[699] 305 U.S. 434 (1939).
[700] Ibid. 439-440.
[701] 305 U.S. at 455 (1939).
[702] See McCarroll v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., 309 U.S. 176, 188-189 (1940).
[703] Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249 (1946).
[704] 329 U.S. 249.
[705] The Court relied particularly on Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U.S. 307 (1938) in which the multiple taxation test had been used.
[706] Justice Black dissented without opinion. Justice Douglas, speaking also for Justice Murphy, contended that the sale had been local, and that the only interstate agency employed had been the mails, an argument which squares badly with the attitude of the same Justices in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assoc., 322 U.S. 533 (1944).
[707] 330 U.S. 422 (1947), reaffirming Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. v. Tax Comm., 302 U.S. 90 (1937).
[708] 330 U.S. at 433.
[709] Justices Murphy, Douglas, and Rutledge thought the decision correct as to receipts from foreign commerce. Speaking for them, Justice Douglas made an effort to resurrect Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U.S. 217 (1891). Justice Black dissented without opinion.
[710] 334 U.S. 653.
[711] Ibid. 663, citing Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 (1938); and Ratterman v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 127 U.S. 411 (1888).
[712] 335 U.S. 80.
[713] 337 U.S. 662, 666, 677-678, 680.
[715] 247 U.S. 321 (1918).
[716] Ibid. 328-329.
[717] Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1920).
[718] Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 254 U.S. 113 (1920); Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton v. State Tax Commission, 266 U.S. 271 (1924).
[719] Hans Rees' Sons v. North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123, 132, 133 (1931). In this case a North Carolina tax was assessed on the income of a New York corporation, which bought leather, manufactured it in North Carolina, and sold its products at wholesale and retail in New York. The Court observed: "The difficulty of making an exact apportionment is apparent and hence, when the State has adopted a method not intrinsically arbitrary, it will be sustained until proof is offered of an unreasonable and arbitrary application in particular cases." The decisions in the Underwood and Bass cases, supra, "are not authority for the conclusion that where a corporation manufactures in one State and sells in another, the net profits of the entire transaction, as a unitary enterprise, may be attributed, regardless of evidence, to either State."
[720] Atlantic Coast Line v. Daughton, 262 U.S. 413 (1923).
[721] Matson Nav. Co. v. State Board, 297 U.S. 441 (1936). See also Butler Bros. v. McColgan, 315 U.S. 501 (1942), where the tax was sustained under the Fourteenth Amendment.
[722] Memphis Gas Co. v. Beeler, 315 U.S. 649 (1942).
[723] Ibid. 656-657
[724] Spector Motor Service v. O'Connor, 340 U.S. 602 (1951).
[725] 114 U.S. 196 (1885).
[726] Hays v. Pacific Mail S.S. Co., 17 How. 596 (1855).
[727] Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80 (1877); see also Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 (1883).
[728] Ayer & L. Tie Co. v. Kentucky, 202 U.S. 409 (1906). For a résumé of the rules for taxing vessels see Northwest Airlines v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 314-315 (1944), note 2.
[729] Old Dominion S.S. Co. v. Virginia, 198 U.S. 299 (1905): a vessel enrolled in New York at domicile of owner, but operating wholly in Virginia, was held taxable in Virginia.
[730] 336 U.S. 169 (1949).
[731] Northwest Airlines v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292 (1944).
[732] He also invoked New York Central and H.R.R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U.S. 584 (1906), where although 12 to 64 per cent of the rolling stock of the railroad was outside of New York throughout the tax year, New York was nevertheless allowed to tax it all because no part was in any other State throughout the year. The case is atypical, a constitutional sport; cf. Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905).
[733] 322 U.S. at 301-302.
[734] "The apportionment theory is a mongrel one, a cross between desire not to interfere with State taxation and desire at the same time not utterly to crush out interstate commerce. It is a practical, but rather illogical, device to prevent duplication of tax burdens on vehicles in transit. It is established in our decisions and has been found more or less workable with more or less arbitrary formulae of apportionment. Nothing either in theory or in practice commends it for transfer to air commerce."—Ibid. 306.
[735] Ibid. 308.
[736] Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 (1891).
[737] 322 U.S. 309.
[738] 235 U.S. 610 (1915).
[739] Ibid. 622.
[740] Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915).
[741] Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 (1916).
[742] Morf v. Bingaman, 298 U.S. 407 (1936).
[743] Ingels v. Morf, 300 U.S. 290 (1937).
[744] Clark v. Poor, 274 U.S. 554 (1927); Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U.S. 109 (1933).
[745] Interstate Busses Corp. v. Blodgett, 276 U.S. 245 (1928); Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932).
[746] Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Commission, 295 U.S. 285 (1935).
[747] Interstate Transit v. Lindsey, 283 U.S. 183 (1931). Cf. Sprout v. South Bend, 277 U.S. 163 (1928).
[748] See Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. State Rev. Comm., 306 U.S. 72 (1939); also Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583 (1939); Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of R.R. Commrs., 332 U.S. 495, 503-504 (1947). Here was sustained a State statute imposing a flat tax of $10 annually upon each vehicle operated by a motor carrier over the State's highways, and a fee of one half of one per cent of the carrier's gross operating revenue from its operations within the State, with an annual minimum of $15 per vehicle, in consideration of the use of the highways and in addition to all other motor vehicle license fees and taxes. This was held, as applied to a carrier engaged solely in interstate commerce, not to burden such commerce unconstitutionally, although the proceeds went into the State's general fund subject to appropriation for other than highway purposes. (Opinion by Rutledge, J., all concurring.) While a "State may not discriminate against or exclude such interstate traffic generally in the use of its highways, * * * [it is not] required to furnish those facilities to it free of charge or indeed on equal terms with other traffic not inflicting similar destructive effects. * * * Interstate traffic equally with intrastate may be required to pay a fair share of the cost and maintenance reasonably related to the use made of the highways." Ibid., headnote 6.
[749] 339 U.S. 542 (1950).
[750] Ibid. 561.
[751] Justice Roberts for the Court in Great Northern R. Co. v. Washington, 300 U.S. 154, 159-161 (1937).
[752] Charlotte, C. & A.R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U.S. 386 (1892); New York ex rel. New York Electric Lines Co. v. Squire, 145 U.S. 175, 191 (1892).
[753] Atlantic & P. Teleg. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U.S. 160 (1903); Mackay Teleg. & Cable Co. v. Little Rock, 250 U.S. 94, 99 (1919).
[754] Western U. Teleg. Co. v. New Hope, 187 U.S. 419, 425 (1903); Pure Oil Co. v. Minnesota, 248 U.S. 158, 162 (1918).
[755] New Mexico ex rel. McLean v. Denver & R.G.R. Co., 203 U.S. 38, 55 (1906). Cf. Red "C" Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 222 U.S. 380, 393 (1912); Western U. Teleg. Co. v. New Hope, 187 U.S. 419 (1903).
[756] Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78, 83 (1891); Postal Teleg. & Cable Co. v. Taylor, 192 U.S. 64 (1904); Pure Oil Co. v. Minnesota, 248 U.S. 158, 162 (1918).
[757] Atlantic & P. Teleg. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U.S. 160, 164 (1903); Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Taylor, 192 U.S. 64, 69 (1904); Foote & Co. v. Stanley, 232 U.S. 494, 503, 504 (1914).
[758] Foote & Co. v. Stanley, 232 U.S. 494, 505 (1914); Lugo v. Suazo, 59 F. (2d) 386 (1932).
[759] Western U. Teleg. Co. v. New Hope, 187 U.S. 419, 425 (1903); Foote & Co. v. Stanley, 232 U.S. 494, 507 (1914).
[760] Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. New Hope, 192 U.S. 55 (1904); Foote & Co. v. Stanley, 232 U.S. 494, 508 (1914).
[761] 10 Stat. 112. Sustained in Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421 (1856).
[762] Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518 (1852).
[763] Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691, 701 (1883).
[764] 322 U.S. 533 (1944).
[765] 59 Stat. 33 (1945).
[766] 328 U.S. 408 (1946).
[767] Ibid. 429-430, 434-435.
[769] 9 Wheat. 1 (1824).
[770] Ibid. 203.
[771] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).
[772] Ibid. 443-444.
[773] Cf. 12 Wheat. at 439-440.
[774] 11 Pet. 102 (1837).
[775] Smith v. Turner (Passenger Cases), 7 How. 283 (1849).
[776] Henderson v. New York, 92 U.S. 259 (1876).
[777] Ibid. 272.
[778] Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876).
[779] Compagnie Francaise de Navigation v. Bd. of Health, 186 U.S. 380, 398, (1902). See also Morgan's L. & T.R.S.S. Co. v. Bd. of Health, 118 U.S. 455 (1886); Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 21 (1900).
[780] 211 U.S. 31, 36-37 (1908).
[781] As to concessions by the Court to the practical necessities of enforcement, see also Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936); and Whitfield v. Ohio, 297 U.S. 431 (1936).
[782] 325 U.S. 761, 766-767.
[783] Ibid. 767; citing: Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352, 399, 400 (1913); South Carolina Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177, 187 (1938), et seq.; California v. Thompson, 313 U.S. 109, 113, 114 (1941) and cases cited; Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 359, 360 (1943).
[784] 325 U.S. at 767; citing: Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. at 319 (1851); South Carolina Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. at 185; California v. Thompson, 313 U.S. at 113; Duckworth v. Arkansas, 314 U.S. 390, 394 (1941); Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. at 362, 363.
[785] 325 U.S. at 767; citing: South Carolina Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. at 188 and cases cited; Lone Star Gas Co. v. Texas, 304 U.S. 224, 238 (1938); Milk Board v. Eisenberg Co., 306 U.S. 346, 351 (1939); Maurer v. Hamilton, 309 U.S. 598, 603 (1940); California v. Thompson, 313 U.S. 113, 114 and cases cited.
[786] 325 U.S. at 767, 768; citing: Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. at 319 (1851); Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 108, 109 (1890); Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. at 399, 400 (1913); Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 176 (1941).
[787] 325 U.S. at 768; citing: Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 447 (1827); Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. at 399, 400; Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 596 (1923); Baldwin v. Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 522 (1935); South Carolina Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. at 185 (1938).
[788] 325 U.S. at 768; citing: Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275, 282 (1876); Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U.S. 485, 490 (1878); Brown v. Houston, 114 U.S. 622, 631 (1885); Bowman v. Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 125 U.S. 465, 481, 482 (1888); Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. at 109; In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545, 559, 560 (1891); Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U.S. 289, 302 (1894); Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, 212 (1894); Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 479 (1939); Dowling, Interstate Commerce and State Power, 27 Va. Law Rev. 1 (1940).
[789] 325 U.S. at 769; citing: Parker v. Brown. 317 U.S. at 362 (1943); Terminal Railroad Assn. v. Brotherhood, 318 U.S. 1, 8 (1943); see Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34, 44 (1927) (and compare California v. Thompson, 313 U.S. 109 (1941)); Illinois Gas Co. v. Public Service Co., 314 U.S. 498, 504, 505 (1942).
[790] 325 U.S. at 769; citing: Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299 (1851); Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Kaw Valley District, 233 U.S. 75, 79 (1914); South Covington R. Co. v. Covington, 235 U.S. 537, 546 (1915); Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Texas, 245 U.S. 484, 488 (1918); St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n., 254 U.S. 535, 537 (1921): Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1, 10 (1928); Gwin, White & Prince v. Henneford, 305 U.S. 434, 441 (1939); McCarroll v. Dixie Lines, 309 U.S. 176 (1940).
[791] 325 U.S. at 769; citing: In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. at 561, 562 (1891); Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 238 U.S. 190, 198 (1915); Rosenberger v. Pacific Express Co., 241 U.S. 48, 50, 51 (1916); Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland R. Co., 242 U.S. 311, 325, 326 (1917); Whitfield v. Ohio, 297 U.S. 431, 438-440 (1936); Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 299 U.S. 334, 350, 351 (1937); Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 679 (1945).
[792] 325 U.S. at 769, 770; citing: Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211, 230 (1899); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467 (1911); Houston, E. & W.T.R. Co. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); American Express Co. v. Caldwell, 244 U.S. 617, 626 (1917); Illinois Central R. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n., 245 U.S. 493, 506 (1918); New York v. United States, 257 U.S. 591, 601 (1922); Louisiana Public Service Comm'n. v. Texas & N.O.R. Co., 284 U.S. 125, 130 (1931); Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Illinois Brick Co., 297 U.S. 447, 459, (1936).
[793] 325 U.S. at 770; citing: Gwin, White & Prince v. Henneford, 305 U.S. 434, 441 (1939).
[794] 325 U.S. at 770; citing: Terminal Railroad Assn. v. Brotherhood, 318 U.S. 1, 8 (1943); Southern R. Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 524 (1910).
[795] Peik v. Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 94 U.S. 164 (1877).
[796] Wabash, St. L. & P.R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886).
[797] 24 Stat. 379 (1887).
[798] Wisconsin Railroad Com. v. Chicago, B. & Q.R.R. Co., 257 U.S. 563 (1922).
[799] Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 (1897); followed in Lake Shore & M.S.R. Co. v. Ohio ex rel. Lawrence, 173 U.S. 285 (1899), in which an Ohio statute requiring that "each company shall cause three, each way, of its regular trains carrying passengers, * * * Sundays excepted, to stop at a station, city or village, containing three thousand inhabitants, for a time sufficient to receive and let off passengers; * * *" was sustained.
[800] Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 163 U.S. 142, 153 (1896).
[801] Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. Wisconsin R.R. Com., 237 U.S. 220, 226 (1915); St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Public Service Com., 254 U.S. 535, 536-537 (1921).
[802] St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Public Service Com., 261 U.S. 369, 371 (1923).
[803] Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific R.R. v. Jacobson, 179 U.S. 287 (1900).
[804] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Larabee Flour Mills Co., 211 U.S. 612 (1909).
[805] McNeill v. Southern R. Co., 202 U.S. 543 (1906).
[806] St. Louis S.W.R. Co. v. Arkansas, 217 U.S. 136 (1910).
[807] See e.g. The Court's language in Hannibal & St. L.R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465, 470 (1878); New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628, 631 (1897); Lake Shore & M.S.R. Co. v. Ohio ex rel. Lawrence, 173 U.S. 285, 292 (1899); Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299 (1896); Simpson v. Shepard (Minnesota Rate Cases), 230 U.S. 352, 402-410 (1913).
[808] Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888); see also Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Alabama, 128 U.S. 96 (1888); McCall v. California, 136 U.S. 104 (1890); Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Haber, 109 U.S. 613, 633 (1898).
[809] New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628 (1807). See also Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133, 137 (1898).
[810] Erb v. Morasch, 177 U.S. 584 (1900).
[811] Erie R.R. Co. v. Public Utility Commrs., 254 U.S. 394 (1921).
[812] Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. R.R. Comm., 283 U.S. 380 (1931).
[813] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453 (1911).
[814] Ibid, 453, 466. See also St. Louis, I.M. & S. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U.S. 518 (1916); Missouri P.R. Co. v. Norwood, 283 U.S. 249 (1931).
[815] Terminal Railroad Assn. v. Brotherhood, 318 U.S. 1 (1943).
[816] 163 U.S. 299 (1896). In South Covington R. Co. v. Covington, 235 U.S. 537 (1915), the Court sustained a municipal ordinance which prohibits the company from allowing passengers to ride on the rear or front platforms without suitable barriers, and requires that the cars be kept clean and ventilated and fumigated. However, provisions of the ordinance that cars shall never be permitted to fall below a certain temperature and regulating the number of passengers to be carried in the cars were held to be unreasonable and violative of the commerce clause. There was no unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce by a municipal ordinance which directed a railway company to remove its tracks from a busy street intersection. Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Denver, 250 U.S. 241 (1919).
[817] Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133 (1898); Richmond & A.R. Co. v. Patterson Tobacco Co., 169 U.S. 311 (1898).
[818] 325 U.S. 761, 779-780 (1945).
[819] Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Kaw Valley Drainage Dist., 233 U.S. 75, 79 (1914).
[820] 244 U.S. 310 (1917).
[821] Cf. Southern R. Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 524 (1910), where the crossings were fewer and the burden to interstate commerce was shown not to be unduly heavy.
[822] 302 U.S. 1, 15 (1937).
[823] 325 U.S. 761, 771-776.
[824] 328 U.S. 373, 380, 386 (1946).
[825] Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915); Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 (1916).
[826] Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374 (1932). See also Morris v. Duby, 274 U.S. 135 (1927).
[827] South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros. Inc., 303 U.S. 177 (1938).
[828] 289 U.S. 92 (1933).
[829] 309 U.S. 598 (1940).
[830] 306 U.S. 79 (1939).
[831] Eichholz v. Public Service Com. of Missouri, 306 U.S. 268 (1939), citing Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299 (1851).
[832] Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949).
[833] Ibid. 111. For a more extreme application of this idea by a narrowly divided Court, in a quite special situation, see Buck et al. v. California, 342 U.S. 99 (1952).
[834] Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932); Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251 (1932); Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U.S. 169 (1933).
[835] Michigan Pub. Utilities Com. v. Duke, 266 U.S. 570 (1925). See also Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553 (1931); and Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932).
[836] Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925). See also, Bush & Sons Co. v. Maloy, 267 U.S. 317 (1925); Interstate Busses Corp. v. Holyoke Street R. Co., 273 U.S. 45 (1927).
[837] 273 U.S. 34 (1927). See also McCall v. California, 136 U.S. 104 (1890). In the former case, agents soliciting patronage for steamship lines were involved; in the latter, an agent soliciting patronage for a particular railway line.
[838] California v. Thompson, 313 U.S. 109, 115-116 (1941).
[839] 9 Wheat. 1 (1824).
[840] 2 Pet. 245, 252 (1829).
[841] 12 How. 299 (1851).
[842] Foster v. Davenport, 22 How. 244 (1859); Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227 (1859). See also Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U.S. 541 (1881).
[843] Foster v. Master & Wardens of Port of New Orleans, 94 U.S. 246 (1877).
[844] Ibid. 247.
[845] Northern Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 643 (1879); Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U.S. 1 (1888); Illinois v. Economy Power Light Co., 234 U.S. 497 (1914).
[846] Economy Light and Power Co. v. United States, 256 U.S. 113 (1921).
[847] Harman v. Chicago, 147 U.S. 396, 412 (1893).
[848] 302 U.S. 1 (1937).
[849] Ibid. 10.
[850] 333 U.S. 28 (1948).
[851] Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U.S. 485 (1878).
[852] 2 Pet. 245 (1829).
[853] Pound v. Turck, 95 U.S. 459 (1878); Lindsay & Phelps Co. v. Mullen, 176 U.S. 126 (1900).
[854] 3 Wall. 713 (1866).
[855] Ibid. 729. See also, Escanaba & L.M. Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678 (1883); and Cardwell v. American River Bridge Co., 113 U.S. 205 (1885).
[856] 119 U.S. 543 (1886).
[857] Ibid. 548-549.
[858] Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80 (1877); Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U.S. 444 (1887).
[859] Prosser v. Northern P.R. Co., 152 U.S. 59 (1894). See also Sands v. Manistee R. Imp. Co., 123 U.S. 288 (1887); Gring v. Ives, 222 U.S. 365 (1912).
[860] Cases cited in note 7 above; Parkersburg & O. Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 (1883).
[861] Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 215 (1885); Conway v. Taylor, 1 Black 603 (1862); Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U.S. 365 (1883).
[862] Mayor and Board of Aldermen of Vidalia v. McNeely, 274 U.S. 676 (1927). See also Helson v. Kentucky, 279 U.S. 245, 249 (1929).
[863] Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204 (1894).
[864] Port Richmond and Bergen Point Ferry Co. v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 234 U.S. 317 (1914).
[865] New York Central & H.R.R. Co. v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 227 U.S. 248 (1913).
[866] Wilmington Transp. Co. v. R.R. Com., 236 U.S. 151 (1915).
[867] Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U.S. 347 (1887).
[868] Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Foster, 247 U.S. 105 (1918).
[869] Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U.S. 364 (1911).
[870] Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Commercial Milling Co., 218 U.S. 406 (1910).
[871] Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Brown, 234 U.S. 542 (1914).
[872] Essex v. New England Teleg. Co., 239 U.S. 313 (1915).
[873] Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co., 96 U.S. 1 (1878).
[874] Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Richmond, 224 U.S. 160 (1912). See also Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Richmond, 249 U.S. 252 (1919).
[875] Northwestern Bell Teleph. Co. v. Nebraska State R. Com., 297 U.S. 471 (1936).
[876] Bell Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Util. Com., 309 U.S. 30 (1940).
[877] Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 265 U.S. 298 (1924).
[878] Public Utilities Com. v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co., 273 U.S. 83 (1927).
[879] Pennsylvania Natural Gas Co. v. Public Serv. Com., 252 U.S. 23 (1920); Public Utilities Com. v. Landon, 249 U.S. 236 (1919).
[880] Panhandle Eastern Pipe Lines Co. v. Public Serv. Com., 332 U.S. 507 (1947).
[881] Panhandle Co. v. Michigan Comm'n., 341 U.S. 329 (1951).
[882] Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Public Serv. Com., 270 U.S. 550 (1926).
[883] East Ohio Gas Co. v. Tax Com. of Ohio, 283 U.S. 465 (1931).
[884] Western Distributing Co. v. Public Serv. Com. of Kansas, 285 U.S. 119 (1932).
[885] Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Dept. of Public Utilities, 304 U.S. 61 (1938).
[886] Lone Star Gas Co. v. Texas, 304 U.S. 224 (1938).
[887] Cities Service Co. v. Peerless Co., 340 U.S. 179 (1950).
[888] Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 322 U.S. 202 (1944). See also International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579 (1914); Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U.S. 197 (1914); Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert, 239 U.S. 560 (1916).
[889] 322 U.S. at 207-209.
[890] Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U.S. 197 (1914).
[891] International Milling Co. v. Columbia T. Co., 292 U.S. 511 (1934).
[892] Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Slattery, 302 U.S. 300 (1937).
[893] Engel v. O'Malley, 219 U.S. 128 (1911).
[894] Merrick v. Halsey & Co., 242 U.S. 568 (1917). See also Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539 (1917); Caldwell v. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co., 242 U.S. 559 (1917).
[895] Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Illinois ex rel. McLaughlin, 298 U.S. 155 (1936), citing Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U.S. 452, 470 (1901); Simpson v. Shepard (Minnesota Rate Case), 230 U.S. 352, 410 (1913); Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539, 557 (1917); Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. v. McLean, 291 U.S. 17 (1934).
[896] Davis v. Cleveland, C.C. & St. L. Co., 217 U.S. 157 (1910).
[897] Martin v. West, 222 U.S. 191 (1911).
[898] The "Winnebago," 205 U.S. 354, 362 (1907).
[899] Justice Hughes for the Court in Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard), 230 U.S. 352, 406 (1913).
[900] Ibid. 408.
[901] Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465 (1878).
[902] Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U.S. 217 (1889).
[903] Smith v. St. Louis & S.W.R. Co., 181 U.S. 248 (1901).
[904] Ibid. 255. Morgan's S.S. Co. v. Louisiana Bd. of Health, 118 U.S. 455 (1886) is cited.
[905] Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919).
[906] Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497 (1925).
[907] Mintz v. Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (1933).
[908] Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U.S. 176 (1935).
[909] Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).
[910] Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Agnew, 300 U.S. 608 (1937).
[911] Bourjois, Inc. v. Chapman, 301 U.S. 183 (1937).
[912] Clason v. Indiana, 306 U.S. 439 (1939).
[913] Milk Control Bd. v. Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U.S. 346 (1939).
[914] Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina, 171 U.S. 345 (1898).
[915] Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912); followed in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 (1919).
[916] Pure Oil Co. v. Minnesota, 248 U.S. 158 (1918).
[917] Mutual Film Corp. v. Hodges, 236 U.S. 248 (1915).
[918] Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313 (1890); see also Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 (1891).
[919] 136 U.S. at 322. See also pp. 328-329.
[920] Voight v. Wright, 141 U.S. 62 (1891).
[921] Hale v. Bimco Trading Co., 306 U.S. 375 (1939).
[922] Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951).
[923] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).
[924] Ibid. 449.
[925] Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123 (1869). There were later some departures from the rule, apparently due to inattention, in cases involving oil. See Standard Oil v. Graves, 249 U.S. 389 (1919); Askren v. Continental Oil Co., 252 U.S. 444 (1920); Bowman v. Continental Oil Co., 256 U.S. 642 (1921) and Texas Co. v. Brown, 258 U.S. 466 (1922). These cases were "qualified," and in fact disavowed in Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U.S. 506, 520 (1923). Cf. the contemporary case of Wagner v. Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1912) where the true rule is followed.
[926] Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887).
[927] Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888).
[928] 125 U.S. 465 (1888).
[929] Leisy & Co. v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890).
[930] 26 Stat. 313 (1890); sustained in In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545 (1891).
[931] Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U.S. 412 (1898).
[932] 37 Stat. 699 (1913); sustained in Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Md. Ry. Co., 242 U.S. 311 (1917).
[933] Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U.S. 343 (1900).
[934] 155 U.S. 461 (1894).
[935] 135 U.S. 100 (1890).
[936] 155 U.S. at 474.
[937] Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U.S. 1 (1898).
[938] Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U.S. 30 (1898).
[940] State Board v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59 (1936); Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395 (1939); Brewing Co. v. Liquor Comm'n., 305 U.S. 391 (1939); Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves, 308 U.S. 132 (1939).
[941] Duckworth v. Arkansas, 314 U.S. 390 (1941); followed in Carter v. Virginia, 321 U.S. 131 (1944). Justice Jackson would have preferred to rest the decision on the Twenty-first Amendment instead of "what I regard as an unwise extension of State power over interstate commerce," 314 U.S. at 397; and appears to have converted Justice Frankfurter. See latter's opinion in 321 U.S. at 139-143.
[942] 297 U.S. 431 (1936).
[943] 45 Stat 1084 (1929).
[944] 297 U.S. at 440. See also Justice Cardozo's remarks in Baldwin v. Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 526-527 (1935).
[945] Cf. Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 461 (1894); Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912); Corn Products Refining Co. v. Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 (1919).
[946] Elkison v. Deliesseline, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4366 (1823).
[947] For interesting particulars see 2 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, 84-87.
[948] 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 659.
[949] 2 Op. Atty. Gen. 426.
[950] 11 Pet. 102 (1837).
[951] Smith v. Turner (Passenger Cases), 7 How. 283 (1849).
[952] Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 (1868).
[953] 314 U.S. 160 (1941).
[954] Ibid. 172.
[955] Ibid. 173. Justice Cardozo's words, quoted by Justice Byrnes, occur in Baldwin v. Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 523 (1935). Justice Byrnes' answer to another argument of the State, based on historical conceptions of the word "indigent," was, "poverty and immorality are not synonymous."
[956] See especially Justice Douglas' forceful opinion. 314 U.S. 177-181.
[957] 161 U.S. 519 (1896).
[958] Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908).
[959] 221 U.S. 229 (1911).
[960] Ibid. 255-256.
[961] 262 U.S. 553 (1923).
[962] 237 U.S. 52 (1915).
[963] Ibid. 61.
[964] 258 U.S. 50, 61 (1922).
[965] 258 U.S. 50 (1922); 66 L. Ed. 458, Hd. 2.
[967] 291 U.S. 502 (1934); followed in Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 163 (1934).
[968] 294 U.S. 511 (1935).
[969] Milk Control Bd. v. Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U.S. 346 (1939).
[970] Ibid. 352.
[971] Hood v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 535 (1949).
[972] Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1 (1928).
[973] Ibid. 13.
[974] Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948). Other features of the South Carolina act were found to violate article IV, section 2. See p. 690.
[975] Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).
[976] Ibid. 426, citing Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. 31, 39 (1908).
[977] 34 Stat. 584 (1906).
[978] Chicago, I. & L.R. Co. v. United States, 219 U.S. 486 (1911).
[979] Southern R. Co. v. Reid, 222 U.S. 424 (1912); Southern R. Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99 (1912).
[980] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Hardwick Farmers Elevator Co., 226 U.S. 426 (1913).
[981] St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Edwards, 227 U.S. 265 (1913).
[982] Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Greenwood Grocery Co., 227 U.S. 1 (1913). In this case the severity of the regulation furnished additional reason for its disallowance.
[983] 226 U.S. 491 (1913). For the Court's reiteration of the formula governing such cases, see ibid. 505-506. See also Barrett v. New York, 232 U.S. 14 (1914); Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Cramer, 232 U.S. 490 (1914); Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Harold, 241 U.S. 371 (1916); Missouri P.R. Co. v. Porter, 273 U.S. 341 (1927). A year before the enactment of the Carmack Amendment the Court had held that the imposition by a State upon the initial or any connecting carrier of the duty of tracing the freight and informing the shipper in writing when, where, how, and by which carrier the freight was lost, damaged, or destroyed, and of giving the names of the parties and their official position, by whom the truth of the facts set out in the information could be established, was, when applied to interstate commerce, a violation of the commerce clause. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Murphey, 196 U.S. 194, 202 (1905). The Court's opinion definitely invited Congress to deal with the subject, as it does in the Carmack Amendment.
[984] 35 Stat. 65 (1908); 36 Stat. 291 (1910).
[985] 34 Stat. 1415 (1907).
[986] 27 Stat. 531 (1893); 32 Stat. 943 (1903).
[987] Mondou v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. (Second Employers' Liability Cases), 223 U.S. 1 (1912); Southern R. Co. v. Railroad Com., 236 U.S. 439 (1915).
[988] Erie R. Co. v. New York, 233 U.S. 671 (1914).
[989] 26 Stat. 414 (1890).
[990] Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U.S. 189 (1904).
[991] 34 Stat. 768 (1906); Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912), citing Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613 (1898); Reid v. Colorado, 187 U.S. 137 (1902); Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U.S. 251 (1908); Southern Ry. Co. v. Reid, 222 U.S. 424, 442 (1912).
[992] McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U.S. 115 (1913).
[993] Ibid. 137.
[994] Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U.S. 510 (1916).
[995] 37 Stat. 315 (1912); 39 Stat. 1165 (1917).
[996] Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Washington, 270 U.S. 87 (1926).
[997] 44 Stat. 250 (1926).
[998] Mintz v. Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (1933).
[999] 32 Stat. 791 (1903); 33 Stat. 1264 (1905).
[1000] Townsend v. Yeomans, 301 U.S. 441 (1937).
[1001] 49 Stat. 731 (1935).
[1002] Allen-Bradley Local v. Employment Relations Board, 315 U.S. 740 (1942).
[1003] 49 Stat. 449 (1935).
[1004] Quoting Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 611 (1926).
[1005] Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943).
[1006] 50 Stat. 246 (1937).
[1007] 317 U.S. at 368.
[1008] Ibid. 362.
[1009] Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 322 U.S. 202 (1944).
[1010] Ibid. 211.
[1011] Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Serv. Com. of Indiana, 332 U.S. 507 (1947); Rice v. Chicago Board of Trade, 331 U.S. 247 (1947).
[1012] 52 Stat. 821 (1938).
[1013] 49 Stat. 1491 (1936).
[1014] 49 Stat. 543 (1935); 54 Stat. 919-920 (1940).
[1015] California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (1949).
[1016] 52 Stat. 821 (1938).
[1017] Illinois Gas Co. v. Public Service Co., 314 U.S. 498 (1942).
[1018] 26 U.S.C.A. § 2320-2327.
[1019] Cloverleaf Co. v. Patterson, 315 U.S. 148 (1942). Four Justices, speaking by Chief Justice Stone dissented, on the basis of Mintz v. Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (1933); Kelly v. Washington ex rel. Foss Co., 302 U.S. 1 (1937); and Welch Co. v. New Hampshire, 306 U.S. 79 (1939).
[1020] 39 Stat. 486 (1916); amended by 46 Stat. 1463 (1931).
[1021] Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947).
[1023] Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Federal Power Com., 331 U.S. 682 (1947).
[1024] 49 U.S.C.A. 5.
[1025] Schwabacher v. United States, 334 U.S. 182 (1948).
[1026] Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Daniel, 333 U.S. 118 (1948).
[1027] Hill v. Florida, 325 U.S. 538 (1945).
[1028] 49 Stat. 449 (1935).
[1029] 325 U.S. at 542.
[1030] Auto Workers v. Wisconsin Board, 336 U.S. 245 (1949).
[1031] 49 Stat. 449 (1935); 61 Stat. 136 (1947).
[1032] Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. v. Wisconsin Bd., 336 U.S. 301 (1949).
[1033] Automobile Workers v. O'Brien, 339 U.S. 454 (1950); Bus Employees v. Wisconsin Board, 340 U.S. 383 (1951).
[1034] United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 384 (1886); Cf. United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407 (1866).
[1035] 16 Stat. 544, 566; R.S. 2079.
[1036] See United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1914).
[1037] See Perrin v. United States, 232 U.S. 478 (1914); Johnson v. Gearlds, 234 U.S. 422 (1914); Dick v. United States, 208 U.S. 340 (1908).
[1038] United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916), overruling Re Heff, 197 U.S. 488, 509 (1905).
[1039] United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1914).
[1040] United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 419 (1866).
[1041] Ex parte Webb, 225 U.S. 663 (1912).
[1042] Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892).
[1043] 10 How. 393 (1857).
[1044] Ibid. 417, 419.
[1045] Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311 (1915).
[1046] 66 Stat. 163; Public Law 414, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952).
[1047] Ibid. tit. III, § 301. The first category comprises, it should be noted, those who are citizens by the opening clause of Amendment XIV, which embodies Chief Justice Marshall's holding in Gassies v. Ballon, that a citizen of the United States, residing in any State of the Union, is a citizen of that State. 6 Pet. 761, 762 (1832).
[1048] 66 Stat. 163; tit. III, §§ 302-307. These categories illustrate collective naturalization. "Instances of collective naturalization by treaty or by statute are numerous." Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892). See also Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).
[1049] 57 Stat. 600.
[1050] 66 Stat. 163, tit. III, § 311.
[1051] Ibid. § 313 (a) (4-6).
[1052] Ibid. § 313 (c).
[1053] 66 Stat. 163, § 337 (a). In United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929); and United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931) it was held, by a divided Court, that clauses (3) and (4) of the oath, as previously prescribed, required the candidate for naturalization to be ready and willing to bear arms for the United States, but these holdings were overruled in Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946).
[1054] 66 Stat. 163, § 340 (a); see also Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912).
[1055] Ibid. § 340 (c). For cancellation proceedings under the Nationality Act of 1910 (54 Stat. 1158, § 338); see Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943); Baumgartner v. United States 322 U.S. 665 (1944), where district court decisions ordering cancellation were reversed on the ground that the Government had not discharged the burden of proof resting upon it. Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946) represents a less rigid view.
[1056] Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824).
[1057] 328 U.S. 654 (1946).
[1058] Ibid. 658.
[1059] Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912) and Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 673 (1946).
[1060] 66 Stat. 163, tit. III, § 352 (a).
[1061] Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329, 334 (1939). Naturalization has a retroactive effect and removes all liability to forfeiture of land held while an alien (Osterman v. Baldwin, 6 Wall. 116, 122 (1867)); the subsequent naturalization of an alien who takes land by grant or by location on public land relates back and obviates every consequence of his alien disability (Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U.S. 505, 511 (1894); Doe ex dem. Governeur's Heirs v. Robertson, 11 Wheat. 332, 350 (1826)). A certificate of naturalization, while conclusive as a judgment of citizenship, cannot be introduced in a distinct proceeding as evidence of residence, age or good character of the person naturalized (Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U.S. 238 (1876)).
[1062] Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, 269 (1817).
[1063] Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910), where it was also held that Congress may provide for the punishment of false swearing in such proceedings in State court. Ibid. 520.
[1064] Spragins v. Houghton, 3 Ill. 377 (1840); Stewart v. Foster, 2 Binney's (Pa.) 110 (1809).
[1065] Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 242, 240 (1830).
[1066] 15 Stat. 223; 8 U.S.C.A. § 800.
[1067] MacKenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 309, 311-312 (1915). In this case, a now obsolete statute (34 Stat. 1228), known as the Citizenship Act of 1907, which divested the citizenship of a woman marrying an alien, was upheld as constitutional. Under the Act of June 27, 1952, these conditions comprise the following: (1) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign State; (2) Taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign State; (3) Serving in the armed forces of a foreign State without authorization and with consequent acquisition of foreign nationality; (4) Assuming public office under the government of a foreign State, for which only nationals of that State are eligible; (5) Voting in an election or participating in a plebiscite in a foreign State; (6) Formal renunciation of citizenship before an American foreign service officer abroad; (7) Conviction and discharge from the armed services for desertion in time of war; (8) Conviction of treason or an attempt at forceful overthrow of the United States; (9) Formal renunciation of citizenship within the United States in time of war, subject to approval by the Attorney General; (10) Fleeing or remaining outside the United States in time of war or proclaimed emergency in order to evade military training; (11) Residence by a naturalized citizen, subject to certain exceptions, for two to three years in the country of his birth or in which he formerly was a national or for five years in any other foreign State, and (12) Minor children, of naturalized citizens losing citizenship by such foreign residence, also lose their United States citizenship if they acquire the nationality of a foreign State; but not until they attain the age of 25 without having acquired permanent residence in the United States. 66 Stat. 163; Tit. III §§ 349-357.
[1068] Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889); See also Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 705 (1893); Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86 (1903); Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904); Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585 (1913); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).
[1069] 66 Stat. 163; Tit. II, § 212.
[1070] Ibid. § 212 (a) (28) (F).
[1071] 54 Stat. 670.
[1072] Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 69-70.
[1073] 66 Stat. 163; Tit. II, §§ 261-266.
[1074] 338 U.S. 537 (1950).
[1075] 59 Stat. 659.
[1076] 338 U.S. at 543.
[1077] Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524 (1952).
[1078] 54 Stat. 670.
[1079] Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 587 (1952).
[1080] 8 U.S.C, § 156 C was the provision in question.
[1081] United States v. Spector, 343 U.S. 169 (1952).
[1082] Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138 (1909).
[1083] Ibid. 149-150. For the requirements of due process of law in the deportation of alien, see p. 852 (Amendment V).
[1084] Adams v. Storey, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 66 (1817).
[1085] 2 Stat. 19 (1800).
[1086] Story's Commentaries, II, 1113 (Cooley's ed. 1873).
[1087] 186 U.S. 181 (1902).
[1088] Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 294 U.S. 648, 670 (1935).
[1089] United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938), distinguishing Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improv. Dist., 298 U.S. 513 (1936).
[1090] In re Reiman, Fed. Cas. No. 11,673 (1874), cited with approval in Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 294 U.S. 648, 672 (1935).
[1091] Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 294 U.S. 648 (1935).
[1092] Wright v. Mountain Trust Bank, 300 U.S. 440 (1937); Adair v. Bank of America Assn., 303 U.S. 350 (1938).
[1093] Wright v. Union Central Insurance Co., 304 U.S. 502 (1938).
[1094] 294 U.S. 648 (1935).
[1095] Ibid. 671.
[1096] Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 589, 602 (1935).
[1097] Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District, 298 U.S. 513 (1936). But see United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938).
[1098] Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. 4136 Wilcox Bldg. Corp., 302 U.S. 120 (1937).
[1099] Re Klein, 1 How. 277 (1843); Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181 (1902).
[1100] United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938).
[1101] Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U.S. 605 (1918); Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181, 190 (1902).
[1102] Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181, 184 (1902).
[1103] Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 199 (1819); Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 212, 368 (1827).
[1104] Tua v. Carriere, 117 U.S. 201 (1886); Butler v. Goreley, 146 U.S. 303, 314 (1892).
[1105] Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 (1819).
[1106] Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 212, 358 (1827); Denny v. Bennett, 128 U.S. 489, 498 (1888); Brown v. Smart, 145 U.S. 454 (1892).
[1107] Re Watts, 190 U.S. 1, 27 (1903); International Shoe Co. v. Pinkus, 278 U.S. 261, 264 (1929).
[1108] International Shoe Co. v. Pinkus, 278 U.S. 261, 265 (1929).
[1109] Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (1940).
[1110] Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U.S. 605, 615 (1918).
[1111] Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33 (1941).
[1112] New York v. Irving Trust Co., 288 U.S. 329 (1933).
[1113] McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).
[1114] Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533 (1869).
[1115] Ibid. 548.
[1116] Merchants Nat. Bank v. United States, 101 U.S. 1 (1880).
[1117] Nortz v. United States, 294 U.S. 317 (1935).
[1118] Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 549 (1871); Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 449 (1884).
[1119] Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457 (1871).
[1120] Norman v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935).
[1121] Ling Su Fan v. United States, 218 U.S. 302 (1910).
[1122] United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 560, 568 (1850).
[1123] Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410 (1847).
[1124] United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 560, 568 (1850).
[1125] Ibid.
[1126] Baender v. Barnett, 255 U.S. 224 (1921).
[1127] Knox v. Lee (Legal Tender Cases), 12 Wall. 457, 536 (1871).
[1128] McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819); Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 861 (1824); Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S.C. 29, 33 (1875); Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 208 (1921).
[1129] Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 540-547 (1871).
[1130] Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).
[1131] Ibid. 361.
[1132] United States v. Railroad Bridge Co., Fed. Cas. No. 16,114 (1855).
[1133] Searight v. Stokes, 3 How. 151, 166 (1845).
[1134] 91 U.S. 367 (1876).
[1135] Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 732 (1878).
[1136] Searight v. Stokes, 3 How. 151, 169 (1845).
[1137] Re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 599 (1895).
[1138] 2 Cong. Globe 4, 10 (1835).
[1139] Ibid. 298. On this point his reasoning would appear to be vindicated by such decisions, as Bowman v. Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 125 U.S. 465 (1888) and Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890) denying the right of the States to prevent the importation of alcoholic beverages from other States.
[1140] 96 U.S. 727 (1878).
[1141] Ibid. 732.
[1142] Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497 (1904), followed in Donaldson v. Read Magazine, 333 U.S. 178 (1948).
[1143] 194 U.S. at 506.
[1144] Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan, 229 U.S. 288, 316 (1913).
[1145] 255 U.S. 407 (1921).
[1146] Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 155 (1946).
[1147] 49 Stat. 803, 812, 813 (1935), 15 U.S.C. 79d, 79e (1946).
[1148] Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n., 303 U.S. 419 (1938).
[1149] Ibid. 442.
[1150] Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co., 90 U.S. 1 (1878).
[1151] Illinois C.R. Co. v. Illinois ex rel. Butler, 163 U.S. 142 (1896).
[1152] Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 (1897).
[1153] Price v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 U.S. 218 (1885); Martin v. Pittsburgh & L.E.R. Co., 203 U.S. 284 (1906).
[1154] Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (1945).
[1155] United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482 (1869).
[1156] Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920).
[1157] Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 17, 18 (1829).
[1158] Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 656, 658 (1834).
[1159] Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322, 328 (1859); Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).
[1160] Evans v. Jordan, 9 Cr. 199 (1815); Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 548 (1852); Bloomer v. Millinger, 1 Wall. 340, 350 (1864); Eunson v. Dodge, 18 Wall. 414, 416 (1873).
[1161] Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 195 (1857).
[1162] Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 549 (1871). Cf. Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 530, 563 (1875); Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U.S. 347, 356 (1876).
[1163] Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 112, 118 (1875).
[1164] Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 507 (1874); Clark Thread Co. v. Willimantic Linen Co., 140 U.S. 481, 489 (1891).
[1165] Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948). Cf. Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Co., 324 U.S. 320 (1945); Cuno Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 89 (1941).
[1166] Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327 (1945); Marconi Wireless Teleg. Co. v. United States, 320 U.S. 1 (1943).