
                                 CHAPTER XI.
		      RIGHTS OF PERSON AND OF PROPERTY.
 119. Citizenship of the United States.
 120. 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 and 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.
 131. The equal protection of the laws.
 132. The police power.

Citizenship of the United States.
119. As Miller, J., stated in the judgment in the Slaughter House
Cases,' the Constitution, as originally adopted, did not define
citizenship of the United States, although it did, by Section 2 of
Article IV, provide that "the citizens of each state shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several
states," and, by Section 2 of Article I, declare citizenship of the
United States to be a necessary qualification for election as a
representative in Congress. In view of that which the Constitution
said, and of that which it left unsaid, it might well have been
thought that citizenship of the United States was dependent upon and
only incident to citizenship of a state, but the point was not
judicially determined before the adoption of the XIV Amendment. In a
recent case,(2) however, Gray, J., discussed at length the meaning
of the term "citizen" as used at common law and suggested that after
the adoption of the Constitution all white persons, at least, born
within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of
citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or
public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens
of the United States. An even broader definition of the term was
established by Section 1 of the XIV Amendment, which declares that
"all persons born or naturalized in the Unites States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the state wherein they reside." From and after the adoption of that
Amendment, therefore, the birth within the United States of any
person, whether white or coloured, who is subject to its
jurisdiction, or the naturalization of any alien, makes the person
so born, or naturalized, a citizen of the United States;(3) and that
right of citizenship is entitled to protection under such laws as
Congress may enact in execution of the powers conferred bv the XIV
and XV Amendments. Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution
authorizes Congress "to establish an uniform rule of
naturalization." It is, therefore, beyond the power of any state to
prescribe the conditions of naturalization, or to admit to
citizenship any alien other than those whom the acts of Congress
permit to be naturalized;(4) nevertheless aliens may be naturalized
by proceedimgs in courts of the states in conformity with the acts
of Congress.(5)

Citizenship of a state.
120. In Dred Scott v. Sandford,(6) the court determined that a free
negro could not be a citizen of a state, but, in his dissenting
judgment, Curtis, J., showed that it was an historical fact, that in
five of the thirteen original states negroes were not only
recognized as citizens, but also admitted to the exercise of the
right of suffrage, and that many acts of Congress had, by necessary
implication, recognized negroes as citizens; and the weight of
authority supports the position, that each state could, so far as
the Constitution of the United States does not restrain it,
determine the statis, and consequently the citizenship, of the
persons domiciled within its territory.(7) By the terms of the XIV
Amendment, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside." Therefore birth, or
naturalization. in the United States, followed by residence within
the territory of any state, makes the person so born or naturalized,
and so residing, a citizen of that state.

The right of suffrage.
121. All citizens are not necessarily entitled to the exercise of
the right of suffrage, for the term "citizen," in the constitutional
sense of the term, means one who owes the duty of allegiance and is
entitled to the correlative right of protection, and it, therefore,
includes persons who, by reason of sex, or age, may not be qualified
to vote. The right of suffrage is a subject of state regulation, and
not a privilege, or immunity, of citizenship protected by the
Constitution of the United States,(8) except insofar as the XIV
Amendment protects it. The Constitution provides, in Section 2 of
Article 1, that, at congressional elections, "the electors in each
state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the
most numerous branch of the state legislature."(9) A state may,
without contravening any constitutional provision, deny the suffrage
to women,(10) but by force of the XV Amendment a state may not, in
its limitations on the exercise of the right of suffrage,
discriminate against citizens of the United States on account of
their "race, colour, or previous condition of servitude." A state,
therefore, cannot limit the right of suffrage to the white race.(11)
Nevertheless, the power of Congress to legislate for the protection
of the rights conferred by that Amendment being limited by the terms
of the Amendment, Congress cannot by statute provide for the
punishment of state election officers for wrongfully refusing to
receive the vote of a qualified voter at an election, when that
refusal is not based upon a discrimination against the voter on
account of his race, colour, or previous condition of servitude;(12)
nor can Congress by a general statute provide for the punishment of
individuals who bribe persons to whom the right of suffrage is
guaranteed by that Amendment;(13) nor can a conviction in a court of
the United States be sustained under an indictment which charges the
defendant in general terms with an intent to hinder and prevent
citizens of the United States, of African descent, therein named, in
the free exercise and enjoyment of the rights, privileges,
iminunities, and protection, granted and secured to them as citizens
of the United States and of a state, without specifying any
particular right, the enjoyment of which the conspirators intended
to hinder or prevent.(14)

As the right of a citizen of a state to vote for representatives in
Congress is derived not only from the constitution and laws of his
state, but also from the Constitution and laws of the United States,
it follows that a citizen, otherwise qualified under the
constitution and laws of his state may maintain an action at law in
the circuit court of the United States to recover from officers of
the state damages for their wrongful refusal of his vote at a
congressional election.(14) But where the constitution of a state
defines the qualifications for the exercise of the suffrage, and
imposes the conditions of registry as a voter, one to whom registry
is refused cannot, upon an allegation that the state's system of
registration is void because it violates the XV Amendment, maintain
a suit in equity in the circuit court of the United States to compel
the state officers to register him as a voter under that system
which he alleges to be void, for a decree in his favour would
accomplish no practical result;(14)b and when that citizen has
brought an action at law in a court of the state to recover from
state officers damages for their alleged wrongful refusal to
register him as a voter, and when he has petitioned a court of the
state for a mandamus to compel the state officers to register him as
a voter, and the state court of last resort has entered judgment
against him on the grounds that if the provisions of the state
constitution are repugnant to the XV Amendment they are void and
registrars appointed thereunder had no power to act, they could not
be liable to him in damages for their refusal to register him, and
they cannot be compelled by mandamus to register him; and the
Supreme Court of the United States cannot reverse the judgment of
the state court upon writ of error, for the state court has denied
relief to the plaintiff in error for reasons independent of the
federal right upon which he claimed.(14)c

The right of serving on juries.
122. The right of serving as a juror being incident to citizenship,
a state cannot so regulate the selection of jurors in its courts as
to prevent citizens of African descent from serving as jurors.(15)

Congressional regulation of federal elections.
123. Section 4 of Article I of the Constitution declares that, "the
times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and
representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the
legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or
alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing
senators. Under this clause of the Constitution, Congress without
question provided for the election of its members by separate
districts, composed of contiguous territory, and required the
election in every district throughout the United States to be held
on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November in every second
year. In other respects, however, the exercise of power by Congress
on this subject has been contested in the courts. In the several
cases it has been held, that Congress, having a supervisory control
over the election of its members, and being authorized to make
regulations of its own, or to alter regulations made by any state,
can by statute impose duties on state officers of election, punish
the non-performance by such officers of their duties, whether
imposed by laws of the state or by acts of Congress, and provide for
the appointment of officers of the United States to execute the
regulations as made by Congress or by the states.(16) It has also
been held that Congress can, for the protection of the voters at
congressional elections, punish acts of violence or intimidation
done in furtherance of a conspiracy to prevent a voter from
exercising the franchise at such elections;(17 ) and it can punish
interference with election officers when engaged in the discharge of
their official duties.(18)

The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong
exclusively to the states. Congress is empowered to determine the
time of choosing electors and the day on which they shall give their
votes, which must be the same day throughout the United States, but
otherwise the power and jurisdiction of the state is exclusive, with
the exception of the provisions as to the number of electors and
the ineligibility of certain persons, so framed as to exclude
federal influence.(19)

Immigrants and allens.
124. The states cannot,(20), and the United States can,(21) control
and regulate immigration and the residence of aliens in the United
States. This power is an incident of sovereignty which cannot be
aliemnated in the exercise of the treaty-making power.(22) Congress
may, therefore, prohibit the immigration of any class of persons; it
may expel, and compel the deportation of, resident aliens; and (23)
it may forbid the transit of aliens across the territory of the
United States.(24) Congress may authorize the courts to investigate
and ascertain the facts on which depends the right to land or to
remain in the country;(25) or it may entrust to administrative
officers the final determination of these facts;(26) and the
decisions of such officers will constitute due process of law,(27)
and will be binding on the courts. Congress may authorize a United
States commissioner to determine the facts upon which citizenship
depends.(28) While Congress may, as a means to give effect to the
legislation excluding or expelling aliens, authorize their detention
in temporary confinement, Congress nevertheless cannot, unless
provision be made for a judicial trial, declare an unlawful
residence in the country to be an infamous crime punishable by
imprisonment at hard labour.(29) An administrative officer when
executing a statute affecting the liberty of persons may not
disregard the fundamental requirement of due process of law. There
must, therefore, be adequate notice to, and a hearing of, the person
affected;(30)  but defects in the form of the proceeding will not
affect its validity, or the finality of its conclusion.(31) The
existing legislation is applicable only to persons owing allegiance
to a foreign government, and, therefore, does not affect citizens of
Porto Rico;(32) nor does it affect a child born in the United States
of parents who, while remaining aliens, have a permanent domicile
and residence in the United States.(33)

Personal and property rights.
125. The states retain full control over the personal and property
rights of their citizens and of residents within their territory,
subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution.(34) The
states retain the power of regulating the tenure of real property
within their respective limits, including the mode of its
acquisition and transfer, the rules of its descent and the extent to
which a testamentary disposition may be made of such land by its
owner, and a state may forbid the United States, by reason of its
not being a corporation created by the laws of that state, to take
by devise lands within the state.(35) The states may legislate
specially for the sale or investment of the estates ofinfants and
other persons not sui juris.(36) The shores of navigable waters, and
the soil under those waters, were not granted by the Constitution
to the United States, but were reserved to the riparian states
respectively, and new states have the same rights, sovereignty, and
jurisdiction over this subject as the original states.(37) The
United States having no proprietary title to lands on the shore of a
state, under navigable waters and below high-water mark, can grant
no valid title thereto.(38) A state may, therefore, prohibit, or
license under regulation, the taking of oysters and fish in the
navigable waters within its limits.(39) The states may determine
what classes of persons shall come and remain within their
territory,(40) provided, of course, that they do not thereby impair
the rights of intercourse and traffic secured by the Constitutions
to citizens of other states, nor come into conflict with the
regulations made by the United States as to immigration and the
residence of aliens.(41) The Constitution makes no provision for
the protection of the citizens of the several states in their
religious liberty, and imposes no restraints on the states in that
respect. Therefore, a judgment of a state court imposing a fine upon
a clergyman for violation of a munincipal ordinance regulating the
place and manner of conducting funeral services, is not subject to
review in the Supreme Court of the United States.(42)

The rights within a state of citizens of other states.
126. Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution declares that "the
citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several states. "As Miller, J., said,
in the Slaughter House Cases,(43) the "sole purpose" of this
constitutional provision "was to declare to the several states, that
whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own
citizens, or as you limit, or qualify, or impose restrictions on
their exercise, the same, neither more nor less, shall be the
measure of the rights of citizens of other states within your
jurisdiction."(44) Washington,J., said, in Corfield v. Coryell,(45)
the privileges and immunities in question are those "which are
fundamental, which belong of right to all citizens of all free
governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by citizens of
the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their
becoming free, independent, and sovereign," including "protection by
the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of
every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject,
nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for
the general good of the whole." In Paul v. Virginia, (46) Field, J.,
said, "The privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each
state in the several states . . . are those privileges and
immunities which are common to the citizens in the latter states
under their constitutions and laws by virtue of their being
citizens. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own states
are not secured in other states by this provision. It was not
intended by the provision to give to the laws of one state any
operation in other states. They can have no such operation, except
by the permission, express or implied, of those states. The special
privileges which they confer must, therefore, be enjoyed at home,
unless the assent of other states to their enjoyment therein be
given." It is clear that this provision guarantees the privileges
and immunities of citizens of other states, and has no reference to
action by a state in respect to its own citizens.(47) "The
Constitution of the United States does not make the privileges and
immunities enjoyed by the citizens of one state under the
constitution and laws of that state the measure of the privileges
and immunities to be enjoyed, as of right, by a citizen of another
state under its constitution and laws.(48) Nor does this
constitutional provision vest the citizens of one with any interest
in the common property of citizens of another state. Therefore, a
statute of a state by which other than its own citizens are
prohibited from planting or taking oysters from the soil which is
covered by the tide-waters of that state, is not a violation of any
privilege or immunity of citizens, for, subject to the paramount
right of navigation, the regulation of which in relation to foreign
and interstate commerce has been granted to Congress by the
Constitution, each state owns the soil of all tide-waters within
its, jurisdiction, and may appropriate them to be used by its
citizens in common for cultivating and taking fish, etc., if
navigation be not thereby obstructed.(49) Nor does this
constitutional provision require a state to confer upon citizens of
other states peculiar privileges granted to its own citizens; thus,
the privilege of community of acquets or gains as between married
persons in Louisiana, as regards lands in Louisiana acquired by a
citizen of Mississippi who, while living in that state, has married
a woman born in Louisiana, cannot be claimed as a constitutional
right, for the wife by her marriage became a citizen of
Mississippi.(50) On the same principle, a state may enact a statute
of limitations, discriminating, as regards suits against
non-resident defendants, against creditors, if citizens of other
states, and in favour of creditors who are citizens of the
state.(51) On the other hand, a state cannot without contravening
this constitutional provision, so discriminate by taxation against
either the natural products of, or the goods manufactured in,
another state, as to hinder the citizens of that other state in
their exercise of the rights of freely transporting and selling
their goods manufactured or unmaniifactured.(52) Nor can a state by
taxation, or otherwise, restrict the exercise by the citizens of
other states of their right of free transit from place to place
within the United States, in order to approach the seat of
government of the United States and the federal offices in the
various states.(53) Nor can a state by statute provide that in the
distribution of the assets of insolvent debtors local creditors
shall be given priority over creditors who are citizens of other
states.(54)

Foreign corporations.
127. Foreign corporations are, in the states of the United States,
corporations created by any other state, or by a foreign government.
A joint stock partnership organized under the laws of a foreign
country, with a statutory recognition of the distinctive entity of
the association and with powers of transfer of shares and succession
of members, and the right to sue and be sued as an aggregation, is
regarded in the United States as a foreign corporation. (55) A
corporation is not, in its corporate capacity, a citizen, within the
meaning of the Constitution; but for jurisdictional purposes there
is a conclusive presumption of law that it is composed of citizens
of the state which created it and it may sue and be sued in its
corporate name.(57) A foreign corporation is not a citizen within
the meaning of Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution, which
declares that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." (58)
While corporations are persons within the meaning of the XIV
Amendment,"(59) they are not entitled to such equal protection of
the laws as to have the right to do business within a state, other
than that of their incorporation, without being hampered by such
discriminating conditions as the state may choose to impose.(60) A
corporation exists only in contemplation of law and by force of law,
and it can have no legal existence beyond the bounds of the
sovereignty creating it, unless it be, by comity, permitted to exist
within the bounds of some other sovereignty,(61) save only, that a
state may not exclude from its limits a corporation which is in the
employ of the federal government(62) or which is engaged in
interstate or foreign commerce.(63) Of course, if there be no
prohibitory legislation, it is not competent for an individual
citizen, not personally interested in the corporation, to object to
the doing of business within a state by a foreign corporation.(64)
Unless the local law prohibit, a foreign corporation, if its charter
so authorizes, may sue and be sued in the courts of a state,(65)
make contracts,(66) acquire and hold real estate,(67) buy and sell
bills of exchange,(68) and negotiate and issue policies of life and
fire insurance.(69) Corporations, by doing business within the
bounds of a sovereignty other than that which has created them, do
not become corporations of that other sovereignty, nor lose
privileges which are incident to their citizenship in the
sovereignty which created them. Therefore, a railway corporation of
Maryland does not, by becoming lessee of a railway in Virginia,
forfeit its right to remove into the Circuit Court of the United
States a suit brought against it in the courts of Virginia by a
citizen of that state.(70) A state may discriminate in favour of its
own corporations and against foreign corporations;(71) it may tax
foreign corporations;(72) it may arbitrarily refuse to foreign
corporations permission to do business within its territory, or it
may give its consent on any conditions which "are not repugnant to
the Constitution or laws of the United States, nor inconsistent with
those rules of public law which secure the jurisdiction and
authority of each state from encroachment by all orbers, or that
principle of natural justice which forbids condemnation without
opportunity for defense; (73) it may impose on a foreign corporation
a condition that service of process on the resident agent
representative of the corporation on reasonable notice shall be
considered a service upon the corporation,(74) and it may prohibit
the transaction of the business of insurance within its bounds by a
foreign corporation, or it may impose in its discretion conditions
on the performance of such business, for contracts of insurance
being covenants for indemnity and not articles of commerce, the
negotiation and issue of policies of insurance are not transactions
of foreign or interstate commerce.(75) But a state cannot, by any
alteration of the conditions imposed upon foreign corporations doing
business within the state, impair the obligation of contracts
lawfully made.(76) So also a state cannot rightfully impose as a
condition the non-exercise by a corporation of its right of removing
to the courts of the United States actions brought against it in the
courts of the state.(77) If, however, a state prohibit a foreign
corporation fron doing business within its bounds because the
corporation will not forego the exercise of its right of removal of
actions, the corporation cannot be protected by an injunction issued
by the courts of the United States;(78) but a state statute,
requiring foreign corporations as a condition of doing business in a
state to stipulate that they will not remove into the courts of the
United States causes which under the laws of the United States they
would be entitled to remove, is void; (79) and a servant of the
corporation(80) cannot be convicted for doing business for a
corporation which had not complied with the statute.(81) A
substantial compliance by a foreign corporation with the condition
on which it is permitted to do business within the bounds of another
sovereignty is sufficient; thus, the law of Colorado requiring the
filing of a certificate "designating the principal place where the
business of such corporation shall be carried on in this state, and
an authorized agent or agents, residing at its principle place of
business, upon whom process may be served," is sufficiently complied
with by a certificate naming the town in which the business is to be
carried on and stating "that the general manager of said corporation
residing at the said principal place of business, is the agent upon
whom process may be served," but not giving the name of the general
manager.(82) A foreign corporation does not, by making a single
contract for the sale of machinery, come within the provisions of a
statute forbidding foreign corporations to "do any business" within
the state,(83) but it does come within a similar statute when it
loans money upon a note and mortgage solicited by its agent and
executed within the state, although the instruments especially
stipulate that they are made with reference to and under the laws of
the home state of the corporation.(84) Moreover, a foreign insurance
company does not cease to do business within the state by
withdrawing its agent and refusing new risks if its old policies
continue in force and premiums are paid thereon by the
policy-holders. (85)

Every one who deals with a foreign corporation impliedly subjects
himself to the laws of the foreign government which chartered the
corporation, so far as those laws affect the powers and obligations
of the corporation or the validity, enforcement, or discharge of its
contracts; thus, for instance, a holder in the United States of
bonds, issued by a railway corporation of Canada, but negotiated,
and stipulated to be paid, in the United States, is bound by the
terms of a statutory scheme of arrangement regulated by the
Parliament of Canada subsequently to the issue and sale of the
bonds.(86) On the same principle, a holder in Louisiana of a policy
of life insurance issued in that state by a Missouri corporation is
chargeable with notice of the insurance laws of Missouri
substituting the insurance commissioner of that state as the
representative of insolvent insurance companies.(87)

The I Amendment.
128. The I Amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances." The clause as
to religion cannot "be invoked as a protection against legislation
for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and
morals of society;"(88) nor does the clause prevent Congress from
declaring the marriage, in a territory or other place over which the
United States have exclusive jurisdiction, of any person having a
husband or wife living and undivorced, etc., to be bigamy; nor can
one convicted of bigamy successfully defend upon his allegation that
he religiously believed in plural marriages;(89) nor does this clause
prohibit a contract of the commissioners of the District of Columbia
with an incorporated charitable association for the application of
the moneys of the United States in the construction of hospital
buildings in which paupers are to be housed and to be cared for by
devotees of the Roman Catholic faith;(90) nor does the clause as to
the freedom of speech and of the press prohibit congressional
legislation forbidding the transportation of lottery tickets and
advertisements by the mails;(91) nor does the Amendment forbid
congressional prohibition of the immigration of anarchists.(92)

The XIII Amendment.
129. The XIII Amendment declares that "neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction," and that
"Congress shall have power to enforce this Article by appropriate
legislation." This provision does not validate an act of Congress
which declares it to be a crime to conspire to deprive others of the
equal protection of the laws.(93) Nor does the XIII Amendment
prohibit the creation of monopolies by a state, such as the
exclusive right of providing a place for the slaughtering of
cattle.(94) Nor does it prohibit state legislation requiring railway
companies to furnish separate accomodations for white and coloured
passengers.(95) Nor does it prohibit congressional legislation
providing for the punishment of sailors wbo desert a ship after
having contracted to serve upon it.(96) Nor does it invalidate a
promissory note made before the adoption of the Amendment, the
consideration for which note was the price of a slave, slavery
having been lawful by the lex loci contractus at the time the note
was given,(97) and this rule holds even where the vendor made an
express warranty, warranting the chattel to be a slave for life and
the warrantor's title to him to be clear and perfect.(98) And, on
the same principle, the estate of a former slave-owner may recover
from one who used those slaves upon his own plantation a fair rental
for their use, estimated to the time when they became free.(99)

The XIV Amendment.
130. The XIV Amendment declares that "all persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The purposes of
the Amendment are to define citizenship of the United States and of
the states, to confer citizenship upon negroes, to secure against
hostile legislation of the states those privileges and immunities
which are common to citizens of the United States,(100) and to
protect all natural persons within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, without regard to difference of race, colour,
nationality, or citizenship.(101) The Amendment does not confer upon
women the right of suffrage,(102) nor the right to practice
law.(103) The provision that "no state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or imunities of citizens of the
United States" protects, it seems, only those rights which are
secured against state encroachment by other clauses of the
Constitution: it does not extend to state legislation those
restrictions which the first eight Amendments impose upon
congressional action.(104) Within the meaning of the Constitution,
due process of law is secured when the laws operate on all alike and
no one is subjected to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of
government. The provision does not control mere forms of procedure,
while, on the other hand, the bare observance of legal forms is
insufficient when the proceedings are manifestly fraudulent.(105)
The prohibition of state legislation which denies to any person the
equal protection of the laws, prevents the enactment of laws which
discriminate unjustly against any citizen, although special
legislation, as such, is not prohibited.(106) And while
corporations are persons within the meaning of the Amendment,(107)
yet foreign corporations are not entitled to such equal protection
of the laws as to have the right to do business within a state
without being hampered by such discriminating conditions as the
state may choose to impose.(108)

The equal protection of the laws.
131. The provision of the XIV Amendment that no state shall "deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
requires that equal security be given to all under like
Circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights.
The officers of a municipality may not, in the administration of an
ordinance regulating the carrying on of a lawful business within the
corporate limits, make arbitrary and unjust discriminations, founded
on differences of race, between persons otherwise similarly
placed.(109) A state may not, to the prejudice of a coloured man,
who is put upon his trial for an offense against its laws, refuse to
other coloured men the privilege of serving upon the jury, nor
compel such prisoner to submit to a trial by a jury from which
citizens of African descent are by reason of their race
excluded;(110) but a prisoner cannot insist upon having a jury
composed, either in part or in whole, of his own race, for all that
he can rightfully demand is a jury from which men of his race are
not excluded because of their colour.(111) A state may not require
railroad companies to transport passengers or freight at
unreasonably low rates, for in so far as such corporations are
denied the right, while others are permitted, to receive reasonable
profits upon their invested capital, those corporations are deprived
of the equal protection of the laws.(112) So also a statute is
unconstitutional which provides, as a penalty upon railroad
companies for failure to pay certain debts, that parties
successfully suing the companies to recover such debts shall be
entitled to attorney's fees, but which gives to the companies no
like or corresponding benefit.(113) So also a statute is
unconstitutional which, although general in its terms, is designed
to limit the charges of a single stockyards company and which does
not limit the charges which may be made by similar companies doing
like business.(114) And a statute is unconstitutional which
prohibits the recovery of the price of articles sold by a trust or
combination formed in restraint of trade, but which does not apply
to agricultural products or live stock in the hands of the producer
or raiser.(115) A corporation is a person within the meaning of the
Amendment.(116)

But a law is presumptively constitutional whenever it operates alike
on all persons and property similarly situated, and while a state
may not make a classification of the objects of legislation an
excuse for an unjust discrimination, or the oppression or spoliation
of a particular class, yet special legislation, as such, is not
prohibited by the Amendment.(117) A state may grant a monopoly of
the slaughtering of cattle.(118) It may require that prior to the
admission to its territory of a corporation of another state, such
conditions as it may designate shall be observed;(119) it may
prohibit a white and a negro from living together in adultery or
fornication under more severe penalties than those to which the
parties would be subjected were they of the same race and
colour;(120) it may classify railroads for the purpose of regulating
fares,(121) and may establish reasonable rates of fare;(122) it may
reasonably limit the rates of water supply companies;(123) it may
fix the tolls which may be charged by turnpike companies,(124) and
the rates which may be charged by grain elevator companies,(125) and
in neither case is it necessary that the regulations so imposed be
uniform throughout the state; it may make railroad corporations(126)
or all corporations(127) liable for injuries to employees caused by
the negligence of fellow-employees; it may prohibit the sale of oleo
margarine within its limits;(128) it may prohibit the manufacture
and sale of oleomargarine which contains colouring matter, although
permitting the use of colouring matter in butter;(129) it may
authorize municipalities to improve streets and to assess the owners
of adjoining lots for the benefits accruing to them from the
improvements;(130) and it may provide that the proposed improvements
shall not be made if a majority of the resident holders of adjoining
property protest, although the privilege of interference is not
given to non-residents, where there is no discrimination in the
assessment for the improvements;(131) it may impose upon railroad
companies liability to punitive damages for injuries caused by their
omission to fence their tracks as required by law;(132) it may
impose upon railway companies alone a penalty for allowing certain
weeds to go to seed upon their right of way;(133) it may tax
corporate securities at their face value,(134) and may classify
property(135) and occupations(136) for the purpose of taxation, for
the Amendment was not intended to compel the states to adopt an iron
rule of equal taxation; it may tax all companies exercising the
franchises of corporations within its limits on the privilege of
exercising those franchises;(137) it may require the railroad
companies of the state to pay the expenses of the state railroad
commission,(138) and the electric companies to pay the salaries of
the subway commissioners;(139) it may provide that licenses to sell
liquor shall not be granted save on the compliance by the applicant
with certain conditions, which conditions may be more burdensome
than those imposed upon persons engaged in other lines of
business;(140) it may allow a county or smaller district to prohibit
the sale of liquor within its limits, but, discriminating in favour
of prohibition, forbid the sale in the smaller district when it is
prohibited by the county containing that district; (141) and it may
allow a municipality to prohibit the sale or gift of liquors except
by drugists, manufacturers, persons who give away liquors in their
private dwellings, and railway corporations dispensing liquors in
their cars under state license;(142) it may apportion the movable
property of railroads among its counties for assessment and taxation
without so apportioning property owned by other corporations or by
individuals;(143) it may require all railroad companies to remove
grade crossings under certain conditions;(144) it may require grain
elevator companies to insure grain stored by them;(145) it may
provide that persons who have been before convincted of crime shall
suffer severer punishment for subsequaent offenses than for a first
offense against the law;(146) it may provide that lands on the banks
of a river may be taken for levees without compensation, the
provision applying alike to all owners of riparian lands;(147) it
may require that white and coloured passengers on railroads within
the state be transported in separate cars;(148) it may provide that
the costs in actions improperly instituted shall be borne by the
prosecutor;(149) it may make railroad companies liable in damages
for all fires along their routes caused by their locomotives(150)
and provide, as a police regulation, that in an action to recover
such damages the plaintiff, if successful, shall be allowed a
reasonable attorney's fee;(151) it may provide that in successful
actions against life and health insurance companies the plaintiff
shall be allowed an attorney's fee, although a similar condition is
not imposed on other insurance companies or on mutual relief
associations;(152) it may allow to a successful plaintiff an
attorney's fee in a suit on a policy covering real estate where the
property has been totally destroyed, and exclude the right to such
fee in suits to enforce policies on other classes of property, or
where there has not been a total destruction of the property covered
by the insurance;(153) it may provide that under certain conditions
a change of venue shall be allowed to a party suing or sued by a
corporation having more than fifty stockholders;(154) it may provide
that any person who drives a herd over a public highway, where such
highway is constructed on a hillside, shall be liable for all
damages caused by such animals, without imposing this absolute
liability on those who move animals otherwise than in herds;(155)
it may regulate the heating of steam passenger cars, although at
the same time it declares that the regulations shall not apply to
railroads less than fifty miles in length;(156) it may limit the
hours of labour in mines,(157) and on public contracts;(158) it may
commit to administrative officers the power to determine the right
of citizens to serve as jurors, and it does not deny to any person
accused of crime the equal protection of the laws unless
discrimination against certain classes of citizens is shown in the
actual administration of the statute;(159) it may provide that in
suits on policies of fire insurance the defendant shall not be
permitted to deny that the value of the property destroyed was that
set forth in the policy of insurance, although no such provision is
made concerning insurance against the destruction of property from
causes other than fire;(160) it may give to residents priority over
non-resident corporations in the distribution of the assets of
insolvent debtors, for the prohibition relates only to the denial by
the state of equal protection to persons "within its
jurisdiction;"(161) it may provide that if on the day of discharge
of any railroad employee the wages then due to him be not paid the
railroad shall be subject to a penalty;(162) it may provide that in
a trial for murder the court may, on the motion of either the state
or the prisoner, order a struck jury, and that in such case the
accused shall be allowed only five peremptory challenges, while in
ordinary trials for murder the accused shall be allowed twenty
peremptory challenges; (163)it may provide for the indictment of
prisoners by information and their trial by a jury composed of eight
instead of twelve jurors;(164) it may declare a presumption that
policy slips are held for an unlawful purpose when in the possession
of persons other than public officers;(165) it may authorize
municipalities to annex adjoining tracts of land used for other than
agricultural purposes;(166) it may prohibit all labour on Sunday
except works of necessity and charity, providing, as a matter of
law, that the keeping of a barber shop on Sunday shall not be deemed
to be a work of necessity, but leaving the character of other kinds
of labour to be determined as questions of fact; (167) it may
impose a license tax upon persons and corporations carrying on the
business of refining sugar and molasses, while exempting from such
taxation planters who refine their own sugar and molasses;(168) it
may tax persons who are engaged in hiring labourers to be employed
beyond the limits of the state, although no such tax is imposed upon
the business of hiring persons to labour within the state;(169) it
may provide that mis-statements, other than fraudulent, in answer to
interrogatories in applications for policies of life insurance shall
not invalidate policies issued on the strength of those
answers;(170) it may establish two district criminal courts and
allow to the state an appeal from one of these courts although not
allowing to it an appeal from the other;(171) it may provide that
the real estate of corporations shall be assessed by a procedure
different from that used in determining the value of real estate
owned by individuals;(172) it may require the assessement of
railroad property which escaped taxation in preceding years, without
providing for the assessment of other property which escaped
taxation in the same period;(173) it may prohibit railway companies
from charging more for shorter than for longer hauls, except by
permission of the railroad commission;(174) it may prohibit the
making of options for the purchase or sale of commodities;(175) it
may prohibit contracts for the sale of corporate stock on
margin;(176) and it may provide for the inspection of all mines in
which more than five men are employed, and, after stipulating the
fees to be charged by the inspectors, permit them to determine the
number of inspections per year required by each mine.(177) So also a
municipality may forbid the use of steam-power by railways on
designated streets without forbidding its, use by companies which
traverse other streets of the City;(178) it may forbid washing and
ironing in public laundries within definite limits between
prescribed hours;(179) it may prohibit the keeping of a private
market within six squares of a public market,(180) and it may forbid
the maintenance of a cow stable within municipal limits without the
permission of the municipal assembly.(181) So also a saloon keeper
may be denied a renewal of his license upon the ground that he is
not a suitable person to conduct the business;(182) a prisoner may
be tried and sentenced by a judge de facto of a court de jure;(183)
a prisoner convicted of conspiracy to defraud may be subjected to a
heavier sentence than is imposed on a co-conspirator;(184) judicial
procedure may be regulated, provided the same course of procedure be
applied to all persons under similar conditions;(185) a board of
education which has not sufficient funds to maintain two high
schools may exclude negroes from a high school which is maintained
for the benefit of white students;(186) and a mayor may be given
authority to grant or refuse permission to move buildings along the
streets of a city.(187) The power of enforcement by appropriate
legislation, vested by the Amendment in Congress, does not
authorize congressional legislation with regard to individuals, for
the Amendment restrains state and not individual action; it has,
therefore, been held that Section 5519, Revised Statutes of the
United States, declaring it to be a crime punishable by fine and
imprisonment for any two or more persons to conspire to deprive any
person of the equal protection of the law is unconstitutional.(188)
It has also been held that the Civil Rights legislation of
Congress(189) declaring that all persons within the jurisdiction of
the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment
of inns, transportation facilities, etc., and subjecting to fine and
imprisonment, and also to a liability to damages in an action at
law, any person violating the provisions of the statute, is
unauthorized by the Amendment, the ground of decision being that the
Amendment is prohibitory of state legislation and action, and that,
therefore, it is not in the power of Congress to directly legislate
for the protection of individual rights against wrong doing by
individuals.(190)

The police power.
132. The police power is that function of government, by the
exercise of which, all persons, who are subject to the sovereignty
of the government exercising the power, are, for ends of public
policy, restrained in their use, or enjoyment, of some right of
person or of property. The police power may attain its end by
absolutely prohibiting the exercise of a particular right, or by so
regulating the exercise of that right as to permit its use under
conditions, and, if the power exists, the extent to which it may be
exercised in any case is limited only by the will of the government,
or the department thereof, in which the power may be vested, unless
a restraint be imposed by organic law. It is clear that the United
States cannot exercise within territory of a state any portion of
the state's police power, but it is equally clear that the United
States can exercise therein whatever of the police power is
applicable to the protection or regulation of the rights of persons
or of property which are granted by the Constitution of the United
States. It may be said upon one side, that the autonomy of the
states is nothing more than a name, if the police power is not to be
exclusively exercised by them, and that the constitutional grant to
the United States of any power which in its exercise may affect the
internal conerns of a state must be understood to have been made on
the implied condition that its exercise is to be subject to the
police power of the state. It may be said, on the other side, that,
as the power of police involves a power not only to control, but
also to forbid, the powers granted by the Constitution to the United
States would be nugatory, if the states might veto, under the
pretense of regulating. It may be repeated here as it has been said
in another connection,(191) that while the states did not, by the
adoption of the Constitution, surrender their local powers of
government, yet, nevertheless, the territorial limits of each
state's jurisdiction, the grant to the United States of powers
conflicting with state sovereignty, and a due regard to the right
of citizens of other states, must so limit each state's otherwise
unlimited police powers, that those powers shall not be so exercised
as to interfere with the full exercise of the powers granted to the
United States.

Therefore, persons or property brought within the territory of a
state in the exercises of any federal right are exempt from
obstructive state control until the federal power shall have ceased
to operate, and the persons, or property, on which it acted shall
have merged in the mass of persons, or property, within the
territory of the state.

(1) 116 Wall. 72.

(2) U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.

(3) The Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 73; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92
U. S. 548; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 id. 649, cf. Elk v. Wilkins,
112 id. 94. Congress mav, by statute or treaty, provide for the
collective naturalization of the citizens of a territory ilipon its
admission to statehood: Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135; Contren v.
U. S., 179 id. 191.

(4) Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 2169; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How.
405.

(5) Collet v. Collet, 2 Dall. 294.

(6) 119 How. 393.

(7) 1 Stroder v. Graham, 10 How. 93; Holmes v. Jenuison, 14 Pet.
540; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 id. 449; Priggv. Pennsylvania, 16 id.
539,

(8) Pope v. Williams, 193 TJ. S. 621.

(9) Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58. See also Mason v. Missouri,
ibid. 328; Swafford v. Templeton, 185 id. 487.

(10) Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162.

(11) Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 17. S. 665. See Giles v. Harris, 189
id. 475; Giles v. Teasley, 193 id. 146.

(12) U. S. v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214.

(13) James v. Bowman, 190 U. B. 127.

(14) U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542.

(14)a Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58; Swafford v. Templeton, 185 id.
487.

(14)b Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475; Harlan, Brewer, and Brown, JJ.,
dissented.

(14)c. Giles v. Teasley, 19 3 U. S. 146.

(15) XV Amendment; Stratuder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303;
Virginia v. Rives, ibid. 313; Ex par-to Virginia, ibid. 339; Neal v.
Delaware, 103 id 370; Gibson v. Missippippi, 162 id. 565; Carter v.
Texas, 177 id. 442; Rogers v. Alabama, 192 @. 226.

(16) Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371; Ex paurte Clarke, ibid. 399;
In re Coy, L27 id. 731.

(17) Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651.

(18) Connors v. U. B., 158 U. S. 408.

(19) McPherwn v. Blinker, 146 U. S. 1; in row Green, 134 id. 377.

(20) Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 273, 28 0.

(21) The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. -Z81.

(22) The Chinese Exclusion Case, supra.

(23) Foug Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S. 698.

(24) @ Fok Yung Yo v. U. S., 185 U. S. 296.

(25) U. S. v. Jung Ah Luing, 124: U. S. 621.

(26) U. S. v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161; Li Sing v. U. 6., 180 id.
486.

(27) Nishimura Ekiu v. U. S., 142 U. S. 651, 660.

(28) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, lC39 U. S. 649; Chin Bak Kan v. U.S., 186
id. 193.

(29) Wong Wing v. U. S., 163 U. S. 228.

(30) The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86.

(31) Pong Yue Ting, 149 U. S. 698, 729; Chin Bak Kan v. U. S., 186
id. 193.

(32) Gonzales v. Williams, 192-U. S. 1.

(33) U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.

(34) The first eight Amendments bind only the federal government:
Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 166; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth
County, 134 id. 31; In re Kemmler, 136 id. 436; McElvaine v. Brush,
142 id. 155; Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 id. 490; Moore v.
Missouri, 159 id. 673; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 id. 172; C. C. D.
Co. v. Ohio, 183 id. 238; Ohio v. Dollison, 194 id. 445. The
provision of the XIV Amendment that "no state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States" protects, it seems, only those rights which
are secured against state encroachment by other clauses of the
Constitution. See In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436, 448; Giozza v.
Tiernan, 148 id. 657, 661; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 id. 377, 382;
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 id. 581; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 79;
Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 id. 129; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252;
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 id. 623; In re Lockwood, 154 id. 116; Gray v.
Connecticut, 159 id. 74; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 id. 537; Holden v.
Hardy, 169 id. 366; Cumm ing v. Board of Education, 175 id. 528; W.
P. S. C. v. Caspefson, 193 id. 189; Ohio v. Dollison, 194 id. 445.
The Amendment does not extend to state legislation the restrictions
which the first eight Amendments impose upon congressional action:
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 597. Harlan, J., dissented.

(35) U. S. v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315.

(36) Hoyt v. Sprague, 103 U. S. 613.

(37) Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Weber v. Harbour Commissioners,
18 Wall. 57; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1; M. T. Co. v. Mobile,
187 id. 479.

(38) Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 id. 471;
Doe v. Beebe, 13 id. 25; U. S. v. M. R. Co., 189 U. S. 391.

(39) Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71; McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S.
391.

(40) Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 id.
449; Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 id. 539.

(41) Supra, See. 124.

(42) Permoli v. First Municipality, 3 How. 589.

(43) 16 Wall. 77.

(44) See, on the same line, KimTnigh v. Ball, 129 U. S. 217, 222.
Compare T. I. Co. v. Connecticut, 185 id. 364.

(45) 4 Wash. C. C. 371.

(46) 8 W&U. 180.

(47) Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130.

(48) Harlan, J., in McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S. 684, 687.

(49) McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S.391. See also Geer v. Connecticut,
161 id. 519.

(50) Conner v. Elliott, 18 How. 593; Curtis, J., said, "We do not
deem it needful to attempt to define the word 'privileges' in the
clause of the Constitution. It is safer and more in accordance with
the duty of a judicial tribunal, to leave its meaning to be
determined in each case, upon a view of the particular rights
asserted and denied therein, and especiallv is this true, when we
are dealing with so broad a provision, involving matters not only of
great delicacy and importanee, but which are of such a character
that any merely abstract definition could scarcely be correct; and a
failure to make it so would certainly produce mischief."In McCready
v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 395, Waite, C. J., after referring to the view
thus expressed by Curtis, J., added, "this clearly is the safer
course to pursue." These dicta, of course, mean only that in the
decision of a cause, the court ought to confine themselves to the
case at bar and ought not so to generalize as to prejudice cases
that have not yet arisen for determination, but they do not mean
that the court, in order to arrive at a decision, should reason
empirically, and should avoid a clear statement of the general
principles whose application must necessarily determine the
particular ease. If they did mean that, they would establish a
"rule" which is not "salutary," and they would lay down a "course"
which is not the "safer" one to pursue.

(51) Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U. S. 72. Strong, J.,
dissented.

(52) Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S.
275; Guy v. Baltimore, 100 id. 434; Webber v. Virginia, 103 id. 344;
Walling v. Michigan, 116 id. 446; Robbins v. Shelby County, 120 id.
489; Corson v. Maryland, ibid. 502; Asher v. Texas, 128 id. 129. But
see Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148; Downham v. Alexandria Council, 10
id. 173; Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 tT. S. 676; Tiernan v. Rinker, 101
id.123; Ficklen v. Shelby County, 145 id. 1; Emert v. Missouri, 156
id. 296; Rash v. Farley, 159 id. 263.

(53) Crandall v. Nevada, 6 VVall. 35.

(54) Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239, 176 id. 59; Stilly v. American
Nat. Bank, 178 id. 289.

(55) L. f. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566.

(56) The Bank of U. S. v. D eveaux, 5 Cr. 61; Paul v. Virginia, 8
Wall. 168; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239; O. 1. Co. v. Daggs,
ibid. 557.

(57) L.,C.&C.R. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Marshall v. B. & 0. R., 16
id. 314; C. D. Co. v. Shepherd, 20 id. 227; O. & M. R. v. Wheeler, 1
Bl. 286; Express Co. v. Kountze Bros., 8 Wall. 342; v. Co. v.
Whitton, 13 id. 270; St. L.& S.F. Ry. v. James, 161 TT. S. 545; St.
J. & G. 1. R. v. Steele, 167 id. 659; Blake v. McClung, 172 id. @39;
L., N. A. & C. Ry. v. L. T. Co., 174 id. 552; S. Ry. v. Allison, 190
id. 326.

(58) Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; P. M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125
U. S. 181; N. & W. R. v. Pennsylvania, 136 id. 114; Blake v.
McClung, 172 id. 239; Sully v. American Nat. Bank, 178 id. 289.

(59) Santa Clara County v. S. P. R., 118 U. S. 394; C., C. & A. R.
v. Gibbes, 142 id. 386; C. & L. T. Co. v. Sandford, 164 id. 578; G.,
C. & S. F. Ry. V. Ellis, 165 id. 150; Smyth v. Ames, 169 id. 466; L.
S. & M. S. Ry. v. Smith, 173 id. 684; P. M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125
id. 181; M. P. Ry. v. Mackey, 127 id. 205; M. & S. L. Ry. v.
Herrick, ibid. 210; @NI. & S. L. Rv. v. Beckwith, 129 id. 26, 28.

(60) P. F. Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110; P. M. Co. v.
Pennsylvania, 125 id. 181; 0. T. Co. v. Daggs, 172 id. 557; W.-P. 0.
Co. v. Texas, 177 id. 28; Sully v. American Nat. Bank, 178 id- 289;
ef. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. v. Pennsylvania, 153 id. 628; Nutting v.
Massachusetts, 183 id. 553.

(61) Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet- 519; Runyan v. Coster, 14 id.
122; O. & M. R. v. Wheeler, 1 Bl. 286; P. M. Co. v. Pennsylvania,
125 U. S. 181; H. S. M. Co. v. New York, 143 id. 305; Ashley v. R@,
153 id. 436; Hooper v. California, 155 id. 648; New York v. Roberts,
171 id. 658; N. Y. L. I. Co. v. Cravens, 178 id. 389; Nutting v.
Massachusetts, 183 id. 553. See also D. C. & I. Co. v. Barton, ibid.
23; D. G. Co. v. U. S. G. Co., 187 id. 611.

(62) P. M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181; H. S. M. Co. v. New
York, 143 id. 305.

(63) P. M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. ISI; McCall v. California,
136 id. 104; N. & W. R. v. Pennsvlvania, ibid. 114; Crutcher v.
Kentucky, 141 id. 47; H. S. NI. Co. v. Ney York, 143 id. 305; Ashley
v. Ryan, 153 id. 436; P. T. C. Co. v. Adams, 155 id. 68S; cf.
California v. C. P. R., 127 id. 1; Maine v. G. T. Ry. 142 id. 217.

(64) Waite, C. J., said in P. T. Co. v. W. U. T. Co., 96 U. S. 1,
13, "No citizen of a state can enjoin a foreign corporation from
pursuing its business. Until the state acts in its sovereign
capacity, individual citizens can not complain. The state must
determine for itself when the public good requires that its implied
assent to the admission shall be withdrawn."

(65) Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 587; Cowles v. Mercer
County, 7 Wall. 118.

(66) Bank of Augusta u. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 591; Runyan v. Coster,
14 id. 122,129.

(67) Runyan v. Coster, 14 Pc-t. 122; S. F. et A. des E. U. V.
Milliken, 135 U. S. 304.

(68) Bank of Augusta V. Earte, 13 Pet. 519.

(69) Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 id. 410; L.
1. Co. v. Massachnsetts, ibid. 566; P. F. A. v. New York, 119 U. S.
110.

(70) Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 5. See also St. L. & S. F. Ry.
v. James, 161 id. 545; L., N. A. & C. Ry. v. L. T. Co., 174 id. 552;
S. Ry. v. Allison, 190 id. 326.

(71) Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Dueat v. Chicago, 10 id. 410.

(72) Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Ducat V. Chicago, 10 id. 410; L.
1. CO. V. Massachusetts, ibid. 566; H. S. M. Co. u. New York, 143 U.
S. 305. See also Kidd v. Alabama, 188 id. 730.

(73) L. I. Co. v. French, IS How. 404, 407; Paul v. Virginia, 8
Wall. 168; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 356; H. S. M. Co. v. New
York, 143 id. 305; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 id. 436; Hooper v.
California, 155 id. 648; New York v. Roberts, 171 id. 658; Bedford
v. E. B. & L. Assi3., 181 id. 227.

(74) L. I. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S.
350, 356.

(75) Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 id. 410; L.
I. Co. v. Massachusetts, ibid. 566; P. F. Assn. v. New York, 119 U.
S. 110; Hooper alifor@, 155 id. 648; N. Y. L. I. Co. v. Cravens, 178
id. 389.

(76) Bedford v. E. B. & L. Assn., 181 U. S. 227; ef. D. G. Co. v. U.
S. G. Co., 187 id. 611.

(77) H. T. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445; S. P. Co. v. Denton, 146 U.
S. 202.

(78) Doyle v. C. 1. Co,, 94 U. S. 535; Cable v. U. S. L. I. Co., 191
id. 288.

(79) Barron v. Buriaside, 121 U. S. 186.

(80) In this case an engine driver of a foreign railway corporation. 

(81) Barron v. Burnside, 121 U. S. 186.

(82) Goodwin v. C. M. I. Co., 110 U. S. 1.

(83) C. M. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 72 7. But see also Pritts v.
Palmer, 132 id. 282; F. & M. C. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 id. 98; C. N.
B. & L. Assn. V. Denson, 189 id. 408.

(84) C. N. B. & L. Assn. v. Denson, 189 U- S. 408.

(85) C. M. L. I. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602.

(86) C. S. Ry. v. Gebhard, 109 U. S. 527.

(87) Relfe v. Rundle, 103 U. S. 222. See also Pinney v. Nelson, 183
id. 144.

(88) Per Field, J., Davij3 v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 342.

(89) Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145. See also Mormon Church v. U.S.,
136 id. 1.

(90) Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U. S. 291.

(91) In re Rapier, 143 U. S. 110. As to the right of assembly and of
petition, see U. S. v. Cruiksbank, 9,2 U. S. 542, 552.

(92) U. S. v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 292.

(93) U. S. v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629.

(94) Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.

(95) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537.

(96) Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275.

(97) White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646; Boyce v. Tabb, 18 id. 546.

(98) Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654.

(99) Clay v. Field, 138 U. S. 464.

(100) The Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36. See also See. 119,
supra.

(101) Yiek Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356.

(102) Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162.

(103) Bradwell v. The State, i6 Wall. 130.

(104) Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581. See also See. 125, supra.

(105) See. 117, supra.

(106) See. 131, infra.

(107) See. 127, supra.

(108) See. 127, supra.

(109) Yiek Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356.

(110) Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303; Bush v. Kentucky,
107 id. 110; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 id. 565; Carter v. Texas,
177 id. 442; Rogers v. Alabama, 192 id. 226. See also Ex parte
Virginia, 100 id. 339; Brownfield v. South Carolina, 189 id. 426.

(111) Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 id.
110; In re Shibuya Jugiro, 140 id. 291, 297; Gibson v. Mississippi,
162 id. 565. See also Williams v. Mississippi, 170 id. 213; Tarrance
v. Florida, 188 id. 519.

(112) C.,M.&St.P.Ry. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418; Reagan v.
F.L.&T.Co., 154 id. 362; Smyth v. Ames, 169 id. 466; L. S. & M. S.
Ry. v. Smith, 173 id. 684; ef. L. & N. R. v. Kentucky, 183 id. 503;
M. & St. L. R. v. Minnesota, 186 id. 257.

(113) G., C. & S. F. Ry. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150. See, however, A.,
T. & S. F. R. v. Matthews, 174 id. 96; and also F. M. L. Assn. v.
Mettler, 185 id. 308; 1. L. I. Co. v. Lewis, 187 id. 335; F. & M. I.
Co. v. Dobney, 189 id. 301. " (114) Cotting v. K. C. S. Y. Co., 1:83
U. S. 79.

(115) Connolly v. U. S. P. Co., 184 U. S. 540.

(116) Santa Clara County v. S.P.R., 118 U. S. 394; P. M. Co. v.
Pennsylvania, 125 id. 181; G.,C.& S.F.Ry. v. Ellis, 165 id. 150;
Smyth v. Ames, 169 id. 466; L.S.&M.S.Ry. v. Smith, 173 id. 684; M.
P. Ry. v. Mackey, 127 id. 205; M. & St. L. Ry. v. fierrickl, ibid.
210; M. & St. L. Ry. v. Beckwitb, 129 id. 26; C., C. & A. R. 1,.
Gibbes, 142 id. 386; C. & L. T. Co. v. Sandford, 164 id. 578.

(117) "Class legislation, discriminating against some, and favouring
others, is prohibited, but legislation which, in carrying out a
public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere
of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is
not within the Amendment: "Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 32.
"Arbitrary selection can never be justified by calling it
classification.... It is apparent that the mere fact of
classification is not sufficient to relieve a statute from the reach
of the equality clause of the XIV Amendment, and that in all cases
it must appear not only that a classification has been made, but
also that it is one based upon some reasonable ground-some
difference which bears a just and proper relation to the attempted
classification-and is not a mere arbitrary selection:" G.C.&S.F. Ry.
v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 159, 165. "The question in each case is whether
the legislature has adopted the statute in exercise of a reasonable
discretion, or whether its action be a mere excuse for an unjust
discrimination, or the oppression or spoliation of a particular
class: " Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 398. "Classification...is not
invalid because not depending on scientific or marked differences in
things or persons in their relations. It suffices if it is
practical, and is not reviewable unless palpably arbitrary:" O.I.
Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 562. "The very idea of classification is
that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the fact of
inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality:"
A.,T.&S.F.R. v. Matthews, 174 U. 14. 106.

(118) Slaughter House Cases, 16 WaH. 36.

(119) P. M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181; H. S. M. Co. v. New
York, 143 id. 305; New York v. Roberts, 171 id. 658.

(120) Pace L,. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583.

(121) Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U.S. 680.

(122) St.L.&S.F.Ry. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649; Reagan v. F.L.&T.Co.,
154 id. 362; Smyth v. Ames, 171 id. 361; M.&St.L.R. v. Minnesota,
186 id. 257. See also C., M. & St. P. Ry. v. Tompkins, 176 id. 167;
L. & N. R. v. Kentucky, 183 id. 503.

(123) Stanislaus County v. S. J. & K. R. C. & 1. Co., 192 U. S. 201.

(124) C. & L. T. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578.

(125) Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, two justices dissenting; Budd
v.New York, 143 id. 517, three justices dissenting; Brass v. North
Dakota, 153 id. 391, four justices dissenting.

(126) M.P.Ry. v. Mackev, 127 U. S. 205; M. & St. L. Ry. v. Herrick,
ibid.210. (127) Tullis v. L. E. & W. R., 175 U. S. 348. 

(128) Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678. It may not, however,
regulate commerce by prohibiting the We, in original packages, of
oleomargarine brought from other states: Schollenberger v.
Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1.

(129) C. C. D. Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238.

(130) Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578; French v. B. A. P. Co., 181
id. 324; Detroit v. Parker, ibid. 399; Shumate v. Heman, ibid. 402;
Chadwick i7. Kelley, 187 id. 540; Schaefer v. Werling, 188 id. 516;
cf. Norwood v. Baker, 172 id. 269.

(131) Field v. B. A. P. Co.y 194 U. S. 618.

(132) M. P. Ry. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512; M. & St. L. Ry. v.
Beckwith, 129 id. 26; M. & St. L. Ry. v. Emmoias, 149 id. 364.

(133) M., K. & T. Ry. v. May, 194 U. S. 267. Three justices
dissented.

(134) B. G. R. v. Pennsylvaiaia, 134 U. S. 232; Jennings v. C. R. C.
Co., 147 id. 147.

(135) Kentucky R. Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321; A. Ex. Co. v. Ohio, 165
id. 194; Magoun v. 1. T. & S. @k, 170 id. 283; Orr v. Gilman, 183
id. 278; P. C. & P. R. v. Reynolds, ibid. 471; Billings v. Illinois,
188 id. 97; Kidd v. Alabama, ibid. 730; Missouri v. Dockery, 191 id.
165. See also M. & M. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 id. 461; Connolly v.
U. S. P. Co., 184 id. 540.

(136) Giozza v. Tiernan,.148 U. S. 657; Clark v. Titusville, 184 id.
329.

(137) H. I. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594.

(138) C., C. & A. R. v. Gibbes, 142 U. 8, 386.

(139) New York v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175.

(140) Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657.

(141) 41 Rippey v. Texas, 193 U. S. 504.

(142) Ohio v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445.

(143) C. S. Ry. v. Wright, 151 T:-. S. 470.

(144) N. Y. & N. E. R. v. Bristol_ 151 U. S. 556.

(145) Brass v. North Dakota, 15a U. S. 391.

(146) Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673; McDonald v. Massachusetts,
180 id. 311.

(147) Eldridge v. Trezevant, 160 U. S. 452.

(148) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537.

(149) Lowe v. Kansm, 163 U. S. 81.

(150) St. L. & s. P. Ry. v. Mathews, 165 U. S. 1.

(151) A., T. & S. F. R. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96. Four justices
dissented.

(152) F.M.L. Assn. v. Mettler, 185 U.S. 308. See also I.L.I.Co. v.
Lewis, 187 id. 335.

(153) F. & M. I. Co. v. Dobney, 189 U. S. 301. Three justices
dissented.

(154) C. S. Ry. v. Snell, 193 r. S. 30.

(155) Jones v. Brim, 165 L. S. 180.

(156) N. Y., N. H. & H. R. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628.

(157) Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. Zi. 366. Two justices dissented.

(158) Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207. Three justices dissented.

(159) Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213; Tarrance v. Florida,
188 id. 519; cf. Carter v. Texas, 177 id. 442; Rogers v. Alabama,
192 id. 226. But the Amendment does not protect individuals against
unauthorized acts by state officials: Barney v. City of New York,
193 U. S. 430. See Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 id. 405.

(160) O. I. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557.

(161) Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239;Sully v. American Nat. Bank,
178 id. 289.

(162) St. L., I. M. & St. P. Ry. v. Paul, 173 U. S. 404.

(163) Brown v.New Jersey, 175 U.S.172. See also Hayes v. Missouri,
120 id. 68.

(164) Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581.

(165) Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585.

(166) Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U. S. 1 14.

(167) Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. 164.

(168) A. S. R. Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U. S. 89.

(169) Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270.

(170) H. M. L. I. Co. v. Warren,, 181 lLT. S. 73.

(171) Mallet v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589.

(172) New York v. Barker, 179 U.S. 279. See also F.C.&P.R. v.
Reynolds, 183 id. 471.

(173) F. C. & P. R. v. Reynolds, 183 U. S. 471.

(174) L. & N. R. v. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503.

(175) Booth v. Illinois, 184 TT. S. 425.

(176) Otis v. Parker, 187 U. ;S. 606.

(177) St. L. C. C. Co. v. Illinois, 185 U. S. 203.

(178) Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 96 U. S. 521.

(179) Barbier v. ConnoUy, 113 U. S. 27; Boon Hing v. Crowley, ibid.
703.

(180) Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U. S. 621.

(181) Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U. S. 361.

(182) Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86.

(183) In re Manning, 139 U. S. 504.

(184) Howard v. Fleming, 191 U. S. 126.

(185) Dancan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171
id. 101; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 id. 581; cf. Missouri v. Lewis, 101 id.
22; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 id. 172; Minder v. Georgia, 183 id.
559.

(186) Cumming v. Board of Education, 175 U. S. 528. r*

(187) Wilson v. Eureka City, 173 U. S. 32. See also Davis v.
Massachusetts, 167 id. 43; Gundlingv. Chicago, 177 id. 183.

(188) U.S. v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629.

(189) Act 1st March, 1875, 18 Stat. 335.

(190) Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3. Bee also Barney v. City of
New York, 193 id. 430.

(191) Supra, p. 70.

			      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.

The results of federal supremacy.
133. A consideration of the cases which have been cited in the
preceding chapters of this book leads to the conclusion that the
supremacy of the government of the United States, within its
constitutional sphere of action, involves: first, the exercise of
judicial power by the government of the United States for the
purposes of enforcing the rights created by the Constitution, laws,
and treaties of the United States, of punishing offenses against the
laws of that government, and of finally determining the judicial
construction of the Constitution, statutes, and treaties of the
United States, and of the constitutions and statutes of the states,
so far as regards subjects of federal jurisdiction; second, the
exemption of all property and agencies of the federal government
from state control; and third, the non-exercise by the states of
powers clashing with the powers granted by the Constitution to the
government of the United States.

The constitutional reservation of the rights of the states.
134. Articles IX and X of the Amendments to the Constitution declare
that, "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people....The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to
the states respectively, or to the people." If these Amendments had
never been adopted, the construction of the Constitution as a whole
would lead inevitably to the conclusion that, 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 governments.(1)

The nature and extent of those reserved rights.
135. The nature and extent of the reserved rights of the states must
be determined by a process of reasoning by exclusion, involving a
statement of the express and implied constitutioiaal restraints upon
freedom of state action, and a conclusion that any state may, so far
as the United States are concerned, rightfully exercise every power
of government which is not included within the specific restraints
thus enumerated. A consideration of the terms of the Constitution
and of the effect of the judgments of the court, which have been
cited in the preceding chapters of this book, renders it easy to
formulate a statement of the general nature of the constitutional
restraints upon the states. By force of those restraints, a state
cannot withdraw from the Union, nor deprive itself of its rights as
one of the United States, nor emancipate itself from the
constitutional limitations upon freedom of state action; it cannot
have any international relations with foreign states, nor with any
other of the United States; it cannot enter into treaties with
foreign powers, nor make interstate compacts; it cannot engage in
war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not
admit of delay; it cannot grant letters of marque and reprisal; it
cannot adopt any other than a republican form of state government,
nor grant any title of nobility; it cannot prescribe the conditions
of its citizenship, for the birth within the United States of any
person subject to their jurisdiction, or the naturalization of any
person under the acts of Congress, followed, in either case, by
residence within a state, makes the person so born or naturalized,
and so residing, a citizen of that state; it may not, under the
penalty of a reduction in the basis of representation, delay or
abridge the right to vote at elections for electors, congressmen,
state executive, or judicial officers, or legislators of any male
inhabitant twenty-one years of age and a citizen of the United
States; it cannot, in its regulation of the exercise of the right of
suffrage by its citizens, discriminate because of race, colour, or
previous condition of servitude; it cannot in its action with regard
to its own citizens or with regard to temporary denizens within its
territory, abridge those privileges or immunities which are common
to citizens of the United States, nor deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any
person the equal protection of the laws; it cannot deny to citizens
of other states those privileges and immunities of citizenship
which it allows to its own citizens; it cannot control or regulate
the immigration or residence of aliens; it cannot tax the property
of the United States, nor the agencies employed by the United
States in the execution of its constitutional powers to such an
extent as to interfere with the full performance by such agents of
their duties to the United States, nor the subjects of foreign or
interstate commerce in such a manner as to amount to a regulation of
such commerce, nor lay any imposts or duties on imports or export,
except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection
laws, nor lay any duty on tonnage; it cannot coin money, nor emit
bills of credit, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a tender
in payment of debts; it cannot, by any law or by any act to which
it, by its enforcement thereof, gives the force of a law, deprive a
party of the legal right of enforcing, or obtaining compensation for
the breach of, an express and valid contract, executed or executory;
it cannot regulate commerce, foreign or interstate, or with the
Indian tribes, by obstructing or burdening, or discriminating
against, such commerce; it cannot exercise judicial jurisdiction
over persons or subject-matters rightfully withdrawn by the United
States from its jurisdiction, and in its exercise of jurisdiction it
cannot derogate from the supremacy of the Constitution, laws, and
treaties of the United States, nor fail to give full faith and
credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
every other state; it cannot pass any bill of attainder or ex post
facto law; and it cannot so exercise its powers of police regulation
as to interfere with the exercise of the constitutional powers of
the United States, or, in other words, in such manner as to operate
upon persons or property brought within its jurisdiction in the
exercise of powers granted to the United States, before such persons
or property shall have lost their distinctive character and merged
in the mass of persons or property within the territory of the
state. Such are substantially the constitutional restraints upon the
powers of the states; and their practical effect is that, while
limiting the powers of each state in that which concerns foreign
nations, and in that which affects the interests of other states,
and of the citizens of those other states, it yet reserves to each
state full powers of self-government in all that affects only the
interests of that state and of its own citizens.

The importance of the preservation of the rights of both the United
States and the states.

136. The Constitution was the result of a struggle between
contending parties, the one fearing a disintegration of the Union as
a consequence of the weakness of the confederation, and striving to
create a nation, and the other mindful of the contest for the
independence of the colonies, and seeking to sacrifice as little as
possible of the autonomy of the states. Fortunately for the peace
and prosperity of the country, and for the permanence of its free
institutions, neither party triumphed, and their conflict of opinion
gave birth to a government, which, though national in its relations
to foreign powers, and in the directness of its action upon the
citizens of the several states, is also federal in its reservation
to the states and the people of all powers not expressly, or by
necessary implication, granted to the United States. The
distinguishing characteristics of the Constitution, thus created,
are the limitation in terms of the powers confided to the United
States, the reservation to the states of the right of local
self-government, and that practical conservatism, which is the
necessary consequence of the supremacy of a written Constitution,
whose manner of amendment guards it against hasty changes. The
government created by that Constitution has stood the tests of time
and growth; its nationality has survived the shocks of foreign and
of civil war; and its recognition of the principle of home rule has
overcome the disintegrating tendencies the expansion of territory
and the increase of population that in the future as in the past the
United States escape the perils of dissolution and the danger of
consolidation, it is necessary that its Constitution be maintained
in its integrity, and that the reserved rights of states, and the
supremacy of the United States within limits of its delegated
powers, be alike jealously guarded. So long as that just equipoise
of federal and of state power shall be preserved, and so long as the
mass of the people shall continue to be God-fearing law-abiding, and
shall steadfastly resist any usurpation of power, by whomsoever
made, the United States will triumph over all that may endanger the
perpetuity of their free institutions.

(1) Supra, Section 3.
(2) Section 4 of Article IV of the Constitution requires the United
States to "guaranty to every state in this Union a republican form
of government." It rests with Congress to decide what government is
the established one in a state, and also to determine upon the means
proper to be adopted to fulfil the guaranty of a republican form of
government to the states: Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, 42. See also
Taylor and Marshall v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548. Chase, C. J., pointed
out in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 727, that this constitutional
obligation required the United States, after the suppression of the
Rebellion, to re-establish the representatiou in Congress of the
states lately in rebellion.

				 INDEX.
References are to the pages in the original printed work.

 ACTIONS.
   Against the United States, 209, 212.
   Against a state, by the United States, 209.
   Between states, 211.
   Between a state and citizens of another state, 213, 258.
   Between citizens of different states, 210, 215, 239.
   Legislation affecting, as impairing contracts, 142, 143.
   Legislation affecting, as denying due process of law, 275, 279.
 	See also JUDICIAL POWER.
 ADMIRALTY.
   Jurisdiction in, 206.
 AGENCIES.
   Federal, state taxation of, 44.
   State, federal taxation of, 39.
 ALIENS.
   Admission and naturalizatiou of, 291, 296.
 ALLIANCES.
   By states forbidden, 191.
 AMBASSADORS.
   Jurisdiction in cases affecting 197, 206, 221.
 AMENDMENTS.
   First eight limit only federal government, 258, 298.
   1, 309.
   IV, '.145.
   V, 247, 251, 297.
   VI, 253.
   VII, 255.
   VIII, 257.
   XI, 258.
   XIII, 310.
   XIV, purposes of, 311.
   XIV, citizenfihip, 290, 292.
   XIV, privileges and immunities of citizenship, 298.
   XIV, due process of law, 273, 297.
   XIV, equal protection of the laws, 312.
   XIV, right of suffrage, 292.
   XV, 291, 293, 294, 295.
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION. See Judicial Power (Chapter X).
 ATTAINDER.
   Prohibition of bills of, 182.
   Bills of, deflued, 187.
   Bills of, illustrations of, 188.
 BANKS, NATIONAL.
   Power of Congrem to create, 17.
   State taxation of, 48.
   Federal taxation of, 17, 23.
 BANKS, STATE.
   Federal taxation of, 17, 40.
 BlLLS OF ATTAINDER. See ATTAINDER.
 BILLS 0F CREDIT.
   Prohibition of State, 189.
   Definition of, 189.
   Illustrations of, 189, 190.
 BILLS OF EXCANGE.
   Dealing in, taxable by states, 55, 62.
 BILLS OF LADING.
   State. taxation of, 63.
 BRIDGES.
   Regulation of, 82.
 CARRIERS. See RAILWAYS, SHIPPING.
 CASES.
   Requisites of judicial, 228.
   See also ACTIONS, JUDICIAL POWER.
 CHARTERS.
   As contracts, 163, 165, 168.
   Implied contracts in, 170, 173, 174, 176.
 CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
   Jurisdiction of 219 221.
 CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES.
   Jurisdiction of, 219, 22C).
 CITIZENS.
   Of the United Staten, 290.
   Of a state, 291, 292.
   Privileges and imuniities of citizens of the United States.
   Privileges and immunities of citizens of one state within state, 300.
   Right to vote not a privilege of citizenship, 292.
   Discrimination in state regulation of suffrage, @193.
   Right to serve on juries, 295.
 CIVIL RIGIITS.
   Federal regulation of, unconstitutional, 32.
 CLASSIFICATION.
   Of persons or property for purposes of state legislation, 3
   Uniformity in federal taxation, 26, 35, 37.
 COLONIES. See TERRITORIES.
 COLOURED PERSONS.
   Separate transportation, 98, 317.
   Exclusion from schools for white students, 322.
   Federal regulation of civil rights unconstitutional, 322.
   Right to vote, 292.
   Right to serve on juries, 295, 312.
 COMITY, INTERSTATE. ALLIANCES, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
 COMMERCE.
   Definition of, 62.
   Regulation of, 59, 64.
   Constitutional provisions as to, 59.
   Historical reason for provisions, 61.
   Federal statutes regulating, 66.
   Limits of federal and state regulation of, 68.
   Taxation as regulation of, 54, 90.
   Distinction between internal and foreign or interstate, 68.
   Internal commerce, 70.
   With Indian tribes, 135.
 COMMON LAW.
   Theory of judicial system under, 199.
   In federal courts, 239.
 COMPACTS BETWEEN STATES, 191.
 COMPENSATION.
   For private property taken for publie use, 253, 277, 278.
 CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.
   Of federal and state courts, 217, 268.
 CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION.
   Between federal and state courts, 265.
 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
   By whom ratified, 1.
   Effect of ratification of, 1.
   Rules of construetion of, 233, 234.
   Supremacy of, 325.
 CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES.
   Rules of, '-)32, 233.
 CONSULAR COURTS.
   Establishment of, 19, 246.
 CONSULS.
   Jurisdictions in cases affecting, 197, 206, 221.
 CONTRACTS.
  Prohibition of impairment of obligation of, 137.
  Prohibitiou affects only state laws, 137.
  "law" defined, 138.
  "obligation" defined, 142.
  "contracts" defined, 147.
  History of prohibition, 155.
  Judgements of state courts, as to non-existence or non-impairment, not 
      conclusive, 141.
  Coutracts made by states, 160.
  Contracts made by political subdivisions, 154.
  Contracts of state with political subdivisions, 170.
  Regulation of remedies, 142.
  Judgements on contracts, 153.
  Charters as contracts, 162, 163, 170.
  Express exemption from state taxation, 52, 161.
  Implied exemption from state taxation, 52, 713.
  Express grants of peculiar privileges, 168.
  Implied grants of peculiar privileges, 174.
  Exemption from police power, 176.
  Contracts as to matter of public concern, 178.
  Constitutional prohibition as affecting suits against states, 180.
  Force and effect ofconstitutional prohibition, 181.
CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
  Under Anti-trust Act and at common law, 124.
CONTROVERSIES.
  See ACTIONS.
CORPORATIONS.
  Citizenship of, for jurisdictional purposes, 303.
  Not citizens within meaning of Art. IV, sec.2, 304.
  Persons within meaning of XIV Amendment, 304,314.
  Foreign, 303, 314.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE.
  Right to, 254.
COURTS, FEDERAL. See Judicial Power, Supreme Court, Circuit Court of
Appeals, Circuit Court, District Courts.
COURTS, STATE. See JUDICIAL POWER.
COURTS MARTIAL.
  Jurisdiction of, 243, 247.
CREDIT, BILLS OF. See BILLS OF CREDIT.
CRIMES.
  Ex post facto laws prohibitted, 182.
  Federal Judicial procedure, 246-258.
  Due process of the laws in state judicial procedure, 312, 317,319, 320, 322
  Cruel and unusual punishment, 257.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
  Prohibited, 257.
CURRENCY.
  Legal Tender, 20.
  Bills of Credit, 189.
DAMS  
  Regulation of, 82.
DIRECT TAXATION.
  By United states, 30.
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
 Jurisdiction of, 219, 222.
DIVORCE.
 Not impairment of contract, 148.
 Recognition of decrees obtained in other states, 283, 286.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
 Under V Amendment, 247, 297.
 Under XIV Amendment, 273, 311.
DUTIES. See EXPORTS, IMPORTS.
EIGHTH AMENDMENT.
 Cruel and unusual punishments, 257.
ELECTIONS.
 State regulation of, 292.
 Federal regulation of, 293, 295.
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT.
  Effect of, 258.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
 Right to, 312.
EXCISES.
 Requirement of uniformity of, 35.
EXPORTS.
  state Taxation of , 43, 87.
  State inspection of, 89.
  Term not applicable to interstate commerce, 73.
  Term as applied to commerce with Porto Rico, 12, 27, 28, 37, 73.
  Taxation of, by United States, 28, 73.
EX POST FACTO LAWS.
  Prohibition of, 182.
  Definitions of, 184.
  Illustration of, 185.
EXPRESSED RESTRAINTS.
  On states, 4
EXTRADITION.
  From other states, 193.
FAITH AND CREDIT.
  To statutes, records, and judgements of other statas, 280.
FERRIES.
  Taxation of, 54, 57, 82.
  Regulation of, 81, 100.
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.
  Prosecution upon information, 247.
  Due process of law, 247.
  Putting twice in jeopardy, 251.
  Compelling accused to be a witness against himself, 252.
  Compensation for property taken, 253.
FIRST AMENDMENT, 309.
FISHING
  State regulation of, 72, 274, 299, 301.
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 
  Rights and liabilities of, 303.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
  Scope of, 
  As defining citizenship, 290, 291, 292.
  As affecting right to vote, 293, 294.
  Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United Staten, 298.
  Due process of law, 273.
  Equal protection of the laws, 312.
 FOURTH AMENDMENT, 246.
 FITGITIVE FROM JUSTICE.
 State obligation as to, 193.
 Jurisdiction as to issue of habeas corpus in cases of, 194.
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.
 To statutes, records and judgments of other states, 280.
GRAND JURY. See INFORMATION.
GRANTS.
 As contracts, 160.
HABEAS CORPUS.
  In cases of fugitives from justice,194.
  In cases of restraint of liberty in violation of the Constitution, 225.
  In cases of restraint for acts done in pursuance of federal authority, 214.
HARBOUR REGULATION8.
  By states, 78.
HEALTH LAWS.
  Established by states, 80.
IMMIGRANTS.
  Admission of, 296.
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP. See CITIZENS.
IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS. See CONTRACTS.
IMPEACHMENTS.
  Jurisdiction in, 243.
IMPLIED POWERS.
  Defined, 3.
  Necessity of, 15.
  Grant of, 16.
  Illustration of, 17.
IMPLIED RESTRAINT.
  On states, 4, 6, 44.
IMPORTS.
  State taxation of, 43, 87.
  State Prohibition of sale of, 100.
  Federal taxation of, 66. 
  Federal prohibition of, 66.
  Term not applicable to interstate commerce, 87.
  "Imports" into Porto Rico from United States, 12, 27, 28, 37.
  "Imports" into United States from Porto Rico, 12, 13, 37.
IMPOSTS
  State imposition of, 43.
IMPROVEMENTS OF NAVIGATION.
  Federal power over, 85.
INCOME TAX, 30
INDIAN TRIBES.
  Not states, 135, 213.
  Regulation of commerce with, 135.
  Their exercise of powers not restrained by V Amendment, 247.
INDICTMENT.
  After submission to grand jury amenable only on resubmission, 247.
INFORMATION, PROSECUTION UPON.
  In federal trials,12, 247.
  In state trials, 274,320.
INSOLVENT LAWS.
  Effect of state, 150.
INSPECTION LAWS.
  State, 44, 89, 91, 280, 321.
  Federal, 251.
INSURANCE.
  State regulation of contracts of, 63.
  State regulation of suits against insurance companies, 318, 319,320.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 106.
INTOXICANTS. See LIQUOR LAWS.
JEOPARDY.
  Putting twice in, 251.
"JIM CROW" LEGISLATION, 98, 317, 322.
JUDGES.
  Tenure of office of federal, 196.
  Compensation of federal, not diminishable during continuance in office, 197.
  Character of federal judiciary, 230.
JUDICIAL POWER.
  Necessity of federal, 203.
  Constitutional provisions as to federal, 196.
  Courts of the United States, 219.
  Federal Jurisdiciton, 214.
  Exclusive federal jurisdiction, 217.
  Concurrent federal jurisdiction, 217, 268.
  Original jurisdiciton of federal courts, 216, 220.
  Appellate jurisdiciton of federal courts, 223.
  Removal of causes, 224, 227.
  In cases in law and equity under the Constitution, 205.
  Jurisdiction dependent on character of parties. See ACTIONS.
  Jurisdiction as to political questions, 228, 231.
  Jurisdiction in habeas corpus. See HABEUS CORPUS.
  Jurisdiction in admiralty, 206, 243, 269.
  Courts martial, 243.
  Military commissions, 243, 246, 249.
  Impeachments, 243, 244.
  Construction of Constitution and statutes, 232, 233.
  Limitation of, by Amendments. See AMENDMENTS.
  Law administered in federal courts, 239.
  Relations between federal and state courts, 265.
  Judicial power of the states as affected by "full faith credit" clause, 280.
JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
  Theory of, under common law, 199.
JUDGEMENTS.
  As contracts, 153. 
  Effect of, in other states, 280.
  Scope of, of courts, 237.
JURISDICTION.
  Conflict of, between state and federal courts, 265.
  Of federal courts, See JUDICIAL POWER.
JURY
  Trial by, not to be taken away by federal government, 246, 249, 253, 255.
  Waiver of trial by for minor offense, 246, 254.
  Trial in state courts, 274, 320.
  Discriminations forbidden in state regulation of jury service, 312.
JUST COMPENSATION.
  For private property taken for public use, 253, 277, 278.
LANDS.
  Public, state taxation of, 45, 46.
LAW OF THE LAND, 4, 248.
LEGAL TENDER.
  Power of Congress over, 20.
LIBERTY.
  Religious, 309.
  Of speech, 309.
  Deprivation of, without due process of law, 147, 250, 251, 280, 297.
LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY. See DUE PROCESS of LAW.
LIMITATIONS, STATUTES OF.
  As impairing contracts, 143.
  As denying due process of law, 275, '-179.
LIQUOR LAWS.
  License legislation, 317, 321.
  Local option, 275, 317.
  Prohibition, 100, 278.
  Original package doctrine, 91, 93.
  Inspection, 90.
  Taxation, 92.
LOTTERIES.
  Federul legislation, 64.
  State legislation, 178, 320.
MILITARY COMMISSIONS, 243.
MONEY. See BILLS OF CREDIT, LEGAL TENDER.
MONOPOLIES. 
 Federal legislation, 120.
 State grants of, 168, 169, 175, 178, 310, 314.
 State restriction of, 313.
NATIONAL BANKS.
  Power of Congress to create, 17.
  State taxation of, 48.
  Federal taxation of, 17, 23.
NATURALlZATION.
 Regulation of, by United States, 291.
 State courts may admit to citizenship under acts of Congress, 218, 291.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.
  Defined, 209.
  Title to land under, 71.
  Improvements of, 85.
NAVIGATlON.
  Regulation of, by United States, 77.
  Regulation of, by states, 77.
  Improvements of, 85.
NEGROES. See COLOURED PERSONS.
ORDINANCE OF 1787.
  Effect of, on regulation of commerce, 84.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
  Of federal courts, 216, 220.
ORIGINAL PACKAGE.
  Doctrine, 93.
  Taxation of goods in, see also 88.
PAINS AND PENALTIES.
  Probibition of bills of, 182, 188.
  Defmitioa of bills of, 188.
PATENTS.
 Granted by United states do not exempt from state taxation, 47.
 Granted by United States do not exempt from state police regulation, 70.
 Exclusive license to use, does not violate Anti-trust law, 123.
 Jurisdiction of state courts in patent cases, 269.
PERSON, RIGHTS OF, See RIGHTS OF PERSONS.
PHILIPPINES, See TERRITORIES.
PIERS.
  Regulation of, 87.
PILOTAGE 
  Regulation of, 76.
POLICE POWER.
  Definition of, 323.
  Of the United States, 323.
  Of the states, 323.
POLICE REGULATION.
  As affecting commerce, 97.
  Exemption by contract from, 176.
PORT DUES.
 Imposition of, by states, 75.
PORTO RICO.
  Taxation, 12, 13, 27, 28, 37, 73.
  immigration from, 298.
PORT REGULATIONS.
 Established by states, 78.
PORTS, PREFERENCES OF, 73.
PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
  Foree and effect of, 6.
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITTES.
  Of citizens of the United States '-)98.
  Of citizens of one state within another state, Ji)U.
PROCESS OF LAW. See DUE PROCESS or LAW.
PUBLIC LANDS.
  State taxation of, 45, 46.
QUARANTINE REGULATIONS. 80.
RAILWAYS.
  Federal regulation of interstate transportation by,106.
  State regulation of interstate transportation by, 97.
  State police regulation of, 97.
  State taxation of, 102.
  Tolls for use of improved facilities for transportation, 102.
RAILWAY RATES, STATE REGULATION OF.
 As limited by commerce clause, 98, 101, IOIa.
 As limited by contract, 164, 177, 178.
 As limited by requirement of due process of law, lola, 278.
 As limited by requirement of equal protection of the laws,101a,313, 315, 321.
RAILWAY STATIONS.
  State regulations concerning, 99, 100, 101.
RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTION.
  Effect of, 1.
RECORDS.
  Proof of, in other states, 280.
REGULATION.
  Of commerce. See COMMERCE.
  Of remedy. See CONTRACTS.
RELATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTS, 1.
RELATION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, 265.
RELIGION.
  Establishment of, 369.
REMEDY, REGULATION OF. See CONTRACTS.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 224, 227.
REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
  Guarauteed to the states, 327.
RESERVED POWERS AND RIGHTS.
  Of the states, 2, 325, 326.
RESTRAINTS UPON STATES, 4.
RETROSPECTIVE LAWS.
  Not prohibited, 182, 183.
RIGHTS OF PERSON AND OF PROPERTY.
  State control over, 298.
  As protected by V Amendment, 247.
  As protected by XIV Amendment, 273, 311, 312.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
  Of Constitution and statutes, 232, 233.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
  Unreasonable, by federal officers, prohibited, 246.
SECESSION.
  Unconstitutionality of, 1.
SELF-GOVERNMENT.
  Reservation to the states of right of, in local matters, 329.
SEVENTH AMENDMENT. 255.
SHIPPING.
  Regulation of, by United States, 77.
  Regulation of, by states, 77.
  State taxation of, 57, 106.
SIXTH AMENDMENT, 253.
SLAVERY.
  Abolished by XIII Amendment, 310.
STATES, THE
  Existence of, before the Constitution, 2.
  Independent of each other, so far as not controlled by constitution, 2.
  Powers and obligations of new, 2.
  Restraints upon, 4.
  Taxation by, 40.
  Suits against, as affected by contracts, 180.
  Suits against, as affected by XI Amendment, 214, 258.
  Judicial power of, as affected by the federal supremacy, 23:2,
  Judicial power of, as affected by grant of judicial power United States,270.
  Judicial power of, as affected by the XIV Amendment, 273.
  Reserved rights of, 2, 325, 326.
  Necessity for maintenance of rights of, 319.
STATE AGENCIES.
  Federal taxation of, 39.
STATE BANKS.
  Federal taxation of, 17, 40.
STATE COURTS, See JUDICIAL POWER.
SUITS. See ACTIONS, JUDICIAL POWER.
SUPREMACY OF THE UNITED STATES.
  State taxation affected by the, 44.
  State regulation of federal judicial process or practice, 265.
  Supremacy of the Constitution, 3, 232.
  Supremacy of the laws of the United States, 3, 233.
  Supremacy of the treaties of the United States, 3, 238.
  Results of the, 325.
SUPREME COURT.
  Jurisdiction of, 219.
  Constitution of, 220.
  Appeals to, 2-6.
  See also JUDICIAL POWER.
TAXATION.
  Defined, 22.
  Power of, iu whom vested, 22.
  Charges which are not taxes, 23, 39.
  Not to be imposed for private purposes, 24.
TAXATION, FEDERAL.
  Constitutional provisions as to, 25.
  Restrictions upon, 26.
  Uniformity of, 35.
  Direct, 30.
  Of imports and exports, 28, 29, 87.
  In the territories 12, 26, 27, 28, 37.
  Of state agencies  39.
TAXATION, STATE.
  General power of, 40.
  Illustrations of power of, 40, 41.
  Expressed restraints on, 43.
  lmplied restraints on, 44.
  Of federal agencies, 44.
  Of national banks, 48.
  Of imports, 88.
  Of goods from other states, 43, 90.
  Of person and property beyond its territory, 41, 42.
  As affected by contracts of exemption, 52.
  As a regulation of commerce, 54.
  Denial of due Process of law in, 277.
  Denial of equal protection of the laws in, 41, 316, 317, 320, 32
TELEGRAPHS.
  Regulation of, 133. 
  State taxation of, 40, 134.
TERRITORIES.
  Congressional power over, 7.
  Taxation in, 12, 26, 27, 28, 37, 73.
  Trial by jury in, 10, 12.
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.
  Slavery and involuntary servitude prohibited by, 310.
TITLES OF NOBILITY.
  Not to be granted by the states, 327.
TONNAGE.
  Defined, 74. 
  State duties upon, 43, 44, 74.
TRADE MARKS.
  Federal regulation of, 63.
TRANSIT.
  Right of, not limitable by state taxation, 47, 104.
TRANSPORTATION. See RAILWAYS, SHIPPING.
TREATIES.
  Supremacy of, 238.
TRIAL BY JURY. See JURY.
TRIBES. See INDIAN TRIBES.
TRUSTS.
  Necessity of, 114.
  Anti-trust law, 120.
TWICE IN JEOPARDY, 251.
UNIFORMITY. See CLASSIFICATION.
UNION.
  Indissolubility of, 1.
UNITED STATES.
  Limited powers of, 2.
  Supremacy of, 3, 325.
VOTERS. See CITIZENS.
WARRANTS.
  Requisites to issue of search, 246.
WATER-WAYS. See NAVIGABLE WATERS.
WHARVES.
  State regulation of, 83. 87.
WITNESSES.
  Right of accused to be confronted with, 254.
  Right of accused to have compulsory process for obtaining, 254.

