CHEROKEE INDIANS.
See INDIANS, 6;
STATUTES, A 2.
CHILDREN.
See JURISDICTION, A 4.
CITIZENSHIP.
See INDIANS, 3, 6;
JURISDICTION;
STATUTES, A 2.
CIVIL SERVICE.
See FEDERAL QUESTION, 4.
CLASSIFICATION FOR TAXATION.
See TAXES AND TAXATION, 1.
COMBINATIONS.
See ACTIONS, 3;
TORTS, 1.
COMMERCE.
1. Interstate; when goods cease to be.
In the absence of Congressional legislation goods moving in interstate com-
merce cease to be such commerce only after delivery and sale in the
original package. Heyman v. Southern Railway Co., 270.
2. Word "arrival" in Wilson Act defined.
The word "arrival" as used in the Wilson law means delivery of the goods
to the consignee, and not merely reaching their destination, and ex-
pressions to that effect in Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, are not obiter.
Ib.
3. Attachment of power of State over intoxicating liquors under the Wilson Act.
The power of the State over intoxicating liquors from other States in original
packages after delivery and before sale given by the Wilson law does
not attach before notice and expiration of a reasonable time for the
consignee to receive the goods from the carrier; and this rule is not
affected by the fact that under the state law the carrier's liability as
such may have ceased and become that of a warehouseman. Ib.
4. Interst te; interference by municipal ordinance requiring license fee.
Where orders are given for goods sold in a State by an agent of a person
employed to solicit them in another State, and the purchaser is not
bound to pay for the goods until delivery and unless according to
sample, the goods sent specifically to the customer in fulfillment of
such orders are, until actually delivered, within the protection of the
commerce clause of the Constitution, and a municipal ordinance re-
quiring a license fee for the solicitation of orders for delivering goods
not of the parties' own manufacture is void as an interference with
VOL. CCH-39
interstate commerce against such an agent. Rearick v. Pennsylvania,
507.
5. Validity of state or territorial inspection law affecting interstate commerce.
A State or Territory has the right to legislate for the safety and welfare
of its people, which is not taken from it because of the exclusive right
of Congress to regulate interstate commerce; and an inspection law
affecting interstate commerce is not for that reason invalid unless it
is in conflict with an act of Congress or an attempt to regulate inter-
state commerce. (Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of
Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345); McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R., 38.
6. Right of state railroad commission to order stoppage of interstate trains.
While a state railroad commission may, in the absence of congressional
legislation, order a railroad company to stop interstate trains at stations
where there is only an incidental interference with interstate com-
merce, based on a legal exercise of the police power of the State exerted
to secure proper facilities for the citizens of the State, where the rail-
road company has-as in this case-furnished all proper and reason-
able facilities, such an order is an improper and illegal interference
with interstate commerce and void as a violation of the commerce
clause of the Constitution. Mississippi R. R. Comm. v. Illinois Central
R. R., 335.
7. Intrastate; Federal interference with.
As Order of the Secretary of Agriculture, No. 107, purporting to fix a quar-
antine line under the Cattle Contagious Disease act applies in terms to
all shipments whether interstate or intrastate it is void as an attempt
to regulate intrastate commerce, notwithstanding it is the same line
as that fixed for a similar purpose as to intrastate shipments by the
State through which it passes. Illinois Central Railroad v. McKen-
dree, 514.
8. Intrastate; Federal interference with.
Without deciding whether the Cattle Contagious Disease act of February 2,
1903, 33 Stat. 1264, is or is not unconstitutional as delegating power
solely vested in Congress to the Secretary of Agriculture, that act confers
no power on such secretary to make any regulations concerning intra-
state commerce over which Congress has no control. Ib.
9. Intrastate; invalidity of order of Secretary of Agriculture affecting.
While in a proper case Federal authorities may adopt a quarantine line
adopted by a State, where the secretary makes regulations adopting
it as applying to all commerce whether interstate or intrastate, and
nothing on the face of the order indicates whether he would have made
such an order if limited to interstate commerce, the order is not divisible
and this court cannot declare that it relates solely to interstate com-
merce but must declare it void as an entirety. Ib.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 6, 7, 8.
COMMISSIONS, RAILROAD.
See COMMERCE, 6;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6, 7, 8, 26;
COURTS, 5.
COMPULSORY SERVICE.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 22.
CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 20;
FEDERAL QUESTION, 2.
CONGRESS, POWERS OF.
To authorize recovery for acts done within State.
Where Congress has power to make acts illegal it can authorize a recovery
for damage caused by those acts although suffered wholly within the
boundaries of one State. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v.
Atlanta, 390.
See COMMERCE, 1, 5, 8, 9;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11, 23;
CONSPIRACY.
See JURISDICTION, D 2.
1. Commerce-Burdens on interstate commerce-Hide inspection law of New
Mexico.
The law of March 19, 1901, of the Territory of New Mexico, making it
an offense for any railroad company to receive, for shipment beyond
the limits of the Territory hides, which had not been inspected as
required by the law, is not unconstitutional as an unwarranted regu-
lation of, or burden on, interstate commerce. McLean v. Denver &
Rio Grande R. R., 38.
See COMMERCE, 4, 6;
Supra, 11.
2. Due process of law; property rights of corporation entitled to protection of.
The property of which a corporation cannot be deprived without due
process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the
mere right of a foreign corporation to extend its business and member-
ship in a State which otherwise may exclude it from its boundaries.
National Council v. State Council, 151.
3. Due process and equal protection of laws not denied by state law relative to
service of process on foreign corporations.
A State has power to regulate its own creations and a fortiori foreign corpora-
tions permitted to transact business within its borders. The act of West
Virginia, putting all non-resident domestic corporations having their
places of business and works outside the State, and all foreign corpora-
tions coming into the State, on the same footing in respect to service
of process, and making the state auditor their attorney in fact to accept
process, is a reasonable classification and not unconstitutional as deny-
ing equal protection of the laws, because that provision does not apply
to all corporations; nor does it deprive such corporations, without due
process of law, of their liberty of contract; nor does the requirement
that they pay such auditor an annual fee of ten dollars for services as
such attorney amount to a taking of property without due process of
law. St. Mary's Petroleum Co. v. West Virginia, 183.
4. Due process and equal protection of laws-Effect of state law restricting
defenses by insurance companies.
The provisions of §§ 7890, 7891, Revised Statutes of Missouri, which as
construed by the highest court of that State cut off any defense by a
life insurance company based upon false and fraudulent statements
in the application, unless the matter represented actually contributed
to the death of the insured, and which apply alike to domestic and
foreign corporations, is not repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment,
and does not deprive a foreign corporation coming into the State of
its liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to it the
equal protection of the laws. Northwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 243.
5. Due process of law; deprivation of liberty; application.
The liberty referred to in the Fourteenth Amendment is the liberty of
natural, not artificial, persons. Ib.
6. Due process of law; deprivation of property; railroad rates.
Where the state law provides that rates established by the railroad com-
mission are to be taken in all courts as prima facie just and reasonable,
and there is nothing in the record from which a reasonable deduction
can be made as to the cost of transportation, or the amount trans-
ported of the single article in regard to which an intrastate rate has
been established and complained of, or how that rate will affect the
income of the railroad company, this court will not disturb the finding
of the highest court of the State that the rate was reasonable, and hold
that it amounted to a deprivation of the company's property without
due process of law. Atlantic Coast Line v. Florida, 256.
7. Due process of law; deprivation of property; railroad rates.
Where the record does not disclose why an order of a state railroad com-
mission was made applicable only to certain local and intrastate rates,
but the state law provides that rates so fixed are to be considered in
all courts as prima facie just and reasonable, and the effect of the order
was to equalize rates, this court will not hold the judgment of the
highest court of the State sustaining the rate, was erroneous. A State
may insist upon equality of intrastate railroad rates, the conditions
being the same, without depriving the railroad company of its property
without due process of law. Seaboard Air Line v. Florida, 261.
8. Due process of law; deprivation of property; railroad rates.
It will be presumed that a state railroad commission acts in fixing an in-
trastate railroad rate with full knowledge of the situation, and where
the record does not disclose all the evidence, a rate sustained by the
highest court of the State will not be held by this court to be con-
fiscatory and depriving the railroad company of its property without
due process of law where it appears by the report of the company that
the rate exceeds the average rate received by the company during the
previous year. Ib.
9. Due process of law-Validity of law requiring street railways to repair streets
and assessing them therefor.
A general law requiring street railways to keep a certain space between and
outside their tracks paved and repaved and assessing them therefor
amounts, in respect to companies whose charters contain other pro-
visions, to an amendment thereof, and as such a purpose is consistent
with the object of the grant it falls within the reserved power of the
State to alter, amend or repeal the original charter, and if imposed
in good faith and not in sheer oppression the act is not void either as
depriving the company of its property without due process of law
or as impairing the contract obligations of the original grant. So
held as to law of 1899 of Connecticut. Fair Haven & Westville R. R.
Co. v. New Haven, 379.
10. Due process of law-Validity of Louisiana inheritance tax law.
A State may exercise its power to impose an inheritance tax at any time
during which it holds the property from the legatee; and the Louisiana
inheritance tax law is not void as a deprivation of property without
due process of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment
as to legatees of decedents dying prior to its enactment but whose
estates were still undistributed. Cahen v. Brewster, 543.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDUre, 2;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 2.
Supra.
11. Equal protection and due process of law not violated by limitation of right
of recovery against railroad.
The Pennsylvania statute of April 4, 1868, P. L. 58, providing that any
person, not a passenger, employed in and about a railroad but not an
employé, shall in case of injury or loss of life have only the same right
of recovery as though he were an employé, is not void, either because
contrary to the power delegated to Congress to establish post offices and
post roads; or because repugnant to the commerce clause of the Con-
stitution; or in conflict with the due process or equal protection clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment; or because it abridges the privileges
and imn.unities of citizens of the United States. Martin v. Pittsburg
& Lake Erie R. R., 284.
12. Equal protection of laws-Validity of classification by State of users of
railroads Rights of citizens in respect of interstate travel.
Although a citizen of the United States has a right to travel from one State
|