A statute of a state providing that no action should be brought or prosecuted in that state for damages occasioned by death in another state in consequence of wrongful conduct is invalid. Kenney v. Supreme Lodge of the World, Loyal Order of Moose, 252 U. S. 411, 40 Sup. Ct. 371, 64 L. ed. 638.

The provision of the federal Constitution as to the privileges and immunities of citizens applies only to the citizens of the several states, and does not restrict the power of states over their own citizens. State ex rel. v. Swanson, 182 Ind. 582, 107 N. E. 275.

The judge of the city court of Indianapolis has authority to hear and examine into the question of the identity of a person who is arrested as a fugitive from justice. Hyland v. Rochelle, 179 Ind. 671, 100 N. E. 842.

Construction of section 2 of article 4 of the U. S. Constitution in regard to the surrender of fugitives from justice, and of the act of congress on the subject. Innes v. Tobin, 240 U. S. 127, 36 Sup. Ct. 290, 60 L. ed. 562.

The provisions of the Constitution of the United States and of the federal statutes do not limit the power of a state to arrest within its borders a citizen of another state for a crime committed elsewhere. Burton v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 245 U. S. 315, 38 Sup. Ct. 108, 62 L. ed. 314.

A state can not escape its constitutional obligations by the simple device of denying jurisdiction in such cases to courts otherwise competent. Kenney v. Supreme Lodge of the World, Loyal Order of Moose, 252 U. S. 411, 40 Sup. Ct. 371, 64 L. ed. 638.

A nonresident respondent neglecting to enforce a right of free access to the courts of another state for a year-as long a time as was given him for that purpose by the laws of his state-has no reason to complain. Canadian Northern R. Co. v. Eggen, 252 U. S. 553, 40 Sup. Ct. 402, 64 L. ed. 713.

One is not denied the privilege of resorting to courts when he has been given free access to them for a length of time reasonably sufficient to enable an ordinarily diligent man to institute proceedings to protect his rights. Canadian Northern R. Co. v. Eggen, 252 U. S. 553, 40 Sup. Ct. 402, 64 L. ed. 713.

An act of a state for the licensing of insurance brokers to only such persons as are residents and have been licensed for at least two years by the insurance commissioner to represent citizens is not in violation of article 4, section 2 of the Constitution. La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U. S. 465, 39 Sup. Ct. 160, 63 L. ed. 362.

A state law which imposes a greater privilege tax on a construction company having its chief offices outside of the state than it imposes on a company having its chief offices within the state produces discrimination against citizens of other states. Chalker v. Birmingham & N. W. R. Co., 249 U. S. 522, 39 Sup. Ct. 366, 63 L. ed. 748.

Discrimination by the several states against citizens of other states in respect of the fundamental privileges of citizenship was intended to be prevented by the first paragraph of this section. Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 40 Sup. Ct. 2, 63 L. ed. 1124.

A state tax on the transfer of property of a nonresident decedent held not in violation of the Constitution. Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 40 Sup. Ct. 2, 63 L. ed. 1124.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states and are thus protected against discriminatory taxation, but they are not entitled to entire immunity from taxation. Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 40 Sup. Ct. 221, 64 L. ed. 445.

A taxing scheme of a state discriminating against all nonresidents necessarily includes those who are citizens of other states and if there be no reasonable ground for the diversity of treatment, it abridges the privileges and immunities to which such citizens are entitled. Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U. S. 60, 40 Sup. Ct. 228, 64 L. ed. 460.

The construction by the state supreme court of its Workmen's Compensation Act avoiding all question as to discrimination between citizens of other states is not open to review by the United States supreme court. Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California, — U. S. —, 41 Sup. Ct. 373. Cl. 2. A dispute of facts upon which a governor of a state acts in a case of interstate rendition is not a dispute of the validity of the statute of the United States authorizing a review thereof. Ireland v. Woods, 246 U. S. 323, 38 Sup. Ct. 319, 62 L. ed. 745.

Section 2, article 4 of the Constitution, like the Fourteenth Amendment, is directed alone against state action. United States v. Wheeler, U. S.

41 Sup. Ct. 133.

A want of power is not to be implied in the United States to restrain acts which, although involving ingress or egress into or from a state, have for their direct and necessary effect an interference with the performance of duties which it is incumbent upon the United States to discharge. United States v. Wheeler, - U. S., 41 Sup. Ct. 133.

The Constitution plainly intended to preserve and enforce the limitation as to discrimination imposed upon the states by article 4 of the Confederation and thus necessarily assumed the continued possession by the states of the reserved power to deal with free residence, ingress and egress. United States v. Wheeler, U. S., 41 Sup. Ct. 133.

No power is delegated by the Constitution of the United States to forbid and punish conspirators who exported citizens of the United States and residents of one state into another state with a threat of injury if they returned, such right to do so being reserved to the states. United States v. Wheeler, U. S. 41 Sup. Ct. 133.

Whether in fact, a person indicted for crime and found in another state, is a fugitive from justice is for the determination of the governor of the latter state. Hogan v. O'Neill, U. S., 41 Sup. Ct. 222.

To be a fugitive from justice it is simply necessary that, having committed an act in a state considered there a crime, he afterwards departs and, when sought to be prosecuted, is found in another state. Hogan v. O'Neill, U. S. 41 Sup Ct. 222.

Cl. 2. While an Indian is still a ward of the nation, there is power in congress to reimpose restrictions on property already freed. McCurdy v. United States, 246 U. S. 263, 38 Sup. Ct. 289, 62 L. ed. 706.

SEC.

ARTICLE 5.-AMENDMENTS.

22. How amended.

22. How amended.

The submission of a constitutional amendment is unconnected with the ordinary business of legislation and not within the policy or terms of the Constitution investing the President with a qualified negative of the acts and resolutions of congress. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U. S. 221, 40 Sup. Ct. 495, 64 L. ed. 871.

The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment is within the power to amend reserved by article 5 of the Constitution of the United States. State of Rhode Island (and six other cases) v. Palmer, 253 U. S. 350, 40 Sup. Ct. 486, 64 L. ed. 946.

An express declaration that congress regards an amendment is necessary is not essential in proposing such amendment. State of Rhode Island (and six other cases) v. Palmer, 253 U. S. 350, 40 Sup. 486, 64 L. ed. 946.

The two-thirds vote required in proposing an amendment is two-thirds of the members present-assuming a quorum: State of Rhode Island (and six other cases) v. Palmer, 253 U. S. 350, 40 Sup. Ct. 486, 64 L. ed. 946.

The referendum provisions of state constitutions and statutes can not be applied consistently with the Constitution of the United States in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it. State of Rhode Island (and six other cases) v. Palmer, 253 U. S. 350, 40 Sup. Ct. 486, 64 L. ed. 946.

ARTICLE 6.-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

23. Cl. 2. Acts of congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 40 Sup. Ct. 382, 64 L. ed. 641.

Cl. 2. Treaties made under the authority of the United States along with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof are declared the supreme law of the land. State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 40 Sup. Ct. 382, 64 L. ed. 641.

Cl. 2. The Constitution of the United States itself took from the states all power to contravene the essential purpose of the approved rules of the general maritime law. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, 40 Sup. Ct. 438, 64 L. ed. 834.

ARTICLES IN AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

1. RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL FREEDOM. 4. UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

5. TRIALS, HOW INITIATED.

6. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED.

7. TRIAL BY JURY.

10. RIGHTS RESERVED ΤΟ THE STATES

25.

AND PEOPLE.

11. LIMITATION OF JUDICIAL POWER. 13. SLAVERY.

14. CITIZENSHIP, REPRESENTATION, OFFICIAL DISABILITIES-PUBLIC DEBT.

15. RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE.

16. INCOME TAX.

18. PROHIBITION OF LIQUOR TRAFFIC. 19. WOMEN SUFFRAGE.

ARTICLE 1.-RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL FREEDOM.

The question of freedom of speech in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that congress has a right to prevent. Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. ed. 470.

A person may be convicted of a conspiracy to obstruct recruiting by words of persuasion. Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U. S. 204, 39 Sup. Ct. 249, 63 L. ed. 561.

The First Amendment does not give immunity for every possible use of language. Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U. S. 204, 39 Sup. Ct. 249, 63 L. ed. 561.

The Espionage Act is not unconstitutional as a whole because in conflict with the constitutional provision guaranteeing religious and political freedom. Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 40 Sup. Ct. 17, 63 L. ed. 1173.

SEC.

ARTICLE 4.-UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

28. Search and seizure.

28. Search and seizure.

When private papers are unlawfully taken from the residence of a person charged with a criminal offense, and he makes application to the court to require the officers of the court having possession of such papers to return the same to the accused and such application is denied, it is error to allow such papers to be introduced in evidence on the trial of the accused over his objection. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. ed. 652.

An officer who by stealth, force or coercion obtains entrance to a man's house or office and searches for or seizes his private papers violates the Fourth Amendment. Gouled v. United States, U. S., 41 Sup. Ct. 261.

The rights guaranteed under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are indispensable to the full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty and private property and is to be regarded as the very essence of constitutional liberty. Gouled v. United States, U. S. 41 Sup. Ct. 261.

SEC.

ARTICLE 5.-TRIALS, HOW INITIATED.

29. Appropriating property-Jeopardy.

29. Appropriating property-Jeopardy.

The provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution apply exclusively in restriction of federal power, and have no application to the legislation of states or the administration of state laws. Sinclair v. Gunzenhauser, 179 Ind. 78, 98 N. E. 37, 100 N. E. 376; School Town etc. v. Somerville, 181 Ind. 463, 104 N. E. 859; Bemis v. Guirl Drainage Co., 182 Ind. 36, 105 N. E. 496.

The right of individuals to sue a state in either a federal or state court can come only from the consent of the state. Palmer v. State of Ohio, 248 U. S. 32, 39 Sup. Ct. 16, 63 L. ed. 108.

Whether a state gave consent to be sued by an individual is a question of local state law. Palmer v. State of Ohio, 248 U. S. 32, 39 Sup. Ct. 16, 63 L. ed. 108. Evidence directly proceeding from the defendant in a criminal proceeding is not excluded in all cases by the Fifth Amendment. Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. ed. 470.

Examination of witnesses by a grand jury need not be preceded by a formal charge against a particular individual and the witness is not entitled to set limits to the investigation of the grand jury provided it has a de facto existence. Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 39 Sup. Ct. 468, 63 L. ed. 979.

The writ of habeas corpus may not be employed as an anticipatory writ of error. Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U. S. 283, 39 Sup. Ct. 483, 63 L. ed. 983.

A defendant charged with murder in the first degree was not placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense when upon his first trial the verdict was guilty as charged without capital punishment and on the granting of a new trial following an appeal the verdict was guilty upon which the death penalty was imposed. Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15, 40 Sup. Ct. 50, 64 L. ed. 103.

The Fifth Amendment imposes no greater limitation on national power in the

taking of property than does the Fourteenth Amendment upon state power. Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146, 40 Sup Ct. 106, 64 L. ed. 194.

An act limiting the compensation of attorneys in the prosecution of claims against the government is valid, and as to contracts entered into before its passage. Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U. S. 170, 40 Sup. Ct. 474, 64 L. ed. 843.

The United States may consistently with the Fifth Amendment impose for a permitted purpose restrictions upon property though it results in serious depreciation of property values. Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U. S. 170, 40 Sup. Ct. 474,

64 L. ed. 843.

The determination of the method of ratification of an amendment to the federal Constitution is the exercise of a power conferred upon congress. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U. S. 221, 40 Sup. Ct. 495, 64 L. ed. 871.

The right to bring a suit in the court of claims against the United States to recover the value of property taken by the United States for military purposes is not founded on the Fifth Amendment. United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co., 253 U. S. 330, 40 Sup. Ct. 518, 64 L. ed. 935.

The provision in the Bankruptcy Act that no testimony given by the bankrupt shall be offered in evidence against him in any criminal proceeding, did not remove the protection given by the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer whenever he could fairly claim that to answer might tend to incriminate him. Arndstein v. McCarthy, U. S. —, 41 Sup. Ct. 26.

The Fifth Amendment requires that compensation be made for what has actually been taken in condemnation proceedings by the government. Bothwell v. United States, U. S., 41 Sup. Ct. 74.

The act of congress passed July 13, 1866, section 3450 R. S. and Comp. St. section 6352, providing that any conveyance shall be forfeited if used in the removal, or for the deposit or concealment of any goods or commodities for or in respect whereof any tax is or shall be imposed, is not in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Grant Co. v. United States, U. S., 41 Sup. Ct. 189.

An automobile sold and to which title is retained by the seller for the unpaid purchase money, if used by the purchaser in the removal of distilled spirits upon which the government tax imposed had not been paid is subject to condemnation and forfeiture. Grant Co. v. United States, U. S. -, 41 Sup. Ct. 189.

In breaches of revenue provisions congress interposes the care and responsibility of the owners of property which are facilities in aid of its prohibitions by ascribing to the property a certain personality, a power of complicity and guilt in the wrong. Grant Co. v. United States, U. S. -,.41 Sup. Ct. 189.

Military prisoners though discharged as soldiers due to previous sentence remain subject to military law without being repugnant to the Fifth Amendment. Kahn v. Anderson, U. S. 41 Sup. Ct. 224.

The rights guaranteed under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are indispensable to the full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty and private property and is to be regarded as the very essence of constitutional liberty. Gouled v. United States, U. S., 41 Sup. Ct. 261.

The admission in evidence, over an objection by the defendant, of his private papers which were seized from his house or office by an officer who obtained entrance through stealth, or social acquaintance, or under the guise of a business call, whether the owner was present or not, is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Gouled v. United States, U. S., 41 Sup. Ct. 261.

The mere existence of a state of war could not suspend or change the operation upon the power of congress of the guaranties and limitations of the Fifth