. 698 (1893) 136 Texas & Pacific Ey. Co. v. Davis, 93 Tex. 378, 55 S. W. 562 ( 1900 ) , reversing 54 S. W. 381 (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 53, 133 Texas & Pacific Ey. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U. S. 197, 16 Supm. 666, 40 L. ed. 940 (1896) 83 Texas & Pacific Ey. Co. v. Interstate Transportation Co., 155 U. S. 585, 15 Supm. 228, 39 L. ed. 271 ( 1895) 6 Texas & P. Ey. Co. v. Loving, 98 S. W. 451 (Tex. C .Vpp. 1906) . 232 Texas Co. v. Stephens, 103 S. W. 481 (Supm. Ct. Tex., 1907) 157 Thames Bank v. Lovell, 18 Conn. 500, 46 Am. Dec. 332 (1847) 186 Thingvalla Line v. U. S., 24 Ct. of CI. 255, 5 L. E. A. 135 (1889) . 74 Ex parte Thomas, 71 Cal. 204, 12 Pac. 53 (1886) 165 Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ey. Co., 62 Fed. 803 (C. C. Ohio, 1894) 76 The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428, 6 L. ed. 358 (1825) 88 Thomas Manuf. Co. v. Knapp, 101 Minn. 432, 112 N. W. 989 (1907) 156, 161 The Thomas Swan, 6 Ben. 42, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,931 (1872) . .93, 94 Thompson v. Darden, 198 V. S. 310, 25 Supm. 660, 49 L. ed. 1064 (1905), affirming Darden v. Thompson, 101 Va. 635, 44 S. E. 755 (1903) 245 Thompson v. Spraigue. See Spraigue v. Thompson. Thorns V. Greenwood, 6 Ohio Dec. (Eeprint) 639 (1878) 138 Ex parte Thornton, 12 Fed. 538 (C. C. Va., 1882) 159, 168 Tidewater Pipe Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 59 N. J. Law, 269, 39 Atl. 1114 (1896), afiirming 57 N. J. Law, 516, 31 Atl. 220, 27 L. E. A. 684 ( 1895 ) 150 Tiernan v. Einker, 102 U. S. 123, 26 L. ed. 103 (Oct. 1880) . .164, 215 Tinken v. Stillwagon, 1 N. Y. City Ct. 390 (1878) 230 Tinker v. State, 90 Ala. 638, 8 So. 814 (Nov. T. 1890-1) 218 Tinker v. State, 96 Ala. 11.5, 11 So. 383 (Nov. T. 1891-2) 33, 40 Re Tinsman, 95 Fed. 648 ( C. C. Cal., 1899 ) 156 Tonnage Tax Cases. See State Freight Tax Case. Town of Canton v. McDaniel, 188 Mo. 207, 86 S. W. 1092 (1905) 155, 156 Town of Pacific Junction v. Dyer, 64 Iowa, 38, 19 N. W. 862 ( 1884) 165 Tracy v. State, 3 Mo. 3 ( 1829) 32 Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 25 L. ed. 550 (Oct. 1879) 78 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixxxi [The references are to pages.] Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 144 Mass. 523, 11 N. E. 929, 59 Am. Kep. 113 (1887) 208, 209 Transportation Co. v. Parlcersburg, 107 U. S. 691, 2 Supm. 732, 27 L. ed. 584 (1883) 7, 111, 114, 272, 273, 274, 276 Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273, 25 L. ed. 412 (Oct. 1878), affirming Wheeling, Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. v. City of Wheeling, 9 W. Va. 170, 27 Am. Rep. 552 (1876) 258 Tredway v. Riley, 32 Neb. 495, 49 N. W. 268, 29 Am. St. Rep. 447 (1891) 26, 50 Tribune Printing & Binding Co. v. Barnes, 7 N. C 591, 75 N. W. 904 ( 1898) 122 The Troop. See Kenney v. Blake. Tugwell V. Madison & Eagle Pass Ferry Co., 74 Tex. 480, 9 S. W. 120, 13 S. W. 654 (1888) 174 Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38, 2 Supm. 44, 27 L. ed. 370 (1883), affirming 55 Md. 240 (1881) 206 Turner v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 545, 55 S. W. 834 (1900) 156 Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 504, 6 Supm. 835, 29 L. ed. 988 (1886) 256 Be Tyerman, 48 Fed. 167 (C. C. Pa., 1891 ) 157 U. Union Bridge Co. t. U. S., 204 U. S. 364, 27 Supm. 367, 51 L. ed. 523 (1907). affirming U. S. v. Union Bridge Co., 143 Fed. 377 (D. C. Pa., 1906) 25, 97, 99, 101, 104 Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Mason City, etc., R. R. Co., 199 U. S. 160, 26 Supm. 19, 50 L. ed. 134 (1905) 107 Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U. S. 194, 26 Supm. 36, 50 L. ed. 150 (1905) 249, 257 Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Lynch, 177 U. S. 149, 20 Supm. 631, 44 L. ed. 708 (1900), affirming 18 Utah, 378, 55 Pac. 639, 48 L. R. A. 790 (1898) , 262 Matter of Union Tank Line, 204 111. 347, 68 N. E. 504, 98 Am. St. Rep. 221 (1903) 250 Union Trust Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. Co., 8 N. M. 327, 43 Pae. 701 (1895) 95 Urton V. Sherlock, 75 Mo. 247 (1881) 195 U. S. V. Adair. See Adair v. U. S. U. S. V. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. See Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. V. U. S. U. S. V. Alaska Packers' Assoc, 79 Fed. 152 (C. C. Wash., 1897) . 51 U. S. V. Ames, 95 Fed. 453 (C. C. 111., 1899) 59 U. S. V. Anderson, 10 Blatchf. 226, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,447 (1872). 86 U. S. V. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 150 Fed. 442 (D. C. Colo., 1907) 82 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxxii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] U. S. V. Atlajitic Coast Line E. Co., 153 Fed. 918 (D. C. N. C, 1907) 81 U. S. V. Bailey, 1 McLean, 234, 24 Fed. Gas. No. 14,495 (1834) . . 64 U. S. T. Banister Realty Co., 155 Fed. 583 (C. C. N. Y., 1907) .25, 89 U. S. V. Barnhart, 22 Fed. 285 (C. C. Oreg., 1884) 64 U. S. V. Beaeham, 29 Fed. 284 (C. C. Md., 1886) 92 U. S. V. Beef Slough, etc., Co., 8 Biss. 421, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,559 (1879) 184 U. S. V. Bellingliam Bay Boom Co., 176 U. S. 211, 20 Supm. 343, 44 L. ed. 437 (1900), reversing 81 Fed. 658, 26 C. C. A. 547 (9th C. 1897), which affirmed 72 Fed. 585 (C. C. Wash., 1896) 97, 101 103, 184, 187 U. S. V. Belt, 128 Fed. 168 (D. C. Pa., 1904) 62 U. S. V. Bichard, 1 Ariz. 31, 25 Pac. 517 ( 1871 ) 62 U. S. V. Bohl, 125 Fed. 625 (D. C. Conn., 1903) 79 U. S. V. Boston & A. R. Co., 15 Fed. 209 (C. C. Mass., 1883) 80 U. S. V. Boyer, 85 Fed. 425 (D. C. Mo., 1898) 79 U. S. V. Bridleman, 7 Fed. 894 (D. C. Oreg., 1881) 64 U. S. V. Burlington & Henderson County Ferry Co., 21 Fed. 331 (D. C. Iowa, 1884) 88, 92 U. S. V. Burns, 54 Fed. 351 (C. C. W. Va., 1893) 99 U. S. V. Cassidy, 67 Fed. 698 (D. C. Cal., 1895) 17 U. S. V. Chesapeake & O. Fuel Co., 105 Fed. 93 (C. C. Ohio, 1900), affirmed as Chesapeake & 0. Fuel Co. v. U. S., 115 Fed. 610, 53 C. C. A. (6th C. 1902) 76 U. S. V. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 156 Fed. 180 (D. C. Neb., 1907). 82 U. S. V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 149 Fed. 486 (D. C. Iowa, 1906) 81 U. S. V. Chicago, P. & St. L. Ry. Co., 143 Fed. 353 (D. C. 111., 1906 ) 82 U. S. V. Chu Chee, 93 Fed. 797, 35 C. C. A. 613 (9th C. 1899) 74 U. S. V. Cisna, 1 McLean, 254, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,795 (1835).. 64 U. S. V. City of Moline, 82 Fed. 592 (D. C. III., 1897) .. .-.25, 99, 104 U. S. V. Coal Dealers' Assoc, 85 Fed. 252 (C. C. Cal., 1898) . . .17, 76 U. S. V. Cole, 5 McLean, 513, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,832 (1853) 86 U. S. V. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72, 9 L. ed. 1004 (Jan. T. 1838) . .23, 40, 86 U. S. V. Craig, 28 Fed. 795 (C. C. Mich., 1886) 74 U. S. V. Debs. See Re Debs. U. S. V. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 152 Fed. 269 (C. C. N. Y., 1907 ) 57 U. S. V. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41, 19 L. ed. 593 (Dec. 1869) 51 U. S. V. Duluth, 1 Dill. 469, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,001 (1871) 184 U. S. V. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia R. Co., 13 Fed. 642 (C. C. Tenn., 1882) 80 U. S. V. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 15 Supm. 249, 39 L. ed. 325 (1895), affirming 60 Fed. 934, 9 C. C. A. 297, 24 L. R. A. 428 (3d C. 1894), 60 Fed. 306 (C. C. Pa., 1894) . . 10, 11, 48, 49, 50, 69 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixxxiii [The references are to pages.] U. S. V. Elliott, 62 Fed. 801 (C. C. Mo., 1894) 76 U. S. V. Fanning, 1 Morris (Iowa), 348 (1844) 174 U. S. V. Fifty Cases of Distilled Spirits, 83 Fed. 1000 (D. C. Oreg., 1897 ) 59 U. S. V. Foong King, 132 Fed. 107 (D. C. Ga., 1904) 74 U. S. V. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U. S. 188, 23 L. ed. 846 (Oct. 1876), reversing 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,136 (D. C. Minn., 1874) 60, 62, 63 U. S. V. Frank Sylvia, 37 Fed. 155 (D. C. Cal., 1888) 93 TJ. S. V. Geddes, 131 Fed. 452, 65 C. C. A. 320 (6th C. 1904). 54, 56, 82 U. S. V. Gould, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,239 (D. C. Ala., 1860) 21 U. S. V. Great Northern Ry. Co., 145 Fed. 438 (D. C. Wash., 1906). 81 U. S. V. Great Northern Ry. Co., 150 Fed. 229 (D. C. Wash., 1906) 82 U. S. V. Green, 137 Fed. 179 (D. C. N. Y., 1905) 79, 199 U. S. V. Harris, 177 U. S. 305, 20 Supm. 609, 44 L. ed. 780 (1900). 80 U. S. V. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 18 L. ed. 182 (Dec. 1865).... 60, 62 U. S. V. Hoover, 133 Fed. 950 (D. C. Neb., 1904) 72 U. S. V. Hopkins. See Hopkins v. U. S. TJ. S. V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 156 Fed. 182 (D. C. Ky., 1907) .... 82 r. S. V. Jackson, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,458 (D. C. N. Y., 1841) .... 91 93, 173 r. S. V. The James Morrison, Newb. 241. 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,465 (1846) 94 TJ. S. V. Jellico Mountain Coal & Coke Co., 46 Fed. 432, 12 L. R. A. 753 (C. C. Tenn., 1891) 76 U. S. V. Joint Traffic Assoc, 171 U. S. 505, 19 Supm. 25, 43 L. ed. 259 (1898), reversing 76 Fed. 895 (C. C. N. Y., 1896), 89 Fed. 1020, 32 C. C. A. 491 (2d C. 1897) 19, 68, 75 V. S. V. Jones, 109 U. S. 513, 3 Supm. 346, 27 L. ed. 1015 (1883), affirming Jones v. U. S., 48 Wis. 385, 4 N. W. 519 (1880) .... 104 U. S. V. Joyce, 138 Fed. 457 (D. C. Pa., 1905) 199 r. S. V. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 6 Supm. 1109, 30 L. ed. 228 (1886) 64 V. S. V. Keokuk & H. Bridge Co., 45 Fed. 178 (D. C. Iowa, 1891) 99, 107 U. S. V. Knight, 3 Interst. Com. R. 801 (U. S. D. C. 111., 1892) . . 60 U. S. V. Koch, 40 Fed. 250, 5 L. R. A. 130 (C. C. Mo., 1889) .... 78 U. S. V. Lavarrello, 149 Fed. 297 (C. C. N. Y., 1906) 74 U. S. v. Lee Huen, 118 Fed. 442 (D. C. N. Y., 1902) 74 U. S. ex rel. Kellogg v. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 115 Fed. 373 (D. C. N. Y., 1902) 52, 53, 57 U. S. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 18 Fed. 480 (D. C. Tenn., 1883) . . 80 U. S. V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 156 Fed. 193 (D. C. Ky., 1907) . . 82 U. S. V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 156 Fed. 195 (D. C. Ky., 1907) . . 82 U. S. V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 156 Fed. 863 (D. C. Ky., 1907) . . 80 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxxiv Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] U. S. V. Louisville & P. Canal Co., 4 Dill. 601, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,633 (1873) 184 U. S. V. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445, 23 Supm. 349, 47 L. ed. 539 (1903). 106 U. S. V. Marigold, 9 How. 560, 13 L. ed. 257 (Jan. T. 1850) 73 U. S. T. Martin, 14 Fed. 817 (D. C. Oreg., 1883) 64 U. S. V. Milwaukee & St. P. Ey. Co., 5 Biss. 410, 420, 26 Fed. Cas. Nos. 15,778, 15,779 (1873) 99 U. S. V. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co., 3 Fed. 548 (C. C. Minn., 1880) 103 U. S. V. Nelson, 29 Fed. 202 (D. C. Alaska, 1886) 59 U. S. V. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Woodb. & M. 401, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 15,867 (1847) 8, 177 U. S. V. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 153 Fed. 630 (D. C. N. Y., 1907) 53 U. S. V. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 156 Fed. 249 (C. C. N. Y., 1907) 80 U. S. V. North Bloomfield Gravel-Min. Co. See North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co. v. U. S. U. S. V. Northern Pac. Terminal Co., 144 Fed. 861 (D. C. Oreg., 1906) 81 U. S. v. Northern Securities Co. See Northern Securities Co. v. U. S. U. S. V. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 16 Fed. 524 (C. C. Oreg., 1883) .. 103 U. S. V. Parkersburg Branch R. Co., 143 Fed. 224, 74 C. C. A. 354 (4th C. 1906) 98, 104 U. S. V. Patterson, 55 Fed. 605 (C. C. Mass., 1893) 17 r. S. V. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co., 26 Fed. 113 (D. C. Pa., 1886) . 107 U. S. V. Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 143 Fed. 360 (D. C. Ohio, 1905 ) 81 U. S. V. Popper, 98 Fed. 423 (D. C. Cal., 1899) 73 U. S. V. Railroad Bridge Co., 6 McLean, 517, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,114 (1855) 7 U. S. T. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 23 Supm. 478, 47 L. ed. 532 (1903) 64 U. S. V. Rider, 50 Fed. 406 (D. 0. Ohio, 1892). See Rider v. U. S. 99 U. S. V. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 19 Supm. 770, 43 L. ed. 1136 (1899), reversing 9 N. M. 292, 51 Pac. 674 (1898) 25, 99, 102 U. S. V. Eomard, 89 Fed. 156 (C. C. N. Y., 1898) 98, 99 TJ. S. V. Sa-Coo-Da-Cot, 1 Dill. 271, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,212 (1870) 64 U. S. V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 107 Fed. 870 (C. C.Mo., 1901) . 80 U. S. V. St. Louis, L M. & S. E. Co., 154 Fed. 516 (D. C. Tenn., 1906) 82 U. S. V. Scott, 148 Fed. 431 (D. C. Ky., 1906) 42, 84 TJ. S. V. Seaboard Ey. Co., 82 Fed. 563 (C. C. Ala., 1897) 52 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixxxv [The references are to pages.] U. S. V. The Seneca, 1 Biss. 371, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,251 (1861) . 94 U. S. V. Seveloff, 2 Sawy. 311, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,252 (1872) 63 U. S. V. Shanks, 15 Minn. 369 ( 1870) 62 U. S. V. Shaw-Mux, 2 Sawy. 364, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,268 (1873) . 63 U. S. V. Slater, 123 Fed. 115 (D. C. Nev., 1903) 72 U. S. V. Smith, 115 Fed. 423 (D. C. Pa., 1902) 213 U. S. V. Southern Pac. Co., 154 Fed. 897 (D. C. Oreg., 1907) 82 U. S. V. Southern Ey. Co., 135 Fed. 122 (D. C. III.. 1905) 54, 82 U. S. V. Standard Oil Co., 155 Fed. 305 (D. C. 111., 1907) 52, 86 U. S. V. Stofello, 8 Ariz. 461, 76 Pac. 611 ( 1904) 63 U. S. V. Swift. See Swift v. U. S. U. S. V. Thompson, 147 Fed. 637 (D. C. N. T>.. 1906) 213 U. S. V. Trans-Missouri Freight Assoc, 166 U. S. 290, 17 Supm. 540, 41 L. ed. 1007 ( 1897 ) , reversing 58 Fed. 58, 7 C. C. A. 15, 24 L. R. A. 73 (8th C. 1893), 53 Fed. 440 (C. C. Kan., 1892) .20, 75 U. S. V. Union Bridge Co. See Union Bridge Co. v. U. S. U. S. V. Whelpley, 125 Fed. 616 (D. C. Va., 1903) 59 U. S, V. The William, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,700 (D. C. Mass., 1808) 5, 70, 71 U. S. V. The William Pope, Newb. 256, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,703 (1852) 91, 93, 174 U. S. V. Williams, 83 Fed. 997 (D. C. Cal., 1897) ' 74 U. S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 24 Supm. 719, 48 L. ed. 979 ( 1904) 73 U. S. V. Wishkah Boom Co., 136 Fed. 42, 68 C. C. A. 592 (9th C. 1905) 24, 25, 101, 187 U. S. V. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, 54 Fed. 994, 26 L. R. A. 158 (C. C. La., 1893) 76 U. S. E.^p. Co. V. Allen, 39 Fed. 712 (C. C. Tenn., 1889), reversed in Shelton v. Piatt, 139 U. S. 591, 11 Supm. 646, 35 L. ed. 273 (1891) 142 U. S. Express Co. v. Hemmingway, 39 Fed. 60 (C. C. Miss., 1889) . 142 U. S. Express Co. v. State, 164 Ind. 196, 73 N. E. 101 (1905) 243 U. S. Rubber Co. v. Butler Shoe Co. See Butler Shoe Co. v. U. S. Rubber Co. V. Van Buren v. Downing, 41 Wis. 122 (1876) 165 Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S. 438, 18 Supm. 674, 42 L. ed. 1100 (1898) ; previous decision in W. A. Vandercook Co. v- Vance, 80 Fed. 786 (C. C. S. C, 1897) 28, 215, 219, 222 Vanmeter v. Spurrier, 94 Ky. 22, 21 S. W. 337 (1893) 203 Van Patten v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 81 Fed. 545 (C. C. Iowa, 1897) 83 Re Van Vliet, 43 Fed. 761, 10 L. R. A. 451 (C. C. Ark., 1890) .... 218 Veazie v. Moor, 14 How. 568, 14 L. ed. 545 (Dec. 1852) 183 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxxvi Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Venning v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 58 S. E. 983 (Supm. Ct. S. C, 1907 ) 241 Vermont & Canada E. R. Co. v. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 63 Vt. 1, 21 Atl. 262, 731, 10 L. E. A. 562 (1890) 266 Re Vessel Owners' Towing Co., 26 Fed. 169 (D. C. 111., 1886) . . .48, 90 Vickaburg v. Tobin, 100 U. S. 430, 25 L. ed. 690 (Oct. 1879) ..273, 274 Viebahn v. Board of County Comm'rs of Crow Wing County, 96 Minn. 276, 104 N. W. 1089, 3 L. R. A. N. S. 1126 (1905) ..98, 100 101 Village of St. Bernard v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 4 Ohio Dee. 371 (1896) 227 Vines v. State, 67 Ala. 73 (Dec. T. 1880) 165, 215 Virden's Appeal, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 151 (1879) 245 Voelker v. Chicago, M. &, St. P. Ry. Co., 116 Fed. 867 (C. C. Iowa, 1902), reversed in Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Voelker, 129 Fed. 522, 65 C. C. A. 226, 70 L. R. A. 264 (8th C. 1904) 82 Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62, 11 Supm. 855, 35 L. ed. 638 (1891) 204 Von Steuben v. Central R. R. Co. of New Jersey, 4 Pa. Dist. 153 (1895) 138 W. Wabash R. Co. v. Hannahan, 121 Fed. 563 (C. C. Mo., 1903) 7 Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 7 Supm. 4, 30 L. ed. 244 (1886), reversing 105 111. 236 (1883); previous decision in 104 IlL 476 (1882).. 4, 42, 128, 135, 136, 230 Waggoner v. Whaley, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 50 S. W. 153 (1899).. 251 Wagner v. Meakin, 92 Fed. 76, 33 C. C. A. 577 (5th C. 1899).. 158 Wakefield v. Chicago, I. & L. Ey. Co., 104 S. W. 778 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907) 70 Walcott V. People, 17 Mich. 68 ( 1868) 266 Wall v. N. & W. R. E. Co., 52 W. Va. 485, 44 S. E. 294, 64 L. R, A. 501, 94 Am. St. Eep. 948 (1903) 122 Waliamet Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch. See Willamette Iron Bridge Co. V. Hatch. Walling V. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 6 Supm. 454, 29 L. ed. 691 (1886), reversing People v. Walling, 53 Mich. 264, 18 N. W. 807 (1884) Ill, 112, 114, 157, 167, 214, 216 Walton V. City Council of Augusta, 104 Ga. 757, 30 S. E. 964 (1898) 1.37 Ward V. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 20 L. ed. 449 (Dec. 1870), re- versing 31 Md. 279 (1869) 167 Re Ware, 53 Fed. 783 (C. C. Minn., 1892) 192 Ware v. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co., 92 Ala. 145, 9 So. 136 (Nov. T. 1890) 131 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixxxvii [The references are to pages.] Waring V. Mayor, 8 Wall. 110, 19 L. ed. 342 (Dec. 1868), affirm- ing Mayor, etc., of Mobile v. Waring, 41 Ala. 139 (1867) 33 Warner v. Searle, etc., Co., 191 U. S. 195, 24 Supm. 79, 48 L. ed. 145(1903) 78 Wasserboehr v. Soulier, 84 Me. 165, 24 Atl. 808, 30 Am. St. Rep. 344 ( 1902 ) 33 Waterbury v. Egan, 3 Misc. 355, 23 N. Y. Suppl. 115 (N. Y. City Ct., Gen. T., 1893) 199 Waterbury v. Newton, 50 N. J. Law, 534, 14 Atl. 604 (1888) 199 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28, 20 Supm. 518, 44 L. ed. 657 (1900), affirming 19 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 44 S. W. 936 (1898) 130 Re Watson, 15 Fed. 511 (C. C. Vt., 1882) 167 Waukegan Breakwater, 6 Op. Atty.-Gen. 172 (1853) 8 W. A. ' Vandercook Co. v. Vance. See Vance v. W. A. Vander- cook Co. The Wave v. Hyer, 2 Paine, 131, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,300 ( ) . . 245 The Waverly, 155 Fed. 436 (D. C. N. Y., 1907) 100 Way V. N. J. Steamboat Co., 133 Fed. 188 (D. C. N. Y., 1904) .... 278 Weaver v. McLellan, 5 Ben. 79, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,309 (1871) ... 246 Weaver V. State, 89 Ga. 639, 15 S. E. 840 ( 1892) 165 Webb V. Dunn, 18 Fla. 721 ( 1882) 274 Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 26 L. ed. 565 (Oct. 1880), revers- ing 33 Gratt. (Va.) 898 (1880) 164 Webster v. Bell, 68 Fed. 183, 15 C. C. A. 360 (4th C. 1895) 142 Weil V. Calhoun, 25 Fed. 865 (C. C. Ga., 1885) 215 Weld V. Chapman, 2 Iowa, 524 ( 1856) 174 Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 23 Fed. 469 (C. C. Oreg., 1884) 131 Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Express v. Crawford County, 63 Ark. 576, 40 S. W. 710, 37 L. R. A. 371 (1897) 262, 2C9 Wells, Fargo & Co. Express v. State, 79 Ark. 349, 96 S. W. 189 (1906) 213 Welton V. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 347 (Oct. 1875), revers- ing State V. Welton, 55 Mo. 288 (1874) 4, 11, 66, 111, 114 115, 153, 164 West V. City of Mount Sterling, 65 S. W. 120 (Ct. App. Ky., 1901) 163 Western Paper Bag Co. v. Johnson, 38 S. W. 364 (Tex. Civ. App., 1896) 33 Western Sash & Door Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 177 Mo. 641, 76 S. W. 998 (1903) 240 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Alabama State Board, 132 U. S. 472, 10 Supm. 161, 33 L. ed. 409 (1889), reversing 80 Ala. 273, 60 Am. Eep. 99 (Dec. T. 1885) 266, 268 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxxviii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.l Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S. 239, 20 Supm. 867, 44 L. ed. 1052 (1900), reversing 90 Fed. 379, 33 C. C. A. 113 (6th C. 1898) 134 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atlantic & Pacific States Tel. Co., 5 Nev. 102 (1869) 21, 96 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Bates, 93 Ga. 352, 20 S. E. 639 (1893) . . 242 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Bright, 90 Va. 778, 20 S. E. 146 (1894) 242 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Burgess. See Burgess v. Western Union Tel. Co. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Publishing Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Supm. 561, 45 L. ed. 765 (1901), affirming 58 Neb. 192, 78 N. W. 519 (1899) 117, 119 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Carter. 156 Ind. 531, 60 N. E. 305 ( 1901 ) 244 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Chiles, 57 S. E. 587 (Supm. Ct. App. Va., 1907) 42 Western Union Tel. Co. v. City Council of Charleston. See Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Charleston. Western Union Tel. Co. v. City of Fremont, 43 Neb. 499, 61 N. W. 724 (1895), reaffirming 39 Neb. 692, 58 N. W. 415, 26 L. R. A. 698 ( 1894) 149 Western Union Tel. Co. v. City of Visalia, 149 Cal. 744, 87 Pae. 1023(1906) 9« Western Union Tel. Co. v. Commonwealth, 110 Pa. St. 405, 20 Atl. 720 (1885) 265 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Dodge County, 113 N. W. 805 (Supm. Ct. Neb., 1907 ) 261 Western Union Tel. Co. t. Eubanks, 100 Ky. 591, 38 S. W. 1068, 36 L. R. A. 711, 66 Am. St. Rep. 361 ( 1897) 239 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fenton, 52 Ind. 1 ( 1875) 242 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ferris, 103 Ind. 91, 2 N. E. 240 (1885) 244 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ford, 77 Ark. 531, 92 S. W. 528 (1906) 243 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hamilton, 50 Ind. 181 (1875) 243 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Henderson, 68 Fed. 588 (C. C. Ind., 1895) 261 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Howell, 95 Ga. 194, 22 S. E. 286, 30 L. R. A. 158, 51 Am. St. Rep. 68 (1894) 242 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hughes, 104 Va. 240, 51 S. E. 225 (1905) 58 Western Union Tel. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 16 Supm. 934, 40 L. ed. 1105 (1896), affirming 90 Ga. 254, 16 S. E. 83 (1892) . 21 111, 114, 231, 242, 243 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Lark, 95 Ga. 806, 23 S. E. 118 (1895) . 242 Digitized by Microsoft® Table of Cases. Ixxxix [The references are to pages.] Western Union Tel. Co. v. Massachusetts, 125 U. S. 530, 8 Supm. 961, 31 L. ed. 790 (1888), on writ of error from Attorney-Gen- eral V. Western Union Tel. Co., 33 Fed. 129 (C. C. Mass., 1887) 259, 261 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521 (1876) 267 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mayor of N. Y., 38 Fed. 552, 3 L. R. A. 449 (C. C. N. Y., 1889) 96, 226 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Meredith, 95 Ind. 93 (1884) 243 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Michelson, 94 Ga. 436, 21 S. E. 169 (1894) 244 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mississippi K. R. Comm., 74 Miss. 80, 21 So. 15 (1896) 131 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Missouri, 190 U. S. 412, 23 Supm. 730, 47 L. ed. 1116 (1903), aflBrming State v. Western Union Tel. Co., 165 Mo. 502, 65 S. W. 775 ( 1901 ) 259, 261 Western Union Tel. Co. v. New Hope, 187 U. S. 419, 23 Supm. 204, 47 L. ed. 240 ( 1903 ) 277 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Norman, 77 Fed. 13 (C. C. Ky., 1896), appeal dismissed in 17 Supm. 1002 (1896) 261, 269 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 7 Supm. 1126, 30 L. ed. 1187 (1887), reversing 95 Ind. 12, 48 Am. Rep. 692 (1884) 21, 22, 66, 243, 244 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 128 U. S. 39, 9 Supm. 6, 32 L. ed. 345 (1888) 266 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 195 U. S. 540, 25 Supm. 133, 49 L. ed. 312 (1904), affirming 123 Fed. 33, 59 C. C. A. 113 (3d C. 1903), which affirmed 120 Fed. 362 (C. C. Pa., 1903), and reversed 120 Fed. 981 (C. C. N. J., 1903) 134 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Poe, 69 Fed. 557„ 16 C. C. A. 683 (6th C. 1895), affirmed in Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, which see; previous decision in 64 Fed. 9 (C. C. Ohio, 1894) .... 261 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Powell. 94 Va. 268, 26 S. E. 828 (1897) . 244 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Reynolds, 100 Va. 459, 41 S. E. 856, 93 Am. St. Rep. 971 (1902) 58, 243 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Richmond, 26 Gratt. (Va.) (1875) 260 Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 101 S. W. 748 (Supm. Ct. Ark., 1907) 149 Western Union Tel. Co. v. State. See Telegraph Co. v. Texas. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1, 16 Supm. 1054, 41 L. ed. 49 (1896), affirming 141 Ind. 281, 40 N. E. 1051, 60 L. R. A. 671 (1895) 259, 261, 263, 264 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Tyler, 90 Va. 297, 18 S. E. 280. 44 Am. St. Rep. 910 (1893) 242 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Village of Wakefield, 69 Neb. 272, 95 N. W. 659 (1903) 149 Westheimer v. Habinck, 131 Iowa 643, 109 N. W. 189 (1906).... 217 Digitized by Microsoft® xc Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Westheimer v. Weisman, 60 Kan. 753, 57 Pac. 969 (1899), revers- ing 8 Kan. App. 75, 54 Pac. 332 ( 1898 ) 21 7, 221 Wethersfield v. Humphrey, 20 Conn. 218 ( 1850) 25 The Wharf Case, 3 Bland Ch. (ild.) 361 (1831) 275 The W. H. Beaman, 45 Fed. 125 (D. C. N. J., 1891) 230 Wheeler-Stenzel Co. v. National Window Glass Jobbers' Assoc, 152 Fed. 864, 81 C. C. A. 658, 10 L. R. A. N. S. 972 (3d C. 1907) ... 76 Wheeling, Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. v. City of Wheeling. See Transportation Co. v. Wheeling. Re White, 43 Fed. 913, 11 L. E. A. 284 (C. C. Pa., 1890) 157 White V. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 86 S. W. 962 (Tex. Civ. App., 1905) 55 Whitehead v. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., 87 N. C. 255 (1882). 233 White's Bank v. Smith, 7 Wall. 646, 19 L. ed. 211 (Dec. 1868) 91 White Star Line v. Star Line of Steamers, 141 Mich. 604, 105 N. W. 135, 113 Am. St. Rep. 551 (1905) 76 Whitwell V. Continental Tobacco Co., 125 Fed. 454, 60 C. C. A. 290, 64 L. R. A. 689 (8th C. 1903) 47 Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365, 2 Supm. 257, 27 L. ed. 419 (1883), affirming 102 lU. 560 (1882) 175, 258, 259 Wigton V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 20 Phila. (Pa.) 184 (1890)... 136 Wilcox Cordage & Supply Co. v. Mosher, 114 Mich. 64, 72 N. W. 117 (1897) 132 Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S. 1, 8 Supm. 811, 31 L. ed. 629 (1888), reversing Wallamet Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 19 Fed. 347 (C. C. Oreg., 1884); previous decision in Hatch V. Wallamet Iron Bridge Co., 6 Fed. 326 (C. C. Oreg., 1881 ) 180, 181, 184 Willfong V. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 116 Iowa, 548, 90 N. W. 358 (1902) 227 The William Jarvis, 1 Spr. 485, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,697 (1859).. 143 The William Law, 14 Fed. 792 (D. C. Del., 1882) 244 Williams v. Beardsley, 2 Ind. 591 ( 1851) 177, 181 Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 21 Supm. 128, 45 L. ed. 186 (1900), affirming 110 Ga. 584, 35 S. E. 699, 50 L. R. A. 685 (1900) 9, 16, 18 Williams v. The Lizzie Henderson, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,726a (D. C. Fla., 1880) 245, 246 Williams v. U. S., 104 Fed. 50 (C. C. S. 0., 1900) 106 Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245, 7 L. ed. 412 (Jan. T. 1829) 97, 178, 186, 187 Re Wilson, 8 Mackey (D. C), 341, 12 L. R. A. 624 (1890) . .33, 59, 161 Matter of Wilson, 10 N. M. 32, 60 Pac. 73, 48 L. R. A. 417 (1900) 58, 162 The Wilson, 1 Brock. 423, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,846 ( 1820) 23 Digitized by Microsoft® Table op Cases. xci [The references are to pages.] Wilson V. Kansas City, St. Joseph, etc., R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 184 (1875) 195 Wilson V. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572, 26 L. ed. 234 (Oct. 1880) . .244, 245 Wilson V. Shaw, 204 U. S. 24, 27 Supm. 233, 51 L. ed. 351 (1907). 95 Wilson V. Wills, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 143 (N. Y. Com. PI., 1871) 245 Wind V. Her, 93 Iowa, 316, 61 N. W. 1001, 27 L. R. A. 219 (1895) 30, 33 Winifrede Coal Co. v. Central Ky. & Bridge Co., 11 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 35 (1890) 106 The Winnebago, 205 U. S. 354, 27 Supm. 509, 51 L. ed. 836 (1907) 121 Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U. S. 379, 24 L. ed. 668 (Oct. 1877) 184 Wisconsin & Michigan Ry. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 379, 24 Supm. 107, 48 L. ed. 229 ( 1903) 267 Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific R. R. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 21 Supm. 115, 45 L. ed. 194 (1900), affirming Jacobson v. Wiscon- sin, Minnesota, etc., R. R. Co., 71 Minn. 519, 74 N. W. 893, 40 L. R. A. 389, 70 Am. St. Rep. 358 (1898) 233 Wisconsin River Improvement Co. v. Manson, 43 Wis. 255, 28 Am. Rep. 542 (1877) 186 Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 15 L. ed. 816 (Dec. T. 1857), affirming Commissioners of Homochitto River v. Withers, 29 Miss. 21, 64 Am. Dec. 126 (1855) 181, 183 Re Wong Yung Quy, 2 Fed. 624 (C. C. Cal., 1880) 193 Wood V. Stockwell, 55 Me. 76 ( 1867) 92 Woodman v. Kilbourn Manuf. Co., 1 Biss. 546, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,978 (1867) 181, 187 Woodruff v. North Bloomiield Gravel Mining Co., 18 Fed. 753 (C. C. Cal., 1884) 97, 102, 188 Woodruff V. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, 19 L. ed. 382 (Dec. 1868), affirming 41 Ala. 334 (1867) 164, 255, 258 Worcester v. State of Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L. ed. 483 (Jan. T. 1832) 62 Worsley v. Second Municipality, 9 Rob. (La.) 324, 41 Am. Dec. 333 (1844) 272 Re Worthen, 58 Fed. 467 (C. C. Ohio, 1891) 200 Wright V. Howe, 24 S. W. 314 (Tex. Civ. App. 1893) 136 Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Carver, 118 N. C. 328, 24 S. E. 352 (1896) 161 Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Johnson, 84 Ga. 754, 11 S. E. 233, 8 L. R. A. 273 ( 1890) 158 W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452, 21 Supm. 423, 45 L. ed. 619 (1901), affirming State v. W. W. Cargill Co., 77 Minn. 223, 79 N. W. 962 ( 1899) 48 W. W. Montague & Co. v. Lowry. Tee Montague v. Lowry. Digitized by Microsoft® xcii Table of Cases. [The references are to pages.] Wynhamer V. People, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 567 (1855) 71 Wynne v. Wright, 1 Dev. & B. Law (N. C), 19 ( 1834) 166 Y. Yearteau v. Bacon, 65 Vt. 516, 27 Atl. 198 ( 1892) 32 Yeazel v. Alexander, 58 111. 254 ( 1871 ) 195 Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Comm'rs, 146 U. S. 646, 13 Supm. 190, 36 L. ed. 1119 (1892), dismissing writ of error to Harbor Line Comm'rs v. State, 2 Wash. 530, s. c. as State ex rel. Yesler v. Prosser, 27 Pac. 550 ( 1891 ) 99 Yost V. Lake Erie Transp. Co., 112 Fed. 746, 50 C. C. A. 511 (6th C. 1901 ) 257 Ex parte Young, 36 Oreg. 247, 59 Pac. 707, 48 L. R. A. 153, 78 Am. St. Rep. 772 (1900) 121 Z. Zimmerman v. Union Canal Co., 1 Watt* & S. (Pa.) 346 (1841) ... 183 Digitized by Microsoft® THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THB FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. CHAPTER I. The Subject op Regulation. Section 1. Historical antecedents. 2. Congress as the authority vested with the power to regulate. 3. Judicial action in aid of power. 4. Commerce defined. 5. Commerce as including intercourse. 6. Commerce as including contracts. 7. Contracts of insurance. 8. Contracts for personal services. 9. Traffic or sales. 10. Transportation of property. 11. Transportation of persons. 12. Transportation (or transmission) of intelligence; e. g., by telegraph or telephone. 13. Transportation by water; i. e., navigation. 14. Transportation along navigable waters within limits of State. 15. Commencement of transportation. 16. Termination of transportation. 17. The " original package " doctrine. 17a. Leisy v. Hardin. 18. Breaking of original package. 19. Sale in original package. 20. What constitutes original package. 20a. Austin v. Tennessee. 21. Boxes and receptacles containing bottles. 22. Commerce as " among " the States. 23. Transportation wholly within limits of State. 24. Transaction within limits of State, when included. 25. Other transactions than transportation; e. g., sale and manufacture, wholly within limits of State. 26. Transportation by different and independent agencies. 26a. The Daniel Ball. 27. Transportation between points both within, but over route partly outside of, State, [3] Digitized by Microsoft® 4 CoMMEECE Clause of Fedekal Constitxjtiost. Section 28. State as including Territory or District of Columbia. 29. Commerce " with foreign nations." 30. Commerce " with the Indian tribes." § 1. Historical antecedents. The conditions that led to the introduction of the commerce clause into the Federal Constitution cannot be better described than in the following language of one who, in addition to profound insight into the ques- tions involved, enjoyed the advantage of being an in- terested contemporary observer of such conditions: ' ' The oppressed and degraded state of commerce pre- vious to the adoption of the Constitution can scarcely be forgotten. It was regulated by foreign nations with a single view to their own interests ; and our disunited efforts to counteract their restrictions were rendered impotent by want of combination. Congress, indeed, possessed the power of making treaties; but the in- ability of the Federal government to enforce them had become so apparent as to render that power in a great degree useless. Those who felt the injury arising from this state of things, and those who were capable of estimating the influence of commerce on the pros- perity of nations, perceived the necessity of giving the control over this important subject to a single govern- ment. It may be doubted whether any of the evils proceeding from the feebleness of the Federal govern- ment, contributed more to that great revolution which introduced the present system, than the deep and gen- eral conviction, that commerce ought to be regulated by Congress."^ Many years later it was said: " The * Marshall, C. J., in Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 445, 6 L. ed. 678 (1827). See also Welton v. Missouri, 91 TJ. S. 275, 280, 23 L. ed. 347 (Oct. 1875) ; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. ed. 1015 (Oct. 1878); County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 r. S. 691, 697, 26 L. ed. 238 (Oct. 1880) ; Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific By. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 573, 7 Supm. 4, 11, 30 Digitized by Microsoft® The Subject of Eegulation. 5 power of Congress to regulate commerce among the States is perhaps the most benign gift of the Constitu- tion. Indeed it may be said that without it the Con- stitution would not have been adopted. One of the chief evils of the confederation was the power exer- cised by the commercial States of exacting duties upon the importation of goods destined for the interior of the country or for other States. The vast territory to the west of the AJleghenies had not yet been developed or subdivided into States, but the evil had already become so flagrant that it threatened an utter dissolu- tion of the confederacy. The article was adopted that all of the States of the Union might have the benefit of the duties collected at the maritime ports, and to re- lieve them from the embarrassing restrictions imposed upon the internal commerce of the country."^ The report of the proceedings in the convention furnishes but little light for the interpretation of the clause. There does not appear to have been therein ' ' any con- siderable (if, indeed, there was any) opposition to the L. ed. 244 (1886) ; Rollins v. Shelly County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489, 498, 7 Supm. 592, 59Y, 30 L. ed. 694 (1887) ; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 470, 14 Supm. 1125, 1130, 38 L. ed. 1047 (1894); Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197, 353, 24 Supm. 436, 463, 48 L. ed. 679 (1904) ; also facts stated in Mr. Webster's argument in Gil- hons V. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 12, 6 L. ed. 23 (1824) ; and in opinion of Johnson, J. (9 Wheat. 224). Of especial interest, as a decision so near the time of the adop- tion of the Constitution, is U. S. v. The William, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,700 (D. C. Mass., 1808). See also as to conditions that led to the introduction of the commerce clause, paper by Mr. Madison in 5 Elliott's Debates, pp. 109-122; 1 Story on the Constitution, §§ 259 et seq., 1057; 2 Tucker on the Constitution, §§ 250—252; article in 24 Am. Law Bev. 25 (1890), by C. A. Culberson. 2 Cook V. Marshall County, 196 U. S. 261, 272, 25 Supm. 233, 236, 49 L. ed. 471 (1905). Digitized by Microsoft® 6 CoMMEECE Clause of Fedeeal, Cokstittjtion. grant of the power. It was reported in the first draft of the Constitution exactly as it now stands, except that the words, ' and with the Indian tribes^ ' were afterwards added ; and it passed without a division ' ' ^ in its present form : ' ' The Congress shall have Power '\ * * * to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, > and among the several States, and with the Indian] Tribes."* § 2. Congress as the authority vested with the power to rege- late. It is " the Congress," as distinguished from the ju- dicial and executive departments of the government, that is vested with the power to regulate. But it will be seen that judicial action that may not, strictly,, speaking, regulate commerce, may yet properly more i or less directly affect it.* § 3. Judicial action in aid of power. But, while the power to regulate is not vested in the judicial department, resort may be had thereto in aid of the power to regulate, thus, by way of relief a gains t int erfere nce with carrying into effect legis- lation by Congress in pursuance of such power. The following has been stated as the rule applicable: " Every government, entrusted, by the very terms of ' Story on the Constitution, § 1059. For account of proceed- ings in convention, see Elliott's Debates ; Prentice & Egan's Com- merce Clause, chap. 2 ; article in 24 Am. Law Eev. 25, supra. * Art. 1, § 8, clause 3. *As to the application of common-law principles to commerce within the scope of the commerce clause, see § 57. In Texas & Pacific By. Co. v. Interstate Transportation Co., 155 TJ. S. 585, 15 Supm. 228, 39 L. ed. 271 (1895), where relief was sought against injury to a bridge, the court disagreed with the proposition of the court below that " the relief asked for is in the nature of a regulation of commerce, such as could only be pre- scribed by Congress." Digitized by Microsoft® The Subject of Eegulation. 7 its being, with powers and duties to be exercised and discharged for the general welfare, has a right to aj)plv to its own c ourts for a nv prnppr assistf^,nf^P in the PTPrcis p of the one and tVipf]ipr',}if^vgQ »f fVio ^ij^j^pT ' ' « Such resort may be had in the absence of statutory \ provision, but a fortiori there can be no doubt~of the power of Congress to directly provide therefor.'' Furthermore, even in the absence of legislation by Congress in pursuance of the power to regulate, such relief by way of judicial action has been granted against legislation by a State that is invalid as in con- flict with the exclusive power of Congress in matters that are * ' in their nature national or admit only of one uniform system or plan of legislation."® It is said that " in such cases the courts will interpose to prevent or redress the commission of acts done or attempted to be done under the authority of such un- constitutional laws. ' ' ' e^e Dehs, 158 F. S. 564, 584, 15 Supm. 900, 906, 39 L. ed. 1092 (1895), where, however, the relief allowed by injunction was against, not only obstruction of interstate transportation of per- sons and property, but also carriage of the mails. Congress had " by express statute " assumed jurisdiction over such commerce. 158 TJ. S. 586, 15 Supm. 907. See also U. S. v. Dehs, 64 Ted. Y24 (C. C. HI., 1894) ; Wabash R. Co. v. Hannahan, 121 Fed. 563 (C. C. Mo. 1903) ; Knudsen v. Benn, 123 Fed. 636 (C. C. Minn., 1903). 7 U. 8. V. Dehs, 158 U. S. 581, 15 Supm. 905. 8 See § 56. 9 Transportation Co. v. Parhershurg, 107 TJ. S. 691, 701, 2 Supm. 732, 741, 27 L. ed. 584 (1883). Thus in Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y., 92 TJ. S. 259, 23 L. ed. 543 (Oct. 1875), one liable to a penalty by the terms of a State statute imposing restrictions in vio- lation of the commerce clause, was allowed an injunction against action under such statute, in a suit brought " in order to test the validity of the provisions of" the act. But in U. S. v. Railroad Bridge Co., 6 McLean, 517, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,114 (1855), on the application of the United States government, an injunction was refused against the construction of a railroad and bridges across the Mississippi river, it being said : " The judicial power Digitized by Microsoft® 8 Commerce Clause op Fedeeai, Constitution. § 4, Commerce defined. Much of the difficulty and uncertainty involved in the application of the commerce clause has resulted from vagueness of conception of the precise scope of the term commerce. In its ordinary signification, jus- tified by its etymology," it seems to not only compre- hend, but to be confined to, cases o f exchanges o f prop- erty. Thus it is defined generally as ' ' the exchamge of goods, productions or property of any Mnd;"^^ " interchange of goods, merchandise, or property of any kind; trade; trajjic."'^^ As cases of barter are comparatively infrequent, and the great majority of exchanges of goods are ex- changes for money, that is, sales, we may, for conven- ience sake, ignore other cases, and say broadly that commerce in its ordinary signification consists of sales of property of any kind. But we shall soon discover that the word as used in the commerce clause has radi- cally departed from such signification, insomuch that it seems to have no necessary reference whatever to mere sales. Nor do we discover that any satisfactory definition answering to this changed signification has been authoritatively established. Perhaps the foUow- cannot precede that of legislation. The rule of action on all ques- tions of policy, within the Federal powers, must be prescribed by Congress * * *. The commercial power is in Congress, but un- til it shall prescribe the rule, the power is dormant." But this de- cision seems based on a failure to appreciate the rule referred to in the text as to the effect of inaction by Congress. And that such relief is proper, see elaborate opinion by Attorney- General Gush- ing, in Waukegan Breakwater, 6 Op. Atty.-Gen. 172 (1853). That legislation by Congress is necessary for maintenance of a criminal proceeding, see TJ. 8. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Woodb. & M. 401, 434, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 15,867, p. 102 (1847). ^°" Com — , together, + merx {merci — ), goods, wares, mer- chandise." Century Dictionary. 11 Standard Dictionary. 12 Century Dictionary. Digitized by Microsoft® The Subject of Regulation. 9 ing definition is the one most approved: " Commerce with foreign countries and among the States, strictly considered, consists in interc ours e and traffic, including in these terms navigation~and the transportation and "^transit of persons and property, as well as the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities."" It is also said: * ' Commerce among the States embraces navigation, in- tercourse, communication, traffic, the transit of persons, and the transmission of messages by telegraph."^* But these loosely-worded definitions seem entirely in- adequate. It will appear that commerce, in the sense now considered, but partially and imperfectly compre- hends intercourse, and does not necessarily compre- hend traffic at all, or the ' ' purchase, sale, and ex- change of commodities." Navigation, as a mere phase of transportation, may be here ignored. We shall, however, discover that commerce in this sense essentially consists in transportation, clearly includ- ing the transportation of persons and property, at least tangible property, generally. The scope of what is included in addition to persons and tangible prop- erty may not yet be clearly defined, but there is cer- tainly included the transmission of intelligence under certain conditions. We therefore submit the following definition of com- merce, as the term is used in the commerce clause, leaving it to be hereafter justified in detail. Commerce 13 County of MoUle v. Kimball, 102 TT. S. 691, T02, 26 L. ed. 238 (Oct. 1880). This was approvingly quoted in McCall v. Call- iornia, 136 U. S. 104, 10 Supm. 881, 34 L. ed. 391 (1890) ; Wil- liams V. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 21 Supm. 128, 45 L. ed. 186 (1900) ; Lottery Case {Champion v. Ames), 188 U. S. 321, 351, 23 Supm. 321, 325, 47 L. ed. 492 (1903). To like effect, Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. V. U. S., 175 U. S. 211, 241, 20 Supm. 96, 107, 44 L. ed. 136 (1899). ^* Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames), 188 TJ. S. 352, 23 Supm. 325. Digitized by Microsoft® 10 Commerce Clause of Federal Constitution. consists in transportation {not necessarily all trans- portation but certainly) including transportation of [^persons, tangible property, and {at least under certain conditions) of intelligence. Although we submit this definition as being as nearly satisfactory as present conditions permit, it may well be that conditions hereafter developing will, like con- ditions that have already developed, call for a modifi- cation thereof. The means of transportation to which the commerce clause is now applicable are not limited to such as were ' ' known or in use when the Constitu- tion was adopted," but include new means brought into use from time to time " to meet the demands of increasing population and wealth."** Indeed the means of transportation to which the commerce clause is now most conspicuously applied were unknown or not in use at the time when the Constitution was adopted. § 5. Commerce as including intercourse. In escaping from the too narrow view that com- merce, in the sense now considered, is limited to traffic or sales, r efuge has been t aken \ j} tli P tr»n hrnad yipw that it "is," or "consists in," r,y " Pfx^y>r-^naa " interc^ 3iX££j^ At any rate, the view that it otherwise than partially and imperfectly comprehends inter- course, is not justified by the course of the decisions. ^^^Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 TJ. S. 1, 24 L. ed. 708 (Oct. 18Y7). See also Re Dels, 158 U. S. 564, 591, 15 Supm. 900, 909, 39 L. ed. 1092 (1895). 18 " Commerce is intercourss." Gibhons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189, 6 L. ed. 23 (1824) ; U. 8. v. E. G. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 15 Supm. 249, 39 L. ed. 325 (1895). See County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 702, 26 L. ed. 238 (Oct. 1880) ; Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames), 188 IT. S. 321, 346, 23 Supm. 321, 323, 47 L. ed. 492 (1903). The same idea has elsewhere been frequently expressed. Digitized by Microsoft® Thk Subject of Regulation. H It has sometimes been more narrowly defined as com- mercial intercourse," but this is merely an empty, unsatisfying definition in terms. Intercourse has been defined as including ' ' communication between persons or places."^* This, literally interpreted, would obvi- ously seem to include not merely contracts generally, but, for instance, correspondence and conversation. It will however presently appear that it does not include a mere contract, and much less would it seem to in- clude correspondence or conversations. While then commerce undoubtedly includes a part of what is com- monly known as intercourse, there has been established ' no satisfactory test of distinction between intercourse that is, and intercourse that is not, included. § 6. Commerce as including contracts. As will hereafter be seen, a contract may be subject to the commerce clause merely because involving as a necessary incident what is, on independent grounds, clearly subject thereto, thus transportation of prop- erty." But, leaving such cases ojiit of consideration, the question now is whether a mere contract between per- sons situate at the time, thus, in different States, is so subject. This would indeed seem literally within the definition of ' ' intercourse " as " communication be- tween persons." If the contract is effectuated by means of telegraphic or telephonic messages, it is, as elsewhere seen, subject to the commerce clause; at any rate, the transmission of the evidencing messages ^^ Thus in Gibbons v. Ogden, supra; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. West- ern Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1, 9, 24 L. ed. 708 (Oct. 1877) ; U. S. V. E. C. Knight Co., supra; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 470, -14 Supm. 1125, 1130, 38 L. ed. 1047 (1894). See Welton v. Missouri, 91 F. S. 275, 280, 23 L. ed. 347 (Oct. 1875). ** Century Dictionary. 19 See §§ 75, 75a. Digitized by Microsoft® 12 Commerce Clause of Fedeeajl, Constitution. is. But suppose two persons, though in different States, to be in such proximity that the contract may be eifectuated by the voice, that is, by the transmis- sion of sound through the atmosphere, instead of over wires. Or suppose it to be effectuated by writing transmitted by messenger. Should a different rule apply to such cases? On principle it is difficult to see why it should not, but certainly commerce, as the word .' is used in the commerce clause, does not, according to / authoritative interpretation, include generally con- I tracts between persons situate at the time in different vStates. This sufficiently appears from the decisions relating to insurance contracts,^" which have largely influenced decisions applicable to contracts relating to other subjects.^^ That is to say, to bring a contract 20 See § 7. 21 In Ex parte Martin, 7 Nev. 140, 8 Am. Rep. 707 (1871), apply- ing Paul V. Virginia, 8 "Wall. 168, 19 L. ed. 357 (Dec. 1868), was sustained a State statute requiring stamping of a bill of exchange drawn in the State, but payable in another. Compare Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Stevens, 102 Iowa, 60, 71 N. W. 186 (1897). As to business of buying and selling foreign bills of exchange, see Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73, 12 L. ed. 992 (Jan. T. 1850). See also Prentice & Egan's Commerce Clause, p. 48. Compare as to ap- plication of prohibition of art. 1, § 9, against a " tax or duty on articles exported from any State," to stamp tax on bill of lading, Fairhanle v. U. 8., 181 IT. S. 283, 21 Supm. 648, 45 L. ed. 862 (1901). As to taxation of instrument evidencing debt due resi- dent from nonresident, see Eirtland v. Hotchhiss, 100 U. S. 491, 25 L. ed. 558 (Oct. 1879) ; Atlanta Nat. Building & Loan Assoc, v. Stewart, 109 Ga. 80, 87, 35 S. E. 73, 76 (1900). That the loaning of money by a foreign corporation is not subject to the commerce clause, see Nelms v: Edinhurg American Land Mortgage Co., 92 Ala. 157, 9 So. 141 (jSTov. T. 1890). Compare State v. Pre- ferred Tontine Mercaaiile Co., 184 Mo. 160, 82 S. "W. 1075 (1904). As to ownership of stock in corporation, see Northern Securities Co. V. V. 8., 193 U. S. 197, 334, 24 Supm. 436, 455, 48 L. ed. 679 (1904), and dissenting opinion of White, J. (193 TJ. S. 367, 24 Supm. 473). In Catlin, etc.. Co. v. Schuppert, 130 "Wis. 642, 110 N. W. 818 (1907), though the point was unnecessary to the de- Digitized by Microsoft® The Subject of Regulation. 13 within the scope of the commerce clause, some other element must be i nvolve d, such as,jthose elsewliere con- sidered, transportation of property, or~transmission of intelligence, as by tekgraph. § 7. Contracts of insurance. What has just been said is peculiarly applicable to the class of contracts that has attracted most atten- tion in this connection, contracts of insurance between persons situate at the time in different States, As just said, this seems literally "intercourse," and it seems difficult to discover any satisfactory reason for excluding such contracts from the operation of the commerce clause. We here take no account of the cir- cumstance that the contract commonlj^ involves the interstate transportation of a tangible article, that is, a policy, evidencing the right ' ' to the payment of a certain amount of money therein specified."^ We ignore the very persuasive argument that such, trans- portation is of itself sufficient to bring the transaction within the scope of the commerce clause. What we desire to point out is that the prevailing rule that such contracts are not subject to the commerce clause was, in its origin at least, seemingly inconsistent with what will presently be seen to be the definition of commerce as not limited ' ' to traific, to buying and selling, or the cision, there was thouglit to be within the scope of the commerce clause a contract whereby a resident purchased from a nonresident stock of a foreign corporation, to be transmitted into the State. ^ This is the very language used in Lottery Case {Champion v. Ames), 188 U. S. 321, 345, 23 Supm. 321, 322, 47 L. ed. 492 (1903), as applicable to lottery tickets, the transportation of which was here held to be included in " commerce " within the meaning of the commerce clause. The contention in the dissenting opinion (188 U. S. 367, 23 Supm. 331) that there is no distinction in this V respect between a lottery ticket and an insurance policy seems I unanswerable. Digitized by Microsoft® 14 CoMMEECE Clause of Fedeeax. CoNSTiTtriiON. interchange of commodities." ''^ On this point it suflSces to quote the following language used in the leading au- thority on the subject i'^ ' ' Issuing a policy of insur- ance is not a transaction of commerce. The policies are simple contracts of indemnity against loss by fire, entered into between the corporations and the assured, for a consideration paid by the latter. These con- 22a See § 9; articles in 39 Am. Law Eev. 182 (1905), by Edwin Maxey; 38 id. 181 (1904), by J. W. Walsh; 48 Am. Law Eeg. (O. S.) YIY (1900), by E. H. Innes; in 5 Columbia Law Eev. 500 (1905), by C. F. Eandolph. ^Paul V. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 19 L. ed. 357 (Dec. 1868), a ease of fire insurance. This doctrine has been frequently reaf- firmed as applicable to different varieties of insurance, such as fire, life, and marine. See Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410, 19 L. ed. 972 (Dec. 1870) ; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566, 19 L. ed. 1029 (Dec. 1870) ; Philadelphia Fire Assoc. V. New York, 119 F. S. 110, 7 Supm. 108, 30 L. ed. 342 (1886) ; Hooper V. California, 155 U. S. 648, 15 Supm. 207, 39 L. ed. 297 (1895) ; Nolle V. Mitchell, 164 IT. S. 367, 17 Supm. 110, 41 L. ed. 472 (1896), affirming 100 Ala. 519, 14 So. 581, 25 L. E. A. 238 (Nov. T. 1893) ; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 T. S. 389, 20 Supm. 962, 44 L. ed. 1116 (1900) ; Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 553, 22 Supm. 238, 46 L. ed. 324 (1902). See Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 583, 17 Supm. 427, 41 L. ed. 832 (1897), reversing State v. Allgeyer, 48 La. Ann. 104, 18 So. 904 (1896); Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 202 U. S. 246, 26 Supm. 619, 50 L. ed. 1013 (1906). In some instances has been stated what seems not to be an alto- ) gather intelligible distinction, as here applied, that a contract of insurance is " not an instrumentality of commerce, hut a mere incident of commercial intercourse." Nutting v. Massachusetts, supra. To similar effect, Hooper v. California, supra; Noile v. Mitchell, supra. For recognition or application of doctrine that the commerce clause does not apply to insurance, see State v. Phipps, 50 Kan. 609, 31 Pac. 1097, 18 L. E. A. 657, 34 Am. St. Eep. 152 (1893) ; Fisher v. Insurance Co., 136 N. C. 217, 48 S. E. 667 (1904) ; In- surance Co. of North America v. Commonwealth, 87 Pa. St. 173, 30 Am. Eep. 352 (1878) ; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Perkins, 125 Digitized by IVIicrosoft® The Subject of Regulation. 15 tracts are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word. They are not subjects of trade and barter offered in the market as something having an existence and value independent of the parties to them,. They are not commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another, and then put up for sale. They are like other personal contracts between parties which are completed by their signa- ture and the transfer of the consideration. Such con- tracts are not interstate transactions, though the parties may be domiciled in different States." There seems no doubt that it is a necessary conclusion that regulation of the business of insurance under these conditions is beyond the power of Congress, so far as the coromerce clause is concerned, though, in the ab- sence of attempt at such regulation, there has been no occasion to directly determine the point. But the "^ doctrine stated has been frequently applied in sustain- / ing the power of a State to impose restrictions upon> the transaction of such business, thus by foreign cor-l porations. § 8. Contracts for personal services. In accordance with what has already been said, it is clear enough that a contract f\)r the performance of personal services at a given place is not subject to the commerce clause, merely because between persons sit- uate at the time in different States, but neither is a Fed. 502 (C. C. S. D., 1903) ; People y.ermanent character to be conducted thereon." See com- ments thereon in U. 8. v. WishTcah Boom Co., 136 Fed. 42, 68 CCA. 592 (9th C 1905). By the test stated in the text was held to be a navigable water of the United States, the Grand River in Michi- gan, a stream capable of bearing a steamer of 123 tons burden, laden with merchandise and passengers, as far as Grand Rapids, a distance of forty miles from its mouth in Lake Michigan, and by its junction with the lake, forming a continued highway for commerce, both with other States and with foreign countries. The Daniel Ball, supra. And so the Chicago River in Illinois, and its Digitized by IVIicrosoft® The Subject of Regulation. 25 Congress limited by the doctrine of the common law as to navigability, which has no application in this country.®^ " Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or are susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water."®* branches. Escanaha Co. v. Chicago, supra; Harman v. Chicago, 147 U. S. 396, 13 Supm. 306, 37 L. ed. 216 (1893), reversing 140 HI. 374, 29 N. E. 732 (1892). And so the East Eiver in New York. Miller v. Mayor of N. Y., supra. And so a canal wholly within Illinois, connecting Lake Michigan and the Chicago River with the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629, 3 Supm. 434, 27 L. ed. 1056 (1884). See also The Montello, 20 Wall. 430, 22 L. ed. 391 (Oct. 1874). And so Jamaica Bay in New York, an inlet of the Atlantic ocean. The Hazel KirJce, 25 Fed. 601 (0. C. N. Y., 1885). The Detroit River. Grand Trunk By. Co. v. BacTcus, 46 Fed. 211 (C. C. Mich., 1891). The Allegheny River. U. 8. v. Union Bridge Co., 143 Fed. 377 (D. C. Pa., 1906). See also Frost v. Washington County R. B. Co., 96 Me. 76, 51 Atl. 806, 59 L. E. A. 68 (1901). For instances of rivers within a State held included, see U. 8. v. City of Moline, 82 Fed. 592 (D. C. 111., 1897) ; U. 8. v. Wishkah Boom Co., 136 Fed. 42, 68 C. C. A. 592 (9th 0. 1905). But held otherwise of a creek setting back from a river, in Groton v. Hurlhurt, 22 Conn. 178, 186 (1852). See Wethersfield V. Humphrey, 20 Conn. 218 (1850). As to creeks permeating marshes, see Chisolm v. Caines, 67 Fed. 285 (C. C. S. C, 1894) ; Glover v. Powell, 10 N. J. Eq. 211 (1854). As to bays, inlets, and small streams on southern shore of Long Island connecting with ocean, see V. 8. v. Banister Bealiy Co., 165 Fed. 583 (C. C. N. Y., 1907). ^ The Daniel Ball, supra; Escanaha Co. v. Chicago, supra. It was here pointed out how the common test, that is, by the ebb and flow of the tide, grew out of conditions that do not exist in this country. "** The Daniel Ball, supra; The Montello, supra; U. 8. v. Bio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 IT. S. 690, 698, 19 Supm. 770, 773, 43 L. ed. 1136 (1899). See generally as to when a stream is navigable, 1 Famham on Waters, § 3. Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 26 Commerce Clause of Federal, Constitution. Nor does the mere temporary interruption of navigation of what is otherwise a navigable water, destroy its character as such.®' But it seems reason- ably clear that such power does not, save so far as may be necessary for the control of transportation along the navigable portion of a stream, extend to a nonnavigable portion thereof, thus, the portion above the navigable portion, and that ' ' ceases to be a public highway for commerce. ' ' ** § 15. Commencement of transportation. The question when transportation within the scope of the commerce clause has in any given case com- menced, has usually arisen in connection with the exer- cise of the power of taxation under State authority, and will be considered at length in connection with that subject.^^ On principle there would seem to be no distinction in this respect between cases of taxation and other cases involving the application of the com- merce clause, but this conclusion may be less certain, in view of the circumstance presently to be consid- ered, that such a distinction is recognized as applicable to term,ination of transportation.** "^ The Cheeseman v. Two Ferryhoais, 2 Bond, 363, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,633 (1870), citing- Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48, 16 L. ed. 269 (Dec. T. 1859). ^^Neaderhouser v. State, 28 Ind. 257 (1867). s'' See § 109. 58 Thus in Tredway v. Ttiley, 32 Neb. 495, 49 N. W. 268, 29 Am. St. Eep. 447 (1891), in holding a statute prohibiting the manufac- ture and sale of liquors, applicable to sale and delivery within the State, though for the purpose of transportation and sale out of the State, there was applied the doctrine also applied in cases of taxa- tion, as to when transportation has commenced, citing The Daniel Ball, 10 WaU. 557, 565, 19 L. ed. 999 (Dec. 1870) ; Coe v. Errol. 116 TJ. S. 517, 6 Supm. 475, 29 L. ed. 715 (1886). In Larahee Flour Mills Co. V. Missouri Pacific By. Co., 74 Kan. 808, 88 Pac. 72 (1906), the mere intention to use cars for purpose of transporta- tion within the scope of the commerce clause was held insufficient to bring them while empty within the scope of the clause. Digitized by Microsoft® The Subject of REGULATioisr. 27 § 16. Termination of transportation. It would seem reasonably clear on principle that, as in case of transportation generally, transpor- tation within the scope of the commerce clause termi- nates in any given case, upon the arrival of the person or property in question at its final destination, a fact ordinarily not difficult to determine. And, as else- where seen, this is precisely the rule established \ Orleans, etc., By. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U. S. 184, 16 Supm. 700, 40 L. ed. 935 (1896) ; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 TJ. S. 648, 662, 20 Supm. 209, 214, 44 L. ed. 309 (1900) ; U. 8. v. Seaboard By. Co., 82 Fed. 563 (C. C. Ala., 1897) ; Interstate Stock-Yards Co. V. Indianapolis U. By. Co., 99 Fed. 472 (C. C. Ind., 1900) ; Inter- state Commerce Commission v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 613, 625. (C. C. Ga., 1902). See Interstate Commerce Commission v. Bellaire, etc., By. Co., 77 Fed. 942 (C. C. Ohio, 1897) ; U. S. ex rel. Kellogg v. Lehigh Yal. R. Co., infra; TJ. S. v. Standard Oil Co., 155 Fed. 305, 310 (D. C. HI., 1907). Digitized by Microsoft® The Subject of Eegulation. 53 witiiin the scope of the commerce clause, though not within such provision." It seems, however, the better view that even continuous transportation between points in different States is not, as to such transpor- tation by an independent agency wholly within a State, included in the subject of regulation, in the absence of any arrangement for continuous transportation.^^ If the existence of such arrangement as a necessary " Thus, in Ex parte Eoehler, 30 Fed. 867 (C. C. Oreg., 1887), transportation between points within the State was held, though within the scope of the commerce clause, yet not within that of such provision of the Interstate Commerce Act. The point seems, however, to have been overlooked in TJ. 8. ex rel. Kellogg v. Lehigh Val. B. Co., 115 Fed. 373 (D. C. N. T., 1902). So in Fort Worth & Denver City Ry. Co. v. Whitehead, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 595, 26 S. "W. 172 (1894), in determining the validity of regulation under State authority, of rates for transportation. In Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bavis. 93 Tex. 378, 55 S. W. 562 (1900), reversing 54 S. W. 381 (Tex. Civ. App. 1899), a con- tract for transportation of cattle by rail between points in the State, was held foreign commerce, they being shipped after trans- portation on foot from a point outside the State. In People ex rel. N. Y. Central, etc., R. B. Co. v. Miller, 94 App. Div. 587, 88 N. T. Suppl. 373 (1904), an exception from taxation of " earnings derived from business of an interstate character " was held to include earnings derived from transfwrta- tion by railroad wholly within the State, for " express freights which were either shipped from points in the State for delivery out of the State or from points out of the State for delivery in the State." 12 In Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403, 27 Supm. 360, 51 L. ed. 540 (1907), affirming 97 Tex. 274, 78 S. W. 495 (1904), 32 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 73 S. W. 429 (1903), in ease of termination of transportation into the State, and delivery to the consignee, the subject of regulation was held not to include subsequent transportation, after an interval of several days, be- tween points in the State, upon a bill of lading showing on its face only a local transportation. See as to effect of transfer of title during transportation. See this decision distinguished in V. S. V. N. Y. Cent. & E. B. R. Co.. 153 Fed. 630 (D. C. N. Y., 1907). Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 54 Commerce Clause of Federal CosrsTiTuiioisr. condition be dispensed -with, the alternative seems to be that the mere purpose or intent of the shipper at the time of shipment (or it may be, afterward) that transportation shall be to a point outside of the State, is sufficient to bring it within the scope of the com- merce clause." There seems, however, to be serious practical, even if not legal, objection, to making the determination of the character of the transportation as subject or not subject to regulation under the com- merce clause, rest on so vague and uncertain a test as the purpose or intent of the shipper,^* commonly a But in Corcoran v Louisville & N. B. Co., 101 S. W. 1185 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907), the subject of regulation was held to include transportation between points in the State, of property consigned, however, at a through rate from a point beyond the State, and transported between such points within the State at the rate filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the State railroad commission, it being held immaterial that there was no express contract of carriage between the initial carriers and the carrier transporting wholly within the State. In U. S. V. Geddes, 131 Fed. 452, 65 C. C. A. 320 (6th C. 1904), the requirements of the acts of March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. L. 532), April 1, 1896 (29 Stat. L. 85), as to safety appliances to be used by a "carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad," were held inapplicable to a railroad operated wholly within a State, though connecting with another carrier from which it received freight from other States marked for points on its line, and to which it delivered freight from points on its line marked for other States, there being, however, "no through bill of lading, no through charge, no conventional division thereof anaong the carriers, and no arrangement for a continuous carriage or ship- ment." And " the method of transfer by which the receiving road assumed the payment of the charges of the delivering road " was held not to constitute such an arrangement. See however U. S. Y. Southern Ry. Co., 135 Fed. 122 (D. C. HI, 1905). « So held in Gulf, C. & 8. F. Ry. Co. v. Fort Grain Co., 72 S. W. 419 (1903), 73 S. W. 844 (Tex. Civ. App. 1903), as to trans- portation by railroad, it being regarded as unnecessary that such transportation be under a through bill of lading. '*In accord with this view seems Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. V. Texas, supra. Digitized by Microsoft® The Subject of Eegulation. 55 matter of much difficulty to satisfactorily prove. There seems no reason to think that, as to the application of such test, there is any essential distinction between transportation of persons and of property.^' § 26a. The Daniel BalU« The view that has obtained some recognition, that transportation between points in different States is, as to a part performed wholly within a single State, sub- ject to regulation under the commerce clause, even in the absence of any arrangement for continuous trans- portation, seems largely based on a decision holding an act of Congress regulating navigation upon " navi- gable waters of the United States " applicable to a vessel engaged in transporting between points in the same State^'' goods destined and marked for other States, and in receiving and transporting goods brought ^ See Oulf, Colorado & Santa Fe By. Co. v. Texas, supra; People ex rel. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Knight, supra; White V. 8i. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 86 S. W. 962 (Tex. Civ. App. 1905). i«10 Wall. 557, 19 L. ed. 999 (Dec. 18Y0). The decision was applied in Houston Direct Navigation Co. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 89 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 889, 30 L. E. A. 713, 59 Am. St. Eep. 17 (1895), reversing 31 S. W. 560 (Tex. Civ. App. 1895), though the initial carrier gave a hill of lading to a point in the same State only, charges for freight to one of such points only, with wharfage thereat heing paid, and on this point Houston Direct Navigation Co. v. Ins. Co. of North America was followed in Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. V. Avery, 33 S. W. 704 (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) ; Mexican Nat. R. Co. V. Savage, 41 S. W. 663 (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) ; State V. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe By. Co., infra; Gulf, W. T. & P. By. Co. V. Barry, 45 S. W. 814 (Tex. Civ. App. 1898). See State V. Southern Kan. By. Co., 49 S. W. 252 (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) ; Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co. v. Davis, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 24, 31 S. W. 308 (1895). ^"^ On however a navigable water of the United States. See § 14. Digitized by Microsoft® 56 Commerce Clause of Federal Constitution. witMn the State from without its limits. So held though her agency in the transportation was entirely ivithin the limits of the State, and she did not run in connection with, or in continuation of, any line of ves- sels or railway leading to other States. If now the principle of this decision be applicable to transporta- tion by land,^^ it may be difficult to avoid the conclu- sion that such transportation between points in differ- ent States is, as to a part performed wholly within a single State, within the subject of regulation, even in the absence of any arrangement for continuous trans- portation. But the decision seems referable rather to the grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, than to the commerce clause,^* and hence not authority for the view suggested. ^*It was held so applicable, that is, to transportation by rail- road, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a State railroad commission, in Cutting v. Florida By. & Nav. Co., 46 Fed. 641 (C. C. Fla., 1891) ; State v. Gulf, C. & 8. P. By. Co., 44 S. W. 542 (Tex. Civ. App, 1898). These two decisions were, in St. Louis Southwestern By. Co. v. ArTcansas & T. Grain Co., 95 S. W. 656 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906), applied to a case of what was intended to be continuous transportation between points in dif- ferent States, such transportation being interrupted in the State of destination, for the sole purpose of obtaining the advantage of a rate fixed under the authority of the State. See also State v. International & Great Northern B. B. Co., 31 Tex. Civ. App. 219, 71 S. W. 994 (1903) ; Ex parte Eoehler, 25 Fed. Y3 (C. 0. Oreg. 1885), 30 Fed. 867 (C. C. Oreg., 1887) ; Chicago, St. P., M. & 0. By. Co. v. Becher, 35 Fed. 883 (C. C. Minn., 1888). 1^ This seems clearly demonstrated in People ex rel. Pennsyl- vania B. B. Co. V. Knight, 171 N. Y. 354, 362, 64 T. E. 152, 154, 98 Am. St. Rep. 610 (1902), affirmed in State ex rel. Pennsylvania B. B. Co. V. Knight, 192 IJ. S. 21, 24 Supm. 202, 48 L. ed. 325 (1904). See U. S. v. Geddes, 131 Fed. 452, 65 C. C. A. 320 (6th C. 1904). Digitized by Microsoft® The Subject of Regulation. 57 § 27. Transportation between points both within, but over route partly outside of, State. It seems reasonably established that tbe subject of regulation though, as just seen, generally excluding transportation between points both within a given State, yet includes transportation between such points if over a route partly outside the State, at any rate when the portion outside constitutes a substantial por- tion of the whole.^" 20 In Eanley v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 187 U. S. 617, 23 Supm. 214, 47 L. ed. 333 (1903), affirming Kansas City 8. Ry. Co. V. R. R. Commrs. of Arkansas, 106 Ted. 353 (C. C. Ark., 1901), was denied power to fix under State authority the rate for transportation between such points, more than half the route how- ever being outside the State. The court said : " No one con- tends that the regulation could be split up according to the juris- diction of State or Territory over the track, or that both State and Territory may regulate the whole rate. There can be but one rate fixed by one authority, whether that authority be Ar- kansas or Congress. But it would be more logical to allow a division according to the jurisdiction owr the track than to de- clare that the subject for regulation is indivisible, yet that the indivisibility does not depend upon the commerce being under the authority of Congress, but upon a fiction which attributes it wholly to Arkansas, although that fiction is quite beyond the power of Arkansas to enforce." Here was followed as applicable Lord V. Steamship Co., 102 IJ. S. 541, 26 L. ed. 224 (Oct. 1880), sustaining regulation by Congress as applied to navigation on the high seas between ports of the same State; so of Pacific Coast Steam Ship Co. v. R. R. Commrs., 18 Fed. 10 (C. C. Cal., 1883), denying validity of regulation under State authority under such conditions. To the same effect, as to navigation on high seas, see Cowden v. Pacific Coast 8.8. Co., 94 Cal. 470, 29 Pac. 873, 18 L. E. A. 221, 28 Am. St. Eep. 142 (1892). To the same effect with Eanley v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., see Siernherger v. Cape Fear & Yadkin Valley R. R. Co., 29 S. C. 510, 7 S. E. 836, 2 L. R. A. 105 (1888) ; State v. Chicago, St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 267, 41 K "W. 1047, 3 L. R. A. 238, 12 Am. St. Eep. 730 (1889). And so for purpose of giving effect to Interstate Commerce Act, in U. 8. v. Delaware, L. & W. B. R. Co., 152 Fed. 269 (C. C. N. T., 1907). But see to the con- trary U. S. ex rel. Kellogg v. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 115 Fed. 373 Digitized by Microsoft® 58 Commerce Clause of Federax, Constitution. § 28. State as including Territory or District of Columbia. It seems the better view that Territories and the District of Columbia are to be regarded as " States "^^ (D. C. N. T., 1902). See Cincinnati, etc.. Packet Co. v. Bay, 200 TJ. S. 179, 26 Supm. 208, 50 L. ed. 428 (1906). On this point seem overruled Camphell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul By. Co., 86 Iowa, 587, 53 N. W. 351, 17 L. K. A. 443 (1892) ; Seawell v. Kansas City, Fort Scott, etc., B. B. Co., 119 Mo. 222, 24 S. W. 1002 (1893). And see Burlington, Cedar Bapids, etc.. By. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312, 339, 48 IST. W. 98, 105, 12 L. E. A. 436, 444, 31 Am. St. Eep. 477, 494 (1891). There also seem overruled the "ollowing decisions in cases of transmission of telegraphic messages: State v. Western Union Tel. Co., 113 N. C. 213, 18 S. E. 389, 22 L. R. A. 570 (1893) ; Leavell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 116 N. C. 211, 21 S. E. 391, 27 L. E. A. 843, 47 Am. St. Rep. 798 (1895). In Western Union Tel. Co. V. Beynolds, 100 Va. 459, 41 S. E. 856, 93 Am. St. Rep. 971 (1902), such transmission by way of a relay oiEce in another State was held not to be subject to the commerce clause. This was followed in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hughes, 104 Va. 240, 51 S. E. 225 (1905), in enforcing under a State statute liability for failure to transmit a telegram. In State v. Seagraves, 111 Mo. App. 353, 85 S. W. 925 (1905), the carrying of a pleasure party on a steamboat from and back to the same State was held not interstate commerce, though the boat might touch the shores of different States. In Lehigh Valley B. B. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192, 12 Supm. 806, 36 L. ed. 672 (1892), affirming Commonwealth v. Lehigh Valley B. B. Co., 129 Pa. St. 308, 18 Atl. 125 (1889), the power of taxation of a domestic railroad corporation under State authority was sustained as to receipts from transiwrtation under the conditions in question. But this must be regarded as of doubtful authority in view of Hanley V. Kansas City Southern By. Co., supra, where, however, in holding that it did not sustain the decisions above referred to, it was distinguished as the case of a tax confined to mileage wholly within the State. As to transportation of liquors between points in State over route partly outside, for purpose of evading application of State statute, see Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. B. R. Co. v. Com,mon- wealth, 104 S. W. 394 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907). 21 So held as to commerce between a State and a Territory, in Matter of Wilson, 10 N. M. 32, 60 Pac. 73, 48 L. R. A. 417 (1900). In Hanley v. Kansas City Southern By. Co., 187 U. S. 617, 23 Digitized by Microsoft® The Subject op Regulation. 59 as tlie ■word is used in the commerce clause, but the point may not be entirely free from doubt.^^ Supm. 214, 47 L. ed. 333 (1903) (see § 27), it was assumed that the power of Congress under the commerce clause " over commerce between Arkansas and the Indian Territory is not less than its power over commerce among the States." In Stoutenhurgh v. Eennich, 129 U. S. 141, 9 Supm. 256, 32 L. ed. 637 (1889), affirm- ing Be Eennich, 5 Mackey (D. C), 489 (1887), the commerce clause was applied to a provision contained in an act of the legis- lative assembly of the District of Columbia. But see dissenting opinion of Miller, J. See also Re Wilson, 8 Mackey (D. C), 341, 12 L. E. A. 624 (1890). As to scope of Interstate Commerce Act, see section 1 thereof (24 Stat. L. 379). 22 In U. 8. V. Ames, 95 Fed. 453 (C. C. 111., 1899), a prohibition against causing lottery matter to be carried or transferred " from one State to another," was held not to include a Territory as a State. Held otherwise in Neil v. Wilson, 14 Oreg. 410, 12 Pac. 810 (1887), of provision of act of March 2, 1837, as to pilotage " upon waters which are the boundary line between two States." In Beitzell v. District of Columhia, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 49 (1903); U. S. V. Whelpley, 125 Fed. 616 (D. C. Va., 1903), it was regarded as unnecessary to determine the question of application of the commerce clause to the District of Columbia. As to ap- plication to Territory, see Ex parte Hanson, 28 Fed. 127 (D. C. Oreg., 1886). As to act of Territorial legislature, see Farris v. Henderson, 1 Okla. 384, 33 Pac. 380 (1893) ; Butner v. Western Union Tel. Co.. 2 Okla. 234, 248, 37 Pac. 1087, 1091 (1894). As to power of such legislature to tax "the means of interstate commerce," here the franchise of a corporation, see Atlantic & Pacific R. R. Co. V. Lesueur, 2 Ariz. 428, 19 Pac. 157, 1 L. E. A. 244 (1888). As to effect of legislation by Congress in its capacity as local legislature for the District of Columbia, see § 54. That Congress may prohibit the importation, thus, of intoxicat- ing liquors into a Territory, see Endleman v. U. 8., 86 Fed. 456, 30 C. C. A. 186 (9th 0. 1898) ; U. 8. v. Nelson, 29 Fed. 202 (D. C. Alaska, 1886). As to such legislation, see also U. S. v. Fifty Cases of Distilled 8pirits, 83 Fed. 1000 (D. C. Oreg., 1897). Com- pare The Louisa Simpson, 2 Sawy. 57, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,533 (1871). Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 60 Commerce Clause of Federax, Constitution. § 29. Commerce " with foreign nations." The phrase " commerce with foreign nations " re- quires little elucidation.^ " The power to regulate commerce among the several States is granted to Con- gress in terms as absolute as is the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. " ^ It seems to follow that, so far at least as the commerce clause is con- cerned, " the two powers are of the same class and character, and equally extensive." ^^ It is also said that the power as to commerce with foreign nations is " certainly as efficacious as that to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes." ^"^ Hence it may be said, as in 23 In V. 8. V. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 417, 18 L. ed. 182 (Dec. 1865), it was said to mean " commerce between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign governments." This was approved in Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y., 92 TT. S. 259, 23 L. ed. 543 (Oct. 1875). But this seems too narrow. ^ Brown V. Houston, 114 IT. S. 622, 630, 5 Supm. 1091, 1095, 29 L. ed. 257 (1885) ; Pittslurg & Southern Coal Go. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 577, 15 Supm. 415, 39 L. ed. 538 (1895). 25 So stated in Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern By. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 482, 8 Supm. 689, 697, 31 L. ed. 700 (1888), where however it was said with reference to the absence of legislation by Congress (as distinguished from the actual exercise of power), as indicating its will that the subject in question shall be free from State regulation, that it may be that as to commerce among the States " the same inference is not to be drawn " as to commerce with foreign nations. In Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 11 Supm. 851, 35 L. ed. 649 (1891), it was said that "no dif- ference is perceivable between the two." See also Gihhons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 194, 6 L. ed. 23 (1824). For argument that there is a distinction with reference to power to prohibit, see 2 Tucker on the Constitution, §§ 255, 256. See also Prentice & Egan's Commerce Clause, p. 304. As to extraterritorial effect of regulation of commerce with for- eign nations, see U. 8. v. Knight, 3 Interst. Com. E. 801 (TJ. S. D. C. 111., 1892) ; Matter of Grand Trunh By. Co., 2 Interst. Com. E. 496 (1889). 26 Buttfield V. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 24 Supm. 349, 48 L. ed. 252 (1904), citing V. 8. v. Forty-three Gallons of WhisTcey, 93 Digitized by IVIicrosoft® The Subject of Regulation. 61 case of commerce among the States, that the subject of regulation includes transportation from a point within a given State to a foreign nation, and vice versa.^ It is of course to be borne in mind that com- merce with foreign nations is subject to other pro- visions of the Constitution than the commerce clause, thus that ' ' no tax or duty shall be laid on articles ex- ported from any State, "^® and that " no State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws."^® And it has been intimated that with refer- ence to commerce ' ' among the States ' ' there may exist limitations " resulting from other provisions of U. S. 188, 23 L. ed. 846 (Oct. 1876). See Buttfield v. Stranahan as to extent of such power, and for illustrations of its exercise; thus, by means of embargo and tariff legislation and legislation by way of exercise of police power. As to power to enact pro- tective tariff, see article in 27 Am. Law Rev. 519 (1893), by Conrad Reno. For argument that the power to levy duties on foreign imports is not included, see 2 Tucker on the Constitution, § 253. 27 See GibhoTis v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 195, 6 L. ed. 23 (1824). 2^ Art. 1, § 9, which applies only to exports to foreign coun- tries. Dooley v. U. S., 183 XJ. S. 151, 22 Supm. 62, 46 L. ed. 128 (1901). See Pace v. Burff.ess, 92 U. S. 372, 23 L. ed. 657 (Oct. 1875). As to invalidity of provisions in War Revenue Act of 1898, under such prohibition, see N. Y. & Cuba Mail 8.8. Co. v. U. S., 125 Fed. 320 (D. C. N. Y., 1903) ; as to requirement of stamp tax on bill of lading, Fairbank v. V. S., 181 U. S. 283, 21 Supm. 648, 45 L. ed. 862 (1901) ; provisions of Interstate Com- merce Act, Armour PacMng Co. v. U. 8., 153 Fed. 1, 13, 82 C. C. A. 135, 147 (8th C. 1907). See generally as to article 1, section 9, article in 2 Columbia Law Rev. 79 (1902), by E. B. Whitney. 29 Art. 1, § 10. See Gihhons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 200, 6 L. ed. 23 (1824) ; State v. Allgeyer, 110 La. Ann. 839, 34 So. 798 (1903) ; Commonwealth v. SelUger, 98 S. W. 1040 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907). As to effect of such provision as to taxation under State authority, see § 110. Digitized by Microsoft® 62 Commerce Clause of Federal Constitution. the Constitution " not applicable to commerce " with foreign nations. ' ' ^^ § 30. Commerce " with the Indian tribes." The power to regulate commerce ' ' with the Indian tribes ' ' is granted in the same terms as is that to regulate commerce "with foreign nations." There seems no doubt that such power is at least as broad and as free from restrictions as that to regulate com- merce " with foreign nations."" But as a matter, it would seem, of supposed practical necessity, the power as to commerce with the Indian tribes has been much more broadly construed than as to the other two classes of cases. Thus, as to them we have seen reason for thinking that commerce in the sense now considered has no necessary reference whatever to traffic or sales, and it is certain that neither class has reference to a mere sale wholly within a State.^^ But the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes has been re- garded as including a sale wholly within the limits of a State, and without reference to transportation, even within such limits, of the article sold.^* Such a sale is ^'^ Butt field V. Stranahan, supra. ^1 V. 8. V. Forty-three Gallons of Whishey, infra. Thus, see as to construction of railroad, CheroTcee Nation v. Southern Kansas By. Co., 135 TJ. S. 641, 657, 10 Supm. 965, 971, 34 L. ed. 295 (1890). See generally Worcester v. State of Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 559, 573, 580, 8 L. ed. 483 (Jan. T. 1832) ; Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 18, 28, 43, 62, 8 L. ed. 25 (Jan. T. 1831) ; U. S. V. Shanks, 15 Minn. 369 (1870) ; State v. Tassels, Dudley (Ga.), 229 (1830). ^2 As to " commerce with the Indian tribes " including mere sale of land, see Murray v. Wooden, 17 "Wend. (N. Y.) 531 ,(1837) ; Seneca Nation v. Christie, 126 N. T. 122, 142, 27 N. E. 275, 280 (1891). 33 Thus, in U. S. v. Eolliday, 3 Wall. 407, 18 L. ed. 182 (Dec. 1865), was sustained legislation of Congress prohibiting sales of liquor to Indians as applied to a sale within a State and without an Indian reservation. See TJ. S. v. Belt, 128 Fed. 168 (D. C. Pa., 1904); TJ. S. v. Bichard. 1 Ariz. 31, 25 Pac. 517 (1871); Digitized by IVIicrosoft® The Subject of Regulation. 63 regarded as comprehended under the broad term intercourse. It seems, to say the least, unfortunate that the word ' ' commerce ' ' should receive a construc- tion so radically at variance with that received by the same word as used elsewhere in the clause. May it not be that, in some instances at least, resort has been unnecessarily had to the commerce clause to sustain legislation affecting the Indian tribes and members thereof? It is certainly true that important legisla- tion of this character has been sustained without any reference to the commerce clause, but rather on the ground of the position of such tribes as ' ' wards of U. 8. V. Stofello, 8 Ariz. 461, 76 Pac. 611 (1904). So in U. S. v. Shaw-Mux, 2 Sawy. 364, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,268 (1873), as applied to sale of liquor by one Indian to another. So in U. S. V. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U. S. 188, 23 L. ed. 846 (Oct. 1876), reversing 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,136 (D. C. Minn., 1874), in case of a cession of lands by Indians by treaty, was sustained a provision in the treaty that laws prohibiting the in- troduction and sale of spirituous liquors in the Indian country should be in force in " the country ceded." So held, though such ceded territory was a portion of the territory of a State. But in Matter of Heff, 197 F. S. 488, 508, 25 Supm. 506, 512, 49 L. ed. 848 (1905), the power of regulation was held not to extend to sale of liquor to an allottee Indian to whom had been granted the privilege of citizenship. This seems to overrule Farrell v. U. S., 110 Fed. 942, 49 C. C. A. 183 (8th C. 1901). See Renfrow V. U. 8., 3 Okla. 161, 41 Pac. 88 (1895). See also as to legislation by Congress respecting sale of liquor to Indians, U. 8. v. 8eveloff, 2 Sawy. 311, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,252 (1872). As to prohibition of such sale under law of Territory, see Territory v. Guyott, 9 Mont. 46, 22 Pac. 134 (1889). In Foster v. Commissioners of Blue Earth County, 7 Minn. 140 (1862), was held invalid the imposition of a State tax upon the goods of one trading with Indians. As to State statute prohibit- ing sale of liquor to Indians, see State v. Wise, 70 Minn. 99, 72 N. W. 843 (1897). Hardly sustainable seems Hicks v. Ewhartonah, 21 Ark. 106 (1860), where an act of Congress invalidating certain executory contracts by Indians was held invalid, as applied to a contract entered into within the limits of the State. See Taylor v. Drew, 21 Ark. 485 (1860) ; Jones v. Fisler, 3 Kan. 134 (1865). Digitized by Microsoft® 64 CoMMEECE Clause of Fedeeal Constitution. the nation," " in a state of pupilage."^* To that extent the power of Congress as to the Indian tribes and members thereof is beyond the scope of this treatise. In The Narragansett Indians, 20 E. I. 715, 40 Atl. 347 (1898), a Rhode Island statute providing for an agreement between the State and certain Indians was sustained as not in conflict with the commerce clause. As to effect of U. S. E. S., §§ 2103, 2104, 2105, with reference to contracts with Indian tribes or individual Indians, see Rollins v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, 87 N. C. 229 (1882). That the power does not include mere punishment of crimes committed by Indians against each other " without any reference to their relation to any kind of commerce," see U. 8. v. Kagama, 118 IT. S. 375, 6 Supm. 1109, 30 L. ed. 228 (1886). But legisla- tion providing for the punishment of a crime committed by a white man on the person or property of an Indian, or vice versa, was sustained in U. S. v. Barnhart, 22 Fed. 285 (C. C. Oreg., 1884) ; U. 8. v. Bridleman, 1 Fed. 894 (D. C. Oreg., 1881) ; V. 8. V. Martin, 14 Fed. 817 (D. C. Oreg., 1883). See U. 8. v. Cisna, 1 McLean, 254, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,795 (1835). As to crime by one white person against another, see TJ. 8. v. Bailey, 1 McLean, 234, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,495 (1834). As to application of criminal laws of a State to tribal Indians living under the charge of the general government on a reservation set apart for that purpose, see v. 8. V. 8a-Coo-Da-Cot, 1 Dill. 271, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,212 (1870) ; 8tate v. Campbell, 53 Minn. 354, 55 N. W. 553, 21 L. R. A. 169 (1893) ; 8tate v. 8potted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33, 44, 55 Pac. 1026, 1028 (1899) ; State v. Little Whirlwind, 22 Mont. 425, 56 Pac. 820 (1899). See also as to application of criminal laws of State, Re Blacklird, 109 Fed. 139 (D. C. Wis., 1901) ; Caldwell v. 8tate, 1 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 327, 375, 430 (1832); State v. Foreman, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 256, 316, 337 (1835) ; State v. Doxtater, 47 "Wis. 278, 2 N. W. 439 (1879) ; State v. Earris, 47 Wis. 298, 2 N. W. 543 (1879). ^* Thus, for instance, in Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 484, 19 Supm. 722, 736, 43 L. ed. 1041 (1899); Cherokee Nation V. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 306, 23 Supm. 115, 119, 47 L. ed. 183 (1902). See U. 8. v. Kagama, 118 F. S. 375, 6 Supm. 1109, 30 L. ed. 228 (1886) ; U. 8. v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 443, 23 Supm. 478, 482, 47 L. ed. 532 (1903) ; Matter of Heff, 197 f! S. 488, 498, 25 Supm. 506, 507, 49 L. ed. 848 (1905). See Ryan v. Knorr, 19 Hun (N. T.), 540 (1880). Digitized by IVIicrosoft® The Power op Congress. 65 CHAPTER II. The Power of Congress. Section 31. Nature of power to regulate. 32. Exercise of power, as limited by other constitutional pro- visions; e. g., Fifth Amendment ; prohibition of prefer- ence to ports of State. 33. Power to prohibit. 34. Exclusion or expulsion of aliens. 35. "Rule of free competition;" legislation against restric- tions upon competition; Anti-Trust Act. 36. Registration of trade-marks. 37. Inspection. 38. Conduct and liability of those engaged in commerce; Interstate Commerce Act. 39. The same; relations between carrier and employees. 40. Punishment of crimes. 41. Regulation of rates of transportation. 42. Exercise of power, as determined by agencies by which commerce is carried on, whether by individuals or by corporations. 43. Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. 44. Limitation of liability of owner of vessel. 45. Regulation of vessels. 46. The same; vessels engaged in transportation between points in same State. 47. Establishment and maintenance of means of transporta- tion; creation and licensing of corporations. 48. Removing or prohibiting obstructions to navigation. 49. Authorizing placing of obstructions to navigation. 60. Effectuating improvements in navigation. 51. Duty to make compensation for property taken in exer- cise of power to improve navigation. 52. Authorization of construction of bridges. §31. Nature of power to regulate. Whatever ' ' the reasons which may have caused the framers of the Constitution, to repose the power to regulate commerce in Congress," it is said that such reasons " do not affect or limit the extent of the power itself."^ "Regulate" is defined as "to adjust by 1 Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. U. S., 175 II. S. 211, 228, 20 Supm. 96, 102, 44 L. ed. 136 (1899). 3 Digitized by Microsoft® 66 CoMMEECE Clause of Federal Constitution. rule, method, or established mode ; govern by or sub- ject to certain rules or restrictions; direct."^ The idea of prescribing a rule is involved in the etymology of the word. The power to regulate commerce is de- fined to be " the power to prescribe the rules by which it shall be governed, that is, the conditions upon which it shall be conducted; to determine when it shall be free and when subject to duties or other exactions. The power also embraces within its control all the in- strumentalities by which that commerce may be carried on, and the means by which it may be aided and en- couraged. The subjects therefore upon which the power may be exerted are of infinite variety. " * It is said to be" vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the United States; such power is plenary, complete in itself, and may be ex- erted by Congress to its utmost extent, subject only to such limitations as the Constitution imposes upon the exercise of the powers granted by it; and in de- termining the character of the regulations to be adopted Congress has a large discretion which is not to be controlled by the courts, simply because in their opinion such regulations may not be the best or most 2 Century Dictionary. 3 Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 IT. S. 196, 203, 5 Supm. 826, 828, 29 L. ed. 158 (1885). See also Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. 299, 13 L. ed. 996 (Dec. T. 1851) ; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 34Y (Oct. 1875) ; Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y ., 92 U. S. 259, 23 L. ed. 543 (Oct. 1875) ; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 TJ. S. 100, 108, 10 Supm. 681, 683, 34 L. ed. 128 (1890); Hophins v. U. S., 171 U. S. 578, 597, 19 Supm. 40, 47, 43 L. ed. 290 (1898). In Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 TJ. S. 347, 7 Supm. 1126, 30 L. ed. 1187 (1887), after pointing out certain peculiar characteristics of co mm unication by telegraph, as compared with "other commerce," it was said that "the regulations suitable for Digitized by Microsoft® The Powek of Congress. 67 effective that could be employed."" And it is said that " Congress is not limited in its employment of means to those that are absolutely essential to the ac- complishment of objects within the scope of the powers granted to it. " ° But while this vast power has, as to conomerce with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes, long been exercised with comparative fre- quency, it has until recently been otherwise as to " commerce among the States." It is even said that prior to the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act Congress had ' ' refrained from the passage of any very important regulation upon this subject, except perhaps the statutes regulating steamboats and their occupation upon the navigable waters of the country. ' ' ® one of these kinds of commerce would be entirely inapplicable to the other." * Lottery Case {Champion \. Ames), 188 U. S. 321, 353, 23 Supm. 321, 325, 47 L. ed. 492 (1903). See also Gibhons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196, 6 L. ed. 23 (1824) ; Leisy v. Hardin, supra; Interstate Com- merce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 471, 473, 14 Supm. 1125, 1131, 1132, 38 L. ed. 1047 (1894); Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. V. Z7. 8., 175 U. S. 211, 228, 20 Supm. 96, 102, 44 L. ed. 136 (1899) ; Cummings v. Chicago, 188 IT. S. 410, 430, 23 Supm. 472, 477, 47 L. ed. 525 (1903) ; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 24 Supm. 349, 48 L. ed. 525 (1904) ; Northern Securities Co. v. U. 8., 193 U. S. 197, 336, 24 Supm. 436, 456, 48 L. ed. 679 (1904). Howard v. Illinois Central R. B. Co. (Supm. Ct. U. S., 1908). In Oibhons v. Ogden it was said to be obvious (p. 204) that Con- gress in the exercise of such power " may use means that may also be employed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged powers; that, for example, of regulating commerce within the State." As to such power including power to make government prom- ises tender in payment of private debts, see Metropolitan Bank v. Van DycJc, 27 N. T. 400, 510 (1863). See, generally, article in 17 Tale Law Eev. 139 (1908), by P. C. Knox. 8 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, supra, sustain- ing provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. Alameda v. Neal, 32 Fed. 331 (C. C. Cal., 1887). As to provisions of E. S., i; 4401, as to " coastwise sea-going steam vessel " and of § 4444 as to " coastwise steam vessels," see Huus V. N. Y. & Porto Rico Steamship Co., 182 TJ. S. 392, 21 Supm. 827, 45 L. ed. 1146 (1901), affirming Bigley v. N. Y. & P. B. 8.8. Co., 105 Fed. 74 (D. C. N. Y., 1900) ; Murray v. Clark, 4 Daly (N. Y.), 468 (1873). As to effect of act of February 25, 1867, see Henderson v. Spofford, 59 N. Y. 131 (1874) ; Commis- sioners of Pilots V. Pacific Mail S.8. Co., 52 ~N. Y. 609 (1873) ; The George 8. Wright, Deady, 591, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,340 (1869). As to jurisdiction of court of admiralty to enforce claim for pilotage under State statute, see Banta v. McNeil, 5 Ben. 74, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 966 (1871) ; Weaver v. McLellan, 5 Ben. 79, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,309 (1871). Compare The Alaska, 3 Ben. 391, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 129 (1869). ^ Cooley V. Port Wardens, supra. Here was sustained the im- position of liability for half pilotage upon a vessel refusing to take a pilot. Digitized by IVIicrosoft® The Poweks op States Specificax,ly Considered. 247 whether such regulation is not beyond the power of the States would seem academic. In the view herein taken, however, it seems sustainable only on the sup- position that it is exercised for the benefit of either the general public or those enjoying the benefit of transportation wholly within the State, thus, for the purpose of securing safety and convenience of navi- gation by vessels engaged in such transportation. Otherwise, for reasons already stated, such regulation seems beyond the power of the States. In this view it is not apparent why it should be within the power of the State to, for instance, fix the compensation of a pilot employed on a vessel engaged in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, any more than it is to fix the compensation of a carrier by rail- road for such transportation. Digitized by Microsoft® 248 CoMMERCK Clause of Fedeeal Constixtjtion. CHAPTEE V. Taxes and Other Charges. Section 108. Power to tax, as depending on presence of property within territorial jurisdiction. 109. Exemption of property in transit or temporarily within jurisdiction. 110. Original package doctrine; distinction between com- merce " among the States " and " with foreign nations." 111. Vessels. 112. Property employed in transportation within scope of commerce clause. 113. The same; proportionate valuation. 114. Property acquired (e. g., earnings or receipts) in course of transportation within scope of commerce clause. 115. The same; ''intangible property." 116. Charge for special facilities; e. g., for wharfage; charge for governmental supervision. § 108. Power to tax, as depending on presence of property within territorial jurisdiction. It has already been seen that restrictions invalidly imposed, under the authority of a State, upon trans- portation within the scope of the commerce clause have commonly been by way of requirement of pay- ment of a tax, commonly termed a ' ' license ' ' or ' ' privilege ' ' tax. And it has been stated that such a tax is to be carefully distinguished from a mere tax not imposed as a condition of engaging in transporta- tion within the scope of the commerce clause.^ But this distinction has not infrequently been overlooked, and considerable confusion has resulted. Leaving out of consideration such a ' ' license " or " privilege ' ' tax, the commerce clause has little or no legitimate application to the case of ordinary taxation under the authority of a State, whether of personal or real 1 See § 70. Digitized by Microsoft® Taxes and Othek Charges. 249 property. Instead of an inquiry whether in a given case such taxation is in conflict with the commerce clause, the inquiry should, ordinarily at least, be whether the property sought to be taxed is " within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing power," ^ and, this inquiry answered, there will be little or no occa- sion for the further inquiry as to the application of the commerce clause. It will be seen, however, that there is a strong tendency to thus unnecessarily in- quire as to the application of the commerce clause,® 2 Union Refrigerator Transit Go. v. Kentucky, 199 U. S. 194, 26 Supm. 36, 50 L. ed. 150 (1905). See also Fargo v. Hart, 193 F. S. 490, 24 Supm. 498, 48 L. ed. Y61 (1904) ; also article in 7 Columbia Law Eev. 309 (1907), by J. B. Moore. * A notable instance of such tendency is furnished by Gloucester Ferry Co. V. Pennsylvania, 114 TJ. S. 196, 5 Supm. 826, 29 L. ed. 158 (1885), reversing Commonwealth v. Gloucester Ferry Co., 98 Pa. St. 105 (1881), a tax being here held unlawfully imposed upon the capital stock of a foreign corporation exclusively engaged in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, that is, ferrying passengers and freight. It owned no other property in the State than the lease of a slip or dock at which such passen- gers and freight were received and landed, nor were the boats that were used for transportation (and registered at a port outside the State) allowed to remain in the State except so long as neces- sary to discharge and receive passengers and freight. See also Central R. R. Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 49 N. J. Law, 1, 20, 7 Atl. 306, 315 (1886). The true ground of this decision seems to have been that the greater part of the property taxed was out- side the jurisdiction of the State. In this view the commerce clause, though extensively discussed in the opinion, had no bear- ing in the matter. Indeed we are unable to see that it had any bearing whatever save on the supposition that the tax was imposed as a condition of engaging in interstate transportation, but, so far at least as appears from the report, such was not the case. It will not of course be contended that there is anything neces- sarily illegal in imposing a tax upon the capital stock of a corpora- tion (whether foreign or domestic) engaged in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause. See § 112. Another notable instance of such tendency to give illegitimate Digitized by Microsoft® 250 CoMMEECE Clause of Federal Constitution. a tendency that is, in our view, strongly to be depre- cated, as tending to increase the already abundant confusion as to its proper scope. § 109. Exemption of property in transit or temporarily within jurisdiction. It seems established, apart from the effect of the commerce clause, that it is beyond the authority of a State to tax property, at any rate, of a nonresident, that is merely in transit, or within the jurisdiction for a temporary purpose only, without having acquired a situs in the State.* To the extent that this rule ap- application to the commerce clause is seen in the decisions relating to the exemption of property in course of commercial transporta- tion. See § 109. * See Hays v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 17 How. 596, 15 L. ed. 254 (Dec. T. 1854) ; Morgan v. Farham, 16 Wall. 471, 21 L. ed. 303 (Dec. 1872) ; Blachstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 23 Supm. 277, 47 L. ed. 439 (1903); People ex rel. Burke v. Wells, 184 N. T. 275, 77 N. E. 19 (1906) ; Cooley on Taxation (3d ed.), p. 89; Wharton on Conflict of Laws (3d ed.), § 80b. Property in transit to market outside of State, but delayed merely for separation and assortment for convenience of ship- ment, held exempt in State v. Engle, 34 N. J. Law, 425 (1871). To similar effect, State v. Carrigan, 39 IST. J. Law, 35 (1876); Berwind & White Goal Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Jersey City, 67 Atl. 181 (Supm. Ct. N. J., 1907). For other instances of property in transit held exempt, see Con- necticut River Lumber Co. v. ColumUa, 63 K H. 286 (1882) ; Conley v. Chedic, 7 Nev. 336 (1872); State v. Union Tank Line Co., 94 Minn. 320, 102 N. W. 721 (1905) ; Matter of Union Tank Line, 204 JR. 347, 68 N. E. 504, 98 Am. St. Eep. 221 (1903); Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Commonwealth, 1 Monag. (Pa.) 36, 17 Atl. 175, 1 L. E. A. 232 (1888). As to situs of railroad rolling stock, see People ex rel. N. Y. Central, etc., B. R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U. S. 584, 26 Supm. 714, 50 L. ed. 1155 (1906) ; Carlisle v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 8 Colo. 320, 7 Pac. 164, 54 Am. Rep. 553 (1885) ; Denver & Rio Grande Ry. Co. V. Church, 17 Colo. 1, 28 Pac. 468, 31 Am. St. Eep. 252 (1891) ; City of Dubuque v. Illinois Central B. R. Co., 39 Iowa, Digitized by IVIicrosoft® Taxes and Othee Charges. 251 plies, it seems entirely unnecessary to resort to the commerce clause to determine the validity of taxation of such property. But the want of authority to tax property in course of transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, whether into or out of the State, is commonly based on the commerce clause.' In case of transportation into (or through) the State, the exemption continues only until the property ar- rives at its final destination, this rule being commonly 56, 76 (1874) ; Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. B. Go. y. Appeal Tax Court, 50 Md. 397 (1879); Appeal Tax Court v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 50 Md. 452 (1879) ; Bain v. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., 105 N. C. 363, 11 S. E. 311, 8 L. E. A. 299, 18 Am. St. Eep. 912 (1890); Pacific R. R. Co. v. Cass County, 53 Mo. 17 (1873). Property in State for purpose of undergoing part of process of manufacture held to have situs therein for purposes of taxation. Standard Oil Co. y. Comhs, 96 Ind. 179, 49 Am. Eep. 156 (1884). See Powell v. City of Madison, 21 Ind. 335 (1863) ; Rieman v. Shepard, 27 Ind. 288 (1866). 5 Thus in Kelley v. Rhoades, 188 U. S. 1, 23 Supm. 259, 47 L. ed. 359 (1903), reversing 9 Wyom. 352, 63 Pac. 935, 87 Am. St. Eep. 959 (1901) (see previous decision in 7 Wyom. 237, 51 Pac. 593, 39 L. E. A. 594, 75 Am. St. Eep. 904 [1898]), was held invalidly imposed a tax upon a flock of sheep being driven through the State for the purpose of shipment, traveling as rapidly as a due regard for their condition permitted, though incidentally supporting themselves by grazing while in transit. So held, though, for the purpose of shipment, it was not necessary that the sheep be driven into the State, and though the railroad over which they were shipped could be reached from the point where they were first driven by traveling a less distance than was necessary to travel from the place where they were first driven to any point in the State. No reliance was placed on the fact that the sheep had been duly returned for taxation and as- sessed for the taxes of the same year in another jurisdiction, " although this may have some bearing upon the equities of the case." The decisions below had been followed in Carton v. Com- missioners of Uinta County, 10 Wyom. 416, 69 Pac. 1013 (1902). See also Waggoner v. Whaley, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 50 S. W. 153 (1899). Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 252 CoMMEECE Clause of Federal Constitution. applied to property awaiting a sale at tiie place of destination.^ In case of transportation out of tlie State, the mere intention that it shall be transported is obviously insufficient to create such exemption, and the effect of acts done with a view to such transporta- tion depends on circumstances. The point of time when such exemption commences to exist, that is, when the property ' ' ceases to be governed exclusively by the domestic law and begins to be governed and pro- tected by the national law of commercial regulation," is that at which it " commences its final movement for transportation ' ' out of the State.'' But if prop- « Thus in Brown v. Houston, 114 TJ. S. 622, 628, 5 Supm. 1091, 1094, 29 L. ed. 257 (1885), affirming 33 La. Ann. 843, 39 Am. Kep. 284 (1881), was sustained a tax upon coal that had just arrived in the State by boats, being still on such boats and held for sale, it being said (114 TJ. S. 632, 5 Supm. 1096); "The coal had come to its place of rest, for final disposal or use and was a com- modity in the market of New Orleans. It might continue in that condition for a year or two years, or only for a day. It had become a part of the general mass of property in the State." Brown v. Houston was applied under like conditions in Pitts- hurg & Southern Coal Go. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 5Y7, 15 Supm. 415, 39 L. ed. 538 (1895), affirming 40 La. Ann. 226, 3 So. 642, 8 Am. St. Eep. 519 (1888). So in Myers v. County Commrs. of Balti- more County, 83 Md. 385, 35 Atl. 144, 34 L. E. A. 309, 55 Am. St. Eep. 349 (1896), in sustaining tax upon cattle that had been transported into the State and there kept until it was determined what disposition should be made of them. So held though they were purchased with the intention to export them. See also McConn v. Roberts, 25 Iowa, 152 (1868). For other applications of the general rule, see Singer Manuf. Co. V. Wright, 97 Ga. 114, 25 S. E. 249, 35 L. K. A. 497 (1894) ; Burlington Lumber Co. v. Willetts, 118 111. 559, 9 N. E. 254 (1886) ; Darnell v. City of Memphis, 116 Tenn. 424, 95 S. W. 816 (1906) ; Lehigh & WilTcesbarre Coal Co. v. Borough of Junction, 66 Atl. 923 (Supm. Ct. N. J., 1907). As to application of original package doctrine, see § 110. ■^ Thus in Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 6 Supm. 475, 29 L. ed. 715 (1886), affirming 62 N. H. 303 (1882), the tax was sustained Digitized by IVIicrosoft® Taxes and Otheb Charges. 253 erty in course of such transportation * ' be stored for an indefinite time during such transit, at least for other tlian natural causes, or lack of facilities for im- mediate transportation, it may be lawfully assessed by the local authorities,"® thus, doubtless, in case of property awaiting a sale " at an intermediate point,'"* § 110. Original package doctrine; distinction between commerce " among the States " and " with foreign nations." It has been seen that, according to the " original package doctrine," transportation of property within upon logs cut and drawn to the place from which they were to he transported to another State, there to remain until it should be convenient to send them, to their destination, but which had not been shipped or started on their final voyage. To similar effect, Carrier v. Gordon, 21 Ohio St. 605 (1871) ; C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. V. Town of Loraine, 22 Fed. 54 (C. C. Wis., 1884) ; State v. Taher Lumber Co., 112 N. W. 214 (Supm. Ct. Minn., 1907). See also John Hancock Ice Co. v. Rose, 67 N. J. Law, 86, 50 Atl. 364 (1901) ; Ayer & Lord Tie Co. r. Keown, 93 S. W. 588 (Ct. App. Ky., 1906). So in Diamond Match Co. v. Ontonagon, 188 U. S. 82, 23 Supm. 266, 47 L. ed. 394 (1903), upon logs cut and put into a river for the purpose of preservation. Though intended to be floated down the river to be transported into another State for the purpose of manufacture, it was also intended that only a comparatively small proportion should be so transported in any one season. In Rothermel v. Meyerle, 136 Pa. St. 250, 20 Atl. 583, 9 L. E. A. 366 (1890), by the same rule was sustained the requirement of a license fee for buying, etc., articles " with intent to send the same for sale or barter to any other market," this being assumed to apply to so sending out of the State. But in Ogilvie v. Crawford County, 7 Fed. 745 (C. C. Iowa, 1881), there was held not subject to taxation corn in cribs await- ing transportation by railroad out of the State, and which was thereafter so transported. So in Standard Oil Co. v. Bachelor, 89 Ind. 1 (1883), of staves in piles. As to tax on legacy payable to nonresident, see Mager V. Grima, 8 How. 490, 12 L. ed. 1168 (Jan. T. 1850). * Kelley v. Ehoads, supra. * Kelley v. Rhoads, supra. Digitized by IVIicrosoft® .254 Commerce Clause of Federal Constitution. the scope of the commerce clause continues even after arrival at its final destination, that is, until sale in the original package, or breaking thereof." And it has just been seen to be the general rule that it is beyond the authority of a State to tax property in course of transportation within the scope of the commerce clause. It seems to clearly follow that in case of trans- portation in an original package it is beyond the au- thority of the State to tax until sale in the original package or breaking thereof. But by a singular course of reasoning, the soundness of which' is not appar- ent, it is established to the contrary, that in case of transportation into a State, it is within the author- ity of the State to tax after arrival at the final desti- nation, though before sale in the original package or breaking thereof.^^ It seems clear enough that, so far w See § lY. " American Steel & 'Wire Go. v. Speed, 192 TJ. S. 500, 24 Supm. 365, 48 L. ed. 538 (1904), affirming 110 Tenn. 524, Y5 S. "W. 1037, 100 Am. St. Rep. 814 (1903). Here was sustained a tax upon goods held in store to be sold and delivered as contracts for that purpose were completely consummated, a distinction being thought to exist between such cases and those of absolute prohibition such as were under consideration in, for instance. Brown V. Maryland, infra; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 Supm. 681, 34 L. ed. 128 (1890). See Swift v. V. S., 196 U. S. 3Y5, 399, 25 Supm. 276, 280, 49 L. ed. 518 (1905); Oliver Finney Grocery Co. v. Speed, 87 Fed. 408 (C. C. Tenn., 1898). American Steel & Wire Go. v. Speed was applied under like conditions in Merchants' Transfer Go. v. Board of Review of Des Moines, 128 Iowa, 732, 105 N. W. 211, 2 L. E. A. N. S. 662 (1905). A fortiori, may the tax be sustained if the contents of the package have been distributed. May v.. New Orleans, 178 TJ. S. 496, 20 Supm. 976, 44 L. ed. 1165 (1900), affirming 51 La. Ann. 1064, 25 So. 959 (1899) ; Paries v. Nez Perce Gounty, 89 Pac. 949 (Supm. Ct. Idaho, 1907). So upon the proceeds of the sales of goods imported in such packages. New Yorh ex rel. Burhe \. Digitized by IVIicrosoft® Taxes and Other Charges. 255 as tlie commerce clause merely is concerned, tlie same is true of transportation from a foreign country. But as to such, case, it seems established that it is beyond the authority of the State to tax until sale in the origi- nal package or breaking thereof. ^^ This results from Wells, 28 Supm. 193 (1908), affirming 184 N. T. 275, 77 N. E. 19 (1900), 107 App. Div. 15, 95 N. T. Suppl. 100 (1905). In American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed was applied Woodruff V. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, 19 L. ed. 382 (Dec. 1868), affirming 41 Ala. 334 (1867), where was sustained a tax on auction sales, as applied to sales in the original package. To like effect seem Peo- ple V. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46, 66, 60 Am. Dec. 581, 589 (1854) ; Harri- son V. Mayor, etc., of Vickshurg, 11 Miss. 581, 41 Am. Dec. 633 ,(1844) ; State v. Pinckney, 10 Eich. Law (S. C), 474 (1857). Woodruff V. Parham seems to overrule State v. Kennedy, 19 La. Ann. 397 (1867). 12 Low V. Austin, 13 Wall. 29, 20 L. ed. 517 (Dec. 1871), where it was held to make no difference that the tax was not directly upon imports as such, but upon such goods included as part of the whole property of the citizens of the State subjected equally to an ad valorem tax. In Low v. Austin was applied Brown v. Mary- land, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678 (1827), a case, however, of re- quirement of a license to be taken out by an importer before being authorized to sell. See Biddle v. Commonwealth, 13 Serg. & E. (Pa.) 405 (1825). In Brown v. Maryland, however, such require- ment was regarded as also in contravention of the commerce clause. Low V. Austin was followed in holding invalid the imposition, of such a tax in Gerdan v. Davis, 67 N. J. Law, 88, 50 Atl. 586 (1901) ; People ex rel. Bijur v. Barker, 155 N. Y. 330, 49 N. E. 940 (1898), affirming 21 App. Div. 480, 48 N. Y. Suppl. 641 (1897) ; State ex rel. Gelpi v. Board of Assessors, 46 La. Ann. 145, 15 So. 10, 49 Am. St. Eep. 318 (1894) ; Re Pitkin, 193 111. 268, 61 K E. 1048 (1901) ; Re Doane, 197 111. 376, 64 N. E. 377 (1902). See also Siegfried v. Raymond, 190 El. 424, 60 N. E. 868 (1901). To like effect. People v. Moring, 3 Abb: App. Dec. (N. Y.) 539 (1867. On this point seem overruled Raguet v. Wade, 4 Ohio, 107 (1829). And see Padelford v. Mayor, etc., of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854). So in Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. ed. 1015 (Oct. 1878), was held invalid imposition of tax on sales by auction as applied to sales in the original package ; in Oelpi v. Schenck, 48 La. Ann. 1535, 21 So. 115 (1896), on uncollected price of goods imported in such packages. Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 256 Commerce Clause of Federal Constitution. the application to commerce with foreign countries, of the distinct constitutional provision (which does not apply to commerce " among the States "") that " no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any impost or duty on imports or exports."^* As already stated the cases of taxation here under consideration are to be carefully distinguished from a tax imposed as a condition of engaging in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause}^ 13 Woodruff V. Parham, supra; Brown v. Houston, 114 TJ. S. 622, 628, 5 Supm. 1091, 1094, 29 L. ed. 257 (1885) ; Pittsburg & Southern Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590, 15 Supm. 459, 39 L. ed. 544 (1895) ; New Mexico ex rel. McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande B. R. Co., 203 U. S. 38, 27 Supm. 1, 51 L. ed. 78 (1906) ; Preston v. Fiiiley, 72 Fed. 850 (C. C. Tex., 1896) ; Bothermel v. M eyerie, 136 Pa. St. 250, 20 Atl. 583, 9 L. E. A. 366 (1890). See American Fertilizing Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 43 Fed. 609, 11 L. E. A. 179 (C. C. N. C, 1890). As to unnecessary intimation to the contrary in Brown v. Mary- land, see Woodruff v. Parham, supra. See also License Cases, 5 How. 504, 594, 599, 622, 12 L. ed. 256 (Jan. T. 1847). Such pro- vision was, indeed, in Almy v. State of California, 24 How. 169, 16 L. ed. 644 (Dec. T. 1860), applied to transportation among States, but this seems to have been an oversight. See Woodruff V. Parham, supra. As to effect of provision as to exports, see Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 504, 6 Supm. 835, 29 L. ed. 988 (1886) ; Cornell v. Coyne, 192 TJ. S. 418, 24 Supm. 383, 48 L. ed. 504 (1904) ; People ex rel. Haneman v. Tax Commissioners, 10 Hun, 255 (1877), affirmed in 73 IST. Y. 607 (1878). As to application to transmission of property to beneficiary under will, see Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 12 L. ed. 1168 (Jan. T. 1850). "Art. 1, § 10. 15 Such distinction seems to have been overlooked in Standard Oil Co. V. City of Frederickslurg, 105 Va. 82, 52 S. E. 817 (1906) ; Re May, 82 Fed. 422 (C. 0. Mont., 1897), in sustaining a license tax on account of the sale of property transported into the State. See also Ex parte Brown, 48 Fed. 435 (D. C. N. C, 1891) ; Meyer V. City of Mobile, 147 Fed. 843 (C. C. Ala., 1906). Digitized by IVIicrosoft® Taxes and Other Charges. 257 § 111. Vessels. Altlioiigli under certain conditions a vessel engaged in transportation within tlie scope of the commerce clause may doubtless be taxed at the ' ' domicile of the owner " ^® as its proper situs, for the purpose of taxa- tion, it is certain that for such purpose it may acquire a situs elsewhere than at such domicile." It seems 1* So stated in Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. Kentucky, infra. But see Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U. S. 194, 26 Supm. 36, 50 L. ed. 150 (1905). So held as to unregistered vessel in Commonwealth v. American Dredging Co., 122 Pa. St. 386, 15 Atl. 4-13, 1 L. E. A. 237, 9 Am. St. Eep. 116 (1888). See Perry v. Torrence. 8 Ohio, 521, 32 Am. Dec. 725 (1838; Gunther v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 55 Md. 457 (1881) ; California Shipping Co. V. City of San Francisco, 88 Pac. 704 (Supm. Ct. Cal., 1907). 1^ Thus, in Old Dominion Steamship Co. v. Virginia, 198 TJ. S. 299, 25 Supm. 686, 49 L. ed. 1059 (1905), affirming 102 Va. 576, 46 S. E. 783, 102 Am. St. Eep. 855 (1904), as to vessels employed wholly within the limits of a given State. So in McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co., 90 Fed. 360 (C. C. Wash., 1898), of dredges. So in National Dredging Co. v. State, 99 Ala. 462, 12 So. 720 (Nov. T. 1892), of dredges, towhoats and scows. But, no such situs having been acquired, the "home port" (see TJ. S. E. S., § 4141) was held to be the situs for taxation, notwithstanding temporary registra- tion elsewhere, in Olson v. City, etc., of San Francisco, 148 Cal. 80, 82 Pac. 850, 2 L. E. A. N. S. 197, 113 Am. St. Eep. 191 (1905). See also Yost v. Lake Erie Transp. Co., infra; Irwin v. New Orleans, St. Louis & Chicago B. B. Co., 94 111. 105, 34 Am. Eep. 208 (1879); City of Newport v. Berry, 19 S. W. 238 (Ot. App. Ky. 1892). Vessels were held not to have acquired a situs in a given State for purposes of taxation, in Hays v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 17 How. 596, 15 L. ed. 254 (Dec. T. 1854) ; Morgan v. Parham. 16 Wall. 471, 21 L. ed. 303 (Dec. 1872) ; Yost v. Lake Erie Transp. Co., 112 Fed. 746, 50 C. C. A. 511 (6th C. 1901). See Johnson v. De Bary-Baya Merchants' Line, 37 Fla. 499, 19 So. 640, 37 L. E. A. 518 (1896) ; Graham v. Township of St. Joseph, 67 Mich. 652, 35 K W. 808 (1888) ; People ex rel. Pacific Mail S.S. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 58 N. T. 242 (1874) ; Pullman's Palace Car Co. V. Pennsylvania, 141 TJ. S. 18, 11 Supm. 876, 35 L. ed. 613 (1891), affirming 107 Pa. St. 156 (1884); People v. Niles, 35 Cal. 282 (1868). 9 Digitized by Microsoft® 258 CoMMEECE Clause or Federal Co?:stitution. clear also that " enrollment is irrelevant to the ques- tion of taxation " of such vessels, the authority to tax depending upon either the domicile of the owner or such situs elsewhere acquired.^® § 112. Property employed in transportation within scope of commerce clause. If otherwise property is subject to taxation under the authority of a State, it is no objection to taxation thereof that it is employed in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause.'^ This is, however, i*Thus, in Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. Kentucky, 202 TT. S. 409, 26 Supm. 6Y9, 50 L. ed. 1082 (1906), a corporation of one State was held not subject to taxation in another on account of vessels enrolled in the latter for convenience. See previous decisions in Commonwealth v. Ayer & Lord Tie Co., 117 Ky. 161, 77 S. W. 686 (1903), 79 S. W. 290 (Ct. App. Ky., 1904). See as to effect of act of June 26, 1884 (23 Stat. L. 58). And vessels were held subject to taxation at a situs acquired elsewhere than where registered or enrolled, in Old Dominion Steamship Co. v. Virginia, supra; Norfolk & Western By. Co. v. Board of Public Works, 97 Va. 23, 32 S. E. 779 (1899) ; North Western Lumier Co. v. Chehalis County, 25 Wash. 95, 64 Pac. 909, 54 L. E. A. 212, 87 Am. St. Rep. 747 (1901); National Dredging Co. v. State, supra. See also as to authority to tax enrolled vessel Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 IJ. S. 273, 25 L. ed. 412 (Oct. 1878), affirming Wheeling, Parkershurg, etc., Transp. Co. v. City of Wheeling, 9 W. Va. 170, 27 Am. Eep. 552 (1876) ; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 TJ. S. 365, 2 Supm. 257, 27 L. ed. 419 (1883); Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U. S. 69, 5 Supm. 38, 28 L. ed. 653 (1884). ^^ Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18, 11 Supm. 876, 35 L. ed. 613 (1891), affirming 107 Pa. St. 156 (1884) ; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Hayward, 141 U. S. 36, 11 Supm. 883, 35 L. ed. 621 (1891) ; Ficklen v. Shelby County Taxing Dis- trict, 145 TJ. S. 1, 12 Supm. 810, 36 L. ed. 601 (1892) ; Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 TJ. S. 204, 212, 14 Supm. 1087, 1090, 38 L. ed. 962 (1894) ; Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc.. By. Co. v. Backus, 154 TJ. S. 439, 14 Supm. 1122, 38 L. ed. Digitized by IVIicrosoft® Taxes and Other Charges. 259 to be distinguislied from the invalid imposition of a condition by way of tax upon the use of such property in such transportation.^" The distinction between a 1041 (1894) ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1, 14, 16 Supm. 1054, 1058, 41 L. ed. 49 (1896) ; Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 220, 17 Supm. 305, 309, 41 L. ed. 683 (1897); Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160, 23 Supm. 817, 47 L. ed. 995 (1903). There are numerous decisions in the State and lower Federal courts to the same effect. See also Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall. 471, 21 L. ed. 303 (Dec. 1872) ; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 TJ. S. 196, 206, 5 Supm. 826, 829, 29 L. ed. 158 (1885) ; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 8 Supm. 1380, 32 L. ed. 311 (1888) ; Adams Express Co. V. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U. S. 185, 218, 17 Supm. 604, 605, 41 L. ed. 965 (1897). Thus, in Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 173 U. S. 592, 622, 19 Supm. 553, 564, 43 L. ed. 823 (1899), was sustained a tax upon the portions within the State of a bridge erected under the authority or with the consent of Congress and used in such transportation. As to effect of declaration by Congress that bridge should be recognized as a post road, see Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 150, 17 Supm. 532, 41 L. ed. 953 (1897). See also Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 141 U. S. 679, 689, 12 Supm. 114, 118, 35 L. ed. 900 (1891). To similar effect, Pitts- burgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Board of Public Works of West Virginia, 172 TJ. S. 32, 43, 19 Supm. 90, 94, 43 L. ed. 354 (1898). As to tax on intangible property of corporation using bridge un- der consideration in Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, see § 115. To the doctrine stated in the text seems referable Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365, 2 Supm. 257, 27 L. ed. 419 (1883), affirming 102 111. 560 (1882), if such decision be sus- tainable at all. See § 82. Here was sustained the imposition of a license for ferry-boats plying between States. Compare St. Louis V. Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423, 20 L. ed. 192 (Dec. 1870). As to taxation of property of corporation deriving franchise from Congress, see Western Union Tel. Co. v. Massachusetts, 125 TJ. S. 530, 8 Supm. 961, 31 L. ed; 790 (1888) ; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Missouri, 190 TJ. S. 412, 23 Supm. 730, 47 L. ed. 1116 (1903). 20 See § 70. In Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 TJ. S. 688, 15 Supm. 360, 39 L. ed. 311 (1895), affirming 71 Miss. 555, 14 So. Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 260 CoMMEBCE Clause of Fedekal CoisrsxixuTioN. tax thus validly imposed on such property, and the invalid imposition of such condition, may in practice be sometimes diflScult to apply, and such application seems ordinarily to largely depend on the amount of the tax?^ There seems, however, the less occasion to resort to such distinction in view of a tax on property being subject to the requirement of equality and uni- formity under the Fourteenth Amendment. If a given tax on property satisfies this requirement there are probably few instances in which it would be held in- validly imposed as a condition by way of tax upon the use of property in such transportation. §113. The same; proportionate valuation. Property employed in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause is frequently employed 36, 42 Am. St. Hep. 476 (1893), the tax was sustained as on prop- erty, thougii in form a " privilege tax,'' the ascertainment of the amoTint heing made dei)endent in fact on the value of property within the State, and payment not being made a condition prece- dent to the right to carry on business therein. See Singer Manuf. Co. V. Wright, 33 Fed. 121 (C. C. Ga., 1887). Compare Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73, 12 L. ed. 992 (Jan. T. 1850), affirming State v. Nathan, 12 Eob. (La.) 332 (1845), sus- taining tax on money or exchange brokers, as applied to one whose sole business was buying and selling foreign bills of exchange. 21 In Commonwealth v. Smith, 92 Ky. 38, 17 S. W. 187, 36 Am. St. Eep. 578 (1891), was held invalidly imposed as on occupation or business, without regard to value of property owned within the State, a tax upon a telegraph company, transacting an interstate as well as intrastate business, equal to $1 a mile for the line of poles and first wire, and fifty cents a mile for each additional wire. So in Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. City of Bichmond, 99 Va. 102, 37 S. E. 789, 86 Am. St. Eep. 877 (1901), of a license tax upon such a company, unless imposed in lieu of all other taxes, and not more than the sum which the company would have had to pay if its projjerty had been subjected to the ordinary ad valorem tax. Here the license tax was $200 and the ad valorem tax would have been only $40. Here was overruled Western Union Tel. Co. v. City of Bichmond, 26 Graft. (Va.) 1 (1875). Digitized by Microsoft® Taxes and Othek Charges. 261 throughout a considerable number of States as " a unit," that is to say, as it has been expressed, as a " system," among the parts of which there is an * ' organic relation " or " organic connection ' ' or " organic unity," such a part being said to "have its actual uses only in connection with other parts of the system."^ This is well illustrated in case of prop- erty used for transportation by railroad or communi- cation by telegraph. In such a case there is obvious difficulty in determining the value of a portion of the system in a given State considered separately, and it is established that there may be employed a method of proportionate valuation, this being ordinarily done according to a " mileage basis," so called, that is, by taking such part of the entire valuation as is measured by the proportion of the length of the line operated within the State to the entire length.^ The correct- ^ Fargo v. Mart, infra. ^ Such method was held properly applied to property used for communication by telegraph, in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Massa- chusetts, 125 TJ. S. 530, 8 Supm. 961, 31 L. ed. 790 (1888) ; on writ of error from Attorney-General v. Western Union Tel. Co., 33 Fed. 129 (C. C. Mass., 1887) ; Massachusetts v. Western Union Tel. Co., 141 U. S. 40, 11 Supm. 889, 35 L. ed. 628 (1891) ; West- em Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1, 16 Supm. 1054, 41 L. ed. 49 (1896), affirming 141 Ind. 281, 40 N. E. 1051, 60 L. E. A. 671 (1895) ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Missouri, 190 U. S. 412, 23 Supm. 730, 47 L. ed. 1116 (1903), affirming State v. Western Union Tel. Co., 165 Mo. 502, 65 S. W. 775 (1901) ; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Henderson, 68 Fed. 588 (C. C. Ind., 1895) ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Foe, 69 Fed. 557, 16 C. C. A. 683 (6th 0. 1895), affirmed in Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor (Sanford V. Foe), infra. See previous decision in 64 Fed. 9 (C. C. Ohio, 1894) ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Norman, 77 Fed. 13 (C. C. Ky., 1896), appeal dismissed in 17 Supm. 1002 (1896). See Western Union Tel. Co. v. Dodge County, 113 N. W. 805 (Supm. Ct. Neb., 1907). So for transportation by railroad, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc., 'By. Co. V. Backus, 154 U. S. 439, 14 Supm. 1122, 38 L. ed. 1041 Digitized by Microsoft® 262 Commerce Clause of Federal CoNsiiTUTioisr. ness of the result depends, and should be regarded as depending, on the assumption that, as a preliminary, the total valuation has been correctly ascertained. It (1894), affirming 133 Ind. 513, 33 N. E. 421, 18 L. E. A. 729 (1893); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy By. Co. v. Babcoch, 204 U. S. 585, 27 Supm. 326, 51 L. ed. 636 (1907). And see Pitts- hurgh, Cincinnati, etc.. By. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421, 14 Supm. 1114, 38 L. ed. 1031 (1894), affirming 133 Ind. 625, 33 N. E. 432 (1893). So in Beinhart v. McDonald, 76 Fed. 403 (C. C. Cal., 1896) ; Si. Louis, I. M. & 8. By. Co. v. Davis, 132 Fed. 629 (C. C. Ark., 1904) ; State v. N. Y., New Haven & Hartford B. B. Co., 60 Conn. 326, 22 Atl. 765 (1891) ; Indianapolis & Vincennes By. Co. V. Backus, 133 Ind. 609, 33 N. E. 443 (1893). So as applied to valuation of sleeping cars continuously run- ning into, through, and out of the State, the valuation being according to the number of miles of railroad over which such cars are run, Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18, 11 Supm. 876, 35 L. ed. 613 (1891), affirming 107 Pa. St. 156 (1884) ; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Hayward, 141 U. S. 36, 11 Supm. 883, 35 L. ed. 621 (1891) ; Board of Assessors of Parish of Orleans v. Pullmans Palace Car Co., 60 Fed. 37, 8 C. C. A. 490 (5th C. 1894), affirming Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Board of Assessors, 55 Fed. 206 '(C. C. La., 1893); City of Covington v. Pullman Co., 89 S. W. 116 (Ct. App. Ky., 1905). See also Pull- man's Palace Car Co. v. Twomhhj, 29 Fed. 658 (C. C. Iowa, 1887). On this point seems overruled State v. Vi'oodruff Sleeping & Parlor Coach Co., 114 Ind. 155, 15 N. E. 814 (1888). So as to express refrigerator cars, American Befrigerator Tran- sit Co. y. Hall, 174 U. S. 70, 19 Supm. 599, 43 L. ed. 899 (1899), affirming Hall v. American Befrigerator Transit Co., 24 Colo. 291, 51 Pac. 421, 561 L. E. A. 89, 65 Am. St. Eep. 223 (1897) ; Utiion Befrigerator Transit Co. v. Lynch, 177 U. S. 149, 20 Supm. 631, 44 L. ed. 708 (1900), affirming 18 Utah, 378, 55 Pac. 639, 48 L. E. A. 790 (1898). So as to transportation by express, American Express Co. v. Indiana, 165 U. S. 255, 17 Supm. 991, 41 L. ed. 707 (1895); Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 171, 17 Supm. 527, 41 L. ed. 960 (1897) ; Fargo v. Hart, infra; Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Ex- press V. Crawford County, 63 Ark. 576, 40 S. W. 710, 37 L. E. A. 371 (1897). As to distinction between property used for such purpose, and property used for transportation by railroad, or communication by telegraph, see Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Digitized by IVIicrosoft® Taxes and Other Chaeges. 263 will be seen, however, that such total valuation, com- monly based on the value of the capital stock of the corporation operating the lines, includes property that it is beyond the authority of the State to tax, con- sistently with the doctrine elsewhere seen to be estab- lished.^ Doubtless the employment of the method of proportionate valuation, according to a mileage basis, is ordinarily free from objection, thus, " so long as it fairly may be assumed that the different parts of a line are about equal in value, "^ but it is, to say the least, not clear that it would be thus free from objec- tion in the case of the value of such a part being sub- stantially in excess of that of others, as in case of rail- road " terminals in one State equal in value to all the rest of the line through another." Furthermore, there should not be included in such total valuation any other property that it is beyond the authority of Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 221, 17 Supm. 305, 309, 41 L. ed. 683 (1897). It will be observed that it makes no difference whether it is to the property of a domestic or of a foreign corporation that such method is employed. 2* See § 115. '^^ Fargo v. Hart, infra. It was here said that in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc.. By. Co. v. Backus, supra, " there was reason to suspect an infraction of constitutional rights," but in view of testimony that there was no assessment of property outside of the State, " the court could not say that there was more than a pos- sible overvaluation." And in Fargo v. Hart it was said that in Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, supra, " it was pointed out that there was nothing to show that the line might not fairly be assumed to be of substantially the same value throughout," it being intimated, however, that if the fact should be proved to be otherwise, a different rule might apply. In Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, supra, provision was made by statute for " deductions on account of a greater propor- tional value " of property outside the State, " or for any other reason," so that the valuation should be at the " true cash value only." Digitized by Microsoft® 264 Commerce Clause of Federal Constitution. the State to tax, thus, because of being beyond its ter- ritorial jurisdiction.*^ § 114. Property acquired (e. g., earnings or receipts) in course of transportation within scope of commerce clause. It has been seen that restrictions invalidly imposed under the authority of a State upon transportation within the scope of the commerce clause have com- monly been by way of requirement of payment of a tax, commonly termed a ' ' license " or " privilege ' ' tax.^ Such a tax should be carefully distinguished from a tax not imposed as a condition of engaging in such transportation. It has just been seen that it is no objection to taxation of property that it is em- ployed in such transportation. There seems to us, at least, as much reason for the view that it is no objec- tion to taxation thereof that it has been acquired in the course of such transportation. In no sense is such tax imposed as a condition of engaging in such transpor- tation, however much the prospect of the imposition thereof may operate as an effective deterrent from so engaging. Contrary, however, to this view is what seems to us to be the entirely unsound, though well- established, view, that under certain conditions it is beyond the power of the State to impose a tax on prop- erty, not, indeed, as a condition of engaging in such transportation, but merely because of such property 26 Thus, in Fargo v. Hart, 193 F. S. 490, 24 Supm. 498, 48 L. ed. 761 (1904), were held erroneously included securities held out- side the State, but not used in connection with the business of the corporation. To like effect, Coulter v. Weir, 12Y Fed. 897, 62 C. C. A. 429 (6th C. 1904). See Chicago, Burlington & Quincy By. Co. V. Bahcock, 204 U. S. 585, 27 Supm. 326, 51 L. ed. 636 (1907). As to deduction for local taxation, see Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 221, 17 Supm. 305, 339, 41 L. ed. 683 (1897) ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, supra. 2T See § 70. Digitized by Microsoft® Taxes and Other Charges. 265 having been acquired in the course thereof, thus, what are commonly known as " earnings " or " receipts."^ 2* Thus, in State Freight Tax Case {Beading R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania), 15 Wall. 232, 21 L. ed. 146 (Dec. 18Y2), reversing Tonnage Tax Cases, 62 Pa. St. 286, 1 Am. Eep. 399 (1869), of the imposition of a tax per ton on freight carried, though, so far as appears, not as a condition of engaging in transporta- tion within the scope of the commerce clause. To like effect, Erie By. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 282, 21 L. ed. 164 (Dec. 18Y2); Erie Ry. Co. v. State, 31 N. J. Law, 531, 86 Am. Dec. 226 (1864) ; State v. Cumberland & Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 40 Md. 22 (1873). See also Pennsylvania B. B. Co. v. Common- wealth, 3 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 128 (1860). Undoubtedly overruled is Baritan <& Delaware Bay B. B. Go. v. Delaware <& Baritan Canal, etc., B. B. Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 546 (1867), sustaining require- ment of payraent of specified sum for each person carried across the State. But the following reasoning of counsel in State Freight Tax Case (p. 251) seems to us to be unanswerable : " Does it (the lax) make a rule to govern the shipment of a ton of coal passing out of the State? It clearly does not, for a ton of coal is shipped just as freely, without either the knowledge or interference of the State, as though there was no such law in force. It is not until months after the ton has been shipped that the State knows the fact; it is not until months later that the tax is payable by the company. How then can this be a rule to govern the intercourse? " In State Tax on Bailway Gross Beceipts {Beading B. B. Co. v. Pennsylvania), 15 Wall. 284, 21 L. ed. 164 (Dec. 1872), indeed, by virtue of application of a forced and extremely artificial dis- tinction between a tax on freight and a tax on gross receipts, the latter, though derived from transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, were held (in case of a domestic corporation) subject to such tax. So as to a foreign corporation, in Erie By. Co. V. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall. 492, 22 L. ed. 595 (Oct. 1874). To like effect, Delaware Bailroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206, 232, 21 L. ed. 888 (Oct. 1873), affirming Minot v. Philadelphia, W. & B. B. Co., 2 Abb. (U. S.) 323, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,645 (1870) ; Buffalo & Erie B. B. Co. V. Commonwealth, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 386 (1871) ; Pull- man's Palace Oar Co. v. Commonwealth, 107 Pa. St. 148 (1884) ; Western Union Tel. Co. Commonwealth, 110 Pa. St. 405, 20 Atl. Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 266 CoMMEKCE Clause of Fedeeax. Constitution. It will presently be seen, however, that such rule has been in part authoritatively repudiated, so that its 720 (1885). See State v. Philadelphia, Wilmington, etc., R. B. Co., 45 Md. 361, 24 Am. Eep. 511 (1876). But sueii distinction was repudiated in Fargo v. Michigan, 121 TJ. S. 230, 7 Supm. 857, 30 L. ed. 888 (1887), reversing 57 Mich. 598, 24 N. W. 538 (1885), holding invalid (in case of a foreign corporation) the imposition of a tax on account of receipts in the course of such transportation. See Walcott v. People, 17 Mich. 68 (1868). So as to a domestic corporation, in Philadelphia & Southern Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 TJ. S. 326, 7 Supm. 1118, 30 L. ed. 1200 (1887), reversing 104 Pa. St. 109 (1883). So of tax for telegraphic messages sent, in Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. ed. 1067 (Oct. 1881), reversing Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 55 Tex. 314 (1881), subsequent decision in 62 Tex. 630 (1884) ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 128 U. S. 39, 9 Supm. 6, 32 L. ed. 345 (1888). So of tax on receipts for such messages, in Batterman v. Western Union Tel. Co., 127 TJ. S. 411, 8 Supm. 1127, 32 L. ed. 229 (1888) ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Alabama State Board, 132 TJ. S. 472, 10 Supm. 161, 33 L. ed. 409 (1889), reversing 80 Ala. 273, 60 Am. Eep. 99 (Dec. T. 1885). It is not apparent that it makes any difference that the provision for taxation appears in the charter of a corporation, instead of in general legislation. On this point the following decisions seem to be no longer authority: Bailroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456, 22 L. ed. 678 (Oct. 1874), affirming State v. Baltimore & Ohio B. B. Co., 34 Md. 344 (1871); Baltimore & Ohio B. B. Co. v. State, 45 Md. 596 (1877). See State v. Cumberland & P. B. Co.. 66 Atl. 458 (Ct. App. Md., 1907) ; article in 1 111. Law Rev. 440 (1907), by Henry Schofield; in 2 Id. 21 (1907), by J. P. Hall; Prentice & Egan's Commerce Clause, p. 298. Por other instances of the imposition of a tax on account of receipts in the course of such transportation held invalid, see Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Commonwealth, 1 Monag. (Pa.) 36, 17 Atl. 175, 1 L. E. A. 232 (1888) ; Indiana ex rel. v. Ameri- can Exp. Co., 7 Biss. 227, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,021 (1876); Ver- mont & Canada R. B. Go. v. Vermont Central B. B. Co., 63 Vt. 1, 21 Atl. 262, 731, 10 L. E. A. 562 (1890) ; Batterman v. Express Co., 49 Ohio St. 608, 32 N. E. 754 (1892) ; Northern Pacific B. B. Co. V. Raymond, 5 Dak. 356, 369, 40 N. W. 538, 542, 1 L. E. A. 732, 734 (1888). On this point seem overruled American Union Express Co. \. Digitized by Microsoft® Taxes and Other Charges. 267 partial application presents a glaring inconsistency tending to produce great confusion. So far as the City of St. Joseph. 66 Mo. 675, 27 Am. Eep. 382 (1877) ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mayer. 28 Ohio St. 521 (1876). See, generally. Matter of Pennsylvania Tel. Co., 48 N. J. Eq. 91, 20 Atl. 846, 27 Am. St. Eep. 462 (1891) ; Southern Express Co. V. Hood, 15 Eich. Law (S. C), 66, 94 Am. Dec. 141 (1867) ; State Y. State Board of Assessment, 3 S. D. 338, 53 N. W. 193 (1892). N. Y., Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U. S. 431, 15 Supm. 896, 39 L. ed. 1043 (1895), affirming Commonwealth V. N. Y., P. & O.R. Co., 145 Pa. St. 38, 22 Atl. 212 (1891), where the circumstances were peculiar, may not be in entire harmony with the general doctrine. Here a tax upon the gross receipts of a railroad corporation for " tolls and transportation " was sus- tained as applicable to the receipts of a foreign corporation from another corporation leasing a branch road wholly within the State, though the lessee was engaged in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause. The interference with such transporta- tion produced by imposition of the tax was regarded as merely an " incidental efEeet." The tax was also sustained as applied to receipts from another corporation leasing another branch lying only partly within the State, the tax being, however, apportioned according to the portion within the State. So held, though all the business done over the road by the lessee was transportation within the scope of the commerce clause. And Wisconsin & Michigan Ry. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 379, 24 Supm. 107, 48 L. ed. 229 (1903), seems hard to reconcile with the general doctrine. Here was sustained the imposition of a tax on receipts not only for transportation wholly within the State but for transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, though, indeed, by the rule of proportionate valuation al- ready considered. The court seem to have misapprehended the effect of Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 142 U. S. 217, 12 Supm. 121, 163, 35 L. ed. 994 (1891), which, however, as already ex- plained (see § 73a), seems to rest on a distinction between a tax on the receipts themselves, and a tax, the amount of which is determined iy a reference to the amount of the receipts. While the tax under consideration in Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. is, or may hare been, within the latter class, that in Wisconsin & Michigan By. Co. v. Powers seems clearly to have been within the former, and hence contrary to the established doctrine. See Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 268 Commerce Clause of Federal Constitution. commerce clause is concerned, there is no objection to the imposition of a tax under the authority of a State upon earnings or receipts from transportation wholly within the State, though engaged therein by one also engaged in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause.^ §115. The same; "intangible property." It has already been stated that the rule allowing taxation, under the authority of a State, of property acquired in the course of transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, has been in part repu- diated, and it remains to point out how this result has been reached by giving effect to the rule allowing such taxation of "intangible property," the result being inconsistency and confusion.^" Commonly, though, it also as to proportionate valuation of gross receipts State of In- diana V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 16 Fed. 193 (C. C. Ind., 1883). 29 So held in Pacific Express Co. v. Seilert, 142 U. S. 339, 12 Supm. 250, 35 L. ed. 1035 (1892), affirming 44 Fed. 310 (C. C. Mo., 1890), as to receipts from transportation by express. So of receipts of palace car company, in State v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 64 Wis. 89, 23 N. W. 8Y1 (1885). See also Southern Build- ing & Loan Assoc, v. Norman, 98 Ky. 294, 32 S. W. 952, 31 L. K. A. 41, 56 Am. St. Eep. 36Y (1895). And in Ratterman v. Western Union Tel. Co., 127 U. S. 411, 8 Supm. 1127, 32 L. ed. 229 (1888), a single tax assessed in gross and without separation or apportionment upon receipts for tele- graph messages, some sent between points both within the State, but others to points outside of the State, was sustained as to the former, though held invalid as to the latter. To like effect. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Alabama State Board, 132 U. S. 472, 10 Supm. 161, 33 L. ed. 409 (1889). See also Lehigh Valley R. B. Co. V. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192, 12 Supm. 806, 36 L. ed. 672 (1892) ; Ratterman v. Express Co., supra; Northern Pac. R. R. Co. V. Barnes, 2 N. D. 310, 351, 51 N. W. 386, 397 (1892). 3" Thus, in Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 17 Supm. 305, 41 L. ed. 683 (1897), affirming Sanford v. Poe, 69 Fed. 546, 16 C. C. A. 305, 60 L. E. A. 641 (6th C. 1895), Digitized by Microsoft® Taxes and Othee Charges. 269 ■would seem, by no means necessarily, such rule has been applied to taxation of the capital stock (or it may which affirmed 64 Fed. 9 (C. C. Ohio, 894) ; see 61 Fed. 449, 470 (C. C. Ohio, 1894), was sustained the imposition of a tax upon an express company largely engaged in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, under a statute providing that in determining the value of its property the assessing body should " be guided by the value of said property as determined by the value of ihe entire capital stocTc." The decision obviously rests on what we regard as the erroneous and gratuitous assumption that there was no alternative between taxing the property irrespec- tive of the particular use to which it was put, and taxing it with reference to its use for transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, as well as transportation wholly within the State. But there was a third alternative entirely overlooked or ignored by the the court, that of taxing it with reference to its use for transportation wholly within the State. See 165 U. S. 222, 17 Supm. 309. This was followed under like conditions in American Express Co. v. Indiana, 165 U. S. 255, 17 Supm. 991, 41 L. ed. 707 (1897), affirming State v. Adams Express Co., 144 Ind. 549, 42 N. E. 483 (1895). See subsequent decision in Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auddtor, in 166 U. S. 185, 17 Supm. 604, 41 L. ed. 965 (1897), which was applied in Wells, Fargo^ & Co.'s Express v. Crawford County, 63 Ark. 576, 40 S. W. 710, 37 L. E. A. 371 (1897). See also State v. Jones, 51 Ohio St. 492, 37 N. E. 945 (1894). Objectionable on the same ground seems Henderson Bridge Co. V. Kentuchy, 166 U. S. 150, 17 Supm. 532, 41 L. ed. 953 (1897), affirming 99 Ky. 623, 31 S. W. 486, 29 L. R. A. 73 (1895), where was sustained a tax as on the " intangible property " of a corpora- tion that, though not itself directly engaged in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, received tolls for the priv- ilege of using a bridge for the purpose of such transportation. This was followed under like conditions in Keohuh & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Illinois, 175 U. S. 626, 20 Supm. 205, 44 L. ed. 299 (1900), affirming 167 111. 15, 47 N. E. 313 (1897). See subsequent decision in 176 HI. 267, 52 N. E. 117 (1898). Also to like effect, Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. City of Covington, 89 S. W. 296 (Ct. App. Ky., 1905). So in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Norman, 77 Fed. 13 (C. C. Ky., 1896) ; appeal dismissed in 17 Supm. 1002 (1896), was sus- tained as a tax on the "intangible property" of a corporation a Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 270 CoMMEKCE Clause op Federai, Constitution. be other securities) of a corporation engaged in snch. transportation. Now, obviously, such capital stock as representative of the property of such corporation derives, to a large extent at least, its value from its use;^^ in other words its value is based on what is de- rived from the use of such property in the form of earnings or receipts. In case of a corporation engaged principally in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, though, it may be, partly in trans- portation wholly within a State, obviously the value of its capital stock (or other securities) must be largely based on what is derived from the use of such prop- erty for transportation ivithin the scope of the com- merce clause in the form of earnings or receipts. It seems clear to us that to the extent that such value is based on such earnings or receipts, the capital stock (or other securities) is as much exempt froni taxation as are the earnings or receipts themselves. It seems clear that the capital stock (or other securities) is, tax in terms on its " franchise.'' To the sarae effect under the same statute. Coulter v. Weir, 12Y Fed. 89Y, 907, 62 C. C. A. 429, 439 (6th C 1904). In Louisville & Jeffersonville Ferry Co. v. Common- wealth, 108 Ky. Y17, Y25, 57 S. W. 624, 626 (1900), was sustained a tax on the franchise of a domestic corporation solely engaged in transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, its income being alone considered in iixing the value of the franchise. See as to taxation of such franchise Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. V. Philadelphia, 190 TJ. S. 160, 23 Supm. 817, 47 L. ed. 995 (1903). It will readily he seen, however, that the objections here stated do not apply to a mere tax upon the " franchise or business " (so- called) of a corporation in so far as confined to transactions not within the scope of the commerce clause, though such corporation be also engaged in transportation within the scope thereof. 31 This was clearly seen in Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co. V. Backus, 154 U. S. 439, 14 Supm. 1122, 38 L. ed. 1041 (1894), where it was said : " The value of property results from the use to which it is put, and varies with the profitableness of that use." See also Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, supra (165 U. S. 222, 226, 17 Supm. 309, 311). Digitized by Microsoft® Taxes and Othek Chaeges. 271 generally speaking, identical with the earnings or receipts, in this sense, that the value of the capital stock is merely a capitalization of the earnings or re- ceipts.^^ Nor does it need pointing out that the em- ployment of the method of proportionate valuation does not remove the difficulty ; the result is simply that a smaller amount of property that should be regarded as exempt from taxation is made subject thereto ; the difference is one of degree, not of principle. If there be urged the difficulty of distinguishing the value of such securities, as based on the use of property for transportation within the scope of the commerce clause, from its value as based on its use for trans- portation within the State,*^ it may be replied that a capitalization of receipts for transportation wholly within the State would, at least in the absence of a better test, reasonably and approximately result in a satisfactory valuation. ^^ For decisions more or less clearly recognizing or applying the method of capitalization of receipts in ascertaining value for purposes of taxation, see State v. Virginia & Truckee R. R. Co., 23 Nev. 283, 46 Pac. 723, 35 L. E. A. Y59 (1896) ; State v. Nevada Central R. R. Co., 26 Nev. 357, 68 Pac. 294, 69 Pac. 1042 (1902) ; People V. Hicks, 40 Htm (N. Y.), 598 (1886); People ex rel. N. Y. Central, etc., R. R. Co. v. Feitner, 38 Misc. 204, 77 N. Y. Suppl. 218 (Supm. Ct., N. Y. Sp. T., 1902) ; Oregon & Col. R. R. Co. V. Jackson County, 38 Oreg. 589, 621, 64 Pac. 307, 317 (1901) ; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. State Board, 114 Fed. 557 (C. C. 111., 1902). ^* Thus in Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co. v. Backus, supra, in case of taxation of railroad property, it was thought by the court to be " impossible to disintegrate the value of that portion of the road within (the State) and determine how much of that value springs from its use in doing interstate business and how much from its use in doing business wholly within the State.'' Conceding difficulty, we deny impossibility. Digitized by Microsoft® 272 Commerce Clause of Federal Constitution. § 116. Charge for special facilities; e. g., for wharfage; charge for governmental supervision. In addition to ordinary taxation, there is, so far as the commerce clause is concerned, no objection to the imposition, under the authority of a State, upon one engaged in transportation within the scope of the com- merce clause, of a charge for the use of special facili- ties,^* the most notable instance being a charge for wharfage, as applied to vessels engaged in navigation within the scope of the commerce clause,^ even though 34 TLus in St. Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 148 \J. S. 92, 13 Supm. 485, 37 L. ed. 380 (1893), reversing 39 Fed. 59 (C. C. Mo., 1889); Postal Tel. Oahle Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, Y9 Md. 502, 29 Atl. 819, 24 L. E. A. 161 (1894), affirmed in 156 TJ. S. 210, 15 Supm. 306, 39 L. ed. 399 (1895), were sustained charges imposed, by ordinance, as rental for space occupied by telegraph poles. So in Postal Tel. Cahle Co. v. City of Newport, 76 S. W. 159 (Ct. App. Ky., 1903), for use of streets and alleys for erecting poles and stringing wires. So in Bogart v. State, 10 Ohio Dec. (Eeprint) 365 (1888), for use of streets by vehicle, the amounts received being used for repairing the streets. ^^ The power to impose such charges has frequently been assimi- lated to the power to establish regulations as to pilotage. See, for instance, Transportation Co. v. Parlcershurg, 107 U. S. 691, 702, 2 Supm. 732, 741, 27 L. ed. 584 (1883). But this seems mis- leading. See § 107. Such charges have commonly been imposed by ordinance of the municipality that has at its own cost provided the wharf or other facility. Such charges were sustained, or relief thereagainst de- nied, in Paclcet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 TJ. S. 423, 25 L. ed. 688 (Oct. 1879), affirming Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 4 Dill. 10, 18 Ped. Cas. No. 10,345 (1877) ; Paclcet Co. v. Catlettshurg, 105 U. S. 559, 26 L. ed. 1169 (Oct. 1881) ; Ouachita Paclcet Co. v. Ailen, 121 U. S. 444, 7 Supm. 907, 30 L. ed. 976 (1887), affirming 16 Fed. 890 (C. C. La., 1883) ; The Ann Ryan, 7 Ben. 20, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 428 (1873) ; Leathers v. Aiken, 9 Fed. 679 (C. C. La., 1881) ; People ex rel. State Earlor Commrs. v. Roberts, 25 Pac. 496 (Supm. Ct. Cal., 1891) ; City of Keokuk v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co., 45 Iowa, 196 (1876) ; Worsley V. Second Municipality, 9 Bob. (La.) 324, 41 Am. Dec. 333 (1844) ; Digitized by IVIicrosoft® Taxes and Other Charges. 273 enrolled or licensed under authority of Congress.** It seems to be established that, so far as the commerce clause is concerned, it is no objection to a charge for Ellerman v. McMains, 30 La. Ann. 190, 31 Am. Eep. 218 (1878) ; Sweeney v. Otis, 37 La. Ann. 520 (1885) ; Benedict v. Vanderhilt, 25 How. Pr. 209 (N. Y. Super. Ct., Gen. T., 1863) ; 8tate v. City Council of Charleston, 4 Rich. Law (S. C), 286 (1851); Sterrett V. City of Houston, 14 Tex. 153 (1855). See Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 214, 5 Supm. 826, 833, 29 L. ed. 158 (1885) ; City of Muscatine v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co., 45 Iowa, 185 (1876). Thus in Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, supra, the charges sus- tained were professedly for wharfage, though graduated by the tonnage of vessels using the wharf. See as to effect of manner of appropriation of receipts and of realization of profit beyond amount of expenditures. So in Packet Co. v. Keokuk, infra, was sustained charge for use of wharf built, paved, and improved at large expense, the rates charged being no more than sufficient to meet the interest of the debt incurred for building and improving the wharf. So in Packet Co. v. 8t. Louis, supra, as to charge " not out of proportion to the advantages and benefits enjoyed " and " for the use of an improved wharf and not for the mere privilege of entering or stopping at " the port in question, " or for landing at the shore, in its natural condition, where there were no conveniences which could be called a wharf." Followed under like conditions in Vichsiurg v. Tohin, 100 tJ. S. 430, 25 L. ed. 690 (Oct. 1879). As to recovery for services performed by harbor master, see Harbor Master & Port Wardens of Mobile v. Southerland, 47 Ala. 511 (1872). To the same rule seems referable Henry v. Roberts, 50 Fed. 902 (C. C. Md., 1892), sustaining provision as to compensation for use of littoral lands by timber cast on shores of navigable waters. As to admiralty jurisdiction in cases of wharfage, see § 43 ; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68, 24 L. ed. 373 (Oct. 1877). As to imposition of such charges on property of the Federal government, see State Toll on Oovernment Property, 23 Op. Atty.- Gen. 299 (1900). ^^Transportation Co. V. Parkershurg, 107 U. S. 691, 2 Supm. 732, 27 L. ed. 584 (1883); Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80, 24 L. ed. 377 (Oct. 1877). Digitized by Microsoft® 274 Commerce Clause of Federal Constitution. wharfage that it is merely unreasonable.^'' But such a charge may be such as to be within the prohibition of the commerce clause as imposing an unnecessarily onerous burden upon transportation within the scope thereof, thus, " by roundabout means invading the do- main of Federal authority,"^ as where there is pro- ^'^Eelief on such ground was denied in Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aihen, 121 TJ. S. 444, 7 Supm. 907, 30 L. ed. 976 (1887). To like effect. Transportation Co. v. Parhershurg, supra. See First Municipality v. Pease, 2 La. Ann. 538 (1847). In Packet Co. v. St. Louis, supra; Packet Co. v. Keokuk, supra, it distinctly ap- peared that the charges in question were reasonable. In Packet Co. V. St. Louis relief was denied, it not appearing that the wharfage fees in question were exacted for the purpose of increas- ing the general revenue of the municipality in question, beyond what was necessary to meet its outlay in maintaining the wharves in suitable condition. Followed under like conditions in Vicks- burg V. Tohin, 100 TJ. S. 430, 25 L. ed. 690 (Oct. 1879). ^ Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, supra. The following are instances of provisions held invalid in view either of the commerce clause or of the prohibition of duties on tonnage or of both. Thus in Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. 31, 18 L. ed. 749 (Dec. 1867), of a provision that the master and wardens of the port of New Orleans should be entitled to receive a specified sum, whether called upon to perform any ser- vice or not, for every vessel arriving at that port. Here was over- ruled Master & Wardens of Port of New Orleans v. Ship Martha J. Ward, 14 La. Ann. 289 (1859). And see Master & Wardens of Port of New Orleans v. Prats, 10 Eob. (La.) 459 (1845). To similar effect with Steamship Co. v. Portwardens is Wehh v. Dunn, 18 Fla. 721 (1882). So in Foster v. Master & Wardens, 94 U. S. 246, 24 L. ed. 122 (Oct. 1876), reversing Master & Wardens of Port of New Orleans v. Foster, 26 La. Ann. 105 (1874), of a prohibition of surveys of hatches of seagoing vessels or of damaged goods coming on board thereof, save by such mas- ter and wardens. As to survey before leaving port, see Master & Wardens of Port of N. Y. v. Cartwright, 4 Sandf. (N. T.) 236 (1850). So in City of St. Louis v. Consolidated Coal Co., 158 Digitized by IVIicrosoft® Taxes and Other Charges. 275 duced discrimination against products of other States.'" In some instances such charges have been held invalid in view of the provision that " no State shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of tonnage," rather than of the commerce clause.*'^ It seems. rea- Mo. 342, 59 S. W. 103, 51 L. R. A. 850, 81 Am. St. Eep. 310 (1900), of charge, not as compensation for use of wharf, but for privilege " of towing boats or other water craft into or out of the harbor or from one place to another" within the harbor So held, notwithstanding provision that amount paid " should be in lieu of all wharfage." Steamship Co. v. Portwardens was applied under like conditions in Hackley v. Oeraghty, 34 N. J. Law, 332 (1870); affirmed in Geraghty v. Hackley, 36 id. 459. (1872). For instances of charges for wharfage held not sustainable, see '1 he Lizzie E., 30 Fed. 876 (C. C. La., 1887) ; City of New Orleans V. Wilmot, 31 La. Ann. 65 (1879); City of Shreveport v. Bed River & Coast Line, 37 La. Ann. 562, 55 Am. Eep. 504 (1885). So as to port charges in Harbor Commissioners v. Pashley, 19 S. G. 315 (1883), applying Alexander v. Wilmington, etc., R. R. Co., 3 Strobh. Law (S. C), 594 (1849). =» Thus in Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434, 25 L. ed. 743 (Oct. 1879), was held invalid a provision for collection of wharfage from vessels " landing, depositing or transporting goods or articles other than the productions of this State." On the same ground a provision was held invalid in Broeck v. Barge John M. Welch, 2 Fed. 364 (C. C. N. Y., 1880), reversing The John M. Welch, 9 Ben. 507, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,359 (1878). See also The Wharf Case, 3 Bland Ch. (Md.) 361, 374 (1831); People ex rel. State Harbor Commrs. v. Roberts, 25 Pac. 496 (Supm. Ct. Cal., 1891). But in The Ann Ryan, 7 Ben. 20, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 428 (1873), such charge was sustained as making no discrimination " in favor of the citizens of the State," though " in favor of the canal navigation of the State." *" Thus in Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577, 22 L. ed. 417 (Oct. 1874), reversing 27 La. Ann. 16 (1875), it was solely in view of such prohibition of any duty on tonnage that there was held not sustainable an imposition of "levee and wharfage dues Digitized by Microsoft® 276 Commerce Clause of FedekaLi Constitution. sonably clear that, so far as concerns transporta- tion within the scope of the commerce clause, it is within the power of Congress to make provisions as to wharfage, thus by way of requirement that charges be reasonable.*^ Closely analogous to such charges for special facilities are charges for the expense of govern- mental supervision of a business so carried on as to justify such supervision.^ The question has most fre- quently arisen as to charges for local inspection, com- monly imposed by municipal ordinance, of property, thus, poles and wires used for communication by tele- on all steamboats wliicli shall moor or land in any part of the port of New Orleans," such dues being measured by the capacity of the vessel. It appeared that the length of both shores of the Mississippi embraced by the port of New Orleans was at least twenty-two miles; that the entire portion of the shore on which whurves had been built was at most two miles. See also State Ton- nage Tax Cases (Cox v. Collector), 12 Wall. 204, 20 L. ed. 370 (Dec. 1870), reversing Lott v. MoUle Trade Co., 43 Ala. '578 (1869); Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall. 581, 22 L. ed. 201 (Oct. 1873). In addition to instances referred to in note 38 are the follow- ing of violation of the prohibition against laying a duty on tonnage: Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238, 24 L. ed. 118 (Oct. 1876) ; Way v. N. J. Steamhoat Co., 133 Fed. 188 (D. C. N. T., 1904); Johnson v. Drummond, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 419 (1871). See also Huse v. Glover, 119 V. S. 543, 7 Supm. 313, 30 L. ed. 487 (1886). As to State quarantine law, see Morgan's Steamship Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455, 6 Supm. 1114, 30 L. ed. 237 (1886). *i See Transportation Co. V. Parherslurg, supra; Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aihen, supra. *2In Charlotte, Columhia, etc., R. R. Co. v. Gihhes, 142 U. S. 386, 12 Supm. 255, 35 L. ed. 1051 (1892), was sustained, as ap- plicable to a corporation engaged in interstate railroad trans- portation, the imposition of a tax to meet the expenses of a State railroad commission proportioned to mileage in the State. Digitized by Microsoft® Taxes akd Other Chaeges. 277 graph. Such a charge is, however, held to be invalidly imposed if unreasonably large.** **As to such charges and conditions of determination of their validity, see Western Union Tel. Co. v. New Hope, 187 U. S. 419, 23 Supm. 204, 47 L. ed. 240 (1903) ; Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Go. V. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160, 23 Supm. 817, 47 L. ed. 995 (1903) ; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. New Hope, 192 U. S. 55, 24 Supm. 204, 48 L. ed. 338 (1904) ; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Taylor, 192 U. S. 64, 24 Supm. 208, 48 L. ed. 342 (1904) ; City of Philadelphia v. Western Union Tel. Co.. 40 Fed. 615 (C. C. Pa., 1889) ; 82 Fed. 797 (C. C. Pa., 1897) ; 89 Fed. 454, 32 C. C. A. 246 (3d C. 1898) ; Philadelphia v. American Union Tel. Co., 167 Pa. St. 406, 31 Atl. 628 (1895) ; New Hope Borough v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 202 Pa. St. 532, 52 Atl. 127 (1902) ; Taylor Borough v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 202 Pa. St. 583, 52 Atl. 128 (1902) ; City of Philadel- phia V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 67 Hun, 21, 21 N. Y. Suppl. 556 (1892). Digitized by IVIicrosoft® Digitized by Microsoft® INDEX. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® INDEX. [The references are to pages.] A mirniA T.TT; and maritime jurisdiction, as including transportation on navigable waters, 56. power of Congress as to navigation, as based on, 88. as basis of legislation as to limitation of liability of owner of vessel, 89, 90. as basis of legislation as to bridges, 89. as basis of legislation as to vessels, 91. as basis of power to prevent obstructions to navigation, 97. enforcement of claim for pilotage in, 246. jurisdiction in eases of wharfage, 273. Adumeeated : foods and drugs, prohibition by Congress of transportation of, 72. article, regulation by State of transportation of, 201. AoEjfT: sale by, 153. of seller, transportation to, 155, 156. Alabama: dispensary law, 214. AUENS. See Immigration. exclusion or expulsion of, by Congress, 73, 74. Animals. See Live Stock. Anti-tbust Act. See Federal Anti-trust Act. application of original package doctrine under, 31. of State, application of, to contract of sale, 153. Abbitkation. See Carrier; Employees. Abticle of Commebce: regulation by State of transportation of, 190, 191, 201. what is, 190, 191, 192. intoxicating liquors as, 190, 216. oleomargarine as, 191, 198. tobacco (including cigarettes) as, 192. fraud or deception in sale of, 198. Association : restriction upon transportation by, 127. Attachment. See Oarnishment. of cars, 121. Auction Sale: tax on, as applied to sale in original package, 255. 281 Digitized by Microsoft® 282 Index. [The references are to pages.] Bill of Exchange: requirement of stamping, 12. business of buying and selling, 12. stamp tax on, 12. Bill of Lading: stamp tax on, 12, 61. giving effect to, as evidence, 233. Boom : authorization of, by State, 187. Bottle : when original package, 38, 39, 40. BOUNDABY: between States, stream constituting, 24, 183. application of pilotage regulations to, 246. Beidge : construction of, refusal of injunction against, 7. admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, as basis of legislation aa to, 89. legislation by Congress as to, 98, 99, 100, 101. authorization by Congress of, 106, 107. and maintenance of, authorization of, by State, 176, 177, 178. over stream not wholly within limits of State, 177. over water, boundary between States, 178. application of commerce clause to transportation by, 20, 41. prescribing conditions of use of, 97. compensation for requiring alteration of, 104; regulation by State of charges for passage over, 135. Impeding or preventing navigation, 178, 179. liability for injury caused by, 179. effect of exercise by Congress of power as to, 180. tax on, 259. tax on property of corporation receiving tolls for use of, 269. Canal : Panama, provision for construction of, 95. . Capital Stock. See Corporation. Cabsieb. See Limitation of Liability of Owner of Vessel; Negligence; Passengers ; Railroad; Rates of Transportation. continuous transportation by, contract for, under through bill of lading, 52. in absence of arrangement therefor, 53, 54, .'in. regulation by Congress of conduct and liability of, 80, 81, 83. relations between, and employees, regulations of, 84, 85. application of common-law rules to duties and liabilities of, 117. adoption by Congress of rules and regulations applicable to busi- ness of, 117. application to domestic corporation of rule forbidding limitatioa of liability of, 128. Digitized by Microsoft® Index. 283 [The references are to pages.] Carrier — ( Continued. ) under duty to engage in transportation between points in State, restrictions upon, 152. discrimination by, as to freight, 166. liability of, to employee for negligence, 227, 242. requirement as to qualifications of employees of, 228, 229. requirement of fixing and posting by, of rates for transportation, 229. regulation by State of conduct and liability of, 224, 225. for whose benefit, 224, 227, 228, 230, 231. requirement as to furnishing of ears by, 232. route of shipment by, 232. place of delivery of shipment by, 232. free transportation by, 232. facilities to be furnished by, at points of intersection, etc., 233. prohibition of, from allowing freight to remain unshipped, 233. imposition of duty on, to receive and forward freight, 233. requirement as to delivery of freight by, 233. provision as to sale by, of unclaimed goods, 233. imposition of liability on, as to feeding and watering stock, 233. regulation of liability of, for loss or injury, 237. provision as to contract for exemption of, from liability, 238. prohibition of agreement for limitation of time, in which to insti- tute proceedings against, 239. provision as to agreement as to time within which to give notice of claim against, for damages, 239. imposition of liability on, for failure to adjust and pay claiTi ■within time specified, 239. liability of, as to transportation beyond line, 240. liability of, for negligence of connecting carrier, 240. over connecting roads, determination of liability as between and others, 240. initial or connecting, imposition of duties on, as to tracing freight and furnishing information, 240. liability of, for loss or injury to member of general public, 241. prohibition of contract limiting liability of, to injury on own line, 241. regulation of liability of, for failure of duty to transport, 242. imposition of liability on, for failure to deliver on payment of charges, 243. provision as to duty of, to deliver to legal holder of bill of lading, 243. Cattle. See Live Stock. Chinese. See Aliens. Cigarettes : application of original package doctrine to, 32, 36, 39. as articles of commerce, 192. Digitized by Microsoft® 284 Index. [The references are to pages.] Citizens : of each State, entitled to immunities and privileges in several States, 167. Coasting Tbade: licenses for, 188. C. O. D. See Sales. Combinations -. among corporations, regulation of, by State, 137, 138. CoMMEKCE. See Article of Commerce ; Transportation. state of, previous to adoption of Constitution, 4. definitions of, 8, 9, 116. as including transportation, 9, 19. transmission of intelligence, 9. new means of transportation, 10. intercourse, 9, 10. contracts, 11. trafiic or sales, 17, 18. distinction between, and "trade," in Federal Anti-trust Act, 17. as " among the States," 40. as including transportation between what points, 41. wholly within State, 42. as including transactions within State, 44, 45. with foreign nations, definition of, and distinction between, and commerce among iStates, as to power of Congress, 60. extraterritorial effect of regulation of, 60. regulation of, what including, 61. application to, of other provisions than commerce clause, 61. with Indian tribes, extent of power to regulate, 62. power to regulate, as including sale, 62. nature and extent of power to regulate, 65, 66, 67. power to regulate as limited by other constitutional provisions than commerce clause, 68. interstate, right to carry on, 69, 127, 128. exercise of powers reserved to States, as affecting, 120, 121. CoMHEBCE Clause: historical antecedents of, 4. proceedings in convention relating to, 5. Common Law: rule, power of Congress as exclusive of application of, 116, 117, 237. denying right to limit liability for negligence, 119. Competition. See Monopoly. rule of free, legislation in aid of, 75. CONGBESS: as authority vested with power to regulate, 6. power of, to regulate business of insurance, 15. without power to regulate transaction wholly within State, 51. absence of legislation by, distinction between commerce with for- eign nations, and among States, as to effect of, 60. Digitized by Microsoft® Ikdex. 285 [The references are to pages.] Congress — ( Continued. ) nature and extent of power of, to regulate, 65, 66, 67. power of, to establish and maintain means of transportation, 93, 94. creation of corporation by, 95. conferring of power by, upon corporation, 95. power of, to require license as condition of engaging in transporta- tion, 96. transactions other than transportation within scope of com- merce clause, 96. exercise of power by, as exclusive of exercise of power by State, 109, 180, 183, 184. exclusion of exercise of power of State, in absence of exercise of power by, 110. power of, whether exclusive in all cases, 111, 112, 113. as exclusive in matters national or admitting only of one uni- form system or plan of regulation, 114, 116. effect of inaction by, 115. power of, as exclusive of application of common-law rules, 116, 117. powers reserved to States unaffected by grant of powers to, 119, 120. effect of exercise by, of power to improve navigation, 183, 184. tax on property of corporation deriving franchise from, 259. CONSOLIDATIOJSr : of corporations, determination by State of conditions of, 130. regulation of, by State, 137, 138. Contract. See Sale. commerce whether including, 11, 12, 22. for personal services, 15, 16. power of legislation under commerce clause as to, 69. CONVEBSATION : commerce whether including, 11. CoNVICT-MADE ARTICLE: restriction on sale of, 49. legislation by Congress as to, 73. discrimination against, 164. COEPOBATION : ownership of stock in, 12. purchase of stock of, 13, 18. restrictions upon exercise of powers by, 87. creation of, by Congress, 95. conferring of power upon, by Congress, 95. licensing of, by Congress, 95, 96. quo warranto proceedings against, 118, 128. restriction upon transportation by, 127. domestic, restriction upon transportation by, 127, 128. regulation of rates chargeable by, 129. taxation of gross receipts of, 129. of foreign country, 130. Digitized by Microsoft® 286 Index. [The references are to pages.] Corporation — ( Continued. ) combinations among, and consolidation of, regulation of, by State, 137, 138. tax on franchise or business of, 147. discrimination in tax on, 106. conferring by State of authority on, to establish and maintain means of transportation, 170. tax on capital stock of, 2(i9, 270, 271. tax on franchise of, 270. foreign, loan by, 12. license tax on, for having office in State, 44. restriction upon transportation by, 129, 130, 151. requirement of becoming domestic, 130. not subject to restriction as to transportation within scope of commerce clause, 131, 132. imposition of condition precedent to right of, to maintain pro- ceedings, 132, 133. distinction between, and domestic, as to imposition of tax, 150. COREESPONDENCE : commerce whether including, 11. furnishing of instruction by, 22. Courts. See Injunction; Judicial Action. Crime. See Criminal Proceeding. by or against Indians, 64. provision by Congress for punishment of, 85. Criminal Proceeding. See Crime. necessity of legislation by Congress for maintenance of, 8. Dam: construction of, under authority of Congress, 102. authorization of, by State, 186, 187. Damages. See Navigation. Death : statute giving right of action for, 238. Deception: See Fraud or Deception. Discrimination : prevention of, by State, 43, 135. by carrier, application of common-law rules to, 117, 118. against articles transported into State, or against nonresident, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167. as to rates of transportation, 164. in tax on corporations, 166. as to use of lands under water, 166. by carriers, as to freight, 166. constitutional provisions other than commerce clause, applicable to, 167. in favor of transportation within State or of residents of State, unnecessary to make invalid restriction upon transportation within scope of commerce clause, 167, 168. Digitized by Microsoft® Index. 287 [Tlie references are to pages.] Discrimination — ( Continued. ) inspection as producing, 204, 20G. application of rule forbidding, to intoxicating liquors, 214. sustaining restrictions upon sale of liquors, by holding inoperative provisions for, 214. in charge for wharfage, 275. Disease. See Live Stock. DispENS.VRY Law. See Alabama; South Carolina. District op Columbia: See Territory. State as including, 58, 59. power of Congress as local legislature for, 111. Dbugs : regulation by Congress of transportation of, 72. provision by Congress for inspection of, 79. Drummers : sales by, 153, 157, 158, 167. Duty. Sec Exports; Imports. Elevator : regulation of operation of, 48. Embaboo : legislation as to, 61, 70. Eminent Domain: exercise of power of, for purposes of transportation, 133, 171, 178. by corporation deriving authority from Congress, 133, 134. Employees : of carrier, relation between and carrier, regulation of, 84, 85. regulation of liability to, for negligence, 227, 242. Exchanges. See Bill of Exchange. commerce as comprehending, 8. Explosives : provision by Congress as to transportation of, 81. Exports : prohibition of tax or duty on, 12. application of, to commerce with foreign nations, 61. prohibition of imposts or duties on, application of, to commerce with foreign nations, 61. to provision for inspection, '206. to pilotage, 245. Express : restrictions upon transportation by, 141, 142. within State, 148. matter, requirement as to delivery of, 243. tax on receipts from transportation by, 268. tax on property used for transportation by, 269. by method of proportionate valuation, 262. False Labeling oe Branding: legislation by Congress as to, 73. Digitized by Microsoft® 288 Index. [The references are to pages.] Fkderai, Anti-teust Act: distinction in, between "trade" and "commerce," 17. inapplicable to transportation wholly within State, 41, 47. application of, to purchase of live stock, 46. inapplicable to mere manufacture, 49, 50. application of, to combination among manufacturers and dealers, 49. to contracts, 69. prOYisions of, in aid of rule of free competition, 7'5. application of, to exercise of powers by corporation, 87. Pebet: application of commerce clause to transportation by, 20, 45. regulation of rates on, 137, 175. definition of, 172. restrictions upon maintenance of, under authority of State, 173. between State and foreign country, 173, 174. boats, requirement of license for, 259. franchise, grant of, by State, 174, 175, 176. landing in Indian reservation, 174. franchise, operation of, in another State, 174. Fifth Amendmekt: power to regulate, as limited by, 68, 103. power to prohibit, as limited by, 71. Fish. See Game. catching of, regulation of, 50, 51. Foods : regulation by Congress of transportation of, 72. provision by Congress for inspection of, 79. FOBEIGN CoEPOBATiON. See Corporation. Foreign Nations. See Commerce. FOUBTEENTH AMENDMENT: prohibition in, against denial of equal protection of laws, 167. limitations imposed by, upon power to regulate production, sale, or use of property, 188, 189. provision in, as to equality and uniformity, application of, to taxa- tion, 260. Fbaud ok Deception: power of State to prevent, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200. in sale of oleomargarine, 198. Feeight : tax on, 265. FtrruEES: prohibition of dealing in, 120. Gambling : suppression of, 120. Game: regulation by State of transportation of, 210, 211, 212, 213. legislation by Congress as to, 212. transportation of, in original package, 213. Digitized by Microsoft® Index. 289 [The references are to pages.] Gabmshment. See Attachment. statute as applicable to interstate carrier, 121. GaS: regulation of use of, 227. Gboes Receipts. See Tax. Hasbor : line, establishment of, 101, 103, 182. improvement of, 103, 182. master, recovery for services of, 273. Immigration. See Aliens. regulation of, by Congress, as exclusive of exercise of power hy State, 109. regulation of, by State, 143, 144, 193. Imports : prohibition against imposts or duties on, 27. prohibition against imposts or duties on, application of, to ooln- merce with foreign nations, 61. to pilotage, 245. to taxation of property imported in original package, 256. to commerce among States, 256. power to levy duties on foreign, 61. Imposts. See Exports; Imports. Impbovements. See Internal Improvements, Indians. See Commerce. crimes by or against, 64. Indian Tribes. See Commerce. Injunction : against obstruction of transportation, and carriage of malls, 7. against action under State statute, 7. refusal of, against construction of railroad and bridges, 7. in aid of legislation to prevent obstructions to navigation, 97. against erection of bridge, 179. on application of Federal government to protect improvements in navigation, 184. Insect Pests: legislation by Congress as to, 73. Inspection : provision by Congress for, 78, 79. under authority of State, 202, 203. definition of, 202. as condition of allowing transportation into State, 202. charge for, 202, 203. of cattle, 203. as producing discrimination, 204, 206. of articles in transit through State, 204. provision for, as applicable to persons, 205. in case of transportation out of State, 205, 206. local, of telegraph property, 276. 10 Digitized by Microsoft® 290 Index. [The references are to pages.] INSTEUCITON : furnishing of, by correspondence, 22. Insukance : contracts of, 13, 14. power of Congi'ess to regulate business of, 15. Intebcoubse : commerce as including, 9, 10. definition of, 11. Inteenai, Impbovements : authorization of, by State, 186, 187. Interstate Commeeoe Act: exclusion from application of, of transportation wholly within State, 41. provision of, as to continuous contract or shipment, 52, 53. application of, to transportation between points botli within, but over route partly outside of State, 57. application to, of prohibition of tax or duty on exports, 61. of prohibition of preference to ports of State, 70. objects of, 82. validity of, 83. application of, to exercise of powers by corporation, 87. effect of, as excluding exercise of power by State, 109. provision of, for saving of common-law remedies, 117. effect of, as preventing application of common-law rules, 118. application of, to liability for negligence, 119. effect of, as to attachment, 122. as to imposition of liability on carrier for failure to deliver on payment of charges, 243. Intoxicating Liquoks. See Alabama; South Carolina; Wilson Act. commencement of transportation of, 26. application of original package doctrine to, 29, 30, 31. regulation of sale and manufacture of, 48. transportation of, between points in State, over route partly out- side, 58. prohibition by Congress of importation of, into Territory, 59. prohibition of sale of, to Indians, 62, 63. provision by Congress for inspection of, 79. statute in prohibition of sale of, failure of, to except interstate sales, 140. as articles of commerce, 190, 216. power of State to prohibit manufacture and sale of, 214. application of rule forbidding discrimination to, 214. sustaining restrictions upon sale of, by holding inoperative pro- visions for discrimination, 214. power of State to prohibit transportation of, within scope of com- merce clause, 215, 216. prohibition of transportation of, sent out of State and reshipped into it, to evade its laws, 216. Digitized by Microsoft® Index. 291 [The references are to pages.] Intoxicating Liquors — ( Continued. ) transported in violation of laws of State denial of right of re- covery for price of, 217. JuMCiAi, Action: See Injunction. in aid of power to regulate, 6. relief by way of, against legislation by State, 7. Lands Undeb Watee. See 'Navigable Waters. Lease: railroad, requirement of recording, 120. Legacy : payable to nonresident, tax on, 253. LiBEBTY: protected by Fifth Amendment, 69. License. See Tax. Lien. See Vessel. Light : requirement of, on vessel, 93, 229, 230. LiGHTEKING : regulation of, 47. Limitation of Liabiuty of Owner of Vessel: provision as to, 89. admiralty and maritime jurisdiction as basis of legislation as to, 89, 90. application of provision as to, to injury on land, 89. LiQUOHS. See Intoxicating Liquors. Live Stock: transportation of, 42, 46, 47, 53. regulation by Congress of transportation of, 72, 196. provision by Congress for inspection of, 78, 79. provision by Congress as to treatment of, 80. regulation by State of transportation of, 194, 195. Loan: by foreign corporation, 12. LoTTEBT Ticket: transportation of, 13, 20, 72. prohibition of sale of bonds in nature of, 122. as article of commerce, 192. Lumber : toll for use of river in floating, 145. Mails: injunction against obstruction of carriage of, 7. Manttfactubb : contract to, 46. not within subject of regulation, 48, 50. Mercantile Agency: business of, whether subject to commerce clause, 22. Digitized by Microsoft® 292 Index. [The references are to pages.] Monopoly. See Anti-trust Act; Federal Anti-trust Act. prohibition by Congress of transportation under conditions of, 76, 77. Mortgage : duty to enter satisfaction of, 130. Municipal Authobities: selection by, of foreign product, 122. MtTNiciPAL Oedinance. See Ordinance. Navigaeiijtt : test of, 25. Navigable Wateks: within limits of State, transportation along, 23. within public lands, 23. statutes applicable to, 23. of the United States, what including, 24, 25, 26. land under, compensation for taking, 104, 105. regulation of deposit of refuse in, 120. lands under, discrimination as to use of, 166. construction of railroad in, 187. distinction between authority of State and of individual to erect structure in, 187. grant of use of, for private purpose, 188. Navigation : application of commerce clause to, 22, 23, 24. invalidity of grant by State of exclusive right of, 24. on high seas between porta of same State, 57. power of Congress as to, as baaed on admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, 88. power of Congress to prevent obstructions to, 97. as based on admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, 97. legislation by Congress to prevent obstructions to, 98, 99, 100, 101, 184, 185. authorization by Congress of placing of obstructions to, 101, 102. improvements in, 103. compensation for property taken in exercise of power to improve, 103, 104. 105, 106. exercise by Congress of power as to, as exclusive of exercise of power by State, 109, 183, 184. restrictions on, imposed by State, 144, 145. authorization by State of improvements in, 181, 182, 183. compensation for damages caused by improvement of, 183. duty of State to remove obstructions to, 183. relief against obstruction to, on application of State, 183. injunction on application of Federal government to protect im- provements in, 184. imposition of charge for use of improvements in, 1S5, 186. removal by State of obstruction to, notwithstanding legislation by Congress, 185. Digitized by Microsoft® Index. 293 [The references are to pages.] Negugence. See Carrier; Employees. of carrier, application of common-law rules to, 118, 119. contract for exemption from liability for, 118, 119. Nonresident : imposition of restriction on transportation by, 126. Northwest Tebbitoet : ordinance of 1787 for governing, 180, 181, 184, 188. Obscene Litebatuee: regulation by Congress of transportation of, 72. Oleomaegaeine : application of original package doctrine to, 30, 32, 36. regulation of sale and manufacture of, 48, 198, 199, 200, 201. provision by Congress for inspection of, 79. as article of commerce, 191, 198. legislation by Congress as to, 199. Opium : legislation by Congress as to, 73. Oedinance : imposing license tax, 149. restrictions imposed by, 153, 157. of 1787 for governing Northwest Territory, 180, 181, 184, 188. Obiginal Package: tax on premiums for insurance on imports in, 15. doctrine, 27, 28, 29. doctrine, application of, to intoxicating liquors, 29, 30, 31. to goods sold before arrival in State, 29. to goods intended for personal use, 29, 33. to oleomargarine, 30, 32, 36. to other property than liquors, 31. under Anti-trust Act, 31. to cigarettes, 32, 36, 39. breaking of, 32, 33. sale in, 33, 34. burden of proof that sale was in, 33. what constitutes, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40. tax on sale in, 34. doctrine, necessity of good faith and usual method for purpose of application of, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40. tax on franchise or business of corporation selling in, 147. property remaining in, restrictions upon sale of, 161, 162, 163. transportation of game in, 213. tax on property imported in, 253, 254, 255. proceeds of sale of property imported in, 254. property imported in, from foreign country, 255, 256: Otsteks. See Game. regulations as to, 50, 51. Pabloe Cab. See Sleeping Car, Digitized by Microsoft® 294 Index. [The references are to pages.] Patent Rights : requirement that seller of, file documents, 120. PaSsengebs. See Persons. requirement of separate accommodations for white and colored, 42, 231. equal rights and privileges for, 231. provision as to exclusion of, from car, 232. Pedlees : restrictions upon, 161. Persons. See Immigration; Passengers. transportation of, 20. termination of transportation of, 29. restrictions upon transportation of, 142. regulation by State of transportation of, 192, 193. provision for inspection as applicable to, 205. Personal Seevices: contracts for, 15, 16. Pebsonal Use: transportation for, 19, 20. application of original package doctrine to goods intended for, 29, 33. transportation of liquors for, 219. Pilotage : power of States to establish regulations as to, 244, 245, 246, 247. application of Revised Statutes, §§ 4235. 4236, 4237, 4401, 4444, to, 245. Police Poweb: of State, application of term, 124, 125. confused conception of nature and scope of, 234. Pollution : of waters, power to prevent, 98. Pool Selling: imposition of criminal liability for, 120. Poet Chabges, 275. Ports : of State, prohibition of preference to, 70. application of, to pilotage, 245. Post-offices and Post-boads: authority of Congress under provision as to, 95, 96. Peocess : service of, on person traveling through State, 143. PEoniBiT: transportation, power to, 70, 71, 79. Peopeett : what included in, as subject of commerce, 20. Peopoetionate Valuation. See Tax. Peotective Tabiff. See Tariff. Digitized by Microsoft® Index. 295 [Tlie references are to pages.] Public Convenience: promotion of, 125. Public Employment: restrictions on one engaged in, 151, 152. QUABANTINE : regulation of, by State, as affected by Congressional legislation, 73. regulation, whether among police powers, 124. provision for, by State, 207, 208. definition of, 208. permission by Congress of regulation of, by S.tate, 20a. law, application to, of prohibition of duties on tonnage, 276. Quo Wabbanto: proceedings for discrimination, 118, 128. Railboad. See Carrier; Passengers ; Rates of Transportation. refusal of injunction against construction of, 7. application of commerce clause to transportation by, 20. cars, empty, when within scope of commerce clause, 26. requirement as to heating, 229. requirement as to furnishing, 232. prohibition against overloading, 239. rates for transportation by, wholly within State, regulation of, 43. corporation, license tax on, for having office in State, 44. requirement of furnishing of statement of affairs of, 225. requirement as to facilities to be furnished by, at points of intersection, &c, 233. drawing cars of another, liability of, 233 tax on receipts of, 150, 151, 267 running of cabs and carriages as incident to transportation by, 46. provision by Congress for construction and maintenance of, 95. lease, requirement of recording, 120. restrictions upon transportation by, 141. within State, 148. construction of, in navigable waters, 187. train, regulation of speed of, 225. requirement of announcement as to, being on time, 229. requirement as to stopping, 234, 235, 236. crossing, requirement of blowing whistle before reaching, 227. requirement of lighting, 227. maintaining of lights at intersection of, with street, 227. terminal facilities, requirement as to, 228. requirement as to qualifications of those employed on, 228, 229. ticket, provision as to, 232. provision as to redeeming, 234. restricting privilege of sale of, 234. depot, requirement as to keeping open, 234. rolling stock, situs of, 250. property tax on, by method of proportionate valuation, 261. commission, tax to meet expenses of, 276. Digitized by Microsoft® 296 Index. [The references are to pages.] Rates of Teanspobtation : ■wholly within State, regulation of, 43. necessity that reasonableness or unreasonableness of, be determined without reference to receipts for transportation within scope of commerce clause, 44. between points, both within, but over route partly outside of State, regulation of, 57. regulation of, by Congress, 86. application of common-law rule of reasonableness to, 117. unreasonable, denial of relief against, in view of remedy in Inter- state Commerce Act, 118. chargeable by corporation, regulation of, 129. within scope of commerce clause, beyond power of State to regu- late, 135, 136. fixing local, with reference to interstate, 137. making local, basis of interstate, 137. on ferry, regulation of, 137. by railroad, regulation of, 150. discrimination aa to, 164. Receipts. See Tax. Reqtilate : definition of, 65. Resident : imposition of restriction on transportation by, 120. RoixiNG Stock: situs of, 250. Sabbath : prohibition of transportation on, 226. Saeett Appliance Act: when inapplicable to railroad operated wholly within State, 54. provisions and application of, 81, 82. Sale: See Fraud or Deception. commerce as including, 8, 17, 18. wholly within State, not within subject of regulation, 48, 50. power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, as including power to regulate, 62. invalidity of restriction imposed by State, in absence of element of, 139. within State, imposition of tax as to, 146, 147, 148. involving transportation within scope of commerce clause, restric- tions upon, 153, 154, 157, 158. tax as condition of entering into contract of, 153. restrictions upon, of article, property in which docs not pass to buyer until delivery, 154. transported to agent of seller, 155, 156. C. O. v., 155. not within scope of commerce clause, restrictions upon, 156. Digitized by Microsoft® Index. 297 [The references are to pages.] Sale — ( Continued. ) not involving transportation within scope of conunerce clause, restrictions upon, 159, 160. of property remaining in original package, restrictions upon, 161, 162, 163. of liquor to be transported into State, 220. ScHooi Text Books : provision for uniform system of, 122. Seauen: provisions as to, 84. imposition of liability for enticing to desert, 121. Services. See Personal Services. Side Track: use of, as incident to transportation within scope of commerce clause, 45. Slavery: application of commerce clause to conditions of, 20, 143. Sleeping Cab: restrictions upon transportation by, 141. within State, 148. tax on, by method of proportionate valuation, 262. tax on receipts from transportation by, 268. ^ Smoke Stack: regulations as to, 226. SotTTH Carolina: dispensary law, 214, 222. Speed: regulation of, 225. Spur Track: use of, as incident to transportation within scope of commerce clause, 45. State: power of, to regulate, as determined by route or terminal points being within or outside territorial limits, 41. regulation by, of transportation wholly within limits of, 41, 42, 43. as including Territory, or District of Columbia, 58, 59. legislation by, as to Indians, 63, 64. application of criminal laws of, to Indians, 64. power as to vessel owned by, 68. exercise of power by Congress, as exclusive of exercise of power by, 109. exclusion of exercise of power of, in absence of exercise of power by Congress, 110. power of, as to matters of local interest, 115, 116. court of, application of common-law rules in, 117. powers reserved to, unaffected by grant of powers to Congress, 119, 120, 122. Digitized by Microsoft® 298 Index. [The references are to pages.] State — ( Continued. ) powers of, to be exercised by legislature rather than courts, 122. classes of powers reserved to, 123. invalidity of restrictions imposed under authority of, 139, 140. imposition of restrictions under authority of, as to transactions not within scope of commerce clause, though upon one engaged in transportation within scope thereof, 146. establishment and maintenance by, of means of communication, 170, 171. of means of transportation wholly within State, 172. waters constituting boundary between, and another, 183. power of, to regulate production, sale, or use of property, 188, 189. transportation of article possessing deleterious quality, 194. transportation of property subject of common ownership, 210, 211. regulation by, of conduct and liability of those engaged in trans- portation, 224, 225. for whose benefit, 224, 227, 228, 230, 231. Statute : declaratory, effect of, 117. containing invalid provision, and separable and valid provision, 139, 146. in prohibition of sales of liquor, failure of, to except interstate sales, 140. containing inseparable invalid provision, 231. Steameb: regulation by Congress of conduct and liability of carrier by, 81. regulation of speed of, 225. license tax for exhibition on, 227. requirement of light on, 230. Stock. See Corporation. Street : charge for use of, 272. Sunday. See Sabbath. Switching : as incident to transportation within scope of commerce clause, 45, 46. Tariff: legislation as to, 61. Tax. See Exports; Imports. on bill of lading, 12, 61. on instrument evidencing debt due resident from nonresident, 12. on premiums for insurance on imports, 15. on sales of liquors in original package, 30. license, as applied to goods in original package, 31. as condition of residing on watercraft, 120. as condition of owning and running tow-boat, 145. Digitized by Microsoft® Index. ' 299 [The references are to pages.] Tax — ( Continued. ) on foreign railroad corporation for having office in State, 44, 131. as to business within State, 149. imposed as condition of transacting business, distinction between and tax on property, 31, 140, 248, 256, 259, 260, 264. on sale in original package, 34. under authority of State, 45. on receipts from transportation between points both within, but over route partly outside of State, 57. power of legislature of Territory to, 59. requirement of deduction of, on payment of interest on bonds, 130. invalid restriction by way of, 140, 142. as to sale within State, 146, 147, 148. on franchise or business of corporation, 147. determination of amount of, with reference to transportation within scope of commerce clause, 149. measured by reference to gross receipts, 149, 151. on gross receipts, 150, 151. as condition of entering into contract of sale, 153, 156. on seller as in effect on article sold, 153. as to sale not involving transportation within scope of commerce clause, 159. on corporations, discrimination in, 166. power to, as depending on presence of property in jurisdiction, 248, 249. exemption from, of property in transit or temporarily in juris- diction, 250, 251, 252. on property imported in original package, 253, 254, 255. on proceeds of sale of property imported in original package, 254. on property imported in original package from foreign country, 255, 256. on vessels, 257, 258. on property employed in transportation within scope of commerce clause, 258, 259. by method of proportionate valuation, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 271. on earnings or receipts, 264, 2i65, 26'6, 267, 268. on intangible property, 268, 269, 270, 271. on capital stock, 269, 270. on franchise, 270. Telegraph : communication by, application of commerce clause to, 21. between points both within, but over route partly outside of State, 58. provision by Congress for construction and maintenance of line of, 95. transmission of money by, 120. Digitized by Microsoft® 300 Index. [The references are to pages.] Telegraph — ( Continued. ) company, requirement of maintaining ofiBce in State, 131. restrictions upon transmission of intelligence by, 141. within State, 149. poles, charge for space occupied by, 272. poles and wires, requirement of removal of, from street, 226. charge for use of streets for erecting and stringing, 272. message, regulation of liability for failure of duty to transmii and deliver, 242, 243, 244. business, tax on, 260. property, tax on by method of proportionate valuation, 261. messages, tax for, 266, 26'8. property, provision for local inspection of, 276. Telephone : communication by, application of commerce clause to, 21. regulation of rates for messages by, 44. provision by Congress for construction and maintenance of line of, 96. restrictions upon transmission of intelligence by, within State, 149. poles and wires, requirement of removal of, from street, 226. Tebeitoby : State as including, 58, 59. power of legislature of, to tax, 59. prohibition by Congress of importation of liquors into, 59. prohibition of sale of liquor to Indians under law of, 63. regulation of pilotage by, 245. TiMBEB: regulation of transportation of, along streams, 227. Tobacco. See Cigarettes. as article of commerce, 19'2. Tonnage : prohibition of duties on, 274, 275, 276. Tow-boats. See Vessels. Towing : regulation of, 47. Trade: distinction between, and " commerce," in Federal Anti-trust Act, 17. Tbade-mabks : legislation by Congress as to, 77. Traffic: commerce as including, 9, 17. definition of, 17. Transportation. See Rates of Trantportation. commerce as including, 9, 19. new means of, 10. as incident of sale, 19. Digitized by Microsoft® Index. 301 [The references are to pagea.] Transportation — ( Continued. ) in absence of sale, 19. for personal use, 19, 20. of property, 20. of persons, 20. what means of. Included, 20. by water, 22. by water and by land, whether distinction between, 23. along navigable waters within limits of State, 23, 24. commencement of, 26. termination of, 27. of persons, termination of, 29. wholly within limits of State, 41, 42, 43. character of, whether changed to domestic, by stoppage en route, 42. within scope of commerce clause, as including transactions within State, 44, 45. by different and independent agencies, 52, 55. distinction between, by land and by water, as to transportation by different and independent agencies, 56. bet"«een points both within, but over route partly outside of State, 57. into, and out of State, 126. Tbusts. See Anti-trust Act; Federal Anti-trust Act. Tugs: regulation of, 48, 226. TUBNPIKE : regulation of rates for transportation by, 43. UsuBY Laws, 122. Venue : provision as to, 121. VESSEt. See Limitation of Liability of Owner of Vessel. condemnation of, 23. enrolled and licensed under authority of Congress, restrictions upon navigation by, 24, 145. bridge as impeding navigation by, 178. engaged in lightering or towing, 47. owned by State, power as to, 68, 93. regulation of, 90. admiralty and iraritime jiirisdiction, aa basis of legislation as to, 91. recording of conveyances, &c of, 91. engaged in transportation between points in same State, regula- tion of, 91, 92, 93, 94. effect of enrollment of, 91. inspection of, 91, 93, 94. requirement as to carrying of lights by, 93. Digitized by Microsoft® 302 Index. [The references are to pages.] Vessel — ( Continued. ) requirement of license for, 94, 145. enforcing lien against, 121, 146. regulation as to loading and unloading, 227. limitation of time of, lying in thoroughfare, 229. requirement of light on, 229, 230. requirement as to anchorage by, 230. tax on, 257, 258. charge for use of wharf by, 272, 273, 274, 275. Waeehoitse : conducting, 46. regulation of operation of, 48. Water: See Navigable Waters; Pollution. regulation by State of transportation of, 211. Whaef : construction of, by riparian owner, 101. determination of line for, 183. authorization of, by State, 187. charge for use of, 272, 273, 274, 275. power of Congress to make provision as to, 276. WrLSON Act: See Intoxicating Liquors. provisions of, 217. effect of, as delegation of power of Congress, 218. applicability of, upon arrival in State, 218, 219, 220. application of, to existing State statute, 218. to original packages in State at time of enactment, 218. necessity of delivery to consignee for application of, 219, 220. application of, to sale on vessel, 219. re-enactment of State statute after taking effect of, 219. application of, to transportation for personal use, 219. to contract for sale of liquor to be transported into State, 220, 221. to shipment without previous order from consignee, 221. to statute enacted in exercise of police power, 222, 223. Whole !Nxjmbee of Pages 394. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft®