CASES FOLLOWED.

C., B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, followed in Hallowell v.
United States, 101.

Doctor v. Harrington, 196 U. S. 579, followed in Venner v. Great Northern
Ry. Co., 24.

Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, followed in Hudson Water
Co. v. McCarter, 349.

In re Palliser, 136 U. S. 257, followed in United States v. Thayer, 39.
Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, followed in Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter,
349.

New Haven Railroad Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 361,
followed in Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 56.

Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, followed in Ware & Leland v. Mobile County,
405.

Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137, followed in Asbell v. Kansas, 251.
Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U. S. 365, followed in Thomas v. Taggart, 385.
Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S. 607. followed in United States v. Hermanos y
Compañia, 337.

The Paquette Habana, 189 U. S. 453, followed in O'Reilly de Camara v.
Brooke, 45.

United States v. Falk, 204 U. S. 143, followed in United States v. Hermanos
y Compañia, 337.

United States v. Healy, 160 U. S. 136, followed in Ib.

CATTLE INSPECTION.

See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 11, 13;
STATES, 3.

CERTIFICATE.

See JURISDICTION, A 8;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 5, 6, 7.

CERTIFICATE OF STOCK.

See BROKERS.

CHALLENGES TO JURORS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9, 10.

CHINESE.

See IMMIGRATION.

CITIZENSHIP.

See JURISDICTION, A 7;
TREATIES, 1.

CIVIL SERVICE ACT.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 4.

CLASSIFICATION FOR TAXATION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 12.

COMMERCE.

See INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

COMMISSIONS.

See BROKERS.

COMPACT BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6.

COMPACT BETWEEN STATES.

See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 8.

COMPETITION

See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 5.

COMMUNITIES

See ACTIONS, 4;
JURISDICTION, C.

CONGRESS.

I. ACTS OF.

See ACTS OF CONGRESS.

II. POWERS OF.

To purchase land for post-offices and courts.

Under Article I, § 8, cl. 17, of the Federal Constitution, Congress has power
to purchase land within a State for post offices and courts by consent
of the legislature of the State and to exercise exclusive legislation over
the same.
Battle v. United States, 36.

See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 11;
JURISDICTION, B 7.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Commerce clause, see Infra, 8; Interstate COMMERCE.

1. Contract clause; contract to remove rights from state restriction, not within.
One whose rights are subject to state restriction cannot remove them from

the power of the State by making a contract about them, and a contract
illegal when made, such as the diversion of water from the State, is not
within the protection of the contract clause of the Constitution. Hud-
son Water Co. v. McCarter, 349.

See Infra, 8;

CORPORATIONS, 1.

2. Criminal trials; place of.

The requirements of § 2 of Art. III of, and of the Sixth Amendment to, the
Federal Constitution relate to the locality of the offense and not to the
VOL. CCIX-36

personal presence of the offender. Armour Packing Co. v. United
States, 56.

3. Criminal trials; place of.

Transportation of merchandise by a carrier for less than the published rate
is, under the Elkins Act, a single continuing offense, continuously com-
mitted in each district through which the transportation is conducted at
the prohibited rate, and is not a series of separate offenses, and the provi-
sion in the law making such an offense triable in any of those districts,
confers jurisdiction on the court therein, and does not violate § 2 of
Art. III of, or the Sixth Amendment to, the Federal Constitution, pro-
viding that the accused shall be tried in the State and district where
the crime was committed. Ib.

4. Due process; one acting under statute not assured that interpretation given
thereto by executive officers will be sustained by the courts.

Due process of law does not assure to taxpayers that the court will sustain
the interpretation given to a statute by executive officers or relief from
the consequences of misinterpretation by either such officers or the
court; one acting under a statute must take his chances that such action
will be in accord with the final decision as to its proper interpretation;
this is a hazard under every law from which there is no security. Thomp-
son v. Kentucky, 340.

5. Due process of law; deprivation of property; requiring warehouseman to pay
interest on taxes on spirits in bond on which taxes had previously been
paid by him, and the spirits withdrawn.

The fact that a warehouseman paid taxes without interest on spirits in bond
under a mistaken interpretation of the statute by the state officers and
subsequently permitted the spirits to be withdrawn does not estop the
State to recover from the warehouseman interest due on such taxes
under the statute, and a judgment therefor does not deprive the ware-
houseman of his property without due process of law within the meaning
of the Fourteenth Amendment, and so held as to the tax statutes of
Kentucky. Ib.

6. Due process of law; property rights-Construction of compact between New
York and New Jersey of 1833.

Under the agreement of 1833 between the States of New York and New
Jersey, 4 Stats. 708, while exclusive jurisdiction is given to New York
over the waters of the Hudson River west of the boundary line fixed by
the agreement, the land under such waters remained subject to the
Sovereignty of New Jersey and the jurisdiction given to New York over
the waters does not exclude the sovereign power of New Jersey to tax
such land, nor does an exercise of that power deprive the owner of the
land of his property without due process of law. Central R. R. Co. v.
Jersey City, 473.

7. Due process of law-Tax sales; sufficiency of notice by publication.
An owner of property must be held to knowledge that failure to pay duly
assessed taxes will be followed by sale; and if the statute gives him full

opportunity to be heard as to the assessment on definite days, and defi-
nitely fixes the time for payment and the time for sale in case of default,
so that he cannot fail; if duly diligent, to learn of the pendency of the
sale, he is not denied due process of law because the notice of sale is by
publication and not by personal service; and the validity of a tax sale
under the law of Michigan sustained. Longyear v. Toolan, 414.

8. Due process of law; impairment of contract obligation; commerce; equal
privileges and immunities-Validity of c. 238, Laws of New Jersey of
1905, prohibiting diversion of waters.

Chap. 238, Laws of New Jersey of 1905, prohibiting the transportation of
water of the State into any other State is not unconstitutional either as
depriving riparian owners of their property without due process of law,
as impairing the obligation of contracts made by them for furnishing
such water to persons without the State, as an interference with inter-
state commerce, or as denying equal privileges and immunities to citi-
zens of other States. Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 349.

See JURISDICTION, B 4;
STATES, 5.

9. Equal protection of laws; classification of accused persons.

It is within the power of the State to divide accused persons into two classes,
those who are, and those who may be, accused, and, if there is no dis-
crimination within the classes, a person in one of the classes is not denied
the equal protection of the laws because he does not have the same
right of challenge of a grand juror as persons in the other class. Lang
v. New Jersey, 467.

10. Equal protection of laws; validity of New Jersey statute discriminating
against accused persons as respects challenges to grand jurors.

As construed by the highest court of that State, the statute of New Jersey
providing that challenges to grand jurors cannot be made after the juror
has been sworn does not deprive a person accused after the grand jury
has been impanelled and sworn of the equal protection of the law be-
cause one accused prior thereto would have the right of challenge. Ib.
11. Equal protection of the laws; deprivation by state statute imposing penalties
affecting right of recourse to courts.
While there is no rule permitting a person to disobey a statute with impunity
at least once for the purpose of testing its validity, where such validity
can only be determined by judicial investigation and construction, a
provision in the statute which imposes such severe penalties for disobe-
dience of its provisions as to intimidate the parties affected thereby
from resorting to the courts to test its validity practically prohibits
those parties from seeking such judicial construction and denies them
the equal protection of the law. Ex parte Young, 123.

12. Equal protection of laws; classification of distilled spirits in bond not a
denial of.

A classification of distilled spirits in bond, as distinct from other property

in regard to payment of interest on taxes does not constitute a dis-
crimination amounting to a denial of equal protection of the laws
within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thompson v.
Kentucky, 340.

See JURISDICTION, B 3, 4. :

13. Export and preference clause; burdens and preferences contemplated by.
The export and preference clause of the Constitution prohibits burdens only
by way of actual taxation and duty, or legislation intending to give, and
actually giving, the prohibited preference, and does not prohibit the
merely incidental effect of regulations of interstate commerce wholly
within the power of Congress; and the fact that such regulations in the
Interstate Commerce Act may affect the ports of one State having
natural advantages more than those of another State not possessing such
advantages does not render the act unconstitutional as violating that
provision. Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 56.

Post offices and post roads. See JURISDICTION D 4.

14. Privileges and immunities; effect of state statute forbidding diversion of
waters.

Citizens of other States are not denied equal privileges within the meaning
of the immunity clause of the Constitution by a statute forbidding the
diversion of waters of the State if they are as free as the citizens of the
State to purchase water within the boundaries of the State, nor can
such a question be raised by a citizen of the State itself. Hudson Water
Co. v. McCarter, 349.

See Supra, 8.

Suits against States. See STATES, 7, 8.

CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 2;
STATUTES, A.

CONTEMPT OF COURT.

1. Discharge of one held for violation of decree entered without jurisdiction.
An order of the Circuit Court committing one for contempt for violation of

a decree entered in a suit of which it did not have jurisdiction is unlaw-
ful; and, in such case, upon proper application, this court will discharge
the person so held. Ex parte Young, 123.

2. Propriety of action by Circuit Court of United States in punishing Attorney
General of State for disobedience of its decree enjoining prosecution of
state rate statute.

The Circuit Court of the United States having, in an action brought by a
stockholder of the Northern Pacific Railway Company against the
officers of the road, certain shippers and the Attorney General certain
other officials of the State of Minnesota, held that a railroad rate statute
of Minnesota was unconstitutional and enjoined all the defendants from