RAILROAD RATES.
See JURISDICTION, B.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 2;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM- JURISDICTION, B;
RATIFICATION.
See PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
REAL PROPERTY.
See INDIANS, 1;
PORTO RICO, 1.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2, 6;
CORPORATIONS, 3, 4.
RECLAMATION OF LANDS.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF;
JURISDICTION, A 1;
REGISTERS OF LAND OFFICE.
See PUBLIC OFFICERS, 1.
Petition for rehearing in Love v. Flahive, 205 U. S. 195, denied, 356.
RELEASE.
See CONTRACTS, 1.
REMEDIES.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1.
REPARATION.
See JURISDICTION, B 3.
RES JUDICATA.
See JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 3, 4;
PATENTS.
RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
See JURISDICTION, A 2;
STATES, 2, 3, 4.
RIVERS.
See STATES, 2, 3.
See LOCAL LAW (N. Y.);
PUBLIC LANDS, 4.
SCHEDULES.
See RAILROADS, 3.
SECOND JEOPARDY.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8-13.
SITUS FOR TAXATION.
See TAXES AND TAXATION.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 4.
Effect of making contract, on sovereignty of Government.
Although, in the absence of special laws, the Government, purely as a con-
tractor, may stand like a private person, it does not, by making a con-
tract, waive its sovereignty or give up its power to make laws which
render criminal a breach of the contract. Ellis v. United States, 246.
See CONGRESS, Powers of;
Decisions of state court on local question.
The extent and validity of a pledge are local questions and the decisions of
the state court are binding on this court. Hiscock v. Varick Bank, 28.
1. Relation between States-Interstate law.
In a qualified sense and to a limited extent the separate States are sovereign
and independent, and the relations between them partake something of
the nature of international law. This court in appropriate cases en-
forces the principles of that law, and in addition by its decisions of
controversies between two or more States is constructing what may
not improperly be called a body of interstate law. Kansas v. Colorado,
2. Riparian rights-Enforcement against State of its own local rule.
In a suit brought by a State which recognizes the right of riparian pro-
prietors to the use of flowing waters for purposes of irrigation, subject to
the condition of an equitable apportionment, against a State which
affirms a public right in flowing waters, it is not unreasonable to enforce
against the plaintiff its own local rule. Ib.
3. Riparian rights-Diversion of waters flowing through two States-Effect of
diversion.
While from the testimony it is apparent that the diversion of the waters
of the Arkansas River by Colorado for purposes of irrigation does di-
minish the volume of water flowing into Kansas, yet it does not destroy
the entire flow. The benefit to Colorado in the reclamation of arid lands
has been great, and ought not lightly to be destroyed. Ib.
4. Riparian rights—Reasonableness of apportionment of waters between States.
The detriment to Kansas by the diminution of the flow of the water, while
substantial, is not so great as to make the appropriation of the part
of the water by Colorado an inequitable apportionment between the
two States. Ib.
5. Right of State to relief from diminution of interstate waters by another State.
While a right to present relief is not proved and this suit is dismissed, it is
dismissed without prejudice to the right of Kansas to initiate new pro-
ceedings whenever it shall appear that through a material increase in the
depletion of the waters of the Arkansas River by the defendants, the
substantial interest of Kansas are being injured to the extent of de-
stroying the equitable apportionment of benefits between the two
States. Ib.
6. Right to maintain suit in the Federal Supreme Court to abate a nuisance
originating in another State.
When the States by their union made the forcible abatement of outside
nuisances impossible to each, they did not thereby agree to submit to
whatever might be done. They retained the right to make reasonable
demands on the grounds of their still remaining quasi-sovereign in-
terests, and the alternative to force a suit in this court. Georgia v.
Tennessee Copper Co., 230.
7. Quasi-sovereign capacity; maintenance of suit in, to enjoin corporation of
another State from perpetrating a nuisance.
A suit brought by a State to enjoin a corporation having its works in an-
other State from discharging noxious gases over its territory is not
the same as one between private parties, and although the elements
which would form the basis of relief between private parties are want-
ing, the State can maintain the suit for injury in a capacity as quasi-
sovereign, in which capacity it has an interest independent of and be-
hind its citizens in all the earth and air within its domain; and whether
insisting upon bringing such a suit results in more harm than good to
its citizens, many of whom may profit through the maintenance of the
works causing the nuisance, is for the State itself to determine. Ib.
8. Exclusion of right to regulate water rates.
A State may, in matters of proprietary rights, exclude itself and authorize
its municipal corporations to exclude themselves, from the right of
regulation of such matters as water rates. Vicksburg v. Waterworks Co.,
496.
1. Presumption of legislative intent as to construction of statute enacted in same
words as another.
The reënactment of a statute in the same words carries with it the presump-
tion that the legislature is satisfied with the construction which it has
notoriously received from those whose duty it has been to carry it out;
and this presumption is as strong as one that the enactors of the original
statute which was adopted verbatim from one of another State knew a
single decision of the courts of that State giving a different construction
to the statute. Copper Queen Mining Co. v. Arizona Board, 474.
2. Construction by Supreme Court of Arizona of § 2282, Rev. Stat. of that
State, followed.
The construction by the Supreme Court of Arizona of § 2282, Rev. Stat., of
that State sustained by this court as to the power of the Territorial
Board of Equalization to increase the total valuation of the property
in the Territory above the sum of the returns from the Board of Super-
visors of the several counties, and to change the valuations of particular
classes of property within the several counties. Ib.
STREETS AND SIDEWALKS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 5.
See CUSTOMS DUTIES;
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
1. Effect of attempt of owner to escape taxation in one State on right of another
to tax note therein.
An attempt to escape proper taxation in one State on the debt represented
by a note does not confer jurisdiction on another State, not the residence
or domicil of the owner, to tax the note on account of its mere presence
therein. Buck v. Beach, 392.
2. Of mortgage notes; effect of presence in State.
Mortgage notes made and payable in Ohio and secured by mortgages on
property in that State, the owner whereof resides in New York, are not
taxable in Indiana because they are therein for safe keeping. Ib.
3. Unconstitutionality of taxation of notes by State not the residence or domicil
of owner.
The old rule of mobilia sequuntur personam has been modified so that the
owner of personal property may be taxed on its account at its situs
although not his residence, or domicil; but the mere presence of notes
within a State which is not the residence or domicil of the owner does
not bring the debts of which they are the written evidence within the
taxing jurisdiction of that State, and a tax thereon by that State is
illegal and void under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment. Ib.
|