227 U. S. 296–302, 57 L. Ed. 518, 33 Sup. Ct. 273, WINFREE v. NORTHERN PAC. R. R. CO. Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908 introduced new policy and radically changed existing law, and is not remedial statute which should be construed as retrospective. Approved in Atlantic Coast etc. R. Co. v. Burnette, 239 U. S. 200, 201, 60 L. Ed. 226, 227, 36 Sup. Ct. 76, holding action brought in State court under Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908 is barred, where defendant, though not pleading action was barred, insists upon that point at trial, and record shows time had elapsed; Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Laramie Stock Yards Co., 231 U. S. 199, 58 L. Ed. 182, 34 Sup. Ct. 101, act of 1912 permitting State statutes of limitation to apply to adverse possession of portions of right of way granted to railroad under act of 1862, did not have retroactive effect; Southern Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 205 Fed. 871, 124 C. C. A. 60, holding Safety Appliance Act does not take away contributory negligence as defense, and Federal Employers' Liability Act not being retroactive does not apply where accident occurred prior to its passage; American R. Co. v. Coronas, 230 Fed. 546, 144 C. C. A. 599, holding under Federal Employers' Liability Act, § 6, permitting action for death to be brought by personal representative only, cause of action accrues from date of appointment of administrator; Morrison v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 40 App. D. C. 396, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1026, holding provision of Employers' Liability Act of 1908 extending time within which actions may be brought to two years, is not retroactive; Filley v. Illinois Life Ins. Co., 93 Kan. 196, L. R. A. 1915D, 134, 144 Pac. 259, beneficiary has vested interest from time of issuance of life policy, and provisions of subsequent statute are inapplicable to such policy; Bouchard v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., 87 Vt. 402, L. R. A. 1915C, 33, 89 Atl. 476, declaration in action for injuries to engineer upon train engaged in interstate commerce stating cause of action under common law and under Federal Employers' Liability Act, is not demurrable; dissenting opinion in Atchison etc. Ry. Co. v. Hines, 211 Fed. 269, 127 C. C. A. 632, majority holding in action for injuries from defective appliance under Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908, refusal to charge jury that employee's negligence barred action was error. Distinguished in Teel v. Chesapeake etc. Ry. Co., 204 Fed. 920, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 21, 123 C. C. A. 240, holding provisions of amendment of 1910 to Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908, prohibiting removal to Federal court of actions brought under act in State court, applies to causes of action arising before its enactment. Retroactive effect of statutes relative to employers' liability. Note, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 841. Action under Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908 by personal representative is distinct cause of action from that by parents of deceased minor under State law. Approved in McCarthy v. William H. Wood Lumber Co., 219 Mass. 569, 107 N. E. 441, holding judgment in action by administrator for suffering of his intestate before death is not res judicata in action for death for benefit of next of kin by same administrator. Note, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 45, 78. Federal Employers' Liability Act. 227 U. S. 303-308, 57 L. Ed. 520, 33 Sup. Ct. 290, HUTCHINSON v. VALDOSTA. Ordinance providing for system of sewers and to compel property owners to connect therewith, to be enforced by penalties, is not denial of due process of law. Approved in Weber v. Doust, 84 Wash. 334, 146 Pac. 624, holding detention of child under juvenile delinquency act without warrant was not denial of due process. Distinguished in Malone v. Quincy, 66 Fla. 62, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 208, 62 South. 925, holding ordinance forbidding use of earth closets in designated portions of city regardless of whether they are nuisance is not authorized by Charter Act (Acts 1907, c. 5844). 227 U. S. 308–326, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 905, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 906, 57 L. Ed. 523, 33 Sup. Ct. 281, HOKE v. UNITED STATES. Power of Congress over interstate commerce is direct and unlimited. Such power is complete in itself and Congress, as an incident to it, may adopt not only means necessary but convenient to its exercise, and means may have quality of police regulations. Approved in Seven Cases v. United States, 239 U. S. 514, 515, 60 L. Ed. 415, 36 Sup. Ct. 192, upholding amendment of 1912 to Food and Drugs Act of 1906, under which amendment misbranding includes false and fraudulent statements regarding curative effect of drugs; United States v. Ohio Oil Co., 234 U. S. 561, 58 L. Ed. 1471, 34 Sup. Ct. 956, upholding act of 1906 extending Interstate Commerce Act to persons or corporations engaged in transportation of oil by pipelines, as applied to pipe-lines used in carrying everybody's oil to market; Wilson v. United States, 232 U. S. 567, 58 L. Ed. 731, 34 Sup. Ct. 347, holding limitation of means of transportation to common carrier is not necessary in order to sustain validity of White Slave Traffic Act of 1910; McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 128, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 39, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 984, 57 L. Ed. 764, 33 Sup. Ct. 431, holding Wis consin statute of 1907 prescribing label for corn syrup and prohibiting all other labels is void as in conflict with Food and Drugs Act of 1906; Weber v. Freed, 224 Fed. 358, 140 C. C. A. 41, and United States v. Johnston, 232 Fed. 975, 976, both upholding act of 1913 prohibiting introduction into United States or transportation between States of prize-fight films; Morris v. United States, 229 Fed. 519, 143 C. C. A. 584, upholding act of 1913 prescribing punishment for breaking seal of interstate car with intent to commit larceny; Marienelli v. United Booking Offices, 227 Fed. 167, holding combination of vaudeville theaters scattered throughout United States and agreement not to employ performers not booked through booking agents and to blacklist performers playing outside of circuits, relates to interstate commerce and is violation of Sherman Act; Gottstein v. Lister, 88 Wash. 515, 153 Pac. 614, and West Virginia v. Adams Express Co., 219 Fed. 802, 135 C. C. A. 464, both upholding Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913, prohibiting shipments of liquor into State for use in violation of prohibition law; Hays v. United States, 231 Fed. 109, 145 C. C. A. 294, Diggs v. United States, 220 Fed. 557, 136 C. C. A. 147, United States v. Flaspoller, 205 Fed. 1007, and Johnson v. United States, 215 Fed. 683, 684, L. R. A. 1915A, 862, 131 C. C. A. 613, all holding White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 includes transportation in interstate commerce of woman or girl for immoral purpose in case involving no financial gain; United States v. Shauver, 214 Fed. 156, holding void Migratory Bird Act of 1913; Clark v. United States, 211 Fed. 918, 128 C. C. A. 294, upholding Penal Code, § 245, making it offense to deposit with common carrier for interstate transportation any obscene, lewd or lascivious book; concurring opinion in State v. Cardwell, 166 N. C. 317, 81 S. E. 631, majority holding accused owning whisky which was in State or in another State, making contract of sale, receiving price, and delivering whisky in State through express company, is guilty of making illegal sale; dissenting opinion in First Nat. Bank of Anamoose v. United States, 206 Fed. 385, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1139, 124 C. C. A. 256, majority holding collection by bank of sight draft attached to bill of lading for interstate shipment of liquor, and delivery of bill of lading to consignee, does not subject bank to fine under Penal Code, § 239; dissenting opinion in Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, 204 Fed. 822, 824, majority holding void amendment subjecting owners of interstate oil pipe-lines to provisions of Interstate Commerce Act, as applied to owners using pipe-lines for their own private business. Commerce among the States consists of intercourse and traffic between their citizens, and includes transportation of persons and property. Approved in United States v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada, 225 Fed. 285, holding commerce of domestic origin transferred through foreign country to point in United States is included in Interstate Com merce Act of 1887; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Miller, 156 Ky. 682, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 819, 162 S. W. 75, holding Carmack Amendment supersedes provision of Kentucky Constitution, § 196, and upholding limitation of liability for passenger's baggage in interstate transportation under Rule 17 of filed tariff schedules; Hewitt v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. 51, 167 S. W. 43, holding Acts 32d Legislature, c. 23, making it felony for person to procure female to leave State for purpose of prostitution, is not void as regulation of interstate commerce, since it is not transportation but act inducing woman to leave State that is punishable. Under our dual form of government powers reserved to States and those conferred upon nation are adapted to be exercised, whether independently or concurrently, to promote general welfare, material and moral. Approved in Western Union Tel. Co. v. South etc. R. Co., 184 Ala. 93, 62 South. 796, holding condemnation of unused portion of interstate railroad for telegraph line under State statutes is not interference with interstate commerce. White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 is legal exercise of power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Approved in Harris v. United States, 227 U. S. 341, 57 L. Ed. 535, 33 Sup. Ct. 289, and Bennett v. United States, 227 U. S. 337, 57 L. Ed. 533, 33 Sup. Ct. 288, both following rule; Wilson v. United States, 232 U. S. 565, 58 L. Ed. 731, 34 Sup. Ct. 347, retaining jurisdiction to pass upon other questions in record, although question of validity of White Slave Traffic Act has been settled adversely to plaintiff in error; United States v. Vaughn, 209 Fed. 719, holding complaint on which accused was arrested and held for removal to another Federal district, charges offense under White Slave Traffic Act of 1910; State v. United States Express Co., 164 Iowa, 131, 145 N. W. 458, upholding Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913 prohibiting shipment of liquor into State to be used in violation of State laws; State v. Harper, 48 Mont. 460, 462, 464, 465, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 1017, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157, 138 Pac. 496, 497, 498, holding Laws 1911, prohibiting importation into State of women and girls for immoral purposes, are void as in conflict with Federal White Slave Traffic Act of 1910; concurring opinion in Southern Express Co. v. City of High Point, 167 N. C. 109, 83 S. E. 256, majority holding in suit to enjoin prosecution under Pub. Laws 1907, c. 1014, for importation of intoxicating liquor, whether importation for personal use is valid defense is matter to be determined in prosecution, not by injunction. Federal White Slave Act. Note, L. R. A. 1915A, 863, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869. 227 U. S. 326-333, Ann. Cas, 1913E, 911, 57 L. Ed. 528, 33 Sup. Ct. 285, ATHANASAW v. UNITED STATES. White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 is legal exercise of power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Approved in State v. Harper, 48 Mont. 464, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 1017, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157, 138 Pac. 498, holding Laws of 1911 prohibiting importation into State of women and girls for immoral purposes is void as in conflict with Federal White Slave Traffic Act of 1910; Hays v. United States, 231 Fed. 109, Diggs v. United States, 220 Fed. 557, 136 C. C. A. 147, and Johnson v. United States, 215 Fed. 683, 684, L. R. A. 1915A, 862, 131 C. C. A. 613, all holding White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 includes transportation in interstate commerce of woman or girl for immoral purpose in case involving no financial gain; Suslak v. United States, 213 Fed. 917, 130 C. C. A. 391, holding White Slave Traffic Act is violated by interstate transportation of woman for purpose of sexual immorality without regard to previous character of woman; United States v. Vaughn, 209 Fed. 719, holding complaint on which accused was arrested and held for removal to another Federal district charges offense under White Slave Traffic Act of 1910. Distinguished in Welsch v. United States, 220 Fed. 771, 136 C. C. A. 370, reversing conviction for violation of White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 for erroneous instruction. Validity of "White Slave Traffic Act." Note, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 910. Federal White Slave Act. Note, L. R. A. 1915A, 866. 227 U. S. 333-339, 57 L. Ed. 531, 33 Sup. Ct. 288, BENNETT v. UNITED STATES. White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 is within power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Approved in United States v. Vaughn, 209 Fed. 719, holding complaint on which accused was arrested and held for removal to another Federal district, charges offense under White Slave Traffic Act of 1910. Federal White Slave Act. Note, L. R. A. 1915A, 865, 869. Variances as to name of woman transported or as to place where tickets were purchased between indictment and proof of offenses under White Slave Traffic Act of 1910, which were not prejudicial, are not reversible error. Approved in Harris v. United States, 227 U. S. 341, 57 L. Ed. 535, 33 Sup. Ct. 289, holding objections as to variances between indictment and proof, prosecutions under White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 not made in trial court, come too late; Ulmer v. United States, 219 Fed. 643, 134 C. C. A. 127, upholding indictment in prosecution of third person for perjury in bankruptcy proceeding, where alleged uncertainty does not |