REGULATION OF BANKS

The Supreme Court has upheld every State banking regulation statute brought before it, as follows:

Bank guaranty fund laws of Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska (1911); Massachusetts law forfeiting to the State unclaimed bank deposits (1911); New York law licensing private bankers (1911).1

REGULATION OF INSURANCE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATIONS

The Supreme Court has upheld State statutes regulating the business and methods of insurance and telegraph companies, as follows:

Missouri act compelling insurance companies to pay the full amount for which property was insured, in case of total loss (1899); Missouri non-forfeitable policy law (1900); acts abolishing defense of false representations by insurers unless willful and connected with the loss, of Ohio (1901), of Missouri (1906); acts forbidding insurance agents from effecting insurance in unauthorized foreign companies, of California (1895), of Massachusetts (1902); Texas act imposing 12% additional damage and attorneys' fees on life and health companies failing to pay loss within specified time (1902); Nebraska valued policy law, and act allowing attorneys' fees (1903); Missouri act excluding suicide as a defense on life insurance policies (1907); Alabama act compelling insurance companies entering into any ratefixing association to pay to insured additional 25% of loss (1911); Georgia law as to diligence in delivery of telegrams (1896); Michigan law forbidding telegraph companies to limit liability for negligent failure to deliver (1910); New York law for reorganization of an insurance association (1907); Kentucky law withdrawing license of any foreign insurance company removing case to Federal courts (1906).2

vs. Irrigation Co. (1904) 192 U.S. 210; Freeport Water Co. vs. Freeport (1901) 180 U.S. 587; New Orleans Water Works Co. vs. Louisiana (1902) 185 U.S. 336; Home Tel. & Tel. Co. vs. Los Angeles (1909) 211 U.S. 265; Wilcox vs. Consol. Gas Co. (1909) 212 U.S. 19; Knoxville Water Co. vs. Knoxville (1903) 189 U.S. 434; Knoxville vs. Knoxville Water Co. (1909) 212 U.S. 1.

Noble State Bank vs. Haskell (1911) 219 U.S. 104; Shallenberger vs. First State Bank (1911) 219 U.S. 114; Assaria State Bank vs. Dolley (1911) 219 U.S. 121; Providence Inst. for Savings vs. Malone (1911) 221 U.S. 660; Engel vs. O'Malley (1911) 219 U.S. 128.

2 New York Life Ins. Co. vs. Cravens (1900) 178 U.S. 389; Orient Ins. Co. vs. Daggs (1899) 172 U.S. 557; John Hancock Life Ins. Co. vs. Warren (1901) 181 U.S. 73; N. W. Life Ins. Co. vs. Riggs (1906) 203 U.S. 243; Hooper vs. California (1895) 155 U.S. 648; Nutting vs. Massachusetts (1902) 183 U.S. 553; Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co. vs. Mettler (1902) 185 U.S. 308; Iowa Life Ins. Co. vs. Lewis (1902) 187 U.S. 335; Farmers Ins. Co vs. Dobney (1903) 189 U.S. 301; Whitfield vs. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1907) 205 U.S. 489; German Alliance Ins. Co. vs. Hale (1911) 219 U.S. 307; W. U. Tel. Co. vs. James (1896) 162 U.S. 650; W. U. Tel. Co. vs. Com. Milling Co. (1910) 218 U.S. 406; Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. vs. Prewitt (1906) 202 U.S. 246; Polk vs. Mut. etc. Ass'n (1907) 207 U.S. 310; see also W. U. Tel. Co. vs. New Hope (1903) 187 U.S. 419; Postal Tel. Co. vs. New Hope (1904) 192 U.S. 55.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

The Supreme Court has upheld State statutes authorizing undertakings of a public nature such as drainage, levees, grade crossings and irrigation; and it has uniformly held that such improvements, even if interfering with private property, were within the police power of the State:

Public dam acts of Wisconsin (1891) and Minnesota (1897); improved waterway tolls act of Michigan (1887); Pennsylvania railroad construction act (1894); Connecticut grade-crossing act (1894); District of Columbia land drainage law (1897); Louisiana levee act (1895); Massachusetts swamp drainage act (1895); California irrigation ditch act (1897); Ohio act changing street grades (1897); street obstruction ordinance of Virginia (1898); Connecticut act assessing certain towns for cost of bridge (1898); Minnesota log lien act (1900); forest preserve act of New York (1900); New York grade-crossing act (1900); construction of waterworks act of New York (1902); drainage act of Louisiana (1905); purchase of waterworks act of Massachusetts (1909); mill flowage acts of Massachusetts (1906); South Carolina dam act (1905); wharf act of Oregon (1906); Utah eminent domain law, allowing condemnation of right of way across placer claims for aërial bucket (1906); Utah law allowing condemnation of land for irrigation (1905); New York law for erection of viaduct in city street without compensation to abutters (1907); Connecticut law allowing railroads owning three-quarters of stock of other railroads to condemn remaining shares (1906); New Jersey law against diverting water into another State (1908); Virginia law allowing railroads to condemn land for spur track to a private industry (1908); Pittsburgh and Alleghany consolidation law of Pennsylvania (1907); nominal damages for land on bed of navigable stream, of New York (1911).1

TAXATION LAWS

Besides the above statutes, there have been over one hundred State laws relating to taxation brought before the United States Supreme Court in cases appealed under the "due process" and "equal protec

1 Kaukama etc. Co. vs. Greenberg etc. Co. (1891) 142 U.S. 254: St. Anthony etc. Co. vs. Board (1897) 168 U.S. 349; Sands vs. Manistee River Imp. Co. (1887) 123 U.S. 288; Marchant vs. Penn. R.R. Co. (1894) 153 U.S. 380; Bauman vs. Ross (1897) 167 U.S. 548; Eldredge vs. Trezevant (1895) 160 U.S. 452; N. Y. & N. E. R.R. Co. vs. Bristol (1894) 151 U.S. 556; Sweet vs. Rechel (1895) 159 U.S. 380; Fall Brook Irrigation District vs. Bradley (1897) 164 U.S. 112; Wabash R.R. vs. Defiance (1897) 167 U.S. 88; Meyer vs. Richmond (1898) 172 U.S. 82; Williams vs. Eggleston (1898) 170 U.S. 304; Lindsey etc. Co. vs. Mullen (1900) 176 U.S. 126; Adirondacks Ry. Co. vs. New York (1900) 176 U.S. 335; Newburyport Water Co. vs. Newburyport (1904) 193 U.S. 561; Wheeler vs. N. Y. N. H. & H. R.R. (1900) 178 U.S. 321; Skaneateles Water Co. vs. Skaneateles (1902) 184 U. S. 354; New Orleans Gas Light Co. vs. N. O. Drainage Com. (1905) 197 U.S. 453; Otis Co. vs. Ludlow Mfg. Co. (1906) 201 U.S. 140; Manigault vs. Springs (1905) 199 U.S. 473; Mead vs. Port

tion of the laws" clauses of the Constitution. With the exceptions hereinafter noted, the Court has upheld every variety of tax law, as follows:

Corporation and franchise taxes, inheritance and legacy taxes,2 license taxes,3 railroad taxation, street and sewer betterment assess

land (1906) 200 U. S. 148; Strickley vs. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. (1906) 200 U.S. 527; Clark vs. Nash (1905) 198 U.S. 361; Sauer vs. New York (1907) 206 U. S. 536; Offield vs. N. Y., N. H. & H. R.R. (1906) 203 U.S. 372; Hudson County Water Co. vs. McCarter (1908) 209 U.S. 349; Hairston vs. Danville etc. R.R. Co. (1908) 208 U.S. 598; Hunter vs. Pittsburg (1907) 207 U.S. 161; Appleby vs. Buffalo (1911) 221 U.S. 524.

1 New York bank tax and corporation tax, Palmer vs. McMahon (1890) 133 U.S. 660, Home Ins. Co. vs. New York (1890) 134 U.S. 594; Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana express company tax acts, Pacific Express Co. vs. Seibert (1892) 142 U.S. 339, Adams Express Co. vs. Ohio (1897) 165 U.S. 194, Adams Express Co. vs. Kentucky (1897) 166 U.S. 171, American Express Co. vs. Indiana (1897) 165 U.S. 255; Indiana telegraph company tax, W. U. Tel. Co. vs. Indiana (1897) 165 U.S. 304; State Bank tax of Pennsylvania, Merchants etc. Bank vs. Pennsylvania (1897) 167 U.S. 461; foreign corporation tax acts of Pennsylvania and New York, Pembina Silver Min. Co. vs. Pennsylvania (1888) 125 U.S. 181, New York vs. Roberts (1898) 171 U.S. 658; Kentucky bridge corporation tax, Henderson Bridge Co. vs. Henderson (1899) 173 U.S. 592; Connecticut corporation tax, Travelers Ins. Co. vs. Connecticut (1902) 185 U.S. 364; Kentucky franchise tax, Coulter vs. Louisville & N. R.R. (1905) 196 U.S. 599; insurance company credit tax of Louisiana, Met. Life Ins. Co. us. New Orleans (1907) 205 U.S. 395, Board vs. N. Y. Life Ins. Co. (1910) 216 U.S. 517; Louisiana tax on premiums and notes due foreign insurance companies, Liverpool etc. Ins. Co. us. Board (1911) 221 U.S. 346; New York franchise tax, N. Y. C. R.R. vs. Miller (1906) 202 U.S. 584; Ohio consolidation of railroads tax, Ashley vs. Ryan (1804) 153 U.S. 436; Indiana telegraph company tax, W. U. Tel. Co. vs. Taggart (1896) 163 U.S. 1; Kentucky bank tax, Citizens National Bank vs. Kentucky (1910) 217 U.S. 443, Citizens Sav. Bank vs. Owensboro (1899) 173 U.S. 636; Colorado refrigerator car tax, Amer, etc. Co. vs. Hall (1899) 174 U.S. 70. See also note 4 infra.

2 Magoun vs. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank (1898) 170 U.S. 283; Billings vs. Illinois (1903) 188 U.S. 97; Blackstone vs. Miller (1903) 188 U.S. 189; Campbell vs. California (1906) 200 U.S. 87; Chanler vs. Kelsey (1907) 205 U.S. 466; Beers vs. Glynn (1909) 211 U.S. 477; Cahen vs. Brewster (1906) 203 U.S. 543.

See also Scudder vs. Coler (1899) 175 U.S. 32; Orr vs. Gilman (1902) 183 U.S. 278; Board of Education vs. Illinois (1906) 203 U.S. 553; Moffitt vs. Kelley (1910) 218 U.S. 400.

Dog valuation law of Louisiana, Sentell vs. N. O. etc. R.R. Co. (1897) 166 U.S. 698; license tax of Georgia on emigrant agents, Ficklen vs. Shelby County (1892) 145 U.S. 1, Williams vs. Fears (1900) 179 U.S. 270; Louisiana tax on sugar refiners, Amer. Sugar Ref. Co. ts. Louisiana (1900) 179 U.S. 89; Minnesota tax on elevators and warehouses, Cargill Co. vs. Minnesota (1901) 180 U. S. 452; classified merchants license tax of Pennsylvania, Clark vs. Titusville (1902) 184 U.S. 329; merchants' tax of Tennessee, Amer. Steel & Wire Co. vs. Speed (1904) 192 U.S. 500; non-resident meat packer tax of Georgia and North Carolina, Kehrer vs. Stewart (1905) 197 U.S. 60, Armour Packing Co. vs. Lacy (1906) 200 U.S. 226; Texas license tax on wholesale dealers in oils, S. W. Oil Co. vs. Texas (1910) 217 U.S. 114; Kentucky license tax on distillers, Brown Forman Co. vs. Kentucky (1910) 217 U.S. 563, Thompson vs. Kentucky (1908) 209 U.S. 340.

Taxing railroads for salary of State railroad commissioners in South Carolina and New York, Charlotte etc. R.R. vs. Gibbes (1892) 142 U.S. 386, New York Electric Lines vs. Squire (1892) 145 U.S. 175; Georgia Railroad tax law, Columbus Ry. Co. vs. Wright (1894) 151 U.S. 470; imposing cost of repairs and maintenance of safe viaduct on railroads in Nebraska, C. B. & Q. R.R. vs. Nebraska (1898) 170 U.S. 57; railroad grade-crossing law of New York, Wheeler vs. N. Y., N. H. & H. R.R. (1900) 178 U.S. 321; Florida act assessing back taxes on railroads, Florida etc. R.R. vs. Reynolds (1902) 183 U.S. 471; Alabama tax on foreign railroad stock, Kidd vs. Alabama (1903) 188 U.S. 730; street railway tax of Georgia, Savannah Ry. v. Savannah (1905) 198 U.S. 392; Illinois laws imposing on railroads cost of removing and rebuilding bridges and removing tunnel, C. B. & Q. R.R. vs. Illinois (1906) 200 U.S. 561, West Chicago Street R.R. vs. Illinois (1906) 201 U.S. 506; street railway franchise tax of New York, New York vs. State Board (1905) 199 U.S. 1; Indiana law imposing cost of bridge on railroad, Cincinnati etc. Ry. vs. Connersville (1910) 218 U.S. 336; Indiana railroad tax, Pittsburg etc. R.R. vs. Backus (1894) 154 U.S. 421;

ments,1 and general property taxes.2

The Court has also upheld, under these same clauses of the Constitution, a large number of cases involving State statutory civil and criminal court procedure, and general political rights.3

Now, as pointed out above, notwithstanding this mass of cases appealed and decided under the Fourteenth Amendment, in which cases parties have sought to overthrow State laws over 560 in number between 1887 and 1911 it is remarkable that the Court has held unconstitutional only three State statutes dealing with general social or economic conditions, i.e., "social justice" laws. In addition, it is true, it has held unconstitutional several instances of State legislation or of State action which involved simply private rights of property, i.e., questions of illegal taxation and of other forms of actual taking of Michigan railroad tax, Michigan Central R.R. Co. vs. Powers (1906) 201 U.S. 245; Nebraska railroad tax, C. B. & Q. R.R. vs. Babcock (1907) 204 U.S. 585; Kentucky railway franchise, Illinois etc. R. R. vs. Kentucky (1910) 218 U.S. 551.

1 Walston vs. Nevin (1888) 128 U.S. 578; Essex Public Road Board vs. Skinkle (1891) 140 U.S. 334; Paulsen vs. Portland (1893) 149 U.S. 30; Parsons vs. Dist. of Col. (1898) 170 U.S. 45; Weyerhauser vs. Minnesota (1900) 176 U.S. 550; Lombard vs. West Chicago Park Com. (1901) 181 U.S. 33; French vs. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. (1901) 181 U.S. 324, and 7 following cases: Cass Farm Co. vs. Detroit (1901) 181 U.S. 396; Voight vs. Detroit (1902) 184 U.S. 115; Goodrich vs. Detroit (1902) 184 U.S. 432; King vs. Portland (1902) 184 U.S. 61; Chadwick vs. Kelly (1903) 187 U.S. 540; Schaefer vs. Werling (1903) 188 U.S. 516; Seattle vs. Kelleher (1904) 195 U.S. 351; Louisville & N. R.R. vs. Barber Asphalt Co. (1905) 197 U.S. 430; Briscoe vs. Rudolph (1911) 221 U.S. 547; Carson vs. Brockton (1901) 182 U.S. 398; Hibben vs. Smith (1903) 191 U.S. 310; Cleveland etc. R.R. vs. Porter (1908) 210 U.S. 177.

2 Pennsylvania tax law, Bell's Gap R.R. vs. Pennsylvania (1890) 134 U.S. 232; mortgage tax laws of Oregon and New York, Savings etc. Society vs. Multnomah County (1898) 169 U.S. 421, Paddell vs. New York (1908) 211 U.S. 446; laws forfeiting land for unpaid taxes, of West Virginia and Kentucky, King vs. Mullins (1898) 171 U.S. 404, Kentucky Union Co. vs. Kentucky (1911) 219 U.S. 140; Minnesota and Louisiana taxes on investments by a non-resident, Bristol vs. Washington County (1900) 177 U.S. 133, New Orleans vs. Stempel (1899) 175 U.S. 309; Pennsylvania tax on estates of absentees, Cunnius vs. Reading School District (1905) 198 U.S. 458; Maryland tax on non-resident stockholders, Corry vs. Baltimore (1905) 196 U.S. 466; Maryland tax on liquors in warehouses, Carstairs vs. Cochran (1904) 193 U.S. 10; Ohio tax on bonds deposited by insurance companies, Scottish Ins. Co. vs. Boland (1905) 196 U.S. 611; New York stock transfer act, New York vs. Reardon (1907) 204 U.S. 152; Kentucky tax on ocean-going steamships, Southern Pacific Co. vs. Kentucky (1911) 222 U.S. 63; Louisiana tax on credits on collateral security loans, State Board vs. Comptoir National D'Escompte (1903) 191 U.S. 388; levee tax law of Arkansas, Ballard vs. Hunter (1907) 204 U.S. 241.

3 For a few of the statutes of more general interest see, claims of foreign corporations as creditors law of Tennessee, Blake vs. McClung (1898) 172 U.S. 239; Massachusetts attachment law, Rothschild vs. Knight (1902) 184 U.S. 334; Maryland insolvent law, Brown vs. Smart (1892) 145 U.S. 454; trustee process law of Rhode Island, King vs. Cross (1899) 175 U.S. 396; non-resident mortgagee claims law of Tennessee, Sully vs. Amer. Nat. Bank (1900) 178 U.S. 289; Maine disseizin law, Soper vs. Lawrence Bros. Co. (1906) 201 U.S. 359; corporation act of West Virginia, St. Mary's etc. Co. vs. West Virginia (1906) 203 U.S. 183; California law for quieting title, Amer. Land Company vs. Zeiss (1911) 219 U.S. 47; Massachusetts absentee estate act, Blinn vs. Nelson (1911) 222 U.S. 1; registration of voters in classified cities of Missouri, Mason vs. Missouri (1900) 179 U.S. 328; city annexation act of Kansas, Clark vs. Kansas City (1900) 176 U.S. 114; incorporation of a city, of Texas, Lampasas vs. Bell (1901) 180 U.S. 276; new school district of Michigan, Kils vs. Lowrey (1905) 199 U.S. 233; negro segregation laws of Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) 163 U.S. 537, Cumming vs. Board of Education (1899) 175 U.S. 528, Berea College vs. Kentucky (1908) 211 U.S. 45, Williams vs. Mississippi (1898) 170 U.S. 213, Chiles vs. C. & O. R.R. (1910) 218 U.S. 71.

private property without compensation. No one claims, however, that the recall of judicial decisions or other radical remedies should be applied to court decisions which simply adjudicate private property rights. Even in cases of this nature, the Court has held State laws or State action unconstitutional and void in only 34 instances during the past 25 years, as follows:

7

4

One street assessment tax act;1 six acts authorizing taxes, court judgments or disposition of property without hearing or reasonable notice to property owners; 2 one act regarding enforcement of mortgages; eight acts taxing property outside the jurisdiction of the State; + four tax acts imposing unlawful discriminations or denying equal protection of the law; 5 five requirements of unreasonably low and confiscatory rates or tolls in Minnesota, Texas, Kentucky, Nebraska and Pennsylvania; one Minnesota railroad rate law, held invalid for excessive penalties and for failure to provide for a hearing; and seven laws depriving corporations of their property without compensation, as follows: a Nebraska order of a Board requiring a railroad to allow persons to erect an elevator on its property (1896); a Texas constitution depriving a railroad of a vested right (1898); a Michigan law requiring a railroad to issue and accept interchangeable mileage tickets with other roads (1899); a California ordinance forbidding the erection of gas works previously authorized (1904); an Ohio ordinance. granting property of one street railway to another (1907); a Kentucky law requiring a railroad to deliver its cars to other roads (1909); a Nebraska law compelling construction of side tracks, etc., to private. grain elevators, without a hearing (1910); 8 and one law of Texas

1 Norwood vs. Baker (1898) 172 U.S. 269.

2 Scott vs. McNeal (1894) 154 U.S. 34; Roller vs. Holly (1900) 176 U.S. 398; Central of Georgia R.R. vs. Wright (1907) 207 U.S. 127; Londoner vs. Denver (1908) 210 U.S. 373; National Exchange Bank vs. Wiley (1904) 195 U.S. 257; Old Wayne Mutual Life Ass'n vs. McDonough (1907) 204 U.S. 8.

Bradley vs. Lightcap (1904) 195 U.S. 1.

Dewey vs. Des Moines (1898) 173 U.S. 193; Louisville etc. Ferry Co. vs. Kentucky (1903) 188 U.S. 385; Union Refrigerator Transit Co. vs. Kentucky (1905) 199 U. S. 194; Fargo vs. Hart (1904) 193 U.S. 490; Delaware etc. R.R. vs. Pennsylvania (1905) 198 U.S. 341; Selliger vs. Kentucky (1909) 213 U.S. 200; Buck vs. Beach (1907) 206 U.S. 392; New Orleans vs. New York Life Ins. Co. (1910) 216 U.S. 517.

Cotting vs. Kansas City Stockyards Co. (1901) 183 U.S. 79; Raymond vs. Chicago etc. Co. (1907) 207 U.S. 20; Southern Ry. Co. vs. Greene (1910) 216 U.S. 400; Stearns vs. Minnesota (1900) 179 U.S. 223; see also Duluth etc. R.R. vs. St. Louis County (1900) 179 U.S. 302.

Chicago etc. Ry. Co. vs. Minnesota (1890) 134 U.S. 418; Reagan vs. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1892) 154 U.S. 362; Reagan vs. Mercantile Trust Co. (1894) 154 U.S. 413; Covington Turnpike Co. vs. Sandford (1896) 164 U.S. 578; Smyth us. Ames (1898) 169 U.S. 466; see also Prout vs. Starr (1903) 188 U.S. 537; Postal Tel. Cable Co. vs. New Hope (1904) 192 U.S. 55.

7 Ex parte Young (1908) 209 U.S. 123.

Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. vs. Nebraska (1896) 164 U.S. 403; Houston vs. T. C. R.R. (1898) 170 U.S. 243; Lake Shore etc. Ry. vs. Smith (1899) 173 U.S. 684; Dobbins vs. Los Angeles (1904) 195 U.S. 223; Cleveland etc. Ry. vs. Cleveland (1907) 204 U.S. 116; Louisville & N. R.R. vs. Central Stockyards Co. (1909) 212 U.S. 132; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. vs. Nebraska (1910) 217 U.S. 196.