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.
« iepriekšējāTurpināt » |