
				     THE
			UNITED STATES AND THE STATES
		           UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
                    	     	      BY
	                     C. STUART PATTERSON.
                               SECOND EDITION,
               WITH NOTES AND REFERENCES TO ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES,
                                      BY
                               ROBERT P. REEDER,
                           OF THE PHILADELPHIA BAR.
				______________

                                 PHILADELPHIA
                           T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO.
                                    1904.

                                  CONTENTS.

                                  CHAPTER I.
		THE RELATION OF THE STATES AND OF THE TERRITORIES 
		     TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO EACH OTHER.
  1.  The sanction of the Constitution.
  2.  The indissolubility of the  Union.
  3.  The autonomy of the states.
  4.  The delegated character and limited powers of the government of the
        United States.
  5.  The federal supremacy.
  6.  The restraints upon the states.
  7.  The force and effect of the preamble to the Constitution.
  8.  The territories.

			         CHAPTER II
                             THE IMPLIED POWERS.
  9.  The necessity of their existence.
  10. Their constitutional recognition.
  11. The test of the relation of the means to the end.
  12. Illustrations of the exercise of the implied powers.
  13. The legal tender question.

                                CHAPTER III.
                                 TAXATION.

  14.  Taxation defined and limited.
  15.  Taxation by the United States
  16.  Restrictions upon federal taxation.
  17.  Taxation of exports.
  18.  Direet taxation.
  19.  Requirement of uniformity.
  20.  Taxation in the territories.
  21.  Exemption of state agencies from taxation by the United States.
  22.  Charges which are not taxes exempt from constitutional restraints.
  23.  Taxation by the states.
  24.  Expressed restraints upon state taxation.
  25.  Implied restraint upon state taxation resulting from the federal
       supremacy.
  26.  Taxation of national banks.
  27.  State taxation as affected by the prohibition of the impairment of
          the obligation of contracts.
  28.  State taxation as affected by the grant to Congress of the power of
          regulating commerce.

                                  CHAPTER IV.
                          THE REGULATION OF  COMMERCE.

  29.  The constitutional provisions.
  30.  The historical reason for the provisions.
  31.  Commerce defined.
  32.  Regulation of commerce defined.
  33.  The general principles defining the limits of national and state 
	 regulation.
  34.  The internal commerce of a state.
  35.  Navigable waters and the soil under them.
  36.  Preferences of  ports.
  37.  Duties upon exports.
  38.  Duties upon tonnage.
  39.  Port dues.
  40.  Pilotage.
  41.  Regulation of navigation.
  42.  Port regulations.
  43.  Quarantine.
  44.  Ferries.
  45.  Bridges and dams.
  46.  Improvements of navigation.
  47.  Wharves and piers.
  48.  State duties upon imports and exports.
  49.  State inspection laws.
  50.  Taxation discriminating against goods from other states.
  51.  The original package doctrine.
  52.  Transportation: (a) State regulation in the exercise of the police
         power; (b) Regulation by taxation; (c) The Interstate Commerce Act,
  53.  Tbe Anti-trust law.
  54.  Telegraphs.
  55.  Commerce with the Indian tribes.

				   CHAPTER V.
		THE IMPAIRMENT  OF THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.

  56. The prohibition affects only state laws.
  57. The term "law" defined.
  58. Jndgements of state courts not conclusive either as to the non-                                       
      existence or non-impairment of contracts.
  59.  The obligation of a contract defined.
  60.  legislation as to remedies.
  61.  The term "contracts" defined.
  62.  State insolvent laws.
  63.  Judgments as contracts.
  64.  Munieipal taxation.
  65.  History of the prohibition.
  66.  State grants.
  67.  Express contracts of exemption from taxation.
  68.  Express grants of peculiar privileges.
  69.  Contracts between a state and its political subdivisions.
  70.  Implied contracts in charters of incorporation.
  71.  Implied corporate exemption from taxation.
  72.  Implied grants of peculiar privileges.
  73.  Exemption from the operation of the police power.
  74.  Contracts as to matters of public concern.
  75.  The withdrawal by a state of its consent to be sued.
  74.  The force, and effect of the prohibition as cont;trued by the Supreme
        Court.
				    CHAPTER VI

		   EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER.

  77.  The constitutional provisions.
  78.  The distinction between retrospective and ex post facto laws.
  79.  Ex post facto laws defined.
  80.  Illustrations of ex post facto laws.
  8I.  Illustrations of laws which are not ex post facto.
  82.  Bills of Attainder and bills of pains and penalties.

				    CHAPTER VII.

		   THE PROHIBITION OF STATE BILLS OF CREDIT.
  83. Bills of credit defined.
  84. What are, and what are not, bills of credit.

				   CHAPTER VIII.
				  STATE COMPACTS.
  85. What compacts are permitted, and wbat are forbidden.

				    CHAPTER IX.
			      FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE.
  86. The constitutional provision.
  87. The concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and state courts.


				     CHAPTER X.
			        THE JUDICTAL POWER.
  88.  The constitutional provisions.
  89.  The theory of a judicial system under the common law.
  90.  The necessity of a federal judiciary.
  91.  Cases in law and equity, etc.
  92.  Cases affecting ambassadors, etc.
  93.  Admiralty.
  94.  Controversies to which the United States shall be a party.
  95.  Controversies between citizens of different states.
  96.  Controversies between two or more states.
  97.  Controversies between a state and citizens of another state, etc.
  98.  Federal jurisdiction.
  99.  Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction.
 100.  The courts of the United States.
 101.  Original jurisdiction.
 102.  Appellate and supervisory jurisdiction.
 103.  The necessity of a judicial "case."
 104.  The federal judiciary.
 105.  The federal supremacy.
 106.  Constitutional find statutory construction.
 107.  Judgments of courts.
 108.  Treaties.
 109.  The law administered in the federal courts.
 110.  Courts martial and impeachments.
 111.  The IV Amendment.
 112.  The V Amendment -(a) Due process of law; (b) Jeopardy etc.
 113.  The VI Amendment.
 114.  The VII and VIII Amendments.
 115.  The XI Amendment.
 116.  The relations between the federal and state courts.
 117.  The XIV Amendment as affecting state judicial proceedings.
 118.  The "full faith and credit clause.


				   CHAPTER XI.
			RIGHTS OF PERSON AND OF PROPERTY.
 118.  Citizenship of the United States.
 119.  Citizenship of a state.
 121.  The right of suffrage.
 122.  The right of serving on juries.
 123.  Congressional regulation of federal elections.
 124.  Immigrants and aliens.
 125.  Personal property rights.
 126.  The rights within a state of citizens of other states.
 127.  Foreign corporations.
 128.  The I Amendment.
 129.  The XIII Amendment.
 130.  The XIV Amendment.
 139.  The equal protection of the laws.
 140.  The police power.

				   CHAPTER XII
          THE FEDERAL SUPREMACY AND THE RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE STATES.
 133.  The results of federal supremacy.
 134.  The constitutional reservation of the rights of the states.
 135.  The nature and extent of those reserved rights.
 136.  The importance of the preservation of the rights of both the United
        States and the states.

			 TABLE OF CASES CITED

		    The references are to the pages.

A.A.P. Co.    	v. D.P. Co., 191 U.S. 373    		282, 288
A.B. Co.      	v. Kansas, 193 U.S. 49			228
Aberdeen Bank 	v. Chehalis County, 166 U.S. 440	50, 52
Ableman       	v. Booth, 21 How. 506 			18, 271
Achison       	v. Huddleson, 12 How. 293		97
Adams         	v. Nashville, 95 U.S.19  		49
	      	v. New York, 192 U.S. 585		246, 320
A. Ex. Co.    	v. Kentucky, 166 U.S. 171       	40,57,103
	      	v. Michigan, 177 U.S. 404		206
	      	v. Ohio,165 U.S. 194 166 id. 		185,40,54,57,103,316	
A.I. Co.      	v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511			8, 9, 19
Ainsa         	v. U.S., 184 U.S.639   			209
Alabama       	v. Georgia 23 How. 505			191, 211
Albany Bridge Case, The, 2 Wall, 403	      		84
Allen         	v. Louisiana, 103 U.S. 80		233
	      	v. Newberry, 21 How. 244		209
	      	v. P.P.C. Co., 191 U.S.	171     	55,56,58,103,105	
              	v. S.P.R. 173 U.S. 479, 		224
Allgeyer      	v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 	 	63, 280	
Almy 	      	v. California, 24 How. 169	 	54, 64, 88, 106	
Ambrosini 	v. U.S., 187 U.S. 1		      	39
Ames 		v. Kansas, 111 U.S. 449	   		206, 221, 225
Amy 		v. Shelby County, 114 U.S. 387	     	179
		v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136		266, 267
Anderson 	v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204			18
		v. U.S., 171 U.S. 604  			128
Andrews 	v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14			283, 284, 286
		v. Swartz, 156 U.S. 272			274, 282
Antoni 		v. Greenhow, 107 U.S. 769		145
A.P. Co. 	v. Fisher, 166 U.S. 464			256
A.P. & S. Co. 	v. U.S., 175 U.S. 211			67, 127, 251
Arbuckle 	v. Blackburn, 191 U.S. 405		21,5 276, 319
Arkansas 	v. K. & T. C. Co., 183 U.S. 185		206, 210, 225
Armstrong 	v. Carson, 2 Dall.302			283
		v. Lear, 8 Pet. 52	  		229
Arndt 		v. Griggs, 134 U.S. 316			274
Arnson 		v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238			265
Arrowsmith 	v. Harmoning, 118 U.S. 194		276
A.R.T. Co.      v. Hall, 174 U.S. 70			40, 57, 103
A. Ry. 		v. New York, 176 U.S. 335		142, 161, 176, 278
Asher 		v. Texas, 128 U.S. 129			55, 92, 302
Ashley 		v. Ryan, 153 U.S. 436			22,55,103,304,305,306
A.S. of M. H.   v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94		229
Aspinwall 	v. Daviess County, 22 How. 364		148, 149
A.S.R. Co. 	v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 89		320
Asylum		v. New Orleans, 105 U.S. 362		52, 162, 163
A.S. & W. Co.	v. Speed, 192 U.S. 500			43, 55, 87, 92, 94
Atherton 	v. Atherton, 181 U.S. 155		286
A.T. & S.F. R.  v. Matthews, 174 U.S. 96 		313, 314, 318
Austin 		v. Tennessee, 179 U.S.343  		96
Auten 		v. U.S. Nat. Bank, IL74 U.S. 125  	206
A.V.L.& C. Co.  v. Mann, 130 U.S. 69  			257
Ayers, In re, 123 U.S. 443 				180, 261
A.& P.T.Co.	v. Philadelphia, 190 U.S. 160  		24, 134
Backus 		v. F.S.U.D. Co., 169 U.S. 557  		274, 277
Bacon 		v. Howard,, 20 How. 22 				283
Bailey 		v. Maguire, 22 Wall. 215  			174
Bain, Ex parte, 121 U.S. 1				247
Baker 		v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284 				225
Baldwin 	v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678  			233, 238
 		v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223 			141, 152 153
Baltimore 	v. B.T. Co., 166 U.S. 673  			177
Baltzer 	v. North Carolina, 161 U.S. 240  		180
Banholzer 	v. N.Y.L.I. Co., 178 U.S. 402  		282
Bank 		v. Supervisors, 7 Wall. 26				44
Bank of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 522 			267, 283, 288
Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519 			63, 304, 305
Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235  		256
Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, 161 U.S. 134  		163
				    id. 416  		162
Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley's Lessee, 2 Pet. 492 	204
Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Pet. 318  		262
Bank of Redemption v. Boston, 125 U.S. 60 		50
Bank of U.S. 	v. Deveaux, 5 Cr. 61  			303
 		v. Halstead, 10 Wheat. 51   		265
 		v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904  	262
Bank of Washington v. Arkansas, 20 How. 530 		180
Banks		v. Mayor, 7 Wall. 16 			44
Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall. 200				44
Barber 		v. Barber, 21 How. 582			210
Barbier  	v.  Connally,  113  U. S. 27  		314, 321
Barings 	v. Dabney, 19 Wall. 1			169
Barney 		v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280   		210
		v. City of New York, 193 U.S. 430 	280, 319, 323
		v. Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324 			72
Barnitz		v. Beverly, 163 U.S. 118		146
Barrett 	v. Holmes, 102 U.S. 651   		143, 279
Barron 		v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 		247
		v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 			186 307
Bartemeyer 	v. Iowa, 18 Wall.129 			100,298 
Bartlett 	v. Lockwood, 160 U.S. 357  		80 
Barton 		v. Barbour, 104 U.S.126   		255
Bates 		v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204			264
Bath County	v. Amy, 13 Wall. 244			267
Bauman 		v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548			11, 251, 253
Bausman		v. Dixon, 173 U.S. 113			206
Bayard		v. Singleton, 1 Martin, (N.C.) 42	233
B.B. & B. C. R. v. New Whatcom, 172 U.S. 314		277
Beatty		v. Benton, 135 U.S. 244			224
Bedford 	v. E. B. & L. Assn., 181 U.S. 227	142, 306
Beer Co. 	v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25		100,176,178
Beers		v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527		180,181
Belden 		v. Chase, 150 U.S. 674			206, 209
Belfast, The, 7 Wall 624				208,209,264
Belknap		v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10			209, 253
Bell		v. Bell, 181 U.S. 175			286
Bellaire	v. B. & O. R. 146 U.S. 117		225
Bement		v. N.H. Co., 186 U.S. 70		126,128
Benjamin 	v. New Orleans, 169 U.S. 161		215
Benner		v. Porter, 9 How. 235			9
B.G.R. 		v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232		41,43,316
Bier		v. McGehee, 148 U.S. 137		139,148,149
Bigby		v. U.S., 188 U.S. 400			209
Bigler		v. Waller. 14 Wall. 297			21
Billings 	v. Illinois, 188 U.S.97 		41, 316
Bingham 	v. Cabot. 3 Dall. 382 			215
Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51 				167,168,175
Bischoff 	v. Wethered, 9 Wall. 812 		284
Blackstone 	v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189			40,41,140
Blair 		v. Cuming County, 111 U.S. 363		25
Blake 		v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239		215,303,304,319
		v. McClung, 176 U.S. 59 		303
		In re, 175 U.S. 114			267
Blount 		v. Walker, 134 U.S. 607			287
		v. Windley, 95 U.S. 173			144,148,153
Blyew 		v. U.S., 13 Wall. 581 			206
Board of Assrs. v. C. N. D' E., 191 U.S. 388		40, 41
Board of Liquidation v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 622		141
		v. McComb, 92 U.S. 531			263, 264
Board of Pub. Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521   284
Bock 		v. Perkins, 139 U.S. 628		19, 206, 225, 272
Bolles 		v. Brimfield, 120 U.S. 759		242
Bollman and Swartwout, Ex parte, 4 Cr. 75		243, 250
Bolin		v. Nebraska, 176 U.S. 83		2, 274
Bonaparte	v. Tax Court, 104 U.S. 592		23, 42
Boom Co. 	v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403		210
Booth 		v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425		232, 279, 321
Borer 		v. Chapman, 119 U.S. 587		265
Bors		v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252		221
Boske		v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459	    18,206,215,224,225,238,270
Boswell's Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. 336			273, 285
Botiller	v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238		238
Bowman		v. C. & N. W. Ry., 125 U.S. 465		69, 94, 102
		v. Middleton, 1 Bay, (S.C.) 252		233
Boyce		v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546			310
Boyd 		v. Alabama, 94 U.S. 645 		176
		v. Nebraska, 143 U.S.135  		224, 291
		v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616     		246
Boyd, Ex parte, 105 U.S. 647 				210
Boyer 		v. Boyer, 113 U.S. 689 			50
Boyle 		v. Zaeharie, 6 Pet. 635			147, 151
Bradfield 	v. Roberts, 175 U.S.291			309
Bradley 	v. Lightcap,195 U.S.1 			146, 276
		v. The People, 4 Wall. 459 		49
Bradwell 	v. State, 16 Wall 130			301, 311
Brass		v. North Dakota, 153 U.S. 391		98, 278, 315, 317
Breithaupt 	v. Bank of Georgia, 1 Pet. 238 		215
Brennan 	v. Titusville, 153 U.S. 289  		55, 92
Bridge Proprietors v. Hob oken Co., 1 Wall. 116		141,168
Brimmer 	v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78			54, 89, 91
Briscoe 	v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257	3, 189, 190, 234, 262
Bristol 	v. Washington County, 177 U.S. 133	22, 40, 41
Bronson 	v. Kimpton, 8 Wall. 444			20
		v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311			146
		v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229			20
Brown 		v. Houston, 114 U.S. 622		54, 69, 90, 94, 104
		v. Huger, 21 How. 305			264
		v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112			215
		v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 449		28,43,62,88,93,94,235
		v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172		274,282,298,320,322
		v. Smart, 145 U.S. 454			139
		v. Trousdale, 138 U.S. 389		225
		v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591			111, 232, 252
		In re, 135 U.S. 701			143
Brownfield	v. South Carolina, 189 U.S. 426		313
Bryan 		v. Board of Education, 151 U.S. 639	141, 165
		v. Virginia, 135 U.S. 685		147
B.T. Co. 	v. B.B.R., 151 U.S. 137			276, 282
Bucher		v. C.R., 125 U.S. 555			210, 243, 282
Buck 		v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334 		273
Buckner 	v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586 			2
Budd 		v. New York, 143 U.S. 517 		98, 101a, 278, 315
Burgess 	v. Seligman, 107 U.S. 20 		240, 242
Burlington 	v. Beasley, 94 U.S. 310 		24
Burthe 		v. Denis, 133 U.S. 514 			206, 224
Bush 		v. Kentucky, 107 U.S. 110 		216, 313
Butchers' Union v. C. C. Co., 111 U.S. 			746 178
Butler 		v. B. & S. S. Co., 130 U.S. 527 	208, 209, 238
 		v. Horwitz, 7 Wall. 258 		20
 		v. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 402 		147, 179
Butterworth 	v. Hoe, 112 U.S. 50 			229
Buttfield 	v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 		66, 232, 251
B. W. S. Co. 	v. Mobile, 186 U.S. 212 		165
Byers 		v. McAuley, 149 U.S. 608 		210, 266, 272
Byrne 		v. Missouri, 8 Pet. 40 			189
B. & 0. R. 	v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65			215
 		v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456 		23, 56, 102
B. & S. R. 	v. Nesbit, 10 How. 395 			182, 183
Cable 		v. U.S. L. I. Co., 191 U.S. 288 	307
Calder 		v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 			182, 183, 184
Caldwell 	v. Carrington, 9 Pet. 86 		283
 		v. North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622 	55
 		v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692 			273
California 	v. C. P. R., 127 U.S. 1 		54, 103, 305
 		v. S. P. Co., 157 U.S. 229 		213
Callan 		v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 		10, 246, 252
Cameron 	v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322 		210, 215
Campbell 	v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620 			279
		v. Wade, 132 U.S.34 			148, 149
Cannon 		v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577 		44, 74, 76
Caperton 	v. Ballard, 14 Wall. 238		283
Capron 		v. Van Noorden, 2 Cr. 126 		215
Cardwell 	v. A. B. Co., 113 U.S. 205 		84
Carneal 	v. Banks, 10 Wheat. 181 		2 38
Carpenter 	v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456 		41, 42, 182, 183
 		v. Strange, 141 U.S. 87 		285
Carroll County 	v. Smith, Ill U.S. 556 			242
Carson 		v. Brocton S. Com., 182 U.S. 398 	24, 2 77
Carstairs 	v. Cochran, 193 U.S. 10 		40
Carter 		v. McClaughry, 183 U.S. 365 		252
 		v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442 			295, 313, 319
Case 		v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 			243
Cates 		v. Allen, 149 U.S. 451 			255
C., B. & Q. R. 	v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 		101a , 176, 257, 277
 		v. Iowa, 94 U.S. 155 			98, 176, 177
 		v. Nebraska, 170 U.S. 57 		141, 176, 177, 178
C.C.C.&St.L.Ry. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 439 		40, 57, 103
 		v. Illinois, 177 U.S. 514 		101
C. C. D. Co. 	v. Ohio, 183 U.S. 238 			206,247,279,298, 315
C. C. & A. R. 	v. Gibbes, 142 U.S. 386 		24, 278, 304, 314, 316
C. D. Co. 	v. Shepherd, 20 How. 227 		303
Central Nat. Bank v. Stevens, 169 U.S. 432 		272
Central R.&B.Co. v. Wright, 164 U.S. 327 		53, 162, 166
C. F. D. N. 	v. Louisiana, 186 U.S. 380 		so
Chadwick 	v. Kelley, 187 U.S. 540 		228, 316
Chandler 	v. Dix, 194 U.S. 590 			260
Chapman 	v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677 		215
	In re, 166 U.S. 661 				18
Chappell 	v. U.S., 160 U.S. 499 			19
 		v. Waterwortb, 155 U.S. 102 		215, 225
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 544 	174
Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U.S. 72 		302
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 135, 		213, 229
 		v. S. K. Ry., 135 U.S. 641 		135, 253
Cherokee Tobacco, The, 11 Wall. 616 			238
Chicago 	v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. 50 			52, 139, 162, 163
Chicago Theological Seminary v. Illinois, 188 U.S. 662  53, 166
China, The, 7 Wall. 53 					77
Chin Bak Kan 	v. U.S., 186 U.S. 193 			297
Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 			19, 238, 239, 296, 297
Chirac 		v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259			238, 291
Chisholm 	v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 		205, 214, 258
Chittenden 	v. Brewster, 2 Wall. 191 		266
Christ Church 	v. Philadelphia, 24 How. 300 		164
Christmas 	v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290 		283
Christy, Ex parte, 3 How. 292 				268
Church 		v. Hubbart, 2 Cr. 187			229
 		v. Kelsey, 121 U.S. 282 		179, 274
Chy Lung 	v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 		57, 105, 296
Citizens' Bank  v. Parker, 192 U.S. 73 			52, 162, 166
Citizens' Savings Bank v. 0wensboro, 173 U.S. 636 	53, 165, 166
Citizens' S. & L. Assn. v. Perry County, 156 U.S. 692 	148
City 		v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 			139
City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453 				9
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 				323
Claflin 	v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130 		218, 268, 269
Clark 		v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436 		260, 265
		v. Bever, 139 U.S. 96 			210, 242, 243
 		v. Kansas City, 176 U, S. 114 		320
 		v. Titusville, 184 U.S. 329 		41, 316
 		Clarke, Ex parte, 100 U.S. 399 		296
 		v. Field, 138 U.S. 464 			310
Co. 		v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103 		140, 276
Cleveland 	v. C. C. Ry., 194 U.S. 517 		178
 		v. C. E. Ry., 194 U.S. 538 		178
C. L. 1. Co. 	v. Needles, 113 U.S. 574 		140, 175
Clinton 	v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434 		9
Clinton Bridge, The, 10 Wall. 454 			83
Close 		v. Glenwood Cemetery, 107 U.S. 466 	l65
C. M. Co. 	v. Ferguson, 113 U.S. 727 		234, 3O8
C. M. L. 1. Co. v. Cushman, 108 U.S. 51 		143
 		v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602 		142, 148, 176, 308
C.,M.&St.P.Ry.  v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418 		101a,176,177, 278, 313
 		v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133 			99, 140, 148, 243
 		v. Tompkins, 176 U.S. 167 		101a, 278, 315
C.N.B.&L. Assn. v. Denson, 189 U.S. 408 		3 08
C.N.0.&T.P. Ry. v. I. C. C., 162 U.S. 184 		110, 111
Codlin 		v. Kohlhausen, 181 U.S. 151 		228
Coe 		v. Errol, 116 U.S. 517 			22, 41, 55, 69, 104
Cohens 		v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 	  	204,205,206,210,214,
							217,224,228, 236, 262
Cole 		v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107 		266, 283, 284
 		v. La Grange, 113 U.S.
Collector 	v. Day, 11 Wall. 113			39
Collet 		v. Collet, 2 Dall. 294			291
Commercial Bank v. chambers, 182 U.S. 556		50
Commissioners of Tippecanoe v. Lucas 93 U.S. 108	275
Commonwealth    v. Caton, 4 Call, (Va.) 5		233
Conner 		v. Elliot, 18 How. 593			301
Connolly	v. U.S.P. Co., 184 U.S. 540		41,126,204,233,314,316
Connors		v. U.S., 158 U.S. 40 8			296
Contzen		v. U.S., 179 U.S. 191			291
Converse, In re, 137 U.S. 624 				276
Conway 		v. Taylor, 1 Bl. 603 			82 100
Cook 		v. Hart, 146 U.S. 183  			195
 		v. Moffat, 5 How. 295 			147, 152
 		v. Pennsylvania, 97 U.S. 566 		43, 62, 88
 		v. U.S., 138 U.S. 157 			186, 254
Cook County 	v. C. & C. C. & D. Co. 138 U.S. 635 	224
Cooke 		v. Avery, 147 U.S. 375 			206
Cooley 		v. Board of Wardens. 12 How. 299 	69, 76
Cooper 		v. Newell, 173 U. S: 555 		283, 285, 287
 		v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308 		285
 		In re, 143 U.S. 472 			228
Corfield 	v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371 		300
Cornell 	v. Coyne, 192 U.S. 418 			29, 73
Corson 		v. Maryland, 120 U.S. 502  		55, 91, 302
Cotting 	v. K. C. S. Y. co., 183, U.S. 79 	278, 313
Coughran 	v. Bigelow, 164 U.S. 301 		256
Counselman 	v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 		110
County of Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U.S. 407 	24
County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691 		62, 169, 85, 86
County of Moultrie v. Rockingham T. C. S. Bank, 92 U.S. 631 138, 148, 154
County of Ralls v. Douglass , 105 U.S. 728 		139
Covell 		v. Heyman, Ill U.S. 176 		271. 272
Covington 	v. Kentucky, 173 U.S. 231 		165
Cowles 		v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118 		305
Coy, In re, 127 U.S. 731				296
C. P. Co. 	v. Beckwitb, 188 U.S. 567 		282
C. P. R. 	v. California, 162 U.S. 91 		47
 		v. Nevada, 162 U.S. 512 		46
Craig 		v. Missouri, 4 Pet, 411 		189
Crandall 	v. Nevada 6 U.S. 47 			55, 56, 93, 105, 305
C. Ry. 		v. R ., 166 U.S. 557 			163. 165
C. R. & B. Co. 	v. Wright, 164 U.S. 327 		53, 162, 166
C. S. Ry. 	v. Gebhard, 109 U.S. 527 		308
 		v. Snell, 193 U.S. 30 			318
 		v. Wright, 151 U.S. 470 		317
C. T. Co. 	v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1			10, 257
 		v. Lander, 184 U.S. 1ll 		45, 48
Cumming 	v. Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 	298, 322
Cummings 	v. Chicago, 188 U.S. 410		83
 		v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 		184, 185, 187. 188
 		v. National Bank, 101 U.S. 153 		51
Cunningham 	v. M. & B. R., 109 U.S. 446 		260
Curran 		v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304 		169, 262
Curtis 		v. Whitney, 13 Wall. 68 		144
	Ex parte, 106 U.S. 371 				19
C. & A. R. 	v. W. F. Co., 108 U.S. 18 		283
 		v. W. F. Co., 119 U.S. 615 		229, 230. 282
C. & B. Co. 	v. New Orleans, 99 U.S. 97 		45
Crenshaw 	v. U.S., 134 U.S. 99 			17
C.,R.I.& P. Ry. v. Sturm, 174 U.S. 710 			28
 		v. Zernecke, 183 U.S. 582 		27
Cronin 		v. Adams, 192 U.S. 108 			27
Cross 		v. Allen, 141 U.S. 528 			210, 242, 243, 28
 		v. Harrison, 16 How. 164 		2
 		v. North Carolina, 132 U.S. 131 	269 272, 276
Crossley 	v. California,' 168 U.S. 640 		225 269
Crossman 	v. Lurman, 192 U.S. 189 		96, 100
Crow Dog, Ex parte, 109 U.S. 556 			136
Crowley 	v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86 		322
Cruickshank 	v. Bidwell, 176 U.S. 73  		229
Crutcher 	v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47 		55,56,93,105,305
C. & C. B. Co.  v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204 		66, 70, 84, 169
C. & G. T. Ry.  v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339 		101a, 278
C. & L. T. R. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 		53, 101a, 168, 174, 	
							175 178, 304, 314, 315
C. & N. W. Ry.  v. Chicago, 164 U.S. 454 		224
C. & 0. Ry. 	v. Kentucky, 179 U.S. 388 		78, 98
Daniel Ball, The, 10 Wall. 557 				68, 77, 82, 209
D'Arcy 		v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165 		284
Darrington 	v. Bank of Alabama, 13 How. 12		190
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518 		147, 170, 178
Davenport Bank 	v. Davenport, 123 U.S. 83 		49 
Davidson 	v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 		247, 277
Davis 		v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 		309
 		v. Burke, 179 U.S. 399 			225 274
 		v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U.S. 275 	271
 		v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203 			161, 259, 263
 		v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43 		280
 		v. Packard, 7 Pet. 276 			269
Day 		v. Gallup, 2 Wall. 97 			273
D. C. & I. Co. 	v. Barton, 183 U.S. 23  		304
Debs, In re, 158 U.S. 564 				4, 126, 246, 274
		In re. 64 Fed. 724 			126
Decatur 	v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497 		229
Delaware R. Tax Case, 18 Wall. 206 			53, 566, 102, 174
De Limia 	v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 1 		11,19,27,38,229, 238
Delmas 		v. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 661 		140, 141, 146
Den 		v. Jersey Co., 15 How. 426 		71
Dennick 	v. R. Co., 103 U.S. 11 			210
Denny 		v. Bennett, 128 U.S. 489 		139, 153
 		v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121 		215
Dent 		v. West Virginia 129 U.S. 114 		278
Deposit Bank 	v. Frankfort, 191 U.S. 499 		289
De Saussure 	v. Gaillard, 127 U.S. 216 		224
De Treville 	v. Smalls, 98 U.S. 517 			35
Detroit 	v. D. C. S. R., 184 U.S. 368 		139, 178
 		v. Parker, 181 U.S. 399 		273, 277, 316
Dewey 		v. Des Moines, 173 U.S. 193 		22, 24, 224, 273
D. G. Co. 	v. U.S. G. Co., 187 U.S. 611 		140, 304, 306
Dial 		v. Reynolds, 96 U.S. 340 		266
Dietzsch 	v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494 		267
Diggs 		v. Wolcott, 4 Cr. 179 			266
D. M. Co. 	v. Ontonagon, 188 U.S. 82 		55
Dobbins 	v. Commissioners, 16 Pet. 435 		44
Dodge 		v. Woolsey, IS How. 331 		204
Doe 		v. Beebe, 13 How. 25 			299
Dooley 		v. Pease, 180 U.S. 126 			210, 241, 243
 		v. Smith, 13 Wall. 604 			21
 		v. U.T. S., 183 U.S. 151 		11, 19, 28, 73
Dorr 		v. U.S., 195 U.S. 138 			11, 12
Douglas 	v. Kentucky, 168 U.S. 488 		141, 178
Douglass 	v. County of Pike, 101 U.S. 677 	139
Dow 		v. Beidelman, 125 U.S. 680 		101a, 278, 315
Downes 		v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 		1,4,11,13,19,27,37,234
Downham 	v. Alexandria Council, 10 Wall. 173 	55, 92, 3O2
Doyle 		v. C. 1. Co., 94 U.S. 535 		307
Dred Scott 	v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 		8, 215, 231,.291, 292
Drehman 	v. Stifle, 8 Wall. 595 			144
Dreyer 		v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71 		224, 252, 280
Ducat 		v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410 		63, 305, 306
Duncan 		v. Darst, 1 How. 301 			271
		v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377 	       184,187,274,275,298,322
Dupasseur 	v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. 130		289
Durousseau 	v. U.S., 6 Cr. 307			223
Dynes 		v. Hoover, 20 How. 65 			244
D. & H. C. Co.  v. Pennsylvania. 156 U.S. 200 		22, 23, 4
Eagle, The, 8 Wall. 15 					20
Earle 		v. Conway, 178 U.S. 456 		271, 272
 		v. Pennsylvania, 178 U.S. 449		272
East Hartford 	v. H. Bridge Co, 10 How. 511 		170
Easton 		v. Iowa, 188 U.S. 220 			238, 269
E. B. & L. Assn.v. Ebaugh, 185 U.S. 114 		282
 		v. Williamson, 189 U.S. 		122
Edwards 	v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 282 		532, 208, 243, 255, 
							266, 269
		v. Kearzey 96, U.S. 595 		138
Effinger 	v. Kenney, 115 U.S. 566 		146
E. I. Co. 	v. Ohio 153 U.S. 446			176
Eilenbecker 	v. Plymouth County 134 U.S. 31 		274, 298
Eldridge 	v. Trezevant, 160 U.S. 452 		278, 280, 317
Elk 		v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 		291
E, L. L, CO. 	v. Brown. 155 U.S. 488 			1, 215, 225
Ellenwood 	v. M. C. Co., 158 U.S. 105 		1, 210, 243
Elliott 	v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328 			284
Elmendorf 	v. Taylor, 10 Wheat 152 		282
Emblen 		v. L. L. Co., 184 U.S. 660		253
Embry 		v. Palmer, 107 U.S. 3 			18, 289
Emert 		v. Missouri, 156 U.S. 296 		55, 90, 92. 303
Ennis 		v. Smith, 14 How., 400 			229, 285
Erb 		v. Morasch, 177 U.S. 584 		99, 282, 283
Erie, Ry. 	v. Penna., 21 Wall. 492 		53, 174
Erwin 		v. Lowry, 7 How. 172 			267, 272
E. Ry. 		v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 282 		58, 105
Escanaba Co.    v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678		84, 100
Essex Pub. Road Board v. Skinkle, 140 U.S. 334		170
Etheridge 	v.Sperry, 139 U.S. 266			224, 270, 272
E.T.V. & G. Ry. v. I. C. C., 181 U.S. 1			113
Eustis 		v. Bolles, 150 U.S. 361 		22
Evansville Bank v. Britton, 105 U.S. 322 		5
Ewell 		v. Daggs, 108 U.S. 143 			14
Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 				247
	Bollman	and Swartwout, 4 Cr. 75 		243, 25
	Boyd, 105 U.S. 647 				210
	Christy, 3 How., 292 				268
	Clarke, 100 U.S. 399				296
	Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556				136
	Curtis, 106 U.S. 371				19
	Ferry Co., 104 U.S. 519 			208, 243
	Fonda, 117 U.S. 516 				18 
	Garland, 4 Wall. 333				185, 188
	Gordon, 104 U.S. 515				208, 243
	Jackson, 96 U.S. 727				18
	Kearney, 7 wheat. 38				250
	Lange, 18 Wall. 163				250, 252
	Madrazzo, 7 Pet. 627				261
	Mason, 105 U.S. 696				244
	McNiel, 13 Wall. 236				76, 266
	Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 				244, 245, 250
	Parks, 93 U.S. 18 				250
	Reggel 4 U. 642 				193, 195
	Royall, 117 U.S. 241				18, 225
	Siebold, 100 U.S. 371				296
	Terry, 128 U.S. 289				250, 254
	Virginia, 100 U.S. 339     			295, 313
	Wall, 107 U.S. 265 				247
	Wells, 18 How. 307 				250
	Wilson 114 U.S. 417 				247
	Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 			18, 19, 250, 293, 296
Express Co. 	v. Kountze Bros., 8 Wall. 342 		303
Eyster 		v. Gaff, 91 U.S. 521 			268
Fairbank 	v. U.S., 181 U.S. 283			28, 30, 64, 74, 232
Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112		24, 277, 282
Fanning 	v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524		82, 100, 175
Fargo 		v. Hart, 193 U.S. 490			40, 57, 103
		v. Michigan, 121 U.S. 230		58, 105
Farmers & Meehanical Bank v. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131	147, 150, 152
Farrington 	v. Tennessee, 95 U.S. 679 		162
F. C. & P. R. 	v. Reynolds, 183 U.S. 471 		316, 321
Felsenheld 	v. U.S., 186 U.S. 126 			70
Ferguson 	v. Harwood, 7 Cr. 408 			283
Ferry Co., Ex parte, 104 U.S. 519 			208, 243
Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Paxit, 97 U.S. 659 		176, 178
F. G. L. S. Co. v. Springer, 185 U.S. 47 		206
Ficklen 	v. Shelby County, 145 U.S. 1 		55, 92, 303
Field 		v. B. A. P. Co., 194 U.S. 618 		277, 316
Fielden 	v. Illinois, 143 U.S. 452 		280
Filhiol 	v. Maurice, 185 U.S. 108 		206
Finney 		v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335 			282
First National Bank v. Ayers, 160 U.S. 660 		50
		v. Louisville, 174 U.S. 438 		51
Fischer 	v. St. Louis, 194 U.S. 361 		279, 321
Fisk 		v. Jefferson Police Jury, 116 U.S. 131  138, 148, 154, 179
Fitts 		v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516 		263
Fleming 	v. Page, 9 How. 603 			26
Fletcher 	v. Peck, 6 Cr. 87 			147, 160,4K, 184, 232
Florida 	v. Georgia, 11 How. 293; 		17 id. 478 191, 211
F. L. R. 	v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525 			46
P. M. L. Assn. 	v. Mettler, 185 U.S. 308 		313, 318
Fok Yung Yo 	v. U.S., 185 U.S. 296 			229, 297
Fonda, Ex part, 117 U.S. 516 				18
Fong Yue Ting 	v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698 			19, 238, 254, 297
Forbes 		v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762			46
Ford 		v. D. & P. L. Co., 164 U.S. 662 	24, 53, 166, 167
 		v. Surget, 97 U.S. 594 			139, 191
Foster 		v. Davenport, 22 How. 244 		77, 79, 101
 		v. Kansas, 112 U.S. 201 		100
 	v. Master & Wardens of New Orleans, 94 U.S. 246 75
 		v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253 			238
Fourteen Diamond Rings, Pepke, Claimant, v. U.S., 183 U.S. 176 11, 27, 38
Fouvergne 	v. New Orleans, 18 How. 470 		210
Fowler 		v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411 		262
Fox 		v. Ohio, 5 How. 432 			269
Francis Wright, The, 105 U.S. 381 			223
Frederich, In re, 149 U.S. 70 215, 			225
Frederickson 	v. Louisiana, 23 How. 445 		239
Freeborn 	v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160 			183
Freeland 	v. Williams, 131 U.S. 405 		148, 154, 274
Freeman 	v. Alderson, 119 U.S. 185 		285
 		v. Howe, 24 How.450 			271, 272
Fremont 	v. U.S., 17 How. 542 			230
French 		v. B. A. P. Co., 181 U.S. 324 		24, 277, 316
 		v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250 			267
Fretz 		v. Bull, 12 How. 466 			209
Friedlander 	v. T. & P. Ry., 130 U.S. 416		210, 243, 282
Fritts 		v. Palmer, 132 U. S . 282 		308
Furman 		v. Nichol, 8 Wall. 44 			169
F. W. Co. 	v. Freeport City, 180 U.S. 587 		141,169,176, 177, 178
F. & C. P. R. 	v. Reynolds, 183 U.S. 471 		40, 41
F. & M. Bank 	v. Sm;th, 6 Wheat. 131 			147, 150, 152
F. & M. C. Co. 	v. Fitzgerald, 137 U.S. 98 		308
F. & M. I. Co.  v. Dobney, 189 U.S. 301 		313, 318
Gablenian 	v. P., D. & E. Ry., 179 U.S. 335 	206, 270
Gaines 		v. Fuentes, 92 U.S. 10 			210
Gallup 		v. Schmidt, 183 U.S. 300 		273, 277
Gantly 		v. Ewing, 3 How. 707 			146
Garland, Ex parte, 4 Wall. 333 				185, 188
G., C. & S. F. Ry. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 		278, 304, 313, 314
 		v. Hefley, 158 U.S. 98 			101, 113, 217, 238
Geer 		v. Connecticut, 1161 U.S. 519 		72, 301
Gelpeke 	v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175 		139, 242
Gelston 	v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246 			217, 228, 270
Genesee Chief, The, v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443 		206, 209
Geofroy 	v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 			238
Georgia 	v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402 		260
 		v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50 			229
Georgia, Governor of, v. Madrazo, I Pet. 110 		260, 261
G. F. C.. 	v. Pennsylvamia, 114 U.S. 196 		57, 82, 106
Gibbons 	v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 	   		15, 54, 62, 64, 66,69, 							77, 89, 97, 234, 235
Gibson 		v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565 		184, 186, 295, 313
Giles 		v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 		293, 294
 		v. Teasley, 193 U.S. 146 		293 295
Gilfillan 	v. U. C. Co., 109 U.S. 401 		143
Gilman 		v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713 		484, 217
 		v. Sheboygan, 2 Bl. 510 		24, 154
Ginesi 		v. Cooper, 14 Ch. Div. 601 		237
Giozza 		v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657 		41, 273, 298, 316, 317
Gladson 	v. Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 		99, 101
Glass 		v. Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall. 6 		284
Glenn 		v. Garth, 147 U.S. 360 			282
Glidden 	v. Harrington, 189 U.S. 255 		277
Glide, The, 167 U.S. 606 				209
Godfrey 	v. Terry, 97 U.S. 171 			215
Gonzales 	v. Williams, 192 U.S. 1 		298
Good 		v. Martin, 95 U.S. 90			9
Goodrich 	v. Detroit, 184 U.S. 432 		24, 277
Goodtitle 	v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471 			299
Goodwin 	v. C.M.I. Co. 110 U.S. 1		307
Gordon 		v. U.S., 2 Wall. 561 			223
Ex parte, 104 U.S. 515 					208, 243
Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, I Pet. 110 		260, 261
Grace 		v. A. C. I. Co., 109 U.S. 278 		215
Grand Lodge 	v. New Orleans, 166 U. S . 143 		164
Gray 		v. Connecticut, 159 U.S. 74 		298
Green 		v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1 			142, 161, 169
		v. Creighton, 23 How. 90 		271
	In re, 134 U.S. 377 				296
Greenwood 	v. Freight Co., 105 U.S. 13		165
Grisar 		v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363 		264
Gross 		v. U. S Mtge. Co., 108 U.S. 477 	143, 279
Groves 		v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449 		292, 299
G. R. & 13. Co. v. Smith, 123 U.S. 174 			175, 176, 177
G. R. & I. Ry. 	v. Osborn, 19& U.S. 17 			174, 175, 178
G. S. F. H. Co. v. Jones, 193 U.S. 532 			240, 280
G. S. & L. S. 	v. Dormitzer, 192 U.S. 125 		284, 286
Guarantee Co. 	v. Board of Liquidation, 105 U.S. 622 	144
Gundling 	v. Chicago, 177 U.S. 183 		322
Gunn 		v. Barry, 15 Wall. 610 			138, 146
Gunnison County Comrs. v. Rollins, 173 U.S. 255 	148, 149
Gut 		v. The State, 9 Wall. 35 		186
Guthrie Nat. Bank v. Guthrie 173 U.S. 528 		256
Guy 		v. Baltimore, 100 U.S. 434 		55, 87, 90. 302
G. W. & W. Co.  v. Keyes, 96 U.S. 199 			206
G. & B. S. M. Co. v. Radcliffe, 1[2]7 U.S. 287 		285
G. & S. R. 	v. Rewes, 183 U.S. 66 			53, 140, 150, 162,164,
							165,167
Hackett 	v. Ottawa, 99 U.S. 86 			25
Hagan 		v. Lucas 10 Pet. 400			267, 272
Hagar 		v. Reclamation District, 111 U.S. 701 	20, 277
Hagood 		v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52 		260
Haines 		v. CarPenter, 91 U.S. 254 		266
Hale 		v. Akers, 132 U.S. 544 			224
 		v. Lewis, 181 U.S. 473 			224
Hall 		v. De Cuir, 95 U.S. 485 		78
 		v. Wisconsin, 103 U.S. 5 		169
Hallinger 	v. Davis, 146 U.S. 314 			274
Hamilton 	v. Dillin, 21 Wall. 73 			18
 		v. V., S. & P. R., 119 U.S. 280 	84
Hamilton Co. 	v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632 		45
Hammond 	v. Johnston, 142 U.S. 73 		224
Hampton 	v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234 		283
Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 64O 		288
Hanford 	v. Davies, 163 U.S. 273 		139, 140
Hanley 		v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1 		230, 284 617 68, 102
Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181 		138, 251, 274
Hans 		v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 		181, 205, 262, 263
Hans Nielsen, Petitioner , 131 U.S. 176 		250
Hardin 		v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371 		72
Hare 		v. L. & N. R., & H. Ch. 80 		131
Harkrader 	v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 		225, 266, 272
Harman 		v. Chicago, 147 U.S. 396 		23, 87, 106
Harris 		v. Dennie, 3 Pet. 292 			270
 		v. Hardeman, 14 How. 334 		273, 284
Hartman 	v. Greenhow. 102 U.S. 672 		169
Hauenstein 	v. Lynham , 100 U.S. 483		238
Havemeyer 	v. Iowa Coil -ty, 3 Wall. 294 		139
Haver 		v. Yaker, 9 Wall . 32 			239
Hawaii 		v. Mankichi, 190 U. S 197 		12, 13
Hawthorne 	v. Calef, 2 Wall. 10 			147
Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409 				221, 223
Hayes 		v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68 		320
 		v. Pratt, 147 U.S. 557 			210
Hays 		v. P. M. S. S. Co., 17 How. 596 	57, 103, 106
H. Bridge Co. 	v. Henderson City, 141 U.S. 679 	140
		v. Henderson City, 173 U.S. 592 	278
Head 		v. A. Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9		277
		v. University, 19 Wall. 526 		180
Head Money Cases, The, 112 U.S. 580 			23, 36, 40, 102, 238
Heidritter 	v. Elizabeth Oil Cloth Co., 112 U.S. 294 272
Henderson 	v. Mayor of N. Y., 92 U.S. 259 		57, 105, 237
Hennington 	v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299 		98 603 20
		v. The School Directors, 23 Wall. 480 	50, 51
F. I. Co. 	v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 175 U.S. 91 	210, 241, 243
G. L. Co. 	v. Hamilton City, 146 U.S. 258 		148, 165, 175
Hibben 		v. Smith, 191 U.S. 310 			277
Hickey's Lessee v. Stewart, 3 How. 750 			284
H. I. Co. 	v. Augusta, 93 U.S. 116 		53, 174
		v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445 			307
		v. New York, 134 U.S. 594		45, 316
Higgins 	v. Butcher, Yelv. 89 			208
Hills 		v. Exchange Bank, 105 U.S. 319 		51
Hilton 		v. Guyot 159 U.S. 113 			281
Hine, The, 	v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555 			208, 209, 269
Hinson 		v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148 			55, 92, 302
H. M. L. I. Co. v. Warren, 181 U.S. 73 			320
Hobart 		v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108 			209, 266
Hodgson 	v. Vermont, 168 U.S. 262		274
Holden 		v. Hardy 169 U.S. 366 			248,274,278,298,314,	
							319
 		v. Minnesota, 137 U.S. 483 		187, 28
Holland 	v. Challen, 110 U.S. 15 		243
Hollingsworth 	v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378		258
Hollins 	v. B. C * I. Co., 150 U.S. 371 		243, 265
Holmes 		v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540 		191, 292, 299
 		v. Walton, 9 N. J. L. 427 		233
Holt 		v. I. Mfg. Co., 176 U.S. 68 		206, 270
Holyoke Co. 	v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 500 			166
Home Ins. Co.   v. Augusta, 93 U.S. 116 		53, 174
 		v. New York, 134 U.S. 594 		45
Hooe 		v. Jamieson, l66 U.S. 395 		210
Hooker 		v. Burr, 194 U.S. 415 			143, 146
 		v. Los Angeles, 188 U.S. 314 		224, 276, 277
Hooper 		v. California, 155 U.S. 648 		63 304, 306
Hopkins 	v. McLure, 133 U.S. 380  		224
		v. U.S., 171 U.S. 578  			67, 123, 125, 128
Hopt 		v. People, 104 U.S. 631 		251
 		v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574 			186, 251
 		v. Utah, 114 U.S. 488, 			120 id. 430 251
Hornbuckle 	v. Toombs, 18 Wall . 648 		9
Horner 		v. U.S. 143 U.S. 570 			238
Hornthall 	v. The Collector 9 Wall. 560 		215
Houston 	v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1  			4, 217,	244, 268
Howard 		v. De Cordova, 177 U.S. 609 		285
		v. Fleming, 191 U.S. 126  		224, 258, 322
 		v. U.S. 184 U.S. 676 			206
Hoyt 		v. Sprague, 103 U.S. 613 		299
H. S. M. Co. 	v. New York, 143 U.S. 305 		304, 305, 306. 315
Hughes 		v. Edwards, 9 Wheat 489 		238
Huling 		v. K. V. Ry. & Imp. Co., 130 U.S. 559 	277
Humphrey 	v. Pegues, 16 Wall. 244 		162, 163, 167
Hunt 		v. Hunt, 131 U.S. clxv 			148
		v. Palao, 4 How. 589 			223
Huntington 	v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657 		288
Hurtado 	v. California, 110 U.S. 517 		274
Huse 		v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543 		23, 84, 87
Hyatt 		v.  People. 188 U.S. 691 		195
Hyde 		v. Stone, 20 How. 170  			210, 271
Hylton		v. U.S., 3 Dall. 171 			30, 34
H. & T. C. R.   v. Texas, 177 U.S. 66 			141, 148, 149, 190,
							215, 232
H. & T. C.  	v. Texas, 170 U.S. 243 			139, 161
I. C. C. 	v. A. M. Ry., 168 U.S. 144 		110, 112
 		v. A., T. & S. F. R. 149 U.S. 264 	110, 
		v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25  			113
		v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447 		109, 110
		v. B. & O. R., 145 U.S. 263 		111
		v. C., N. O. & T. P. Ry., 167 U.S. 479 	110
		v. D., G. H. & M. Ry., 167 U.S. 633 	111
		v. L. & N. R., 190 U.S. 273 		113
I. C. R. 	v. Adams, 180 U.S. 28 			263
		v. Chicago, 176 U.S. 646 		141
		v. Decatur 147 U.S. 190 		24
		v. Illinols, 146 U.S. 387 		71, 148, 149
		v. Illinois, 163 U.S. 142 		99, 101
 		v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 77 		71 149
I. C. Ry.,      v. Iowa, 160 U.S. 389 			273, 274, 276
I.C. & I Co. 	v. Gibney, 160 U.S. 217			215
I.L.I. Co.      v. Lewis, 187 U.S. 335 			313, 318
Indiana		V. Kentucky, 136 U.S. 479 		211
In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 				180, 261
	Blake, 175 U.S. 114 				267
	Brown, 135 U.S. 701 				143
	Chapman, 166 U.S. 661 				18
	Converse, 137 U.S. 624 				276
	Cooper, 143 U.S. 472 				228
	Coy, 127 U.S. 731 				296
In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 				4, 126, 246, 274
	Debs, 64 Fed. 724 				126
 	Duncan, 139 U.S. 449 				225, 282
 	Frederich, 149 U.S. 70 				215, 225
	Garnett, 141 U.S. 1 				207, 243
 	Green, 134 U.S. 377 				296
 	Hans Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 			250
 	Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 				257, 273, 298
	Lennon, 166 U.S. 548 				206
 	Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 				298
 	Loney, 134 U.S. 372 				215, 225, 270
	Manning, 139 U.S. 504 				276, 322
	McKenzie, Petitioner, 180 U.S. 536 		250
	Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 				18, 19, 206, 215, 225,
							266, 270
	Quarles and Butler, 158 U.S. 532 		19
	Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545 				96
	Rapier, 143 U.S. 110 				18, 309
	Ross, 140 U.S. 453 				19, 246
	Shibuya Jugiro, 140 U.S. 291 			313
	Swan, 150 U.S. 637 				250
	Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 				272
	Watts and Sachs, 190 U.S. 1 			266
Iowa 		v. Illinois, 147 U.S. 1			211
I. S. S. Co. 	v. Tinker, 94 U.S. 238 			44, 75
Jackson 	v. Chew, 12 Wheat. 153 			241
		v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 280 		143
	Ex parte, 96 U.S. 727 				18
Jackne 		v. New York, 128 U.S. 189 		187
James 		v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127 		293
James Gray, The v. The John Fraser, 21 How. 184 	78, 100
Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86 			19, 232, 251, 297
Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Bl. 436 		52, 141, 162, 175
Jennings 	v. C. R. C. Co., 147 U.S. 147 		41, 43, 316
Johnson 	v. N. Y. L. I. Co.,  187 U.S. 491 	282
		v. Powers, 139 U.S. 156 		285 288
Johnson 	v. Risk 137 U.S. 300 			224
 		v. Sayre, 158 U.S. 109 			244, 247
Jones 		v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327 		215
 		v. Brim, 165 U.S. 180 			274, 318
 		v. Soulard, 24 How. 41 			71
 		v. U.S., 137 U.S. 202 			216, 2 28
Joplin 		v. S. M. L. Co., 191 U.S. 150 		175
Juilliard 	v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 		4, 19, 21, ?.34
Justices, The, 	v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274 			257
Kansas 		v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125 		212
Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 				45
Kate, The, 164 U.S. 458 				208
Kauffman 	v. Wooters, 138 U.S. 285 		73
Kearney, Ex parte, 7 Wheat. 38 				250
Keith 		v. Clark, 97 U.S. 454 			2, 138, IL69
Kelley		v. Rhoads, 188 U.S. 1  			55, 57, 71
Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U.S. 78 			24, 247, 277
Kemmler, In re, 136 U.S. 436 				257, 273, 298
Kendall 	v. U.S., 12 Pet. 521 			229
Kennard 	v. Nebraska, 186 U.S. 304 		206
Kennett 	v. Chambers, 14 How. 38 		228
Kentucky 	v. Dennison, 24 How. 66 		193,194, 204, 213, 260
Kentucky R. Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321 			277, 316
Kepner 		v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 			251, 252
Keyes 		v. U.S., 109 U.S. 336 			244
K. I. Co. 	v. Ilarbison, 183 U.S. 13 		176, 279
Kidd 		v. Alabama, 188 U.S. 730 		41, 306, 316
		v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 			278
Kilbourn 	v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 		18
Kimmish 	v. Ball, 129 U.S. 217 			81, 300
King 		v. Mullins, 171 U.S. 404 		40, 277
 		v. Portland, 184 U.S. 610
Kirtland 	v. Hotchkiss 100 U.S. 491 		23, 41, 42
Knatchbull 	v. Hallett , l3 Ch. Div. 712 		237
Knowles 	v. G. & C. Co., 19 Wall. 58 		283, 287
Knowlton 	v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 			31, 36
Knox 		v. Exchange Bank, 12 Wall. 379 		140
Koenigsberger 	v. R. S. M. Co., 158 U.S. 41 		210
Kohl 		v. U.S., 91 U.S. 367 			19
Koshkonong 	v. Burton, 104 U.S. 668 		143, 146
K. P. R. 	v. A., T. & S. F. R.; 112 U.S. 414 	206
Kreiger 	v. Shelbv R., 125 U.S. 39 		140
Kring 		v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221 		184, 185
Krippendorf 	v. Hyde, 110 U.S. 276 			273
K. W. CO. 	v. Knoxville, 189 U.S. 434 		140, 178, 278
K. W. P. Co. 	v. G. B. & M. C. Co., 142 U.S. 254 	215, 277, 278
K. & H. Bridge CO. v. Illinois 175 U.S. 626 		54 85
K. & W. R. 	v. Missouri 152 U.S. 301		53, 150, 174
Laing 		v. Rigney, 160 U.S. 531 		282
Lake County 	v. Graham, 130 U.S. 674 		148, 149, 150
		v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662 		139, 148, 149
Lammon 		v. Feusier, ill U.S. 17 		273
Lampasas 	v. Bell, 180 U.S. 276 			206, 228
Landes 		v. Brant, 1G How. 348 			283
Lane County 	v. 7 Wall. 71 				20
Lange, Ex parte, 18 Wall. 163 				250, 252
Langford 	v. U.S., 101 Ti. S. 341 		3
Lascelles 	v. Georgia, 148 U.S. 537 		194
L. A. S. M. CO. v. U.S., 175  U.S. 423 			228
Lawler 		v. Walker, 14 How. 149 			215
Lawton 		v. Steele, 152 U.S. L. C. 133 		274
L., C. & C. R. 	v. Letson. 2 How. 497 			262, 303
League 		v. De Young, 11 How.185 		138, 143
		v. Texas, 184 U.S. 156 			40, 182, 183, 277
Leeper 		v. Texas, 139 U.S. 462 			273, 282
Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457 			19, 20, 232
Leigh 		v. Green, 193 U.S. 79 			277
Leisy 		v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 		69, 91, 94, 96, 100
Leloup 		v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640  	56, 135
Lem Moon Sing 	v. U.S., 158 U.S. 538			19
Lennon, In re, 166 U.S. 548				206
Lent 		v. Tillson, 140 U.S. 316		276, 277
Leon 		v. Galceran, 11 W 185			269
Leovy 		v. U.S., 177 U.S. 621			82, 84
Leroux 		v. Hudson, 109 U.S.468 			266
Lessee of Hickey v. Stewart, 3 How. 750			284
L. G. Co. 	v. C. G. Co., 115 U.S. 683		169
L. G. L. Co. 	v. Murphy, 170 U.S. 78			177
License Cases, 5 How. 504 				65, 95, 100
License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462 				26, 53, 70, 174
L. I. Co. 	v. French, 18 How. 404  		284, 286, 306
		v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall.566 		63, 303, 305, 306
Lincoln 	v. Power, 151 U.S.436			265
Lincoln County 	v. Luning, 133 				262
Lionberger 	v. Rouse 9 Wall 468			49
Li Sing 	v. U.S., 180 U.S. 486			297
Livingston 	v. M. I. Co., 6 Cr. 274 		229
		v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469 			182, 183
		v. Story, 9 Pet. 632 			243
L. I. W. CO. 	v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685		176, 277
Lloyd 		v. Matthews, 155 U.S. 222 		282
L. N. A. & C. Ry. v. L. T. Co., 174 U.S. 552 		303, 305
L., N. 0. & T. Ry. v. Mississippi 133 U.S. 587		78, 98
Loan Assn. 	v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 		24
Locke 		v. New Orleans, 4 Wall.172 		183
Lockwood, In re, 154 U.S. 116 				298
Loeb 		v. Columbia Township Trustees, 179 U.S. 472 139
Logan 		v. U.S., 144 U.S. 263 			4, 19
Loney, In re, 134 U.S. 372 				215, 225, 270
Looker 		v. Maynard, 179 U.S. 46			165
Lord 		v. S. S. Co., 102 U.S.541 		68, 207
Los Angeles 	v. L. A. W. Co., 177 U.S. 558		148, 169, 178
Lottawanna, The, 21 Wall. 558 				207, 208, 243, 266
Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321 				64 119
Loughborough 	v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317 			9, 18, 27, 37
Louisiana 	v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711 			260, 261
		v. Mayor of New Orleans, 109 U.S. 285 	147, 148, 154, 275
		v. New Orleans, 102 U.S. 203 		148, 153, 155
		v. Pilsbury, 105 U.S. 278 		148, 153, 155
		v. Steele, 134 U.S. 230			260, 262
		v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1 			212
Low 		v. Austin, 13 Wall. 29 			43, 88
Lowe 		v. Kansas, 163 U.S. 81 			274, 318
L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. Ohio, 165 U.S. 365 		83, 84
		v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285 			99
		v. Smith, 173 U.S. 684 			101a,278,304, 313, 314
Luther 		v. Borden, 7 How. 1 			228, 229, 327
Luxton 		v. N. R. Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 	19
L. V. R. 	v. Pennsylvania, 145 U.S. 192 		68, 104
L. W. Co. 	v. Clark, 143 U.S. 1 			165
		v. Easton, 121 U.S. 388 		139, 140
Lyle 		v. Richards, 9 S. &. R. 356 		235
Lyng 		v. Michigan, 135 U.S. 161 		91
L. & G. W. S. Co. v. P. I. Co. 129 U.S. 397		223, 229, 243
L. & J. F. Co. 	v. Kentucky 188 U.S. 385 		42, 277
L. & N. R. 	v. Behlmer, 175 U.S. 648 		112
		v. Eubank, 184 U.S. 27 			101, 113
		v. Kentucky, 161 U.S. 677 		176
		v. Kentucky, 183 U.S. 503 		149, 175, 176, 177
							178, 279, 313, 315,
							321
		v. Palmes, 109 U.S. 244 		141
		v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230 		273, 274
		v. Woodson, 134 U.S. 614 		274
L. & P. Co. 	v. Mullen, 176 U.S. 126 		23, 87, 89
Machine Co. 	v. Gage, 100 U.S. 676 			55, 92, 302
Mackin 		v. U.S., 117 U.S. 348 			247
Madrazzo, Ex parte, 7 Pet. 627 				261
Mager 		v. Grima, 8 How. 490 			22, 41
Magoun 		v. I. T. & S. Bank, 170 U.S. 283 	40, 41, 316
Maguire 	v. Card, 21 How. 248 			209
Mahon		v. Justice, 127 U.S. 700		194
Maine 		v. G. T. Ry., 142 U.S. 217 		55, 56, 103, 305
Mallett 	v. North Carolina, 181 U.S. 589 	184, 187, 320
Manchester 	v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240		72
Manning, In re, 139 U.S. 504 				276, 322
Marbury 	v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137 			3, 204, 220, 229, 231,
							232, 234
Markuson 	v. Boucher, 175 U.S. 184		225
Marrow 		v. Brinkley, 129 U.S. 178 		276
Marsh 		v. N., S. & Co., 140 U.S. 344 		206, 270
Marshall 	v. B. & 0. R., 16 How. 314 		303
Marshall 	v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589 		19, 225
Martin 		v. B. & 0. R., 151 U.S. 673 		19, 225
		v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 	1, 2, 3, 7, 15, 19, 	
							204, 205, 217, 218,
							234, 265
		v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19			244
		v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367			71
Maryland 	v. B. & O. R., 3 How. 534		170
Mason 		v Haile, 12 Wheat. 370 			143
		v. Missouri, 179 U.S. 328 		293
	Ex parte, 105 U.S. 696 				244
Massachusetts 	v. W. U. T. Co., 141 U.S. 40 		54, 134
Matthew 	v. A. P. of N. Y. 136 N. Y. 333 	125
Mattingly 	v. N. W. V. R., 158 U.S. 53 		215
Mattox 		v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237 			255
Maxwell 	v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 			234, 237, 274, 298,
							311, 320, 322
		v. Stewart 22 Wall. 77 			283, 284, 286
May 		v. New Orleans, 178 U.S. 496 		88
Mayhew 		v. Thatcher, 6 Wheat. 129 		284
Maynard 	v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 			148
Mayor 		v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247 			204, 206, 225
		v. Lord, 9 Wall. 409 			267
McAllister 	v. U.S., 141 U.S. 174 			8, 9
McCall 		v. California, 136 U.S. 104		56, 105, 305
McClung 	v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598 		270
McCracken 	v. Hayward, 2 How. 608 			146
MeCray 		v. U.S., 195 U.S. 27 			26, 251
McCready 	v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391 		72, 299, 301, 302
McCulloch 	v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 		1, 3, 4, 15, 16 17,
							22, 48, 65 237
McCullough 	v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 		141, 169
McDonald 	v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311 		187, 317
McElmoyle 	v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312 			283
McElrath 	v. U.S., 102 U.S. 426 			209, 255
MeElvaine 	v. Brush, l42 U.S. 155 			298
McGaheY 	v. Virginia, 135 U.S. 662 		169, 181, 263
McGuire 	v. The Commonwealth. 3 Wall. 387 	47, 70
McKane 		v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 		301
MeKenzie, Petitioner, In re, 180 U.S. 536 		250 
McKim 		v. Voorhies, 7 Cr. 279 			270
McMillan 	v. McNeill, 4 Wheat. 209 		147, 150, 152
McMillen 	v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 37 		277
	McNiel, Ex parte, 13 Wall. 236 			76, 266
McNitt 		v. Turner, 16 Wall. 352 		283
McNulty 	v. Batty, 10 How. 72 			223
		v. California, 149 U.S. 645 		274
McPherson 	v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 			296
M. C. P. & S. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 151 U.S. 368 	112
Medley, Petitioner, 134 U.S. 160 			185, 215, 225
Meigs 		v. McClung's Lessee, 9 Cr. 11 		264
Memphis 	v. U.S., 97 U.S. 293 			148, 153, 155
Memphis Bank 	v. Tennessee. 161 U.S. 186 		53, 164, 174
Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U.S. 138 		49, 50
Merchants & Manufacturers' Bk. v. Pennsylvania, 167 U.S. 461 41, 52, 277, 316
Meriwether 	v. Garrett, 102 U.S. 472 		24, 148, 155
M. E. Ry. 	v. Minnesota, l34 U.S. 467 		177, 278
Metcalf		v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586  		206
Metropolitan Bank v. Clagggett, 141 U.S. 520 		224
M. G. Co. 	v. Shelby County, 109 U.S. 398 		41, 53, 174
Middleton 	v. Mullica Township, 112 U. S. 433 	25
Miller 		v. C. R., 168 U.S. 131 			282
		v. State, 15 Wall. 478 			166
	Milligan, Ex parte, 4 Wall. 2 			244, 245, 250
Mills 		v. Brown, 16 Pet. 525 			215
		v. Duryee , 7 Cr. 481 			283
		v. Green , 159 U.S. 651 		228
		v. St. Clair County, 8 How. 581 	175
Minder 		v. Georgia, 183 U.S. 559 		274, 322
Minnesota 	v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313 		81, 90, 237
		v. Brundage, 180 U.S. 499 		18, 225
		v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373 		213
		v. N.S. Co., 184 U.S. 199 		213
Minnesota 	v. N. S. Co., 194 U.S. 48 		126, 215
Minor 		v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 		293, 311
Minot 		v. P., W. & B. R., 18 Wall. 206 	53, 56, 102
Mississippi 	v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475 		229
Mississippi Mills v. Cohn, 150 U.S. 202 		243, 265
Missouri 	v. Andriano, 138 U.S. 496 		204, 224
		v. Dockery, 191 U.S. 165 		41, 316
		v. Harris, 144 U.S. 210 		140
		v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 		212
		v. Iowa, 7 How. 660 			191, 211
		v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22 			275, 322
		v. Walker, 125 U.S. 339 		169
Mitchell 	v. Clark, 110 U.S. 633 			265
		v. First Nat. Bank, 180 U.S. 471 	282
		v. Harmony, 13 How. 115 		264 
		v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406 			72, 206
M., K. & T. Ry. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613 			81
		v. May, 194 U.S. 267 			316
		v. McCann, 174 U.S. 580 		99
		v. Missouri R. & W. Comrs., 183 U.S. 53 210
M. L. 1. Co. 	v. McGrew, 188 U.S. 291 		224
M. N. Co. 	v. U.S., 148 U.S. 312 			253
Mobile 		v. Watson, 116 U.S. 289  		148, 153, 155
Mogul S. S. Co. McGregor, 23 Q. B. D. 598 		116
Montague 	v. Lowry, 193 U.S. 38 			127
Montalet 	v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46 			215
Montello, The, 20 Wall. 430 				82, 209
Montgomery 	v. Portland, 190 U.S. 89 		83
Moore 		v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 338 		145
		v. Illinois, 14 How. 13 		269
		v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673 		275, 298, 317
		v. U.S., 91 U.S. 270 			235
Moran 		v. Horsky, 178 U.S. 205 		224
		v. New Orleans, 112 U.S. 69 		57, 106
		v. Sturges, 154 U.S. 256 		208, 209, 269, 272
Morgan 		v. Louisiana 93 U.S. 217 		52, 148, 150, 164
Morgan 		v. Louisiana, 118 U.S. 455 		24, 80
		v. Parham, 16 Wall. 471 		57, 106
Morley 		v. L.S.&M.S. Ry., 146 U.S. 162 		144, 146, 148, 154,
							278
Mormon Church 	v. U.S., 136 U.S. 19 			10, 19, 251, 309
Moses Taylor, The, 4 Wall. 411 				205, 208, 209, 217,
							218, 269
Motes 		v. U.S., 178 U.S. 458 			255
M. P. Ry. 	v. Humes, 115 U.S. 512 			100, 316
		v. Mackey, 127 U.S. 205 		100,278, 304, 314, 315
		v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403 		278, 280
M. S. Co. 	v. Louisiana, 118 U.S. 455 		24, 80
M. S. S. Co. 	v. McGregor, 23 Q. B. D. 598 		116
M. T. Co. 	v. Mobile, 187 U.S. 479 		2, 72, 149, 299
Mugler 		v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 		100, 237, 278, 298
Muller 		v. Dows, 94 U.S. 444 			215
Mumma 		v. The Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 281 		175
Munn 		v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 		98, 278, 315
Murdock 	v. Ward, 178 U.S. 139			31, 36
Murphy 		v. Ramsey, 114 U. S 15 			9, 187
Murray 		v. Charleston, 96 U.S. 432 		53 169
Murray's Lessee v. H. L. & I Co., 18 How. 272 		247 250
Myrick 		v. M. C. R., 107 U.S. 102 		242
M. & L. R. 	v. C. R., 66 N. H. 100 			131
M. & M. Bank 	v. Pennsylvania, 167 U.S. 461 		41, 52, 277, 316
M. & M. R. 	v. Ward, 2 Bl. 485 			84
M. & 0. R. 	v. Tennessee, 153 U.S. 486 		52, 141, 162
M. & St. L. R. 	v. Minnesota, 186 U.S. 257 		101b, 313, 315
		v. Minnesota, 193 U.S. 53 		100, 279
M. & St. L. Ry. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 		100,278, 304, 314, 316
		v. Emmons, 149 U.S. 364			176, 316
M. & St L. Ry. 	v. Gardner, 177 U.S. 332 		175
	 	v. Herrick, 127 U.S. 210 		278, 304, 314, 315
Nash 		v. Lull, 102 Mass. 60 			270
Natal 		v. Louisiana, 139 U.S. 621 		274, 321
Nathan 		v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73 		55, 63
National Bank 	v. Chapman, 173 U.S. 205 		49, 50
 		v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353 		47, 48
 		v. U.S., 101 U.S. 1 			31
Nations 	v. Johnson, 24 How. 195 		273, 285
N. B. Co. 	v. U.S., 105 U.S. 470 			83
N. C. Ry. 	v. Maryland, 187 U.S. 258 		53 164, 165, 168, 174
N., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Alabama, 128 U.S. 96 		24, 98, 246, 278
Neagle, In re, 135 U.S. 1 				18, 19, 206, 215, 225,
							266, 270
Neal 		v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 		295
Nebraska 	v. Iowa, 145 U.S. 519 			211
Nelson 		v. St. Martins Parish, 11 U.S. 716 	148, 153, 155
Nevada Bank 	v. Sedgwick, 104 U.S. 1ll 		23
New Hampshire 	v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76 		211, 261
New Jersey 	v. New York, 5 Pet. 284 		211
 		v. Wilson, 7 Cr. 164 			52, 161
 		v. Yard, 95 U.S. 104 			52, 162, 163, 165
New Orleans v. Citizens Bank, 167 U.S. 371 		53, 167, 174
 		v. Morris, 105 U.S. 600 		179
 		v. N. 0. W. W., 142 U.S. 79 		148, 170
 		v. Paine, 147 U.S. 261 			229
 		v. Stempel, 175 U.S. 309 		40, 41
Newton 		v. Commissioners, 100 U.S. 548 		179
New York 	v. Barker, 179 U.S. 279 		321
 		v. Connecticut, 4 Dell. 1 		211
 		v. Eno, 155 U.S. 89 			255
New York v. Knight, 192 U.S. 21 			56, 10
 		v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76 		211, 261
 		v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102 			78, 79, 101
 		v. Roberts, 171 U.S. 658 		54, 55, 304, 306, 315
 		v. Squire, 145 U.S. 175 		176, 278, 317
New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761 				45
N. F. & P. W. 	v. 0. W. S. Co. 183 U.S. 216 		206, 289
Nicol 		v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509 			31, 36, 232
Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U.S. 176 			250
Nishimura Ekiu 	v. U.S., 142 U.S. 651 			297
N. J. N. Co. 	v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344 		209
N. M. B. & L. Assn. v. Brahan, 193 U.S. 635 		140, 224
N. M. R. 	v. Maguire, 20 Wall. 46 		174
N., M. & Co. 	v. Ohio, 3 How. 720 			97
Noble 		v. U. R. L. R., 147 U.S. 165 		229 398 274
N. 0. C. & L. R. v. New Orleans, 143 U.S. 192 		53, 174
 		v. New Orleans, 157 U.S. 219 		142
N. 0. F. Inspectors v. Glover, 160 U.S. 170 		228
N. 0. G. Co. 	v. L. L. Co., 115 U.S. 650 		138, 169
North Carolina 	v. Temple, 134 U.S. 22 260, 		262
Northern Securities Case, 193 U.S. 197 			64, 67, 122, 124, 125,
							127 129, 131
Norton 		v. Board of Comrs. of Brownsville, 129 U.S. 479 148, 149
 		v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 		204, 232
Norwood 	v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269 			24, 277, 316
N. 0. W. Co. 	v. Louisiana, 185 U.S. 336 		140
N. 0. W. W. 	v. L. S. Co., 125 U.S. 18 		140
 		v. Rivers, 115 U.S. 674 		169
N. P. R. 	v. Amato, 144 U.S. 465 			206
N. P. R. 	v. Colburn, 164 U.S. 383 		206
 		v. Myers, 172 U.S. 589 			46
N. S. Co. 	v. U.S., 193 U.S. 197 			64, 67, 122, 124, 125,
							127, 129, 131
Nugent 		v. Boyd, 3 How. 426 			268
Nutting 	v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 553 		63, 304
N. W. Co. 	v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561 		175
N.Y. L. E. & W. R. v. Pennsylvania, 153 U.S. 628 	22, 23, 43, 176, 304
 		v. Pennsylvania, 158 U.S. 431 		55, 103
N. Y. L. I. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U.S. 389 		63, 304, 306
N. Y., N. H. & H. R. v . New York, 165 U.S. 628 	99, 319
N. Y. & N. E. R. v. Baristol, 151 U.S. 556 		165, 317
N. & W. R. 	v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 195 		21
		v. Pendleton, 156 U.S. 667 		53, 168, 174, 173,
							176, 178
 		v. Pennsylvania, 136 U.S. 114 		56, 105, 304, 305
N. & W. R. 	v. Sims  191 U.S. 441  			55, 92
Oates 		v. Nat. Bank, 100 U.S. 239 		242
Ochiltree 	v. R. Co., 21 Wall. 249 		144
Ogden 		v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213 		147, 151, 153, 173,
							182, 237
Ohio 		v. Dollison, 194 U.S. 445 		247, 275, 298, 317
 		v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 		18, 215, 225, 238, 270
O. I. Co. 	v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557 			279, 303, 304,314, 319
Olcott 		v. The Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678 	25, 139
O. L. 1. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416 		139, 141, 175, 242
O'Neil 		v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323 		257
O. O. Co. 	v. Indiana, 177 U.S. 190 		278
O. P. Co. 	v. Aiken, 121 U.S. 444 			23, 87
Orr 		v. Gilman, 183 U.S. 278			40, 41,53,166,280,316
Osborn 		v. Bank of the U.S., 9 Wheat. 738   17,48,206,215,228,258,264
 		v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654 		310
Osborne 	v. County of Adams, 106 U.S. 181, 	109 id. 1 24
 		v. Florida, 164 U.S. 650 		56, 103
 		v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479 		135
Otis 		v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606 		321
Ottawa 		v. Carey, 108 U.S. 110 			25
 		v. National Bank, 105 U.S. 343 		25
O. W. Co. 	v. Oshkosh, 187 U.S. 437 		140, 143, 144
Owensboro 	v. 0. W. S. Co., 191 U.S. 358 		175, 177
Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U.S. 664 		51
Owings 		v. Hull, 9 Pet. 607 			229, 283
		v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420 			138
O. & M. R. 	v. Wheeler, 1 Bl. 286 			215, 303, 304
Pace 		v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 		315
		v. Burgess, 92 U.S. 372 		29, 73
Pacific Nat. Bank v. Mixter, 124 U.S. 721 		270
Packet Co. 	v. Catlettsburg, 105 U.S. 559 		23, 87
		v. Keokuk, 95 17. U.S. 80 		23, 87, 233
		v. St. Louis, 100 IT. S. 423 		23, 87
Palmer 		v. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660 		49, 50, 51, 277
Pana 		v. Bowler, 107 U.S. 529 		242
Parish 		v. Ellis, 16 Pet. 451 			243
Parkersburg 	v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487 			24
Parkinson 	v. U.S., 121 U.S. 281 			247
Parks, Ex parte, 93 U.S. 18 				250
Parsons 	v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433 			243, 255, 256
		v. C. & N. W. Ry., l67 U.S. 447 	111, 112
Passaic Bridge Case, The, 3 Wall. 782 			84
Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283a 				54, 57, 66. 105
Patterson 	v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 		65. 70
Patton 		v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608  		31, 206
Paul 		v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168 		63,300,303,304,305,306
Paulsen 	v. Portland, 149, U.S. 30 		277
Paup 		v. Drew, 10 How. 218 			169
Payne 		v. Hook, 7 Will. 425 			210
P. C., C. & St. L. Ry,. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421 	40, 57. 277
		v. Board of Pub. Works: 172 U.S. 32 	54, 85
P. Co. 		v. Adams, 189 U.S. 420 56, 103 See Packet Co. 
Peake 		v. New Orleans, 139 U.S. 342 		24
Peale 		v. Phipps, 14 How. 368 			267, 272
Pearce 		v. Texas, 155 U.S. 311 			195
Pearsall 	v. G. N. Ry., 161 U.S. 646 		142,149,165,176,177
Pearson 	v. Yewdall, 95 U.S. 294 		255, 277
Pease 		v. Peck, 18 How. 595 			242
Peck 		v. Jenness, 7 How. 612 			267, 272
Peete 		v. Morgan, 19 Wall. 581 		44, 74, 81
Peik 		v. C. & N. W. Ry., 94 U.S. 164 		98, 176
Pelton 		v. National Bank, 101 U.S. 143 		51
Pennie 		v. Reis, 132 U.S. 464 			179, 280
Penniman's Case, 103 U.S. 714 				143
Pennoyer 	v. MeConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1 		263
		v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 			249, 283, 285
Pennsylvania v. W. & B. Bridge Co., 9 How. 647, 	11 id. 528 84
		v. W. & B. Bridge Co., 13 How. 518 	84, 239, 243
		v. W. & B. B. Co., 18 How. 421 		73, 83. 84
Pennsylvania College Case's, 13 Wall. 190 		166
People 		v. C. G. T., 107 U.S. 59 		57, 89, 105
		v. Commissioners, 1o4 U.S. 466 		56, 63
		v. Commissioners of Taxes, 2 Bl. 620 	44
		v. Commissioners of Taxes. 94 U.S. 415 	51, 52, 150
People 		v. Cook, 148 U.S. 397 			53, 164, 165, 168, 174
		v. The Commissioners, 4 Wall. 244 	48
		v. Weaver, 100 U.S. 539 		50, 51
Pepke 		v. U.S., 183 U.S. 176 			11, 27, 38
Permoli 	v. First Municipality, 3 How. 589 	299
Perrine 	v. C. & D. C. Co., 9 How. 172 		175
Pervear 	v. The Commonwealth. 5 Wall. 475 	47, 70, 25 7
Petit 		v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164 		320
P. Ex. Co. 	v. Seibert, 142 U.S. 339 		41, 56
P. P. A. 	v. New York, 119 U.S. 110 		63, 304, 305, 306
P. F. & m. I. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 U.S. 174 		53, 166, 174
P. G. Co. 	v. North Carolina, 171 U.S. 345 	89
P. G. & C. Co. 	v. Chicago, 194 U.S. 1 			168, 176, 178
Phelps 		v. Holker, 1 Dall. 261 			285
Philadelphia 	v. The Collector, 5 Wall. 720 		225
Picard 		v. P.S. C. Co., 117 U.S. 34 		53, 166, 168, 174
Pickard 	v. P.S. C. Co., 117 U.S. 34 		58, 105
P. I. Co. 	v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433 			31
		v. Tennessee, 161 U.S. 193 		52, 140, 150, 164, 174
Pierce 		v. Carskadon, 16 Wall. 234 		146, 185, 188
		v. Indseth, 106 U.S. 546 		229
Pinney 		v. Nelson, 183 U.S. 14l 		14O, 308
Planters' Bank 	v. Sharp, 6 How. 301 			169
Pleasant Township v. A. L. I. Co., 138 U.S. 67 		139, 141, 148, 149
Plessy 		v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 		280, 298, 310, 318
Plumley 	v. Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 61 		47 96
Plummer 	v. Coler, 178 U.S. 115 			44, 45
P. M. Co. 	v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 		304, 305, 314. 315
Poindexter 	v. Greenhow. See Virginia Coupon Cases.
Polk's Lessee 	v. Wendell, 9 Cr. 87 			240
Pollard 	v. Hagan, 3 How. 212 			2, 72, 299
Pollock 	v. F. L. & T. Co., 157 U.S. 429 	30, 34
		v. F. L. & T. Co., 158 U.S. 601 	34, 39, 233
Poole 		v. Fleeger , 11 Pet. 185 		191
Pope 		v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 		292
Pound 		v. Turck 95 U.S. 459 			84
Powell 		v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678 		315
P. P. C. Co. 	v. Hayward, 1 41 U.S. 36 		103
 		v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 		22, 40, 57, 103
P. R. 		v. Maguire, 20 Wall. 36 		52, 16
 		v. Miller, 132 U.S. 75 			176, 17
 		v. Napier S. Co., 166 U.S. 280 		20
Presser 	v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 		233, 29
Prevost 	v. Greneaux, 19 How. 1 			23
Prigg 		v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539 		19, 204, 235, 292, 29
Prout 		v. Starr, 188 U.S. 537 			26
Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514 		41, 53, 17
Provident Inst. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 611 		4
Provident Inst. for Savings v. Jersey City, 113 U.S. 506 27
Provident Savings Society, v. Ford, 114 U.S. 635 	20
P. R. Removal Cases , 115 U.S. 1 			206
P. T. C. Co. 	v. Adams, 155 U.S. 688 			54, 134, 305
		v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482 		210, 215, 221
		v. Baltimore, 156 U.S. 210 		24, 134
		v. Charleston, 153 U.S. 692 		56, 134
		v. New Hope, 192 U.S. 55 		24
		v. Taylor, 192 U.S. 64 			24, 134
P. T. Co. 	v. W. U. T. Co., 96 U.S. 1 		62, 64, 134, 305
Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497 		251
Pulliam 	v. Osborne, 17 How. 471 		272
P. & S. C. Co. 	v. Bates, 156 U.S. 577 			43, 55, 94, 104
		v. Louisiana, 156 U.S. 590 		54, 89
P. & S. S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326 	57, 65, 105
Quarles and Butler, In re, 158 U.S. 532 		19
Queensbury 	v. Culver, 19 Wall. 83 			25
Rahrer, In re, 140 U.S. 545 				96
Ralls County Court v. U.S., 105 U.S. 733 		148, 153, 155
Randall 	v. Kreiger, 23 Wall. 137 		143
Rapier, In re, 143 U.S. 110 				18, 309
Rash 		v. Farley, 159 U.S. 263 		55, 92, 303
Rasmussen 	v. Idaho, 181 U.S. 198 			81
Ratterman 	v. W. U. T. Co., 127 U.S. 411 		56, 134
R. B. Co., 	v. Brister, 179 U.S. 445 		92
R. Co. 		v. Alabama, 101 U.S. 832 		180
 		v. County of Otoe, 16 Wall. 667 	25
 		v. Ellerman, 105 U.S. 166 		170
 		v. Falconer, 103 U.S. 821 		154
 		v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 560 		98, 113.
 		v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 359 		165
 		v. Hamersley, 104 U.S. 1 		176
 		v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 168 			142
 		v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465 			81
 		v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262 		42
 		v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 5 			305
 		v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357 		242
 		v. McClure, 10 Wall. 511 		138, 140
 		v. Mississippi, 102 U.S. 135 		203
 		v. Nat. Bank, 102 U.S. 14 		242
 		v. Richmond, 96 U.S. 521 		101, 321
 		v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177 			140, 215
 		v. Schurmeir, 7 Wall. 272 		71
 		v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337 		180, 181
R. Cos. 	v. Gaines, 97 U.S. 697 			52,53,150,164,166,167
Reagan 		v. F. L. & T. Co., 154 U.S. 362 	101a, 177, 313, 315
		v. M. T. Co., 154 U.S. 413 		101a
Reetz 		v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505 		187, 278
Reggel, Ex parte, 114 U.S. 642 				193, 195
Reid 		v. Colorado, 187 U.S. 137 		81, 232
Relfe 		v. Rundle, 103 U.S. 222 		308
Removal Cases, 100 U. S, 457 				225
Renaud 		v. Abbott, 116 U.S. 277 		284
Reynolds 	v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254 		285, 286
		v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 			9, 254, 309
R. G. R. 	v. Gomila, 132 U.S. 478 		272
Rhode Island 	v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657 		2, 191, 211, 234, 235
Rice 		v. R. Co., 1 Bl. 358 			174
Richmond 	v. S. B. T. Co., 174 U.S. 761 		134
Rider 		v. U.S., 178 U.S. 251 			84
Ridings 	v. Johnson, 128 U.S. 212 		243
Riggs 		v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 166 		267
Rippey 		v. Texas, 193 U.S. 504 			317
Ritchie 	v. Mullen, 159 U.S. 235 		281
Roanoke, The, 189 U.S. 185 				208, 266
Ro Bards 	v. Lamb, 127 U.S. 58 			274
Robb 		v. Connolly, 111 U.S. 624 		195, 271
Robbins 	v. Shelby County. 120 U.S. 489 		55, 69, 92, 93, 302
Roberts 	v. Reilly, 116 U.S. 80 			195
		v. U.S., 176 U.S. 221 			229
Robertson 	v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 		218, 310
		v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646 			215
Robinson 	v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212 		243
		v. Colehour, 146 U.S. 153  		224
Rogers 		v. Alabama, 192 U.S. 226		295, 313, 319
 		v. Burlington 3 Wall. 654 		25
Roller 		v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 			273
Pose 		v. Himely, 4 Cr. 241 			228, 284
Rosen 		v. U.S., 161 U.S. 29 			254
Rosenblatt 	v. Johnston, 104 U.S. 462 		48
Ross, In re, 140 U.S. 453 				19, 246
Rothschild 	v. Knight, 184 U.S. 334 		224
Royall 		v. Virginia, 116 U.S. 572, 		121 id. 102 169
	Ex parte, 117 U.S. 241 				18, 225
R. R. 		v. C. V. R., 159 U.S. 630 		224
Ruggles 	v. Illinois, 108 U.S. 526 		176, 177
Rundle 		v. D. & R. C. Co., 14 How. 80 		71
Runyan 		v. Coster, 14 Pet. 12  			304, 305
R. W. Parsons, The, 191 U.S. 17 			208, 209
Ry. Co. 	v. Philadelphia, 101 U.S. 528 		53, 166
		v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 276 	       208,210,215,243,266,303
Ryder 		v. Holt, 128 U.S. 525 			63
R. & A. R. 	v. P. T. Co., 169 U.S. 311 		99
R. & G. R. 	v. Reid, 13 Wall. 269 			52, 162, 163
R. & P. R. 	v. L.R., 13 How. 81 			175
Salt Co. 	v. East Saginaw, 13 Wall. 373 		164
Salt Lake City 	v. Tucker, 166 U.S. 707 		256
Sands 		v. M. R. 1. Co., 123 U.S. 288 		23, 84, 87
Santa Clara County v. S. P. R., 118 U.S. 394 		304, 314
Satterlee 	v. Matthewson, 2 Pet. 380 		182, 183
Savings Society v. Multnomah County, 169 U.S. 421 	22, 40, 41, 42
Sawyer 		v. Piper, 189 U.S. 54 			206
Sayward 	v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180 			215, 224
Schaefer 	v. Werling, 188 U.S. 516 		316
Schick 		v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 			235, 246, 254
Schillinger 	v. U.S., 155 U.S. 163 			209
Scholey 	v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331 			31
Schollenberger 	v. Pennsylvania, 171 U.S. 1 		96, 315
Schurz 		v. Cook. See People v. Cook
S. Co. 		v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522 			208
		v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450 		76
		v. Portwardens , 6 Wall. 31 		44, 57, 74, 106
Scotland County Court v. U.S., 140 U.S. 41 		153, 155
Scott 		v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58 			91, 96
		v. Jones , 5 How. 343 			138
		v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34 			274
		v. Neely, 140 U.S. 106 			210, 243
		v.Sandford, 19 How. 393 		8, 215, 231, 291, 292
Scranton 	v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141 		253
S. C. S, Ry. 	v. Sioux City, 138 U.S. 9		8 53, 165, 174
Scudder 	v. Comptroller, 175 U.S. 32 		224
S. D. L. & T. Co. v. Jasper, 189 U.S. 439 		101b, 278
		v. National City, 174 U.S. 739 		101b, 278
Searight 	v. Stokes, 3 How. 151 			97
Seeberger 	v. McCormick, 175 U.S. 274 		224
Seibert 	v. Lewis, 122 U.S. 284 			155
Seneca Nation 	v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 		224
Sentell 	v. N. 0. & C. R., 166 U.S. 698 		280
S. F. et A. des E. U. v. Milliken, 135 U.S. 304 	305
Shaw 		v. Covington, 194 -U.S. 593 		17
		v. Robbins, 12 Wheat. 369 		151, 15
Shelby County 	v. Union & Planters Bank, 161 U.S. 149 	53, 141, 162, 167, 17
Sherlock 	v. Alling, 93 TJ. S. 99 		20
Shibuya Jugiro, in re, 140 U.S. 291 			31
Shields 	v. Ohio, 95 U.S. 319 			52,150,165,174,175,17
Shively 	v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 2 			72, 299
Shotwell 	v. Moore, 129 U.S. 590 			44
Shreveport 	v. Cole, 129 U.S. 36 			139
Shriver's Lessee v. Lynn, 2 How. 43 			284
Shumate 	v. Heman, 181 U.S. 402 			316
Siebold, Ex parte, 100 U.S. 371 			296
Simmons 	v. Saul, 138 U.S. 439 			283, 284
Simon 		v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427 			273
Sinnot 		v. Davenport, 22 How. 227 		77, 79, 101
Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 			290, 291, 298, 300, 
							310, 311, 314
Slocum 		v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1 		217, 270, 272, 27 3
S. L. & T. Co. 	v. Comptroller of New York, 177 U.S. 318 279
Smith 		v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 		235, 237
		v. Condry, 1 How. 28 			292
 		v. Indiana, 191 U.S. 138 		228
 		v. Maryland, 18 How. 71 		71, 72, 299
 		v. McIver, 9 Wheat. 532 		272
 		v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 		262
Smyth 		v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 			101a, 101b, 129, 263,
							278, 304, 313, 314
 		v. Ames, 171 U.S. 361 			101b, 315
Snyder 		v. Bettman, 190 U.S. 249 		39
Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. 594 		45
Sonnentheil 	v. M. B. Co., 172 U.S. 401 		206
Soon Hing 	v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 		237, 321
South Carolina 	v. Georgia, 93 U.S. 4 			73, 85, 211
South Dakota 	v. North Carolina, 192 U.S. 286 	211 919
S. P. Co. 	v. Denton, 146, U.S. 202 		307
Spencer 	v. Merchant, 125 U.S. 345 		24, 40, 277, 282
Spies 		v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131 		224, 275, 298
Spraigue 	v. Thompson, 118 U.S. 90 		77, 233
Springer 	v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 			31, 34, 250
Springville 	v. Thomas, 166 U.S. 707 		256
Sprott 		v. U.S., 20 Wall. 459 			191
S. Ry. 		v. Allison 190 U.S. 326 		215, 303, 305
S. S. Co. 	v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450 		76
		v. Portwardens, 6 Wall. 31 		44 57, 74, 106
S. S. R. Co. 	v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397		31
Stacy 		v. Thrasher. 31 6 How. 44 		288
St. A.F.W.P.Co., v. St. Paul W. Comrs., 168 U.S. 349 	2, 71
Stanislaus County v. S.J.&K.R.C.&I.Co., 192 U.S. 201 	101b, 175, 176, 178,
							278, 315
Stanley  	v. Schwalby, 162 U.S. 255 		209
		v. Supervisors, 121 U.S. 535		51
State 		v. Parkhurst, 9 N. J. L. 51 		427 233
State Bank 	v. Knopp, 16 How. 369 			141
State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232 			22, 58, 65. 105
State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300  		41, 42, 147
State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284  	57, 105
State Tonnage Tax Cases. 12 Wall. 204  			44, 74
St. Clair 	v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350 			285, 286, 306
St. Clair County v. I. S. & C. T. CO., 192 U.S. 454 	82
S. T. Co. 	v. B. R. Nat. Bank, 187 U.S. 211 	210, 242
Steamship Co. 	v. Joliffe, 2 Wall 450 			76
Steamship Co. 	v. Portwardens. 6 Wall. 31 		44, 57, 74, 106
Stearns 	v. Minnesota, 179 U.S.S. 223 		52,53,141,162,164,165
Stein 		v. B. & W. S. Co., 1 41 U.S. 67 	175
Stephens 	v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445 	184
Stevens 	v. Griffith, 111 U.S. 48 		139
		v. Nichols, 130  U.S. 230 		215
St. J. & G. I. R.,v. Steele, 167 U.S. 659  		210, 215, 303
St. Lawrence, The, 1 Bl. 522 				207, 209
St. L. C. C. Co. v. Illinois: 185 U.S. 203 		280, 321
St. L., I. M. & St. P. Ry. v. Paul, 173 U.S. 404 	319
St. Louis 	v. W. F. Co.. 11 Wall. 423 		41, 57, 82, 106
		v. W.U T. Co. 148 U.S. 92 		24, 134
St.L.& S.F. Ry 	v. Gill, 156 U.S. 156 			649 53, 101a, 174,
							175, 178, 278, 315
		v. James, 161 U.S.  545 		192,210,215, 303, 305
		v. Mathews, 165 U.S. 1 176, 177, 	278, 318
Stockard 	v. Morgan, 185 U.S. 27 			55 92
Stockdale 	v. I. Cos., 20 Wall. 323 		184
Stone 		v. F. L . & T. Co., 116  U.S. 307 	98, 101a, 176, 177
		v. I. C. R., 116 U.S. 			347
		v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 		178
N. O. & N. E. R., 116 U.S. 352 				98
Storti 		v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 138 		215, 225
St. P. G. L. Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U.S. 142 		139, 141
St. P., M. & M. Ry. v. Todd County, 142 U.S. 282 	140
Strader 	v. Graham, 10 How. 93 			292
Strauder 	v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 		295, 313
Streitwolf 	v. Streitwolf, 181 U.S. 179 		286
Strother 	v. Lucas, 6 Pet. 763  			299
Stuart 		v. Laird, I Cr  299 			234
Sturges 	v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 		2,4,63,138,142,147, 	
							150,152,159,217,235
St. T. W. W. 	v. N. 0. W. W. 120 U S 64 		169
Sully 		v. American Nat. Bank,  178 U.S. 289 	303, 304, 319
Supervisors 	v. Durant, 9 Wall 415 			267
		v. Stanley , 105 U.S. 305  		50, 51
		v. U.S. 154 U.S. 576 			267
Suydam 		v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67 		147, 151 271
S. V. W. W. 	v. Schottler 110 U.S. 347  		177
Swafford 	v. TempIeton, 185 U.S. 487 		206, 293, 294
Swan, In re 150 U.S. 637 				250
Swift 		v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 242, 		243
S. W. W. Co. 	v. Skaneateles, 184 U.S. 354 		169
Talbot 		v. S.C. First Nat. Bank, 185 U.S. 172 	206
		v. Seeman, 1 Cr. 1 			229
Talton 		v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 			247
Tappan 		v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 19 Wall. 490 	51
Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. 397 				271
Tarrance 	v. Florida, 188 U.S. 519 		313, 319
Taylor 		v. Carry], 20 How. 583 			272
		v. Ypsilanti, 105 U.S. 60 		25
Taylor and Marishall v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 		280, 327
T. Co. 		v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 		23, 87
		v. Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273 		54, 66, 82, 106
Teal 		v. Felton, 12 How. 284 			268
Telco 		v. Texas, 105 U.S. 460 			64
Tennessee 	v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257 			205, 216, 225
		v. P. S. C. Co., 117 U.S. 51 		58, 105
		v. Sneed, 96 U.S. 69 			145 
		v. Union & Planters' Bank,152 U.S. 454 	215
 		v. Virginia, 177 U.S. 501 		211
Terlinden 	v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270 			228
Terrett 	v. Taylor, 9 Cr. 43 			161
Terry 		v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 628 		143
	Ex parte, 128 U.S. 289 				250, 254
Texas 		v. White, 7 Wall. 700 			2, 213, 229, 327
The Albany Bridge Case- See Albany Bridge Case.
The Belfast. Bee Belfast, The.
The China. See China, The.
Thomas 		v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264 			238
		v. U.S., 192 U.S. 363 			31
Thomson 	v. P. R., 9 Wall. 579 			47
Thompson 	v. Missouri, 171 U.S. 380 		187
		v. U.S., 155 U.S. 271 			252
		v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343 			10, 185
		v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457 		284, 287
Thorington 	v. Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490 		247, 298
Thormann 	v. Frame, 176 U.S. 350 			284
T. I. Co. 	v. Connecticut, 185 U.S. 364 		300
Tiernan 	v. Rinker, 102 U.S. 123  		55, 303
Timmons 	v. E. L. Co., 139 U.S. 378  		215
Tinsley 	v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101 		225, 274, 322
Tomlinson 	v. Branch, 15 Wall. 460 		53, 168
		v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454 		165
Tonawanda 	v. Lyon, 181 U.S. 389 			24, 273
Town of Venice 	v. Murdock, 92 U.S. 494 		242
Townsend 	v. Todd, 91 U.S. 452 			241
Trade Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 				63, 233
Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 	23, 87 
		v. Wheeling 99 U.S. 273 		54, 63, 82, 106
Trask 		v. Maguire, 18 Wall. 391 		52, 150, 164
Trevett 	v. Weeden, 2 Arnold, 525 		233
Trigg 		v. Drew, 10 How. 224 			169
Tucker 		v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527 		46, 53, 166, 174
Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Shepard, 185 U.S. 1 		148
Tullis 		v. L. E. & W. R., 175 U.S. 348 	315
Tullock 	v. Mulvaiae, 184 U.S. 497 		206
Turnbull 	v. Payson, 95 U.S. 418 			289
Turner 		v. Maryland, 107 U.S. 38 		44, 89
		v. New York, 168 U.S. 90 		279
		v. Wilkes County Comrs., 173 U.S. 461 	140, 243, 282
		v. Williams. See U.S. v. Williams.
Turnpike Co. 	v. State, 3 Wall. 210 			175
Turpin 		v. Burgess, 117 U.S. 504 29, 		73
		v. Lemon, 187 U.S. 51 			228, 277
Twin City Ba]ak v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 		23, 40
Twitchell 	v. The Commonwealth. 7 Wall. 321 	224, 254
Tyler 		v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 404 228
  In re, 149 U.S. 197 					109,112
T. P. Ry. 	v. cody, 166 U.S. 606 			206
		v. Cox, 145 id. 593 			243
		v. I.C.C., 162 U.S. 197 		109, 112
University 	v. People, 99 U.S. 309 			52, 140, 162, 163
U. P. R. 	v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5 47
Upshur County 	v. Rich, 135 U.S. 467 228
U. R. 		v. City of New York, 193 U.S. 416 148
U. R. T. Co. 	v. Lynch, 177 U.S. 149  40, 54, 47, 103
Urtetiqui 	v. D'Arbel 9 Pet. 692 288
U.S. 		v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392 282
		v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691 239
		v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 251, 252
		v. B. B. B. Co., 176 U.S. 211 83, 84
		v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336 73, 216
		v. Black, 128 U.S. 40 229
		v. Blaine, 139 U.S. 306 229
		v. Burr, 4 Cr. 470 235
		v. B. & 0. R., 17 Wall. 322 39
		v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415 216, 239
		v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 217, 291, 294, 309
		v. De Walt 128 U.S. 393 247
		v. Dewitt 9 Wall. 41 70, 216
		v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S.. 1 67, 128, 131
		v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40 223
		v. Fisher, 2 Cr. 358 18
		v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U.S. 188 136, 238
		v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315 298
		v. Fox, 95 U.S. 670 186, 216, 217
		v. G. E. Ry., 160 U.S. 668 19, 232
		v. Haas, 3 Wall. 407 135
		v. Hall, 98 U.S. 343 18
		v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17 250
		v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 3, 232, 233 310 322
		v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407  135
U.S. 		v. Hudson, 7 Cr. 32 216, 220, 239
		v. Isham, 17 Wall. 506 132
		v. J. T. A., 171 U.S. 505 67, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129
		v. Jung Ah Lung, 124 U.S. 621 297
		v. Keehler, 9 Wall. 83 191
		v. Le Bris , 121 U.S. 278 136
		v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 264
		v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213 238
		v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 253
		v. Marigold, 9 How. 560 18, 269
		v. Memphis, 97 U.S. 284 179
		v. Michigan, 190 U.S. 379 209, 213
		v. M.R. Co., 189 U.S. 391 72, 299
		v. New Orleans, 98 U.S. 381 94
		v. North Carolina, 136 U.S. 211 209
		v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467 206, 220
		v. P. D. M. Co., 176 U.S. 317 266
		v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579  251
		v. Perkins, 163 U . S. 625 42, 45
		v. Perot 98 U.S. 428 230
		v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121 221
		v. Peters, 5 Cr. 115 263, 266
		v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 217, 293
		v. Reid, 12 How. 361 265
		v. R. G. D. & I. Co., 174 U.S. 690 84
		v. Rice, 4 Wheat. 246 26
		v. Rickert 188 U.S. 432 46 
		v. Schooner Peggy 1 Cr. 103 238
		v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 229
		v. Singer, 15 Wall. 111 31
		v. Sing Tuck, 194 IT. S, 161 225, 297
		v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621 228, 265
		v. T. M. F. A., 166 U.S. 290 67 112, 123, 125, 127, 129
		v. U. P. R., 91 U.S. 72 236
		v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76 19, 250
		v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 251, 254, 309
U.S. 		v. Windom, B7 U.S. 636 229
		v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 235, 291, 297, 298
		v. Zucker, 161 U.S. 475 254
Van Allen 	v. The Assessors, 3 Wall. 573 48, 49
Van Brocklin 	v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151 46
Vance 		v. Vance, 108 U.S. 514 143
		v. W. A. V. Co., 170 U.S. 438 90
Van Hoffman 	v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 552 145
Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304 204
Vaughan 	v. Northup, 15 Pet. 1 267
Veazie Bank 	v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533 17, 31, 40
		v. Moor, 14 How. 568 78, 85
Venice 		v. Murdock, 92 U.S. 494 242 
Vicksburg	v. Tobin, 100 U.S. 430  23, 87
Virginia 	v. Rives, 100 U.S. 3B 295, 313
		v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 192, 211
		v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39 191, 192, 211
Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U.S. 269 169, 190, 233, 264
Virginia, Ex parte, 100 U.S. 339 295, 3B
Voight 		v. Wright, 14l U.S. 62 90, 91
Voigt 		v. Detroit 184 U.S. 115 24, 277
Voorhees 	v. Bank of the U.S. 10 Pet. 449 284
V. W. Co. 	v. Vicksburg, 185 U.S. 65 206
Wadsworth 	v. Supervisors, 102 U.S. 534 148, 149
Wagonner 	v. Flack, 188 U.S. 595 141, 142
Waite 		v. Dowley, 94 U.S. 527 52
		v. Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302 148
Wales 		v. Stetson, 2 Mass. 146 165
		v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564 244
Walker 		v. Sauvinet 92 U.S. 90 255, 274
Walker 		v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314 146
	Wall, Ex parte, 107 U.S. 265 247
Walla Walla 	v. W. W. W. Co., 172 U.S. 1 139, 169
Wallace 	v. McConnell, 13 Pet. 136 271, 272
Walling 	v. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446 55, 91, 302
Walsh 		v. C., H. V. & A. R., 176 U.S. 469 141
Walston 	v. Nevin, 128 U.S. 578 277, 316
Ward 		v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 55, 90, 302
Waring 		v. Clarke, 5 How. 441 209, 217
		v. The Mayor, 8 Wall. 110 88
Warner 		v. S. & H. Co., 191 U.S. 195 63
Watson 		v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 266
		v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 88 182, 183
Watts and Sachs, In re, 190 U.S. 1 266
Wayman 		v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 265
W. B. Co. 	v. Hatch, 125 U.S. 1 84
Webber 		v. Virginia, 103 U.S. 344 47, 55, 90, 302
Weber 		v. Harbor Comrs., 18 Wall. 57 71, 72, 299
		v. Rogan, 188 U.S. 10 148
Webster 	v. Cooper, 14 How. 41 488
		v. Reid, 11 How. 437 285
Wedding 	v. Meyler, 192 U.S. 573 285
Welch 		v. Cook, 97 U.S. 541 164
Wellii 		v. Savannah, 181 U.S. 531 52, 53, 166
	Wells, Ex parte, 18 How. 307 250
Welton 		v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275 55, 69, 90, 302
Werlein 	v. New Orleans, 177 U.S. 390 289
West 		v. Aurora City, 6 Wall. 139 225
		v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258 275
Weston 		v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 44
Weyerhaueser 	v. Minnesota, 176 U.S. 550 277
W. F. Co. 	v. East St. Louis, 107 U.S. 365  53, 54, 66, 82, 106, 166
Wharton 	v. Wise, 153 U.S. 155 192
Wheaton 	v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591  239, 243
Wheeler 	v. Jackson, 137 U.S. 245 143, 279
Wbitbeck 	v. Mercantile Bank, 127 U.S. 193 51
White 		v. Hart, 13 Wall 646 2, 138, 146, 310
		v. Schloerb, 178 U.S. 542 272
Whitehead 	v. Shattuck, 138 U.S. 146 255
Whitman 	v. Oxford Nat. Bank, 176 U.S. 559 288
Whitney 	v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 238
Whitten 	v. Tomlinson, 160 U.S. 231 195, 225
Wickliffe 	v. Owings, 17 How. 47 215
Wight 		v. Davidson, 181 U.S. 371 251
		v. U.S., 167 U.S. 512 Ill
Wilcox 		v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498 264, 284
Wiley 		v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58 293, 294
Wilkerson 	v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 257
Wilkes County 	v. Coler, 180 U.S. 506 139, 140, 282
Wilkes County Comrs. v. Coler, 190 U.S. 107 25
Williams 	v. Benadict, 8 How. 107 267, 272
		v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176 139, 191
		v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270 56, 320
		v. Heard, 140 U. S. 529 224, 268
		v. Louisiana, 103 U.S. 637 141
		v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 313, 319
		v. Parker, 188 U.S. 491 278
		v. Wingo , 177 U.S. 601 168, 175
Williamson 	v. Berry, 8 How. 495 284
		v. New Jersey, 130 U.S. 189 170
		v. Suydam, 6 Wall. 723 143
Wilson 		v. The B. B. C. M. Co., 2 Pet. 245 84
Wilson 		v. Eureka City, 173 U.S. 32  280, 332
		v. Iseminger, 185 U.S. 55 143
Wilson 		v. Lambert, 168 U.S. 611 251
		v. McNamee, 102 U.S. 572 76
		v. North Carolina, 169 U.S. 586 280
		v. Standefer, 184 U.S. 399 141
	Ex parte, 114 U.S. 417 247
Wiscart 	v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 223
Wisconsin 	v. Duluth, 96 U.S. 379 85, 211
		v. P. I. Co., 127 U.S. 265 212 213, 288
Wise 		v. Withers, 3 Cr. 33l 244
Wisewall 	v. Sampson, 14 How. 52 267, 272
Withers 	v. Buckley, 20 How.  84 85, 247
Witherspoon 	v. Duncan, 4 Wall. 210 40
W., M. & P. R. 	v. Jacobson, 179 U.S. 287 100
Wolff 		v. NeW Orleans, 103 U.S. 358 148, 153, 155
Wong Wing 	v. U.S., 163 U.S. 228, 238, 251, 254, 297
		v. Brady, 150 U.S. 18 140
Woodruff 	v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 291 141, 148
		v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123 28, 29, 54, 64, 73, 88 90, 94, 104, 106
		v. Trapnall, 10 How. 190 169
Worcester 	v. Georgia 6 Pet. 515 135, 224
Workman 	v. New York, 179 U.S. 552 206, 209
W. P. O. Co.    v. Texas, 177 U.S. 28  304
W.P. S. C. 	v. Casperson, 193 U.S. 189 298
W. R. 		v. Defiance, 167 U.S. 88 176, 177. 280
Wright 		v. M. M. L. I. Co., 193 U.S. 657 165
Wright 		v. Nagle, 101 U.S. 791 141. 175
W., S. L. & P. Ry. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 101, 113
Wurts 		v. Hoagland, 114 U.S. 606 277
W, U. T. Co. 	v. A. A. R., 178 U.S. 239 206. 215
		v. Alabama, 132 U.S. 472 56, 135
		v. C. P. Co. 181 U.S. 92 210, 239, 243
W. U. T. Co. 	v. Indiana, 165 U.S. 304 35, 40
		v. James, 162 U.S. 650 64, 134
		v. Massachusetts, 125 U.S. 530 40, 57, 135
		v. Missouri, 190 U.S. 412 40, 57, 103, 134
		v. New Hope, 187 U.S. 419 24, 134
		v. Pendleton, 122 U.S. 347 134
		v. Taggart, 163 U.S. 1 22, 40, 54, 57, 134
		v. Texas, 105 U.S. 460 44, 58, 134
Wynehamer 	v. The People, 13 N. Y. 428 10
W. & B. Bridge Co. v. W. B. Co., 138 U.S. 287 175, 176
W. & M. Ry. 	v. Powers, 191 U.S. 379 164
W. & St. P. L. Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U.S. 526 53, 166, 167, 277
W. & St. P. R. 	v. Blake, 94 U.S. 180 176
W. & W. R. 	v. Alsbrook, 146 U.S. 279 52, 53, 162, 166, 168, 174
		v. King, 91 U.S. 3 146
		v. Reid, 13 Wall. 264 52, l62
Yarbrough, Ex parte, 110 U.S. 651 18, 19, 250, 293, 296
Yick Wo 	v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 311, 312
York 		v. Texas, 137 U.S. 15 273
Young 		v. Clarendon Township, 132 U.S. 340 25
		v. Parker, 132 U.S. 267 225
Y. & M. V. R. 	v. Thomas, 132 U.S. 174 53, 166
Y. & M. V. Ry. 	v. Adams, 180 U.S. 1 224
Zane 		v. Hamilton County, 189 U.S. 370  148, 149


				 CHAPTER 1.
	      THE RELATION OF THE STATES AND OF THE TERRITORIES
		    TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO EACH OTHER.

 1. The Sanction of the Constitution.
 2. The Indissolubility of the Union.
 3. The Autonomy of the States.
 4. The Delegated Character and Limited Powers of the Government of the
    United States.
 5. The Federal Supremacy.
 6. The Restraints upon the States.
 7. The Force and Effect of the Preamble to the Constitution.
 8. The Territories.

The Sanction of the Constitution.
1. The Constitution, though framed by a convention whose members were elected by the legislatures of the states, was ratified in the several states by conventions whose members were elected by the people of their respective states. It derives its whole authority from that ratification, and when thus adopted, it was of complete obligation and it thenceforth bound the states, and the citizens of each state.'

The Indissolubility of the Union.
2. The union of the states under the Constitution was, from and after the ratification of that instrument, indissoluble, and, until an amendment be adopted, authorizing a dissolution of the union, or a withdrawal of a state from the union, it is not possible for a state, without violating the constitutional compact, to withdraw from the union, or to deprive itself of its rights as one of the United States, or to emancipate itself from the restraints imposed by the Constitution on freedom of state action. (2)

The Autonomy of the States.
3. The thirteen original states were existing governments when the Constitution was ratified; and states admitted to the union under the Constitution have as regards the United States and the other states, in all respects in which the effect of that instrument has not been changed by amendment, the same rights, powers and obligations as the thirteen original states.(3) There- fore, in so far as the states are not controlled by the expressed or implied restrictions contained in the Constitution of the United States, they may severally exercise all the powers of independent governmernts.(4) The states, though united under the sovereign authority of the Constitution, are, so far as their freedom of action is not controlled by that instrument, foreign to and independent of each other.(5)

The Delegated Character and Limited Powers of the Federal Goverment.
4. The government of the United States, in its relation to the several states and to the citizens of those states, is one of delegated and limited Dowers. which Ire. expressly or by necessary implication granted by its written Constitution." The Constitution has created a government, divided into three departments, legislative, executive and judicial. As the chief function of the executive department, apart from its participation in legislation by the exercise of a qualified veto, is that of administering the laws of Congress, and as the primary duty of the judicial department is that of expounding the Constitution and the laws in their application to subject-matters of judicial cognizance, either civil or criminal, it is obvious that the powers conferred by the Constitution upon the government of the United States are, in the main, powers of legislation. The powers granted by the Constitution to the government of the United States are either expressed or implied. The expressed powers are those which are specifically stated in the Constitution. The implied powers are those which authorize the use of appropriate means, which are consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, for the accomplishment of legitimate ends, which are not prohibited, and which are within the scope of the Constitution.(7) The powers granted by the Constitution to the United States are subject to certain expressed exceptions, which are, in the main, contained in the 9th section of Article I of the Constitution and in the first eleven of its amendments.

The Federal Supremacy.
5. Article VI of the Constitution declares that "this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." By force of this constitutional provision, the government of the United States, as Marshall, C. J., said in McCulloch v. Maryland,(8) "though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action and to the extent, and in the exercise, of the powers delegated to it, it is a sovereignty.(9)

The Restraints upon the States.
6. The restraints imposed by the Constitution upon the states are either expressed or implied. The expressed restraints are those which are specifically stated in the Constitution. The implied restraints are those which result from the express grant by the Constitution of certain powers whose nature, or the terms of whose grant, require that they should be exclusively exercised by the United States.(10) The expressed restraints are, first, those which affect the relations of the several states to other states, foreign and domestic; and, second, those which have reference to the relations between the states and their citizens, and which limit the exercise by the states of their powers of legislation.The expressed restraints of the first class include the Prohibition of treaties, alliances, confederations, agreements, or compacts with another state or with a foreign power; the obligation not to issue letters of marque and reprisal, or to maintain troops or ships of war in times of peace, or to engage in war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay; the requirements that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, and that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states, and that fugitives from justice shall be surrendered from one state to another. The expressed restraints of the second class include the prohibition of the grant of titles of nobility, of the coinage of money, of the emission of bills of credit, of the establishment of any legal tender other than gold and silver coin, of the imposition of duties of tonnage and duties on imports or exports, excepting such as may be absolutely necessary for the execution of inspection laws; of the rehabilitation of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime; of the deprivation of any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; of the denial to any person of the equal protection of the law; of disfranchisement on account of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude, or for any cause, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, of any of the male inhabitants of a state who are twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States; of the election or the appointment to office under a state of any person who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, " and whose disabilities shall not have been removed by a vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress; of the assumption or payment of any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or of any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; "and of the enactment of bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
	The implied restraints limit the action of the states with regard to taxation, the regulation of commerce, and the personal and property rights of their citizens, and of the citizens of other states.
	Many of the restraints are so clear in their terms, and so little require judicial construction, that no question has ever been raised as to their legal effect, but others of those restraints have been frequently subjects of litigation. For the purposes of this treatise it is unnecessary to make further reference to the restraints with regard to the issue of letters of marque or reprisal, the maintenance of troops or ships of war in time of peace, the engagement in war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay, the grant of titles of nobility, or the coinage of money. As, happily for the peace and prosperity of the country, slavery is of past, and not of present, interest, it is not deemed necessary to refer to that subject further than to note that the XIll Amendment has abolished it in every form, and forbidden its re-establishment.

The Force and Effect of the Preamble to the Constitution.
7. The preamble to the Constitution declares that "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That the true signiificance of that declaration may be understood, it must be remembered that the people, whose ratification of the instrument gave it its legal validity, were citizens of independent states, which had been theretofore bound together in a confederation, and which were thenceforth to be united under a government which, though limited in its action by the reservation to the several states of all powers not delegated to the United States, should yet be supreme within its defined bounds.(11)
	Therefore, the government created by the Constitution to the extent of the powers vested in that government, national in its character, and, by force of the rights reserved to the states, it is also a league of sovereign and independent states; and every citizen of each state, while owing allegiance to his state in all matters not controlled by the powers granted to the United States, owes also a paramount allegiance to the United States in all that is made by the Constitution of federal obligation. In view of this dual, and yet undivided, allegiance due by those who are citizens of the United States and
also citizens of a state, it was, in the hour of its formation and it has ever since been, essential to the right administration of the government of the United States under the Constitution that there should be a clear appreciation of the complex character of that government and a careful maintenance of the balance of power as between the government of the United States and the governments of the several states.

The Territories.
8. The Constitution (12) dealt with the territory owned at the time of its adoption and with future acquisitions of territory, by providing that "new states may be admitted by the Congress into the Union," and that (13) "the Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'' In Dred Scott v. Sandford (14) the court held that the power of making rules and regulations was intended to operate only in the territory belonging to the United States in 1787, and not to extend to subsequently acquired territory; but that narrow view is inconsistent with the judgment in the earlier case of A. I. Co. v. Canter (15) and with the doctrine of many later cases, and has never been recognized in the administration of the government. There is nothing in the words of the Constitution, nor in the history of the times, to show that the framers of the Constitution looked upon any territory of the United States, excepting the future seat of government, in any other light than as territory to be organized into state's so soon as the increase of population should render that advisable.(16) The relation between the United States and the states obviously differs from the relation between the United States and the territories, in that, while the reservation to the states of the right of local self-government forbids the United States to exercise within a state any power of local government, the United States may, as respects any territory, under the express power of making rules and regulations, govern and administer that territory. In other words, Congress holds a single relation to the states, but it holds a two-fold relation to the terri- tories. It regulates the foreign and interstate relations of the states and their relations with the territories. It also regulates the relations of the territories with foreign countries, with the states, and with each other, and in addition to that, it regulates the internal affairs of each territory. Congress is, therefore, the paramount and sole authority for every territory. As such, it may for any territory, as it has by an unbroken line of precedents  from the adoption of the Ordinance of the Confederation for the government of the Northwest Territory to the Porto Rico Act in 1900, create a territorial form of government, and limit or deny the exercise of merely political rights, such as the right of suffrage; (17) establish courts, wbich are local courts, and not courts of the United States, and whose judges hold their offices for such terms (18) and under such conditions (19) as Congress may prescribe; impose taxation; (20) and, generally, exercise all powers of government in matters of merely local concern. But it does not follow from this that Congress may exercise, even within a territory, arbitrary or despotic power. Bradley, J., said, (21) "Doubtless Congress, in legislating for the territories, would be subject to those fundamental limitations in favour of personal rights which are formulated in the Constitution and its Amendments; but such limitations would exist rather by inference and the general spirit of the Constitution from which Congress derives all its po@ers, than by, any express and direct application of its provisions." Similar dicta of other eminent jurists could be quoted.(22) The objection to Mr.Justice Bradley's view is that, upon every principle of construction, the power in the Constitution to make rules and regulations for the territory of the United States is a power to make only such rules and regulations as may be made in conformity with the other provisions of the Constitution. That Constitution is the only standard of statutory validity, and its powers and restrictions are to be found only in its words as judicially construed. As the Court of Appeals of New York said in a well-con-
sidered case (23) "If the courts may imply limitation, there is no bound to implication except judicial discretion, which must place the courts above the legislature and also the Constitution itself. "This principle necessarily excludes any reliance upon inference from, or reference to, the general spirit of the Constitution as a satisfactory ground of restraint upon legislative freedom of action. Indeed, it is inconceivable that men who had signed, or approved, the Declaration of Independence, who had fought in the War of the Revolution, or rejoiced in the victory then won for free government, could ever have contemplated the acquisition by the United States of any territory whose laws should be such only as Congress might arbitrarily impose. Those men who had successfully rebelled against the English crown tolerated no despotism benevolent or otherwise. They believed in a reign of law. With Junius, (24) they thought that "laws are made to guard against what men may do, not to trust to what they will do." They therefore, framed their written constitution, and they looked to it, and to it only, for an enumeration of the powers which the sovereign people delegated to their government.In conformity with these principles, it has been decided that constitutional restrictions are in force in the territories and in the District of Columbia so far as regards trial by jury (25), and so far as regards the rights secured by the V Amend-
ment (26) if such be the correct view with regard to the legislative power of Congress over the internal affairs of the territories, the case would seem to be even clearer with regard to the regulation of the relations between any one  territory and the states and other territories. The main reason for the adoption of the Constitution was to establish a common athority, which would in the interest of the whole country impartially regulate foreign and internal commerce, and secure to the citizens of each state and of every territory equal rights of person and of property in every other state and territory; and to that end the United States was vested with powers, and restrained in the exercise of those powers by certain expressed limitations. No one doubts that, so far as regards the states, Congress, being the creature of the Constitution, cannot exercise any power of legislation other than that which is, expressly, or by necessary implication, vested in it by the, Constitution. It would also seem that even if Congress could, in the exercise of the power of making rules and regulations in its untrammeled discretion, create, and provide for the administration of, local governments in the territories, it can, nevertheless, only regulate commerce as between the states and the territories, and impose duties on exports and imports to and from the states and the territories under the powers, and subject to the restrictions, of the Constitution. Nevertheless, in the Insular Cases, (27) the Supreme Court has decided, several of the justices dissenting, that Congress could, after the acquisition of Porto Rico as territory of the United States, (28) impose duties upon importations into ports of the United States from Porto Rico, and into ports of Porto Rico from the United States and foreign Countries, differingfrom the duties imposed upon importations into the United States from foreign countries. In Hawaii v.Mankichi (29) the court also held that a citizen of Hawaii could, after the acquisition of that island as territory of the United States, be legally convicted of crime without indictment by a grand jury and by the verdict of only a majority of a petit jury.
	In Dorr v. U. S.,(30) the question was, whether in the absence of a statute of Congress expressly conferring the right, trial by jury is a necessary incident in judicial procedure in the Philippine Islands, where demand for trial by that method has been made by the accused and denied by the courts established in the islands. A majority of the court held that a trial by jury is not necessary to the validity of a conviction, sentence, and punishment for crime in the Philippine Islands. (31) It is possible that a mistake was made in these cases in not distinguishing between the congressional powers of general, and of local, government as affecting the territories, and in not holding that the Act of 12th April, 1900, was, in so far as it imposed duties, an act of general, and not of local, legislation, and, as such, subject to constitutional restrictions, and in not holding that the Constitution equally protects every inhabitant of any state or territory in his rights of person and of property. Mr. Justice White, (32) concedes that a duty levied in the United States on goods coming from Porto Rico is not a local tax and, therefore, not an exercise of the power of local government, but he supports the validity of such a tax upon the theory that Porto Rico had not been "incorporated" into the United States. Mr. Chief Justice Fuller (33) seems to answer this view by calling attention to the provisions of the act imposing the duty, and at the same time creating a civil government for Porto Rico, constituting its inhabitants a body politic, giving it a governor and other officers, a legislative assembly, and courts with the right of appeal there from to the Supreme Court of the United States, and thereby making that island, whatever its situation before, then and thence forth an organized territory of the United States; and Mr. Justice Harlan (34) pertinently suggests, that "if Porto Rico, although a territory of the United States, may be treated as if it were not a part of the United States, then New Mexico and Arizona may be treated as not parts of the United States, and subject to such legislation as Congress may choose to enact without any reference to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution." The same learned justice also said (35) that the doctrine of the Insular Cases means, "that, if the principles now announced should become firmly established, the time may not be far distant when, under the exactions of trade and commerce, and to gratify an ambition to become the dominant political power in all the earth, the United States will acquire territories in every direction, which are inhabited by human beings, over which territories, to be called 'dependencies' or 'Outlying possessions,' we will  exercise absolute dominion and whose inhabitants will be regarded as 'subjects' or 'dependent peoples,' to be controlled as Congress may see fit, not as the Constitution requires, nor as the people governed may wisb." 
	It may well be doubted whether the advantages, commercial and otherwise, obtainable by the acquisition and retention of foreign colonial possessions will ever compensate the country for their cost in lives and in money, and for the difficulties to be encountered in the extension of free institutions and constitutional government to peoples, whose history and traditions are foreign to any such system. But as we have acquired colonial possessions, and have, by reason of such acquisition, assumed obligations to them, and to foreign nations, all that can now be done is to govern those peoples kindly, justly, and firmly, and to educate them as rapidly as possible for the duties of citizenship.

(1) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, I Wheat. 304, 324; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404. See also Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 251, 285, 359, 376.
(2)Texas v. White, 7 WaII. 700; White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646; Keith v. Clark, 97 U.S. 454.
(3)Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1; St. A. F. W. P. Co. v. St. Paul W. Comrs., 168 id. 349; Bolln v. Nebraska, 176 id. 83; M. T. Co. v. Mobile, 187 id. 479.
(4)Amendments to the Constitution, Articles IX and X; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 325; Sturges v. Crowminshield, 4 Wheat. 193; Texas v.White, 7 Wall. 700, 721.
(5)Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet.. 586, 590; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 722.
(6) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 326; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137, 176; Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 317; U.S. v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629; Langford v. U.S., 101 id. 341.
(7)Infra, Chapter II; Constitution, Article 1, Section 8; MeCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 421.
(8) Wheat. 316, 405.
(9) Alexander Hamiltons argument of 23d February, 1791, as to the constitutionality of a national bank. 3 Lodge's Hamilton's Works, 18l; 
Juilliard v+. Greenman, 110 U. S. 421; Logan v. U. S., 144 id. 263; In re
Debs, 158 id. 564; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 id. 288.
(10) Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 193 ; Houston v. M
(11) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 325.
(12) Art. IV, Bee. 3, Par. 1.
(13) Art. IV, Sec. 3, Par. 2.
(14) 19 How. 393.
(15) 1 Pet. 511.
(16) McAllister v. U.S. 141 U.S. 174, 187.
(17) Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15.
(18) A. I. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511; Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235; Clinton  v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434; Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 id. 648; Good v.  Martin, 95 U. S. 90; Reynolds v. U. S., 98 id. 145; City of Panama, 101 id. 453.
(19) McAllister v. U. S., 141 U. S. 174.
(20) Loughborough v. BLake, 5 Wheat. 317.
(21) Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S. 44.
(22) Many are cited in the able paper of the late Richard C. Dale on "Implied Limitations upon the Exercise of the Legislative Power," 24 American Bar Association Proceedings, 295.
(23) Wynehamer v. The People, 13 N. Y. 428.
(24) Letter to Sir William Blackstone.
(25) Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540; Thompson v. Utah, 170 id. 343 ;
(26) Baunian v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548.
(27) Downes v. Biowell, 182 U. S. 244; De Lima v. Biowell, ibid. 1; Dooley v. U. S., ibid- 222; Dooley v. U. S., 183 id. 151; Fourteen Diamond Rings, Emil J. Pepke, Claimant, v. U. S., ibid. 176. In Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138, 154, Peckham, J., said that Downes v. Bidwell, supra, "is authority only for the proposition that the plaintiff therin was not entitled to recover the amount of duties he had paid under protest upon the importation into the city of New York of certain oranges from the Port of San Juank, in the island of Porto Rico, in November, 1900, after the passage of the act known as the Foraker Act. The various reasons advanced by the judges in reaching this conclusion, which were not concurred in by a majority of the court, are plainly not binding." In that view Fuller, C.J., and Brewer, J., concurred.
(28) Act of 12th April, 1900, 31 Stat. 77, C. 191.
(29) 190 U. S. 197. Fuller, C. J., and Harlan, Brewer and Peckham, JJ.,
dissented.
(30) 195 U. S. 138.
(31) Day, J., delivered the judgment of the court, and Fuller, C. J., and Brewer and Peckham, JJ., concurred in the result upon the authority of Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197. Harlan , J., dissented, saying, p.154: "In my opinion, guaranties for the protection of life, liberty, and property, as embodied in the Constitution, are for the benefit of all, of whatever race or nativity, in the states composing the Union, or in any territory, however acquired, over the inhabitants of whieh the government of the United States may exercise the
(32) 182 U. S. 299.
(33) Ibid. 372.
(34) Ibid. 389. 35 Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197, 240


                               CHAPTER II.
                           THE IMPLIED POWERS.
 9.  The Necessity of their Existence.
10.  Their Constitutional Recognition.
11.  The Test of the Relation of the Means to the End.
12.  Illustrations of the Exercise of the Implied Powers.
13.  The Legal Tender Question.

The Necessity of their Existence.
9. The Constitution was not framed to meet only the exigencies of the period of its formation, nor does it purport to be a code which with minute detail prescribes all that may be done and all that may not be done by Congress in the execution of the powers specifically granted.(1) As Mr. Webster said in his argument in Gibbous v. Ogden,(2) and as Marshall, C. J., repeated in his judgment in that cause,(3) the Constitution enumerates, but does not define, the powers which it grants, nor does it prescribe the means which may rightfully be used in executing those powers, and without whose use the grant of the powers would be nugatory.(4) Therefore, if the Constitution contained no clause recognizing the existence of powers which are subsidiary or incidental to the powers expressly granted, it would be impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is an implied grant of such incidental powers, for otherwise the powers expressly granted would be practically inoperative. Nor is the force of this conclusion at all affected by the X Amendment, for while that amendment in terms forbids the exercise by Congress of any undelegated power, it does not forbid the exercise of powers which are delegated by implication.(5)

Their Constitutional Recognition.
10. Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution declares that "the Congress shall have power ..... to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " But, it may be said, who is to conclusively determine whether or not any statute is, within the terms of the Constitution, "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" a power granted by the Constitution to Congress? If Congress can so determine, obviously any and every act of Congress must be regarded as constitutional. If in the exercise of judicial jurisdiction the final determination of that question is to be made by the court, what principles are to guide the judges in coming to a conclusion, and by what test are they to determine the relation between the means and the end, and the degree of the necessity and the propriety of the use of the particular means ?

The Test of the Relation of the Means to the End.
11. The result of the authorities, so far as they afford an answer to this question, can be best stated by the quotation of a famous dictum originated by Mr. Hamilton (6) and paraphrased by Chief Justice Marshall in the judgment in McCulloch v. Maryland, (7) and which, in its final perfected form, is as follows: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to the end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." (8) This dictum means that Congress may, in the execution of a power expressly granted, adopt any means which (1) are not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, nor (2) inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and which are (3) not the only possible means, nor an absolutely or indispensably necessary means, but an appropriate and plainly adapted means, to the attainment of an end authorized by the Constitution. From this it follows, that if the relation of the means to the end be shown to exist, and if the use of the particular means be not expressly or impliedly forbidden by the Constitution, the question of the degree of its appropriateness, of its greater or less adaptation, and of its relative or absolute necessity is purely political, and the determination of Congress. with regard thereto is binding upon the courts.

Illustrations of the Exercise of the Implied Powers.
12. Under the doctrine of the implied powers, it has been held that Congress may enact statutes creating banking corporations as fiscal aids to the government; (9) imposing upon national and state banks a tax upon the amount of the notes of state banks paid out by them; (10) giving priority to the United States as a creditor in the distribution of the assets of a bankrupt; " declaring that the embezzlement by a guardian of his ward's, pension granted by the United States is a crime against the United States;(12) taxing lands in the District of Columbia; (13) declaring it to be a crime to bring into the United States from a foreign place counterfeit coins forged in the similitude of coins of the United States; (14) constituting a judicial system to carry into execution the judicial powers vested by the Constitution in the United States; (15) regulating the carriage of the mails and determining what may be transported and what must be excluded from the mails; (16) punishing for contempt others than members of Congress; (17) protecting citizens of the United States in the exercise of the rights of suffrage at elections for members of Congress; (18) authorizing a limited intercourse on prescribed conditions with the enemy in time of war; (19) prescribing the effect to be given in state courts to judgments and decrees rendered in courts of the United States; (20) authorizing the issue by courts of the United States of writs of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in cases of restraint of personal liberty under the process of state courts issued in violation of rights claimed under the Constitution or laws of the United States; 21 authorizing the removal to the courts of the United States of causes depending in state courts and involving questions of federal cognizance; (22) exercising the right of eminent domain with regard to land within the bounds of a state and held in private ownership; (23) in order to protect purchasers under the homestead laws of lands belonging to the, United States but situated within the limits of a state, punishing those who conspire to intimidate such purchasers and drive them away from the land so purchased; (24) prohibiting, under penalties, officers of the United States from requesting, giving to, or receiving from any other officer money or property, or other things of value, for political purposes; (25) protecting against unlawful violence prisoners accused of committing crimes against the United State (26) and private citizens giving information against prisoners so held; (27) providing for the acquisition of territory(28) establishing consular tribunals in foreign lands; (29) and providing for the exclusion (30) or expulsion (30) of aliens from the limits of the United States.


The Legal Tender Question.
13. It has also been held that Congress may issue a paper currency and declare that that currency shall be a legal tender in payment of debts. Until in 1862 the financial needs of the government in carrying on a war for the suppression of the rebellion rendered it, in the opinion of Congress, necessary that the treasury notes of the United States should be made a legal tender in the payment of debts, neither statesmen nor jurists had asserted that Congress had, under the Constitution, the power of making anything but gold or silver coin a legal tender. The acts of Congress of 25th February, 1862, 11th July, 1862, and 3d March, 1863 (32) declared that the notes issued thereunder should be "lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except duties on imports, etc." Under these acts it has been decided that neither taxes imposed by state authority, (33) nor private obligations payable by their terms in gold or silver coin, (34) are debts within the terms of the acts of Congress dischargeable by payment in legal tender notes. In Hepburn v. Griswold (35) the court held that the Legal Tender Acts applied to debts contracted before as well as to debts contracted after the enactment of those statutes, and that, so far as they applied to debts contracted before their passage, the statutes were unconstitutional, but in the Legal Tender Cases 36 Hepburn v. Griswold was overruled, so far as regards the second branch of the proposition laid down in it, and the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Acts was sustained, the ground of decision being that the power to impress the notes of the government with the quality of legal tender, though not expressed in the Constitution, was "necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the express powers to "Coin money .... to regulate the value thereof," "to pay the debts," "to borrow money, " " to raise and support armies, " and " to provide and maintain a navy;" that the Constitution does not expressly prohibit the issue of legal tender notes by the United States; that their issue is not inconsistent with the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, and that the end being constitutional and the means being appropriate, the degree of its appropriateness is subject to legislative, and not judicial, determination. The Legal Tender Cases are followed and supported by Dooley v. Smith, (37) Bigler v. Waller (38 N. & W. R. v. Johnson (39) and Julliard v. Greenman,(40) in the last of which cases it was held, that the power to make treasury notes a legal tender exists in time of peace as well as in time of war, and that legal tender notes when redeemed by the Treasury and reissued under the Act of 31st May, 1878, retain their legal tender quality.
	The legal tender which the law compels a creditor to accept in satisfaction of a debt payable in money should never be anything other than that money which has market value as a commodity, independently of any governmental fiat and of all legal tender laws. The giving of the legal tender quality to currency of inferior purchasing power has never succeeded in increasing that purchasing power, but it has in many instances enabled debtors to defraud creditors.

(1)McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 406; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 id. 326.
(2) 6 Webster's Works, 9.
(3) 9 Wheat, 189.
(4) McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 407.
(5)Mr. Hamilton's argument as to a national bank. 3 Lodge's Hamilton's
Works, 183; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 406.
(6)Argument as to a national bank. 3 Lodge's ton's Works, 190.
(7) 4 Wheat. 421.
(8) The opposing view, sustaining the strict construction of the Constitution,
is, perhaps, most strongly put by Mr. Jefferson. Memoirs, Vol. IV, pp. 197,
207, 526; 4 Elliot's Debate-S, 609.
(9) McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316; Osborn v. The Bank of the U. S.,
9 id. 738.
(10) Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533.
(11) U. S. v. Fisher, 2 Cr. 358.
(12) U. S. v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343.
(13) Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317.
(14) U. S. v. Marigold, 9 How. 560.
(15) Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 521.
(16) Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727; In re Rapier, 143 id. 110.
(17) Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204; In re Chapman, 166 U. S. 661. But see Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 id. 168.
(18) Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651.
(19) Hamilton v. Dillin, 21 Wall. 73.
(20) Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3.
(21) Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241; Ex parte Fonda, ibid. 516; In re Neagle,
135 id. 1; Ohio v. Thomas, 173 id. 276; Boske v. Comingore 177 id. 459; cf. Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 id. 499.
(22) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 349; Bock v. Perkins, 139 U.S.
628; Marshall v. Holmes, 141 id. 589; Martin v. B. & 0. R., 151 id. 673.
(23) Kohl v. U.S., 91 U. S. 367; Luxton v. N. R. Bridge Co., 153 id. 525; Chappell v. U.S., 160 id. 499; U.S. v.. G. E. Ry., ibid. 668.
(24) U.S. v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76.
(25) Ex Parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371; Stat. 15th Aug., 1876, c. 287, sec. 6.
For further illustrations of the implied powers of legislation which Congress may exercise, see the judgements of Story, J., in Prigg v. Penna., 16 Pet. 619; of Strong, J., in The Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 535; of Gray, J., in Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 444; of Miller, J., in Ex parte Yarbrough, ibid. 658, and in In re Neagle, 135 id. 1, and of Bradley, J., in Mormon Church v. U.S., 136 id. 1. In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 id. 244, and again in Dooley v. U.S., 183 id. 151, the court sustained an act of Congress which imposed duties for the exclusive benefit of those who were not citizens of the United States.
(26) Logan v. U.S., 144 U.S. 263.
(27) In re Quarles and Butler, 158 U.S. 532.
(28) A. 1. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511; De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1.
(29) In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453.
(30) Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581; Lem Moon Sing v. U.S., 158 id. 538.
(31) Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698; Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 id. 86.
(32) 12 Stat. 345, 532, 709.
(33) Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71; Hagar v. Reclamation District,
111 U. S. 701.
(34) Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229; Butler v. Horwitz, ibid. 258; Bronson
v. Kimpton, 8 id. 444.
(35) 8 Wall 603.
(36) 12 Wall. 457.
(37) 13 Wall. 604.
(38) 14 Wall. 297.
(39) 15 Wall. 195.
(40) 110 U.S. 421.
