United States, Leovy v., 177 U. S. 621; 44 L. Ed. 914; 20 Sup. PAGE 506 United States, Light v., 220 U. S. 523; 55 L. Ed. 570; 31 Sup. 1523. United States v. Marigold, 50 U. S. (9 How.) 560; 13 L. Ed. 257 .. 263 United States, M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v., 231 U. S. 112; 58 L. Ed. 144; 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 26.. 401 United States, Monongahela Bridge v., 216 U. S. 177; 54 L. Ed. 435; 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356..... 1406 United States, Monongahela Navigation Co. v., 148 U. S. 312; 37 L. Ed. 463; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622. 736 United States et al., New York et al. v., 257 U. S. 591; 66 L. ..1229 United States, Northern Securities Co. v., 193 U. S. 197; 48 L. Ed. 679; 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 436....... 635 United States v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525; 57 L. Ed. 333; 33 Sup. 149 United States v. Reading Railway Co., 253 U. S. 26; 64 L. Ed. 760; 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 425 663 United States, Seven Cases v., 239 U. S. 510; 60 L. Ed. 411; 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190..... 305 United States v. Simpson, 252 U. S. 465; 64 L. Ed. 665; 40 .. 155 United States, Southern Ry. v., 222 U. S. 20; 56 L. Ed. 72; 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2.... 432 United States, Swift & Co. v., 196 U. S. 375; 49 L. Ed. 518; 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 276.. 655 United States, Thames & Mersey Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v., 227 151 L. Ed. 708; 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585... 696 United States, Ware v., 71 U. S. (4 Wall.) 617; 18 L. Ed. 389. 122 United States, Weeks v., 245 U. S. 618; 62 L. Ed. 513; 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 219 ..... 233 U. S. Express Co. v. Minnesota, 223 U. S. 335; 56 L. Ed. 459; 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 211.... .1086 PAGE Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U. S. (Dallas) 304; 1 L. Ed. 391 7 Veazie et al. v. Moor, 55 U. S. (14 How.) 568; 14 L. Ed. 545.. 198 39 171 169 20 ... Wabash, St. L. & Pac. R. R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557; 250 1111 Wallace v. Hines, 253 U. S. 66; 64 L. Ed. 872; 40 Sup. Ct. ..1105 Wallace et al., Stafford et al. v., 258 U. S. 495; 66 L. Ed. 735; 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 397.... .1142 Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446; 29 L. Ed. 691; 6 Sup. Ct. ..1010 Walsh, New York Ex Rel. Annon v., 143 U. S. 517; 36 L. Ed. 247; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468.... 595 Walsh, New York Ex Rel. Pinto v., 143 U. S. 517; 36 L. Ed. 247; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468..... 595 Ware v. United States, 71 U. S. (4 Wall.) 617; 18 L. Ed. 389.. 122 Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U. S. 405; 52 L. Ed. 855; 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526.... 136 Weber v. Freed, 239 U. S. 325; 60 L. Ed. 308; 36 Sup. Ct. 279 Weeks v. United States, 245 U. S. 618; 62 L. Ed. 513; 38 Sup. 233 Weldon v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275; 23 L. Ed. 347........... 123, Wells, Burke v., 208 U. S. 14; 52 L. Ed. 370; 28 Sup. Ct. ...1060 West Virginia, Virginia v., 246 U. S. 565; 62 L. Ed. 883; 38 20 Western Maryland Ry. Co., Clark Distilling Co. v., 242 U. S. 311; 61 L. Ed. 326; 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 180.. 309 Western Oil Refining Co. v. Lipscomb, 244 U. S. 346; 61 L. Ed. PAGE 1181; 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 623.... Western Union Tel. Co. v. Boegli, 251 U. S. 315; 64 L. Ed. 228 281; 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 167 774 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92; 45 L. 1412 ..1306 Western Union Tel. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650; 40 L. Ed. 1105; 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 934..... .1365 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1; 54 L. Ed. 355; 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190.... .1068 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Milling Co., 218 U. S. 406; 54 L. Ed. 1088; 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 59.... 1427 Western Union Tel. Co., Pensacola Tel. Co. v., 96 U. S. 1; 24 L. Ed. 708.... 128 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Speight, 254 U. S. 17; 65 L. Ed. 104; 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 11..... 242 Wharton, A. C. L. R. R. Co. v., 207 U. S. 328; 52 L. Ed. 230; 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 121.... .1398 Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270; 45 L. Ed. 186; 21 Sup. Ct. ...1051 Wilmington Transportation Co. v. California R. R. Comm., 236 U. S. 151; 59 L. Ed. 508; 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 276...... 976 Williamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S. 1; 31 L. Ed. 629; 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 811... ..1126 Wilson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co., 27 U. S. (2 Pet.) 245; 7 L. Ed. 412...... 827 Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332; 61 L. Ed. 755; 37 Sup. Ct. 412 Winstead Hosiery Co., Federal Trade Commission v., 258 U. S. 705 488 Wisconsin, McDermott v., 228 U. S. 115; 57 L. Ed. 754; 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431.... ..1443 Wisconsin, N. W. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v., 247 U. S. 132; 62 L. Ed. 1025; 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 444.. 179 Wisconsin, Minn. & Pac. R. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287; PAGE 574 ..1248 Zachary, North Carolina Railroad Co. v., 232 U. S. 248; 58 403 INTERSTATE COMMERCE CASES 貝 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY STUDY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW SECTION 1. THE NATURE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED States and the Effect of a Dual SYSTEM UPON THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE *No study of constitutional law can approach a scientific method without first distinguishing between the State and the Government, or, to put it in another form, between the sovereign and the agency through which sovereignty functions. "The absence of the clear and correct distinction between state and government is fatal." The independent sovereign is the state. By the term sovereign is meant the person or body of persons within the territory of a state, over whom there is, politically, no superior power. Sovereignty is that ultimate power of governing a people from which there is no appeal and beyond which there is nothing but revolution. In the United States this independent sovereignty rests with the people of the United States. The first resolution passed by the Convention that framed the Constitution of the United States, sitting as a Committee of the Whole, reads: "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary, and executive." "Changing the Fundamental Law" by the Editor, University of Pa. Law Review, March, 1921. 1 Burgess, Pol. Sc., Vol. 2, p. 1. 2 Elliott's Deb., Vol. 1, p. 151. |