Chapter XXXV: Section 10: No State Shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or (5)

[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 resume 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.

[768] _See_ pp. 163-172.

[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;[Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 858, 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).

[939] _See_ note 1 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 933, above.]

[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.

[966] _See_ pp. 193-195.

[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. Sec. 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).

[1022] _See_ note 1 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 1016, above.]

[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, Sec. 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, Sec. 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, Sec. 311.

[1051] Ibid. Sec. 313 (a) (4-6).

[1052] Ibid. Sec. 313 (c).

[1053] 66 Stat. 163, Sec. 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, Sec. 340 (a); _see also_ Johannessen _v._ United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912).

[1055] Ibid. Sec. 340 (c). For cancellation proceedings under the Nationality Act of 1910 (54 Stat. 1158, Sec. 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, Sec. 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. Sec. 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 212.

[1070] Ibid. Sec. 212 (a) (28) (F).

[1071] 54 Stat. 670.

[1072] Hines _v._ Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 69-70.

[1073] 66 Stat. 163; Tit. II, Sec. 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, Sec. 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).

[1167] Keystone Mfg. Co. _v._ Adams, 151 U.S. 139 (1894); Diamond Rubber Co. _v._ Consolidated Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428 (1911).

[1168] Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. _v._ Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950). An interesting concurring opinion was filed by Justice Douglas for himself and Justice Black: "It is not enough," says Justice Douglas, "that an article is new and useful. The Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. Patents serve a higher end--the advancement of science. An invention need not be as startling as an atomic bomb to be patentable. But it has to be of such quality and distinction that masters of the scientific field in which it falls will recognize it as an advance." Ibid. 154-155. He then quotes the following from an opinion of Justice Bradley's given 70 years ago:

"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith. (Atlantic Works _v._ Brady, 107 U.S. 192, 200 (1882))." Ibid. 155.

The opinion concludes: "The attempts through the years to get a broader, looser conception of patents than the Constitution contemplates have been persistent. The Patent Office, like most administrative agencies, has looked with favor on the opportunity which the exercise of discretion affords to expand its own jurisdiction. And so it has placed a host of gadgets under the armour of patents--gadgets that obviously have had no place in the constitutional scheme of advancing scientific knowledge. A few that have reached this Court show the pressure to extend monopoly to the simplest of devices:

"Hotchkiss _v._ Greenwood, 11 How. 248 (1850): Doorknob made of clay rather than metal or wood, where different shaped doorknobs had previously been made of clay.

"Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. _v._ Howard, 20 Wall. 498 (1874): Rubber caps put on wood pencils to serve as erasers.

"Union Paper Collar Co. _v._ Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 530 (1875): Making collars of parchment paper where linen paper and linen had previously been used.

"Brown _v._ Piper, 91 U.S. 37 (1875): A method for preserving fish by freezing them in a container operating in the same manner as an ice cream freezer.

"Reckendorfer _v._ Faber, 92 U.S. 347 (1876): Inserting a piece of rubber in a slot in the end of a wood pencil to serve as an eraser.

"Dalton _v._ Jennings, 93 U.S. 271 (1876): Fine thread placed across open squares in a regular hairnet to keep hair in place more effectively.

"Double-Pointed Tack Co. _v._ Two Rivers Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 117 (1883): Putting a metal washer on a wire staple.

"Miller _v._ Foree, 116 U.S. 22 (1885): A stamp for impressing initials in the side of a plug of tobacco.

"Preston _v._ Manard, 116 U.S. 661 (1886): A hose reel of large diameter so that water may flow through hose while it is wound on the reel.

"Hendy _v._ Miners' Iron Works, 127 U.S. 370 (1888): Putting rollers on a machine to make it moveable.

"St. Germain _v._ Brunswick, 135 U.S. 227 (1890): Revolving cue rack.

"Shenfield _v._ Nashawannuck Mfg. Co., 137 U.S. 56 (1890): Using flat cord instead of round cord for the loop at the end of suspenders.

"Florsheim _v._ Schilling, 137 U.S. 64 (1890): Putting elastic gussets in corsets.

"Cluett _v._ Claflin, 140 U.S. 180 (1891): A shirt bosom or dickie sewn onto the front of a shirt.

"Adams _v._ Bellaire Stamping Co., 141 U.S. 539 (1891): A lantern lid fastened to the lantern by a hinge on one side and a catch on the other.

"Patent Clothing Co. _v._ Glover, 141 U.S. 560 (1891): Bridging a strip of cloth across the fly of pantaloons to reinforce them against tearing.

"Pope Mfg. Co. _v._ Gormully Mfg. Co., 144 U.S. 238 (1892): Placing rubber hand grips on bicycle handlebars.

"Knapp _v._ Morss, 150 U.S. 221 (1893): Applying the principle of the umbrella to a skirt form.

"Morgan Envelope Co. _v._ Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U.S. 425 (1894): An oval rather than cylindrical toilet paper roll, to facilitate tearing off strips.

"Dunham _v._ Dennison Mfg. Co., 154 U.S. 103 (1894): An envelope flap which could be fastened to the envelope in such a fashion that the envelope could be opened without tearing.

"The patent involved in the present case belongs to this list of incredible patents which the Patent Office has spawned. The fact that a patent as flimsy and as spurious as this one has to be brought all the way to this Court to be declared invalid dramatically illustrates how far our patent system frequently departs from the constitutional standards which are supposed to govern." Ibid. 156-158.

[1169] "Inventive genius"--Justice Hunt in Reckendorfer _v._ Faber, 92 U.S. 347, 357 (1875); "Genius or invention"--Chief Justice Fuller in Smith _v._ Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674, 681 (1893); "Intuitive genius"--Justice Brown in Potts _v._ Creager, 155 U.S. 597, 607 (1895); "Inventive genius"--Justice Stone in Concrete Appliances Co. _v._ Gomery, 269 U.S. 177, 185 (1925); "Inventive genius"--Justice Roberts in Mantle Lamp Co. _v._ Aluminum Co., 301 U.S. 544, 546 (1937); Justice Douglas in Cuno Corp. _v._ Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 91 (1941); "the flash of creative genius, not merely the skill of the calling." _See also_ Note 2 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 1163, above.]

[1170] _See_ Note 7 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 1168, above.]

[1171] Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. _v._ Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950); Mahn _v._ Harwood, 112 U.S. 354, 358 (1884).

[1172] Evans _v._ Eaton, 3 Wheat. 454, 512 (1818).

[1173] United States _v._ Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 586-589 (1899). _See also_ Butterworth _v._ Hoe, 112 U.S. 50 (1884).

[1174] Wheaton _v._ Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 660 (1834); Holmes _v._ Hurst, 174 U.S. 82 (1899). _Cf._ E. Burke Inlow, The Patent Clause (1950) Chaps. III and IV, for evidence of a judicial recognition of an inventor's inchoate right to have his invention patented.

[1175] Wheaton _v._ Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 662 (1834); Evans _v._ Jordan, 9 Cr. 199 (1815).

[1176] Kalem Co. _v._ Harper Bros. 222 U.S. 55 (1911).

[1177] Baker _v._ Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 105 (1880).

[1178] Stevens _v._ Gladding, 17 How. 447 (1855).

[1179] Ager _v._ Murray, 105 U.S. 126 (1882).