ishing the giving and accepting of bribes, cover every action within
the range of official duty. United States v. Birdsall, 223.

2. Same.

It is not necessary in order to constitute an act of an officer of the
United States official action that it be prescribed by statute; it is
sufficient if it is governed by a lawful requirement, whether written
or established by custom, of the Department under whose author-
ity the officer is acting. Ib.

3. Official action on part of Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
The action of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in advising the

President of the United States whether or not clemency should be
granted to one convicted of violating liquor laws in the Indian
country is official action, and it is within the competency of the
office to establish regulations requiring from all persons connected
with the office true and disinterested reports to the Commissioner
on which to base such advice. Ib.

4. Same.

The powers of the Indian Office to aid in suppressing the liquor traffic
in Indian country extend to every matter to which such aid is
appropriate; and the giving of recommendations to a Federal judge.
or attorney as to sentences of those convicted of violating the liquor
laws is an official duty within the meaning of §§ 39 and 117, Crim-
inal Code, and the giving of gifts to, and acceptance thereof by,
officers in that department to influence their reports and recom-
mendations constitute bribery under, and are punishable by, such
sections. Ib.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Buck v. Beach, 206 U. S. 392, distinguished in Wheeler v. Sohmer, 434.
Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622, distinguished in Browning v.
Waycross, 16.

Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307, distinguished

in Diamond Coal & Coke Co. v. United States, 236.

Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U. S. 124, distinguished in Browning v. Way-
cross, 16.

Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, distinguished in Illinois
Central R. R. Co. v. Behrens, 473.

Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, distinguished in Mis-
souri, K. & T. Ry. v. Cade, 642.

Hazelton v. Sheckells, 202 U. S. 71, distinguished in Valdes v. Larrinaga,
705.

Knepper v. Sands, 194 U. S. 476, distinguished in Logan v. Davis, 613.
Pennsylvania v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477, distinguished in Boston & Maine
R. R. v. Hooker, 97.

Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S. 507, distinguished in Browning v.
Waycross, 16.

St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U. S. 354, distinguished in
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 325.

CASES FOLLOWED.

Adams v. Woods, 2 Cranch, 336, followed in Gompers v. United States,
604.

Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173, followed in
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 182.

Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Sowers, 213 U. S. 55, followed in Ten-
nessee Coal, I. & R. R. Co. v. George, 354.

Atlantic Phosphate Co. v. Grafflin, 114 U. S. 492, followed in American
Iron & Steel Mfg. Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, 261.
Bank of United States v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 64, followed in Denver
& Rio Grande R. R. Co. v. Arizona & Colorado R. R. Co., 601.
Barnes v. Alexander, 232 U. S. 117, followed in Valdes v. Larrinaga, 705.
Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mobile, 186 U. S. 212, followed in De
Bearn v. Safe Deposit Co., 24.

Butler v. Boston Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, followed in White v.
Island Transportation Co., 346; The Titanic, 718.

Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, followed in Hammond
Packing Co. v. Montana, 331.

Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, followed in McDonald v. Oregon
R. R. & Nav. Co., 665.

Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Polt, 232 U. S. 165, followed in Kansas

City Southern Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 325.

Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389, followed in Singer Sewing Machine

Co. v. Brickell, 304.

Dahl v. Raunheim, 132 U. S. 260, followed in El Paso Brick Co. v.
McKnight, 250.

Dimmick v. Tompkins, 194 U. S. 194, followed in De Bearn v. Safe De-
posit Co., 24.

Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U. S. 616, followed in Carlesi v. New York,
51.

Great Northern Ry. v. O'Connor, 232 U. S. 508, followed in Atchison,
T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 173.

Gritts v. Fisher, 224 U. S. 640, followed in Franklin v. Lynch, 269.
Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413, followed in Bowling and Miami

Investment Co. v. United States, 528.

Herencia v. Guzman, 219 U. S. 44, followed in Southern Ry. Co. v.
Bennett, 80.

Holt v. Henley, 232 U. S. 637, followed in Detroit Steel Co. v. Sistersville
Brewing Co., 712.

Itow v. United States, 233 U. S. 581, followed in Apapas v. United States,

587.

Lapina v. Williams, 232 U. S. 78, followed in Lewis v. Frick, 291.
Lawton v.
Steele, 152 U. S. 133, followed in Smith v. Texas, 630.
McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U. S. 311, followed in Carlesi v. New
York, 51.

McLaine v. Rankin, 197 U. S. 154, followed in O'Sullivan v. Felix, 318.
McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 539, followed in Erie Railroad Co. v.
Williams, 685.

Minis v. United States, 15 Pet. 423, followed in United States v. Vulte,

509.

Nadal v. May, 233 U. S. 447, followed in Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co.

v. Arizona & Colorado R. R. Co., 601.

Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Washington, 222 U. S. 370, followed in
Erie Railroad Co. v. New York, 671.

Ortega v. Lara, 202 U. S. 339, followed in Nadal v. May, 447.

Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union National Bank, 207 U. S. 251, followed in
German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 389.

Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 229 U. S. 146, followed in
Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Behrens, 473.

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, followed in Herbert v. Bicknell, 70.
Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, followed in Hammond Packing
Co. v. Montana, 331.

Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U. S. 210, followed in San Joaquin
&c. Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Stanislaus County, 454.

Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U. S. 59, followed in Hammond Packing
Co. v. Montana, 331.

Santa Fe Central Ry. v. Friday, 232 U. S. 694, followed in Nadal v. May,
447.

Seaboard Air Line v. Duvall, 225 U. S. 477, followed in Grand Trunk
Ry. Co. v. Lindsay, 42.

Seaboard Air Line v. Seegers, 207 U. S. 73, followed in Kansas City
Southern Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 325.

Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, followed in Seaboard
Air Line v. Horton, 492.

Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, followed in Smith v. Texas, 630.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601, followed in Cornell
Steamboat Co. y. Phænix Construction Co., 593.

Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, followed in Kansas City
Southern Ry. Co. v. Kaw Valley District, 75.

The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, followed in The Titanic, 718.

Tiger v.

Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, followed in Bowling and
Miami Investment Co. v. United States, 528.

United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, followed in

German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 389.

United States v. Langston, 118 U. S. 389, followed in United States v.
Vulte, 509.

United States v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 184 U. S. 49, followed in
Logan v. Davis, 613.

United States v. Winona & St. Peter R. R. Co., 165 U. S. 463, followed
in Logan v. Davis, 613.

Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272, followed in Lewis v.

CERTIFICATE.

See JURISDICTION, A 2.

CERTIORARI.

Frick, 291.

Denial of one of two petitions for, to review same judgment.

Where two parties petition for writs of certiorari to review the same
judgment, but the entire matter can be disposed of on one petition,
the other will be denied. Gompers v. United States, 604.
See JURISDICTION, A 2, 29.

CHARTERS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 10, 18;

CORPORATIONS;

COURTS.

CHATTELS.

See CONDITIONAL SALE;

TITLE.

COMMON CARRIERS.

Power of State to regulate use of equipment.

Whether the common law or statutory provisions apply to a case is for
the state court to determine, and so held, that in Iowa the State
Railroad Commission has power under the state law to require
common carriers to use the equipment of connecting carriers to
transport shipments from the points of original destination to
other points within the State. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v.
Iowa, 334.

See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 2;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11, 12;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE;
RAILROADS.

COMMON LAW.

See CONDITIONAL SALE, 1.

CONDITIONAL SALE.

1. Validity at common law.

The common law knows no objection to what is commonly called a
conditional sale. Detroit Steel Cooperage Co. v. Sistersville Brewing
Co., 712.