1. Interstate commerce; limitation of powers as to.
The power to regulate interstate commerce, while great and paramount,
cannot be exerted in violation of any fundamental right secured by
other provisions of the National Constitution. Adair v. United States,
161.
2. Interstate commerce; power to prescribe rules to govern. Power to enact § 10
of the act of June 1, 1898.
The power to regulate interstate commerce is the power to prescribe rules
by which such commerce must be governed, but the rules prescribed
must have a real and substantial relation to, or connection with, the
commerce regulated, and as that relation does not exist between the
membership of an employé in a labor organization and the interstate
commerce with which he is connected, the provision above referred
to in § 10 of the act of June 1, 1898, cannot be sustained as a regula-
tion of interstate commerce and as such within the competency of
Congress. Ib.
3. Interstate commerce; interference with relation of master and servant en-
gaged in.
Quære, and not decided, whether it is within the power of Congress to make
it a criminal offense against the United States for either an employer
engaged in interstate commerce, or his employé, to disregard, without
sufficient notice or excuse, the terms of a valid labor contract. Ib.
4. Indians-Control by Congress over allotted lands, the Indian title to which
has been extinguished.
It is within the power of Congress to retain control, for police purposes, for
a reasonable and limited period, over lands, the Indian title to which
is extinguished, and which are allotted in severalty, notwithstanding
that the Indians may be citizens and the land may be within the limits
of a State; and twenty-five years is not an unreasonable period. Dick
v. United States, 340.
5. Indians; power of Congress to regulate commerce with, paramount to au-
thority of State.
While a State, upon its admission to the Union, is on an equal footing with
every other State and, except as restrained by the Constitution, has
full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things within its
limits, Congress has power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes,
and such power is superior and paramount to the authority of the
State within whose limits are Indian tribes. Ib.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 15, 16.
1. Commerce clause; state burdens on interstate commerce-Invalidity of
ch. 258 of acts of Tennessee of 1903.
The exemption from taxation in ch. 258 of the acts of Tennessee of 1903,
of growing crops and manufactured articles from the produce of the
State, in the hands of the manufacturer, is a discrimination against
similar property, the product of the soil of other States, brought into
that State, and is therefore a direct burden upon interstate commerce
and repugnant to the commerce clause of the Constitution of the
United States. Darnell & Son v. Memphis, 113.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 1.
2. Contracts; liberty to contract; state restriction of.
While the general liberty to contract in regard to one's business and the sale
of one's labor is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, that liberty
is subject to proper restrictions under the police power of the State.
Muller v. Oregon, 412.
3. Contract impairment-Charter exemption from taxation not extended to
lessees of corporation exempted.
A charter exemption from taxation of land and buildings to be erected
thereon so long as they belong to the educational institution exempted
does not exempt from taxation the separate interests of parties to
whom the institution leases portions of the property, and who erect
buildings thereon; and a subsequent act of the legislature taxing such
separate leasehold interest does not amount to taxing the property
owned by the institution, and is not unconstitutional under the con-
tract clause of the Constitution of the United States as impairing the
obligation of the exemption provision in the charter. So held as to
the act of Tennessee of 1903. Jetton v. University of the South, 489.
4. Contract impairment clause; municipal legislation within prohibition of.
Municipal legislation passed under supposed legislative authority from the
State is within the prohibition of the Federal Constitution and void
if it impairs the obligation of a contract. Northern Pacific Railway v.
Duluth, 583.
5. Contract impairment clause-Impairment of contract by municipal ordi-
While an ordinance merely denying liability under an existing contract
does not necessarily amount to an impairment of the obligation of
that contract within the meaning of the Federal Constitution, where
the ordinance requires expenditure of money by one relieve! there-
from by a contract, a valid contract claim is impaired and the court
has jurisdiction. Ib.
Double jeopardy. See Infra, 19.
6. Due process of law; limitation of right to; governmental interference with
relations of master and servant. Liberty of contract.
While the rights of liberty and property guaranteed by the Constitution
against deprivation without due process of law, are subject to such
reasonable restrictions as the common good or general welfare may
require, it is not within the functions of government—at least in the
absence of contract-to compel any person in the course of his busi-
ness, and against his will, either to employ, or be employed by, another.
An employer has the same right to prescribe terms on which he will
employ one to labor as an employé has to prescribe those on which he
will sell his labor, and any legislation which disturbs this equality is
an arbitrary and unjustifiable interference with liberty of contract.
Adair v. United States, 161.
7. Due process and equal protection of laws-Refusal of State to permit re-
moval of fund to foreign jurisdiction and thereby impair rights of local
creditors not a deprivation of right to foreign creditor.
The refusal by a State to exercise comity in such manner as would impair
the rights of local creditors by removing a fund to a foreign jurisdic-
tion for administration, does not deprive a foreign creditor of his
property without due process of law or deny to him the equal pro-
tection of the law; and so held as to a judgment of the highest court
of Wisconsin holding the attachment of a citizen of that State superior
to an earlier attachment of a foreign creditor. Disconto Gesellschaft
v. Umbreit, 570.
8. Due process and equal protection of the laws-Validity of Michigan in-
determinate sentence law.
The provision in the indeterminate law of Michigan of 1903, excepting
prisoners twice sentenced before from the privilege of parole, extended
in the discretion of the Executive to prisoners after the expiration of
their minimum sentence, does not deprive convicts of the excepted
class of their liberty without due process of law, or deny to them the
equal protection of the laws. Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 481.
9. Due process of law; right of convict to hearing on application for grant of
favors which is discretionary with executive officer.
The granting of favors by a State to criminals in its prisons is entirely a
matter of policy to be determined by the legislature, which may attach
thereto such conditions as it sees fit, and where it places the granting
of such favors in the discretion of an executive officer it is not bound
to give the convict applying therefor a hearing. Ib.
10. Due process of law-Validity of indeterminate sentence law of Michigan.
The indeterminate sentence law of Michigan of 1903, as construed and
sustained according to its own constitution, by the highest court of
that State, does not violate any provision of the Federal Constitution.
It is of a character similar to the Illinois act, sustained by this court
in Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71. Ib.
See Infra, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18;
CORPORATIONS, 1..
Eminent domain. See Infra, 17.
11. Equal protection and due process of law-Regulation of hours of labor of
As healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-
being of woman is an object of public interest. The regulation of her
hours of labor falls within the police power of the State, and a statute
directed exclusively to such regulation does not conflict with the due
process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Muller v. Oregon, 412.
12. Equal protection and due process of law—Validity of Oregon act of 1903,
regulating work hours of women.
The statute of Oregon of 1903 providing that no female shall work in cer-
tain establishments more than ten hours a day is not unconstitutional
so far as respects laundries. Ib.
13. Equal protection of laws; exemption from taxation.
Quare, and not decided, whether the provision of exemption in ch. 258 of
the acts of Tennessee of 1903, is valid under the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Darnell & Son v. Memphis, 113.
See Supra, 7, 8;
Infra, 15, 21;
TAXES AND TAXATION.
14. Extradition of fugitives from justice—What constitutes fugitive.
One charged with crime and who was in the place where, and at the time
when, the crime was committed, and who thereafter leaves the State,
no matter for what reason, is a fugitive from justice within the mean-
ing of the interstate rendition provisions of the Constitution, and of
§ 5278, Rev. Stat., and this none the less if he leaves the State with
the knowledge and without the objection of its authorities. Bassing
v. Cady, 386.
15. Judiciary; power of Congress in respect of appellate jurisdiction of Su-
preme Court-Constitutionality of act of 1907 permitting United States
to prosecute writs of error in criminal cases.
It is within the power of Congress to determine the regulations and excep-
tions under which this court shali exercise appellate jurisdiction in
cases other than those in which this court has original jurisdiction and
to which the judicial power of the United States extends; and the act
of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, permitting the United States
to prosecute a writ of error directly from this court to the District or
Circuit Courts in criminal cases in which an indictment may be quashed
or demurrer thereto sustained where the decision is based on the
invalidity or construction of the statute on which the indictment is
based, is not unconstitutional because it authorizes the United States
to bring the case directly to this court and does not allow the accused
so to do when a demurrer to the indictment is overruled. United
States v. Bitty, 393.
16. Legislative power under Fifth Amendment-Power of Congress to make
it a criminal act for interstate carriers to discharge employé for member-
ship in labor organization—Validity of § 10 of act of 1898.
It is not within the power of Congress to make it a criminal offense against
the United States for a carrier engaged in interstate commerce, or an
agent or officer thereof, to discharge an employé simply because of his
membership in a labor organization; and the provision to that effect
in § 10 of the act of June 1, 1898, 30 Stat. 424, concerning interstate
carriers is an invasion of personal liberty, as well as of the right of
property, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States, and is therefore unenforceable as repugnant to the
declaration of that amendment that no person shall be deprived of
liberty or property without due process of law. Adair v. United States,
161.
17. Property rights—Eminent domain; what constitutes public use.
The use for which property may be required by a railroad company for in-
creased trackage facilities is none the less a public use because the
motive which dictates its location is to reach a private industry, or
because the proprietors of that industry contribute to the cost; and
so held that a condemnation upheld by the highest court of Virginia
as being in conformity with the law of that State did not deprive the
owner of the property condemned of his property without due process
of law. Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway, 598.
18. Property rights; uncompensated obedience to municipal ordinance passed
in exercise of police power not violative of.
The exercise of the police power in the interest of public health and safety
is to be maintained unhampered by contracts in private interests, and
uncompensated obedience to an ordinance passed in its exercise is
not violative of property rights protected by the Federal Constitu-
tion; held, that an ordinance of a municipality of that State, valid
under the law of that State as construed by its highest court, com-
pelling a railroad to repair a viaduct constructed, after the opening
of the railroad, by the city in pursuance of a contract relieving the
railroad, for a substantial consideration, from making any repairs
thereon for a term of years was not void under the contract, or the
due process, clause of the Constitution. Northern Pacific Railway v.
Duluth, 583.
19. Second jeopardy-Indictment for same offense for which party not formerly
tried.
The mere arraignment and pleading to an indictment does not put the ac-
cused in judicial jeopardy, nor does the second surrender of the same
person by ore State to another amount to putting that person in second
jeopardy because the requisition of the demanding State is based on an
indictment for the same offense for which the accused had been formerly
indicted and surrendered but for which he had never been tried. Bass-
ing v. Cady, 386.
|