involving mechanical operations and producing a new and useful
result independently of particular mechanisms for performing
such process, and is valid. Ib.
Money paid to the collector of a port under protest, and on the cer-
tainty that if not paid clearance to vessels necessarily sailing
on definite schedule would be refused, to the great damage of
the owner, is paid involuntarily, and can, if unlawfully exacted,
be recovered. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 320.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1;'
COMMERCIAL PAPER, 1.
PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES.
Power of Congress to provide for imposition of penalty-Enforcement of
penalty.
The authority, given by Congress in the Alien Immigration Act to the
Secretary of Commerce and Labor to impose an exaction on a
transportation company bringing to the United States an alien
immigrant afflicted with a loathsome contagious disease when
the medical examination establishes that the disease existed, and
could have been detected by medical examination at the time of
embarkation, does not purport to define and punish any criminal
offense, but merely entails the infliction of a penalty enforceable
by civil suit; and it is within the power of Congress to provide
for such imposition by an executive officer, and the enforcement
is not necessarily governed by the rules controlling the prosecu-
tion of criminal offenses. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S.
228, distinguished; Hepner v. United States, 213 U. S. 103, fol-
lowed. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 320.
See ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING;
CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 2;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5, 6;
IMMIGRATION;
JURISDICTION, A 6;
UNITED STATES, 2.
PENSION CHECKS.
See BANKS AND Banking, 3;
COMMERCIAL PAPER.
1. Jurisdiction of Louisiana over pilotage in Mississippi river.
The Mississippi river is a boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana
from below the port of Natchez as far north as Louisiana ex-
tends; but below Natchez all the river is wholly within Louisiana,
and that State, subject only to the paramount power of Congress,
has exclusive jurisdiction over pilotage in the river between
points south of Natchez. Leech v. Louisiana, 175.
2. Application of § 4236, Rev. Stat., act of March 2, 1837, relative to
employment of pilots.
Section 4236, Rev. Stat., act of March 2, 1837, c. 22, 5 Stat. 153, al-
lowing the master of vessels coming in or going out of ports on
boundary rivers to employ any pilot licensed by either State,
does not apply to pilotage to ports on a river below the point
where it becomes a boundary river; and a pilot licensed only by
Mississippi has no right to pilot a vessel from the Gulf of Mexico
to New Orleans. Ib.
3. Quere as to rights of pilots under § 4236, Rev. Stat.
Quare whether under § 4236 a pilot licensed only by Mississippi can
pilot & vessel from the Gulf to Natchez. Ib.
PLEADING.
See COURTS, 9;
JURISDICTION, A 2;
MANDAMUS, 3.
1. Nature and scope of power.
The police power is one of the most essential of governmental powers,
at times one of the most insistent, and always one of the least
limitable. District of Columbia v. Brooke, 138.
2. Power of Congress paramount over that of State.
Generally speaking, the police power belongs to, and is to be exer-
cised by, the State, but it must yield to Congress wherever it
conflicts with the powers belonging exclusively to Congress.
Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 218.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17.
1. Status between ratification of treaty of peace and establishment of
civil government.
By the ratifications of the treaty of peace of 1898 with Spain, Porto
Rico ceased to be subject to that country and became subject
to the legislative power of Congress; but, pending the action of
Congress, and the necessary delay in establishing civil govern-
ment, there was no interregnum, and the authority, to govern the
territory ceded by the treaty was, by the law applicable to con-
quest and cession, under the military control of the President
as Commander-in-Chief. (Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164.)
Santiago v. Nogueras, 260.
2. Provisional Court; power of military government to establish.
The military government in Porto Rico at the time of the ratification
of the treaty of peace continued until superseded by the organic
act; and it had power to establish the United States Provisional
Court, and that court had jurisdiction to render the judgment
involved in this case. Ib.
3. Provisional Court; jurisdiction of controversy between subject of
Spain and resident of Porto Rico.
Under the provision of the order establishing the Provisional Court of
Porto Rico that it have jurisdiction of controversies between
different states and of foreign states, it had jurisdiction of a
controversy between a subject of Spain and a resident of Porto
Rico. Ib.
4. Provisional court; question of jurisdiction not open in collateral
attack.
Whether the court lost jurisdiction, after having properly obtained it,
by disregarding rules of procedure is not open in a collateral
attack. Ib.
1. Assumption as to insufficiency of evidence in bankruptcy proceed-
ing not indulged.
Where the evidence sustaining an application for an adjudication in
bankruptcy is not disclosed this court will not assume that it was
not sufficient. Matter of Riggs, 9.
2. Following findings of fact concurred in by lower courts.
Which is the correct English translation of a will written in the Ha-
waiian language is a pure question of fact, and in this case this
court follows its usual course in regard to the findings of fact of
both the lower courts and adopts the translation which both
found to be correct. Gray v. Noholoa, 108.
3. Deference to construction given by Supreme Court of Territory to
statute of Territory.
Where there is doubt as to the construction of a statute of a Territory
this court leans towards the construction given by the Supreme
Court of the Territory, Copper Queen Mining Co. v. Arizona
Board, 206 U. S. 674, and unless there is manifest error this court
will not disturb a decision of that court, Fox v. Haarstick, 156
U. S. 674, and in this case this court accepts the decision of the
Supreme Court of Arizona in construing a revenue statute of that
Territory. English v. Arizona, 359.
4. Effect of failure to seasonably object to technical defect in return.
Where no objection was made to a technical defect in the return
which could have been rectified by amendment had attention
seasonably been called thereto, a party who, as disclosed by the
record, was not prejudiced, cannot raise the objection at a later
date. District of Columbia v. Brooke, 138.
5. Waiver of constitutional objection when question not made in state
court by proper procedure.
A Federal constitutional objection may be waived so far as having
the right of review of a judgment in the state court is concerned
where the question is not made in the state court by proper
procedure. (Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78.) Chesapeake &
Ohio Ry. Co. v. McDonald, 191.
6. Disposition of case on opening of counsel condemned.
The practice of disposing of cases on the opening of counsel is gen-
erally an unsafe method of procedure; the case should be de-
veloped by the evidence. Hoffman House v. Foote, 172 N. Y.
348, approved. Bong v. Campbell Art Co., 236.
7. Disposition of case on disagreement by this court with determination
by lower courts as to amount of compensation to which carrier en-
titled; the testimony not having been preserved in record.
Where the Interstate Commerce Commission has held, and its order
has been affirmed by the Circuit Court and Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, that a carrier cannot charge for a service rendered at the
request and for the benefit of the shipper any amount in excess
of the actual expense incurred, and fixed a rate less than this
court considers reasonable, this court cannot, where the testi-
mony has not been preserved in the record, fix a fair and rea-
sonable charge, but will reverse the judgments of both courts and
remand the case to the former court with instructions to send the
matter back to the commission for further investigation and re-
port. Southern Ry. Co. v. St. Louis Hay Co., 297.
The service of the summons in this case by delivering the same at de-
fendant's usual place of abode into the hands of his wife being
strictly in accord with the procedure established by the court,
the court had jurisdiction to enter judgment by default. Santi-
ago v. Nogueras, 260.
PROCESS AND APPARATUS.
See PATENTS, 4, 5.
Writ of prohibition to prohibit Judges of the District Court from ap-
plying any part of proceeds of sale under decrees of admiralty
court of same district of vessels belonging to a bankrupt, and
surrendered by the receiver for adjudication of the maritime
liens, to the payment of the receiver's expenses and commissions
|