And, the protagonists of this view continued, if the public health,

safety, morals, and general welfare must depend solely upon the police

powers of the States, they must in modern conditions, often fail of

realization in this country. With goods flowing over State lines in

ever-increasing quantities, and people in ever-increasing numbers, how

was it possible to regard the States as watertight compartments? At

least, then, when local legislative programs break down on account of

the division of the country into States, it becomes the clear duty of

Congress to adopt supplementary legislation to remedy the situation. In

doing so, it is not undermining the Federal System; it is supporting it,

by making it viable in modern conditions. The assemblage of the States

in one Union was never intended to put one State at the mercy of

another. If, however, well considered programs of legislation are

rendered abortive in a State in consequence of the flow of commerce into

it from other States, then it becomes the duty--certainly it is within

the discretion of Congress--which alone can govern commerce among the

States, to supply the required relief. _See_ especially Assistant

Attorney General Maury's argument. In re Rapier, 143 U.S. 110, 127-129

(1892).

In this connection the advocates of this view cited discussion

contemporaneous with Jefferson's Embargo, and under the embargo itself,

as supporting their position. In the case of the Brigantine William the

validity of the embargo was challenged before the United States District

Court of Massachusetts on the ground that the power to regulate commerce

did not embrace the power to prohibit it. Judge Davis answered: "It will

be admitted that partial prohibitions are authorized by this expression;

and how shall the degree, or extent, of the prohibition be adjusted, but

by the discretion of the National Government, to whom the subject

appears to have been committed? * * * The power to regulate commerce is

not to be confined to the adoption of measures, exclusively beneficial

to commerce itself, or tending to its advancement; but, in our national

system, as in all modern sovereignties, it is also to be considered as

an instrument for other purposes of general policy and interest. * * *

the national right, or power, under the Constitution, to adapt

regulations of commerce to other purposes, than the mere advancement of

commerce, appears to be unquestionable. * * * The situation of the

United States, in ordinary times, might render legislative

interferences, relative to commerce, less necessary; but the capacity

and power of managing and directing it, for the advancement of great

national purposes, seems an important ingredient of sovereignty." And in

confirmation of this argument Judge Davis cited the clause of Sec. 9 of

article I of the Constitution interdicting a prohibition of the slave

trade till 1808. This clause clearly proves that those who framed the

Constitution perceived that "under the power of regulating commerce,

Congress would be authorized to abridge it, in favour of the great

principles of humanity and justice." Fed. Cas. No. 16,700, 614, 621

(1808).

The embargo, to be sure, operated on foreign commerce; but that there is

any difference between Congress's power in relation to foreign and to

interstate commerce the advocates of the view under consideration

denied. The power to "regulate" is the power which belongs to Congress

as to the one as well as to the other; and if this comprehends the power

to prohibit in the one case, it must equally, by acknowledged principles

of statutory construction, comprehend it in the other case as well. Nor

in fact, the argument continued, does it make any difference, by

approved principles of statutory construction, what purposes the framers

of the Constitution may have immediately in mind when they gave Congress

power to regulate commerce among the States; the governing consideration

is that they gave Congress the power, to be exercised in accordance with

its judgment of what are proper occasions for its use. "The reasons

which may have caused the framers of the Constitution to repose the

power to regulate interstate commerce in Congress do not, however,

affect or limit the extent of the power itself." Justice Peckham for the

Court in Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. _v._ United States, 175 U.S. 211, 228

(1899).

References

_See_ especially the arguments of counsel In re Rapier, 143 U.S. 110

(1892); Champion _v._ Ames (Lottery Case), 188 U.S. 321 (1903); Hammer

_v._ Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918); 3 Selected Essays on Constitutional

Law, 103, 138, 165, 295, 314, 336. Indeed, regulation of interstate

commerce by Congress may take the form of a positive adoption by it of a

regime of State regulation in the form of statutes (e.g., pilotage) or

of administrative regulations in some degree (as in the Motor Carrier

Act of 1935); or Congress may "regulate" through the device of

divestment of a subject matter of its interstate character, thus

indirectly causing State laws to apply, as was done by the Wilson Act of

1890 in respect to intoxicating liquors, or by the McCarran Act of 1945

following the United States _v._ South-Eastern Underwriters Association,

322 U.S. 533 (1944), in respect to the insurance business. In a sense,

Congress may delegate to the States its power to regulate interstate

commerce.

[488] 23 Stat. 31.

[489] 32 Stat. 791.

[490] 33 Stat. 1264.

[491] 33 Stat. 1269.

[492] 37 Stat. 315.

[493] 39 Stat. 1165.

[494] Illinois Central R. Co. _v._ McKendree, 203 U.S. 514 (1906). _See

also_ United States _v._ DeWitt, 9 Wall. 41 (1870). Of the nature of a

quarantine act is the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (52 Stat 1250).

[495] Champion _v._ Ames (The Lottery Case), 188 U.S. 321 (1903).

[496] 28 Stat 963.

[497] 143 U.S. 110 (1892).

[498] Champion _v._ Ames (The Lottery Case), 188 U.S. 321 (1903).

[499] 9 Wheat. 1, 227 (1824).

[500] 114 U.S. 622, 630 (1885).

[501] 26 Stat. 313 (1890); 37 Stat. 699 (1913), "The Webb-Kenyon Act."

[502] 31 Stat. 188 (1900).

[503] 45 Stat. 1084 (1929), "The Hawes-Cooper Act."

[504] 36 Stat. 825 (1910), "The Mann Act."

[505] 41 Stat. 324 (1919).

[506] 47 Stat. 326 (1932).

[507] 48 Stat. 794 (1934).

[508] 48 Stat. 979 (1934).

[509] 54 Stat. 686 (1940).

[510] Hoke _v._ United States, 227 U.S. 308, 322 (1913). In Caminetti

_v._ United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917) the act was held to apply to the

case of transportation of a woman for immoral purposes, although no

commercial motive was present; and in Cleveland _v._ United States, 329

U.S. 14 (1946), to the transportation of a plural wife by the member of

a religious sect a tenet of which is polygamy.

[511] United States _v._ Hill, 248 U.S. 420, 425 (1919).

[512] 247 U.S. 251 (1918).

[513] 39 Stat. 675 (1916).

[514] 247 U.S. at 275.

[515] Ibid. 271-272.

[516] 267 U.S. 432 (1925).

[517] 41 Stat. 324 (1919).

[518] 267 U.S. at 436-439. _See also_ Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. _v._

Illinois C.R. Co., 299 U.S. 334 (1937).

[519] United States _v._ Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 116-117 (1941).

[520] Roland Co. _v._ Walling, 326 U.S. 657, 669 (1946).

[521] Polish Alliance _v._ Labor Board, 322 U.S. 643, 650 (1944). _Cf._

the opinion of Chief Justice Vinson for the Court in Bus Employees _v._

Wisconsin Board, 340 U.S. 383 (1951).

[522] Federalist No. 32.

[523] 9 Wheat. 1, 11, 226 (1824).

[524] Madison, IV, Letters and Other Writings, 14-15 (Philadelphia,

1865).

[525] 9 Wheat. 1, 203.

[526] 9 Wheat. at 210-211.

[527] 9 Wheat. at 13-14; _also_ ibid. 16.

[528] 9 Wheat. 17-18, 209.

[529] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[530] 12 How. 299 (1851).

[531] Congressional regulation of commerce, however, does not have to be

uniform. The uniformity rule is a test of the invalidity of State

legislation affecting commerce, not the validity of Congressional

legislation regulating commerce. Clark Distilling Co. _v._ W.M.R. Co.,

242 U.S. 311, 327 (1917); Currin _v._ Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 14 (1939);

Prudential Ins. Co. _v._ Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946).

[532] Simpson _v._ Shepard, 230 U.S. 352 (1913).

[533] Ibid. 400-402.

[534] McCarroll _v._ Dixie Greyhound Lines, 309 U.S. 176, 188-189

(1940). F.D.G. Ribble's _State and National Power Over Commerce_

(Columbia University Press, 1937) is an excellent study both of the

Court's formulas and of the arbitral character of its task in this field

of Constitutional Law. On the latter point, see especially Chapters X

and XII. The late Chief Justice Stone took repeated occasion to stress

the "balancing" and "adjusting" role of the Court when applying the

commerce clause in relation to State power. _See_ his words in South

Carolina State Highway Dept. _v._ Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177, 184-192

(1938); California _v._ Thompson, 313 U.S. 109, 113-116 (1941); Parker

_v._ Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 362-363 (1943); and Southern Pacific _v._

Arizona, 325. U.S. 761, 766-770 (1945). _See also_ Justice Black for the

Court in United States _v._ South-Eastern Underwriters Assoc., 322 U.S.

533, 548-549 (1944).

[535] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[536] Compare, for example, May _v._ New Orleans, 178 U.S. 496 (1900);

and the recent case of Hooven & Allison Co. _v._ Evatt, 324 U.S. 652

(1945). In the latter case the benefits of the original package doctrine

were extended to imports from the Philippine Islands title to which did

not vest in the importer until their arrival in the United States.

[537] Freeman _v._ Hewit, 329 U.S. 249, 251 (1946).

[538] Philadelphia & R.R. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania (State Freight Tax

Case), 15 Wall. 232 (1873).

[539] Headnotes. Said the Court: "The rule has been asserted with great

clearness, that whenever the subjects over which a power to regulate

commerce is asserted are in their nature national, or admit of one

uniform system or plan of regulation, they may justly be said to be of

such a nature as to require exclusive legislation by Congress. Surely

transportation of passengers or merchandise through a State, or from one

State to another, is of this nature. It is of national importance that

over that subject there should be but one regulating power, for if one

State can directly tax persons or property passing through it, or tax

them indirectly by levying a tax upon their transportation, every other

may, and thus commercial intercourse between States remote from each

other may be destroyed." 15 Wall. at 279-280, citing Cooley _v._ Port

Wardens, 12 How. 299 (1851); Gilman. _v._ Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713

(1866); Crandall _v._ Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 42 (1868).

[540] 116 U.S. 517 (1886).

[541] Ibid. 527.

[542] Heisler _v._ Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245 (1922).

[543] 262 U.S. 172 (1923).

[544] Ibid. 178. _See also_ Diamond Match Co. _v._ Ontonagon 188 U.S. 82

(1903).

[545] Hope Natural Gas Co. _v._ Hall, 274 U.S. 284 (1927). _See also_

American Manufacturing Co. _v._ St. Louis, 250 U.S. 459 (1919) in which

there was imposed a license tax on manufacture of goods computed upon

the amount of sales of the goods.

[546] 286 U.S. 165 (1932).

[547] Coverdale _v._ Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co., 303 U.S. 604

(1938).

[548] Toomer _v._ Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948).

[549] Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. _v._ Bondurant, 257 U.S. 282 (1921).

Here a Tennessee corporation, in pursuance of its practice of purchasing

grain in Kentucky to be transported to and used in its Tennessee mill,

made a contract for the purchase of wheat, to be delivered in Kentucky

on the cars of a public carrier, intending to forward it as soon as

delivery was made. It was held that the transaction was in interstate

commerce, notwithstanding the contract was made and to be performed in

Kentucky; and that the possibility that the purchaser might change its

mind after delivery and sell the grains in Kentucky or consign it to

some other place in that State did not affect the essential character of

the transaction. Interstate commerce, said the Court, "is not confined

to transportation from one State to another, but comprehends all

commercial intercourse between different States and all the component

parts of that intercourse." Ibid. 290. Followed in Lemke _v._ Farmers

Grain Co., 258 U.S. 50 (1922); and Flanagan _v._ Federal Coal Co., 267

U.S. 222 (1925).

[550] Eureka Pipe Line Co. _v._ Hallanan, 257 U.S. 265 (1921).

[551] United Fuel Gas Co. _v._ Hallanan, 257 U.S. 277 (1921).

[552] Ibid. 281. _See also_ State Tax Commission _v._ Interstate Natural

Gas Co., 284 U.S. 41 (1931) holding invalid a State privilege tax

imposed on a foreign corporation selling to distributors in the State

natural gas piped in from another State, whose only activity was the use

of a thermometer and meter and reduction of pressure to permit vendee to

draw off the gas. "The work done by the plaintiff is done upon the

flowing gas to help the delivery and seems to us plainly to be an

incident to the interstate commerce between Louisiana and Mississippi."

Ibid. 44.

[553] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[554] Ibid. 449.

[555] 8 Wall. 123 (1860).

[556] Ibid. 140.

[557] 114 U.S. 622 (1885). _See also_ Pittsburgh & S. Coal Co. _v._

Bates, 156 U.S. 577 (1895).

[558] 114 U.S. at 632-633.

[559] Ibid. 634.

[560] _See_ Wagner _v._ Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1919).

[561] Brimmer _v._ Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 (1891); Patapsco Guano Co. _v._

Board of Agriculture, 171 U.S. 345 (1898); Red "C" Oil Mfg. Co. _v._

Board of Agriculture, 222 U.S. 380 (1912); Savage _v._ Jones, 225 U.S.

501 (1912); Foote & Co. _v._ Stanley, 232 U.S. 494 (1914).

[562] Standard Oil Co. _v._ Graves, 249 U.S. 389 (1919); Askren _v._

Continental Oil Co., 252 U.S. 444 (1920); Bowman _v._ Continental Oil

Co., 256 U.S. 642 (1921); Texas Co. _v._ Brown, 258 U.S. 466 (1922).

[563] Sonneborn Bros. _v._ Cureton, 262 U.S. 506 (1923). Reviewing

cases. _Cf._ Phipps _v._ Cleveland Refining Co., 261 U.S. 449 (1923).

[564] _See_ pp. 178, 238-239.

[565] Eastern Air Transport, Inc. _v._ South Carolina Tax Comm'n., 285

U.S. 147, 153 (1932).

[566] Rast _v._ Van Deman and Lewis, 240 U.S. 342 (1916). _See also_

Tanner _v._ Little, 240 U.S. 369 (1916), and Pitney _v._ Washington, 240

U.S. 387 (1916) upholding a Washington statute imposing a prohibitive

license tax upon merchants using trading stamps or coupons redeemable in

merchandise.

[567] Howe Machine Co. _v._ Gage, 100 U.S. 676 (1880); Emert _v._

Missouri, 156 U.S. 296 (1895); Singer Sewing Machine Co. _v._ Brickell,

233 U.S. 304 (1914); Wagner _v._ City of Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1919);

Caskey Baking Co. _v._ Virginia, 313 U.S. 117 (1941).

[568] 197 U.S. 60 (1905). _See also_ Armour Packing Co. _v._ Lacy, 200

U.S. 226 (1906).

[569] 91 U.S. 275 (1876); _see also_ Ward _v._ Maryland, 12 Wall. 418

(1871).

[570] _See_ Cook _v._ Pennsylvania, 97 U.S. 566 (1878); Guy _v._

Baltimore, 100 U.S. 434 (1880); Tiernan _v._ Rinker, 102 U.S. 123

(1880); Howe Machine Co. _v._ Gage, 100 U.S. 676 (1880); Webber _v._

Virginia, 103 U.S. 344 (1881); Walling _v._ Michigan, 116 U.S. 446

(1886); Darnell & Son Co. _v._ Memphis, 208 U.S. 113 (1908), where was

held void a property tax on lumber which discriminated in favor of the

local product: Bethlehem Motor Corp. _v._ Flynt, 256 U.S. 421 (1921),

where a license tax on distributors was held to be invalidated by the

provision made for a rebate under conditions that could be met only by

manufacturers within the taxing State.

[571] Coe _v._ Errol, 116 U.S. 517 (1886).

[572] Ibid. 525.

[573] General Oil Co. _v._ Crain, 209 U.S. 211 (1908).

[574] American Steel & Wire Co. _v._ Speed, 192 U.S. 500 (1904); Bacon

_v._ Illinois, 227 U.S. 504 (1913); Susquehanna Coal Co. _v._ South

Amboy, 228 U.S. 665 (1913); Minnesota _v._ Blasius, 290 U.S. 1 (1933);

Independent Warehouses _v._ Scheele, 331 U.S. 70 (1947).

[575] Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. _v._ Wallace, 288 U.S. 249 (1933).

[576] Edelman _v._ Boeing Air Transport, Inc., 289 U.S. 249 (1933). The

Court also upheld a tax on the sale of gasoline for use by an air

transport line in conducting interstate transportation across the State

in Eastern Air Transport, Inc. _v._ South Carolina Tax Comm., 285 U.S.

147 (1932).

[577] Southern Pacific Co. _v._ Gallagher, 306 U.S. 167 (1939).

[578] Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. _v._ Gallagher, 306 U.S. 182

(1939).

[579] Southern Pacific Co. _v._ Gallagher, 306 U.S. 167 (1939), as

formulated in the headnotes; _see also_ Monamotor Oil Co. _v._ Johnson,

292 U.S. 86 (1934).

[580] Bingaman _v._ Golden Eagle Western Lines, 297 U.S. 626 (1936);

McCarroll _v._ Dixie Greyhound Lines, 309 U.S. 176 (1940). In Helson

_v._ Kentucky, 279 U.S. 245 (1929), the Court held that gasoline

purchased in Illinois and used in an Illinois-Kentucky ferry could not

be taxed by Kentucky, being, as it were, a part of the ferry, an

instrument of commerce between the two States. _See also_ Kelley _v._

Rhoads, 188 U.S. 1 (1903); Champlain Realty Co. _v._ Brattleboro, 260

U.S. 366 (1922); Hughes Bros. Timber Co. _v._ Minnesota, 272 U.S. 469

(1926); Carson Petroleum Co. _v._ Vial, 279 U.S. 95 (1929).

[581] 120 U.S. 489 (1887).

[582] Corson _v._ Maryland, 120 U.S. 502 (1887); Asher _v._ Texas, 128

U.S. 129 (1888); Stoutenburgh _v._ Hennick, 129 U.S. 141 (1889); Brennan

_v._ Titusville, 153 U.S. 289 (1894); Stockard _v._ Morgan, 185 U.S. 27

(1902); Crenshaw _v._ Arkansas, 227 U.S. 389 (1913); Rogers _v._

Arkansas, 227 U.S. 401 (1913); Stewart _v._ Michigan, 232 U.S. 665

(1914); Western Oil Refining Co. _v._ Lipscomb, 244 U.S. 346 (1917);

Cheney Bros. _v._ Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 147 (1918).

[583] Caldwell _v._ North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622 (1903).

[584] Norfolk & W.R. Co. _v._ Sims, 191 U.S. 441 (1903).

[585] Rearick _v._ Pennsylvania, 203 U.S. 507 (1906); Dozier _v._

Alabama, 218 U.S. 124 (1910); Davis _v._ Virginia, 236 U.S. 697 (1915).

[586] 203 U.S. at 512.

[587] Real Silk Hosiery Mills _v._ Portland, 268 U.S. 325 (1925).

[588] Heyman _v._ Hays, 236 U.S. 178 (1915). _See also_ Hump Hairpin Co.

_v._ Emmerson, 258 U.S. 290 (1922), holding that business done by a

corporation through orders which were approved in a State where its

tangible property and offices were located, but which were first taken

by its salesmen in other States, was interstate, although the tax

involved was sustained.

[589] Ficklen _v._ Shelby County Taxing District, 145 U.S. 1, 21 (1892).

[590] New York ex rel. Hatch _v._ Reardon, 204 U.S. 152 (1907); _Cf._

Nathan _v._ Louisiana, 8 How. 73 (1850).

[591] Ware _v._ Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 (1908). _See also_ Brodnax

_v._ Missouri, 219 U.S. 285 (1911).

[592] 222 U.S. 210 (1911).

[593] 233 U.S. 16 (1914).

[594] Ibid. 23. _See also_ Superior Oil _v._ Mississippi ex rel. Knox,

280 U.S. 390 (1930).

[595] Chassaniol _v._ Greenwood, 291 U.S. 584 (1934).

[596] Wiloil Corp. _v._ Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 169, 173 (1935); _see

also_ Minnesota _v._ Blasius, 290 U.S. 1 (1933).

[597] 309 U.S. 33 (1940).

[598] Best & Co. _v._ Maxwell. 311 U.S. 454, 455 (1940).

[599] 300 U.S. 577 (1937). _Cf._ Hinson _v._ Lott, 8 Wall. 148 (1869).

Here was involved a tax of fifty cents per gallon on all spiritous

liquors brought into the State. Comparing the tax with a similar one

imposed upon liquors manufactured in the State, the Court upheld the

statute. "The taxes were complementary and were intended to effect

equality."

[600] 300 U.S. at 583-584. Some subsequent use tax cases in the

Henneford pattern are the following: Bacon & Sons _v._ Martin was

decided in a unanimous _per curiam_ opinion. It involved a Kentucky

statute which imposed a tax "on the 'receipt' of cosmetics in the State

by any Kentucky retailer" equal to twenty per cent of the invoice price

plus transportation cost, if any to the Kentucky dealer. The Kentucky

court held that "the imposition of the tax against the retailer is not

on the act of receiving the cosmetics, but on the sale and use thereof,

after the retailer has received them." On this interpretation the

Supreme Court sustained the tax. Obviously, other things being equal,

there is little difference between a tax on receiving and a tax on

possession a moment later. 305 U.S. 380 (1939). In Felt & Tarrant

Manufacturing Co. _v._ Gallagher, 306 U.S. 62 (1939), a California use

tax was upheld applicable to a nonresident corporation which solicited

orders from California purchasers through agents for whom it hired

offices in the State and took orders subject to the vendor's approval.

In Nelson _v._ Sears, Roebuck & Company and Nelson _v._ Montgomery Ward

& Company, 312 U.S. 359 and 373 (1941) it was held that a foreign

corporation which maintained retail stores in Iowa could be validly

required to collect an Iowa use tax in respect of mail orders sent by

Iowa purchasers to out-of-state branches of the corporation and filled

by direct shipment by mail or common carrier from those branches to the

purchasers. In General Trading Company _v._ State Tax Commission, 322

U.S. 335 (1944), also involving the Iowa tax, it was held that a company

carrying on no operations in Iowa other than the solicitation of orders

by traveling salesmen was liable for collection of the tax on goods sold

to Iowa residents, even though the corporation was not licensed to do

business in the State and the orders were forwarded for acceptance to

Minnesota where they were filled by direct shipment to Iowa customers.

[601] 309 U.S. 33 (1940).

[602] Ibid. 53-54.

[603] Ibid. 57, citing Ficklen _v._ Shelby County Taxing District, 145

U.S. 1 (1892); Howe Machine Co. _v._ Gage, 100 U.S. 676 (1880); and

Wagner _v._ Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1919). In the first it was held that

the Robbins case did not apply to a firm of agents and brokers

maintaining an office and samples throughout the year in the taxing

district. The other two cases were totally irrelevant.

[604] 309 U.S. 70 and 430.

[605] Ibid. 414.

[606] 322 U.S. 327 (1944).

[607] Ibid. 330.

[608] Ibid. 332.

[609] 327 U.S. 416 (1946).

[610] Ibid. 417-418.

[611] Ibid. 435.

[612] Memphis Steam Laundry _v._ Stone, 342 U.S. 389 (1952).

[613] Norton Co. _v._ Dept. of Revenue, 340 U.S. 534 (1951), although

decided by a closely divided Court, further confirms this impression.

[614] 9 Wheat. 1, 217-219 (1824).

[615] Smith _v._ Turner (Passenger Cases), 7 How. 283 (1849).

[616] Henderson _v._ Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259 (1876); New York

_v._ Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 U.S. 59 (1883).

[617] 6 Wall. 35 (1868).

[618] Ibid. 49.

[619] 114 U.S. 196 (1885).

[620] Ibid. 203.

[621] _See_ Covington & C. Bridge Co. _v._ Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204

(1894); _also_ Edwards _v._ California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), the

decision in which represents the exact inverse of that in the Crandall

Case, being based by the majority on the commerce clause, while several

of the Justices preferred to put it on the broader grounds invoked by

Justice Miller in the Crandall Case.

[622] Western Union Telegraph Company _v._ Texas, 105 U.S. 460 (1882)

State Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. 232 (1873) and Pensacola Telegraph Co.

_v._ Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U.S. 1 (1878) were the precedents

principally relied on.

[623] 8 Wall. 168 (1869).

[624] Ibid. 181.

[625] Ibid. 182.

[626] 15 Wall. 232, 233-234, 278-279 (1873).

[627] 127 U.S. 640 (1888).

[628] Ibid. 645.

[629] Crutcher _v._ Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47 (1891).

[630] Ibid. 57.

[631] 266 U.S. 555 (1925).

[632] 268 U.S. 203 (1925); followed in Cudahy Packing Co. _v._ Hinkle,

278 U.S. 460 (1929). _Cf._, however, Western Live Stock _v._ Bureau of

Revenue, 303 U.S. 250, 255 (1938).

[633] Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. _v._ Alabama, 288 U.S. 218

(1933).

[634] Cooney _v._ Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 294 U.S.

384 (1935).

[635] Fisher's Blend Station _v._ State Tax Commission, 297 U.S. 650,

656 (1936).

[636] Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. _v._ Tax Commission of Washington, 302

U.S. 90 (1937).

[637] Adams Mfg. Co. _v._ Storen, 304 U.S. 307 (1938).

[638] McCarroll _v._ Dixie Greyhound Lines, 309 U.S. 176 (1940). _See

also_ the following cases in which the Court found a tax to be an

unconstitutional interference with the interstate commerce privilege:

Tax on maintenance of office in Pennsylvania for use of stockholders,

officers, employees, and agents of railroad not operating in

Pennsylvania but a link in a line operating therein, Norfolk & W.R. Co.

_v._ Pennsylvania, 136 U.S. 114 (1890); license tax on sale of liquor as

applied to a sale out of State by mail, Heyman _v._ Hays, 236 U.S. 178

(1915); tax on pipe lines transporting oil or gas produced in State but

which might pass out of State, Eureka Pipe Line Co. _v._ Hallanan, 257

U.S. 265 (1921); United Fuel Gas Co. _v._ Hallanan, 257 U.S. 277 (1921);

Kentucky tax on gasoline purchased in Illinois and used in an

Illinois-Kentucky ferry, Helson & Randolph _v._ Kentucky, 279 U.S. 245

(1929); tax laid on privilege of operating a bus in interstate commerce

because not imposed solely as compensation for use of highways or to

defray expenses of regulating motor traffic, Interstate Transit, Inc.

_v._ Lindsey, 283 U.S. 183 (1931); tax on gas pipe line whose only

activity in State was the use of a thermometer and reduction of pressure

to permit a vendee to draw off gas, State Tax Commission _v._ Interstate

Natural Gas Co., 284 U.S. 41 (1931)--but see East Ohio Gas Co. _v._ Tax

Commission, 283 U.S. 465 (1931); gasoline tax imposed per gallon of

gasoline imported by interstate carriers as fuel for use in their

vehicles within the State as well as in their interstate travel,

Bingaman _v._ Golden Eagle Western Lines, 297 U.S. 626 (1936). _See

also_, for reiteration of the basic rule that the commerce clause

forbids States to tax the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce,

Gwin, White & Prince _v._ Henneford, 305 U.S. 434, 438-439 (1939). In

California _v._ Thompson, 313 U.S. 109 (1941), the Court, overruling Di

Santo _v._ Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34 (1927), sustained, as not a

"revenue measure," but "a measure to safeguard the traveling public by

motor vehicle," who are "particularly unable" to protect themselves

against overreaching by those "engaged in a business notoriously subject

to abuses," a California statute requiring that agents for this type of

transportation take out a license for both their interstate and their

intrastate business.

[639] 216 U.S. 1 (1910). _Cf._ Osborne _v._ Florida, 164 U.S. 650

(1897), involving an express business; in Pullman Company _v._ Adams,

189 U.S. 420 (1903); and in Allen _v._ Pullman's Palace Car Co., 191

U.S. 171 (1903). Here State taxes levied on the local business of

companies engaged also in interstate commerce were sustained "on the

assumption" that the companies in question were free to abandon their

local business.

[640] _See also_ Pullman Co. _v._ Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 56

(1910); Ludwig _v._ Western Union Teleg. Co., 216 U.S. 146 (1910);

Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. _v._ O'Connor, 223 U.S. 280, 285 (1912).

[641] 245 U.S. 178 (1917). _Cf._ Baltic Mining Co. _v._ Massachusetts,

231 U.S. 68 (1914); Kansas City Ry. _v._ Kansas, 240 U.S. 227 (1916);

and Kansas City, M. & B.R. Co. _v._ Stiles, 242 U.S. 111 (1916). In each

of these a tax like that involved in Looney _v._ Crane was sustained, in

the first two because the statute set a maximum limit to the tax; in the

third because the amount collected under the act was held to be

"reasonable." The ideology of these decisions is clearly opposed to that

of the cases treated in the text. The rule in Looney _v._ Crane Co. was

held not applicable in the case of a West Virginia corporation doing

business in Illinois and owning practically all of its property there.

An Illinois tax on the local business, which was measured by the total

capitalization of the company was sustained, it being shown further that

the tax was little more than it would have been if levied at the same

rate directly on the property of the company that was in Illinois. Hump

Hairpin Mfg. Co. _v._ Emmerson, 258 U.S. 290 (1922).

[642] 246 U.S. 135 (1918). _See also_ Locomobile Co. of America _v._

Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 146 (1918); Cheney Brothers Co. _v._

Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 147 (1918); Union Pacific R.R. Co. _v._ Pub.

Service Comm., 248 U.S. 67 (1918).

[643] 246 U.S. at 141.

[644] 277 U.S. 163 (1928).

[645] Ibid. 171.

[646] 294 U.S. 384 (1935).

[647] 297 U.S. 403 (1936).

[648] Ibid. 415. Headnote 6.

[649] 8 Wall. 168, 181 (1869). _See also_ Bank of Augusta _v._ Earle, 13

Pet. 519 (1839); and Security Mut. L. Ins. Co. _v._ Prewitt, 202 U.S.

246 (1906).

[650] _See_ Atlantic Lumber Co. _v._ Commissioner, 298 U.S. 553 (1936);

Southern Natural Gas Corp. _v._ Alabama, 301 U.S. 148 (1937); Atlantic

Refining Co. _v._ Virginia, 302 U.S. 22 (1937); Coverdale _v._

Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co., 303 U.S. 604 (1938); Ford Motor Co.

_v._ Beauchamp, 308 U.S. 331 (1939); Treasury of Indiana _v._ Wood

Corp., 313 U.S. 62 (1941); Wheeling Steel Corp. _v._ Glander, 337 U.S.

562, 571 (1949); _Cf._ however, James _v._ Dravo Contracting Co., 302

U.S. 134 (1937); Memphis Natural Gas Co. _v._ Stone, 335 U.S. 80, 85-86

(1948).

[651] Philadelphia & R.R. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania (State Freight Tax

Case), 15 Wall. 232 (1873).

[652] Prudential Ins. Co. _v._ Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408, 418 (1946).

[653] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[654] Philadelphia & R.R. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 284 (1873).

[655] Philadelphia & S. Mail S.S. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326

(1887).

[656] Western Union Tel. Co. _v._ Massachusetts, 125 U.S. 530 (1888).

[657] Ibid. 547.

[658] _See_ Railroad Co. _v._ Peniston, 18 Wall. 5, 30-31 (1873).

[659] Pullman's Palace Car Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 (1891).

[660] Ibid. 26.

[661] 165 U.S. 194; upon rehearing 166 U.S. 185 (1897).

[662] 166 U.S. at 220.

[663] _See_ Justice Holmes' language in Galveston, Harrisburg, & S.A.

Ry. Co. _v._ Texas, 210 U.S. 217, 225, 227 (1908). _See also_ Cudahy

Packing Co. _v._ Minnesota 246 U.S. 450 (1918); and Pullman Co. _v._

Richardson, 261 U.S. 330 (1923); and Virginia _v._ Imperial Coal Sales

Co., 293 U.S. 15 (1934).

[664] Pullman's Palace Car Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 (1891).

[665] Pittsburgh, C.C. & St. L.R. Co. _v._ Backus, 154 U.S. 421 (1894);

Cleveland, C.C. & St. L.R. Co. _v._ Backus, 154 U.S. 439 (1894).

[666] Western Union Teleg. Co. _v._ Taggart, 163 U.S. 1 (1896). _See

also_ Western Union Teleg. Co. _v._ Massachusetts, 125 U.S. 530 (1888).

[667] Adams Express Co. _v._ Ohio, 165 U.S. 194 (1897), upon rehearing

166 U.S. 185 (1897).

[668] Great Northern Railway Co. _v._ Minnesota, 278 U.S. 503 (1929).

[669] Nashville, C. & St. L. Railway _v._ Browning, 310 U.S. 362 (1910).

[670] Ibid. 366, citing Union Tank Line Co. _v._ Wright, 249 U.S. 275

(1919); Wallace _v._ Hines, 253 U.S. 66 (1920); Southern R. Co. _v._

Kentucky, 274 U.S. 76 (1927).

[671] Atlantic Lumber Co. _v._ Commissioner, 298 U.S. 553 (1936). _Cf._

Alpha Portland Cement Co. _v._ Massachusetts, 268 U.S. 203 (1925).

[672] 142 U.S. 217 (1891).

[673] Ibid. 227-228.

[674] Citing Pickard _v._ Pullman Southern Car Co., 117 U.S. 34 (1886);

Leloup _v._ Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640 (1888); Crutcher _v._ Kentucky,

141 U.S. 47 (1891); Philadelphia & S. Mail Steamship Co. _v._

Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326 (1887).

[675] Galveston, Harrisburg & S.A.R. Co. _v._ Texas, 210 U.S. 217

(1908).

[676] Ibid. 226.

[677] Postal Telegraph Cable Co. _v._ Adams, 155 U.S. 688, 697 (1895).

_See also_ Illinois Central R. Co. _v._ Minnesota, 309 U.S. 157 (1940),

in which was sustained a five percent gross earnings tax on all

railroads operating in the State, payable in lieu of all other taxes and

found to have "a fair relation to the property employed in the State."

[678] New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. _v._ State Bd. of Taxes &

Assessments, 280 U.S. 338 (1930).

[679] Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton _v._ State Tax Com., 266 U.S. 271 (1924).

[680] Matson Navigation Co. _v._ State Board, 297 U.S. 441 (1936). _See

also_ International Shoe Co. _v._ Shartel, 279 U.S. 429 (1929).

[681] Ford Motor Co. _v._ Beauchamp, 308 U.S. 331 (1939).

[682] International Harvester Co. _v._ Evatt, 329 U.S. 416 (1947).

[683] Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio R. Co. _v._ Texas, 210 U.S.

217 (1908).

[684] Wallace _v._ Hines, 253 U.S. 66 (1920).

[685] _See_ pp. 194, 202. _See also_ Interstate Oil Pipe Line Co. _v._

Stone, 337 U.S. 662 (1949) for an extensive review and evaluation of

cases.

[686] Illinois Central R. Co. _v._ Minnesota, 309 U.S. 157 (1940). _See

also_ Wisconsin and Michigan Ry. _v._ Powers, 191 U.S. 379 (1903);

United States Express Co. _v._ Minnesota, 223 U.S. 335 (1912). _See_

note 13 to Justice Rutledge's opinion in Freeman _v._ Hewit, 329 U.S. at

pp. 265-266.

[687] Western Live Stock _v._ Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 (1938).

_See also_ United States Express Co. _v._ Minnesota, 223 U.S. 335

(1912); Dept. of Treasury of Indiana _v._ Wood Corp., 313 U.S. 62

(1941); Dept. of Treasury of Indiana _v._ Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 252 (1941);

Harvester Co. _v._ Dept. of Treasury, 322 U.S. 340 (1944).

[688] Western Live Stock _v._ Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 (1938).

[689] Meyer _v._ Wells, Fargo & Co., 223 U.S. 298 (1912); _also_ the

following note.

[690] Philadelphia & S. Mail S.S. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326

(1887); Ratterman _v._ Western Union Teleg. Co., 127 U.S. 411 (1888);

Western Union Teleg. Co. _v._ Alabama Board of Assessment (Seay), 132

U.S. 472 (1889); Adams Mfg. Co. _v._ Storen, 304 U.S. 307 (1938); Gwin,

White & Prince _v._ Henneford, 305 U.S. 434 (1939). _Cf._ Fargo _v._

Michigan (Fargo _v._ Stevens), 121 U.S. 230 (1887), as explained in

Western Live Stock _v._ Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 (1938).

[691] Lockhart, Gross Receipts Taxes on Interstate Transportation and

Communication, 57 Harvard L. Rev. 40, 65, 66 (1943); Galveston, H. &

S.A.R. Co. _v._ Texas, 210 U.S. 217 (1908); New Jersey Bell Teleph. Co.

_v._ State Bd. of Taxes and Assessments, 280 U.S. 338 (1930). But _Cf._

Nashville, C. and St. L. Ry. _v._ Browning, 310 U.S. 362 (1940). In both

the Galveston and New Jersey Telephone Company cases, although the

taxable events all occurred within the taxing State, the possibility of

multiple taxation was nevertheless present. _See also_ Puget Sound

Stevedoring Co. _v._ State Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 90 (1937), the

decision in which might have been rested upon the clause of the

Constitution forbidding the States to tax exports. _See also_ Richfield

Oil Corp. _v._ State Board of Equalization, 329 U.S. 69 (1946).

[692] Fisher's Blend Station _v._ State Tax Comm., 297 U.S. 650 (1936);

Western Live Stock _v._ Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 (1938).

[693] _See_ p. 193.

[694] _See_ pp. 150-160.

[695] _See_ p. 189.

[696] 303 U.S. 250 (1938).

[697] Ibid. 254.

[698] Ibid. 255-256.

[699] 305 U.S. 434 (1939).

[700] Ibid. 439-440.

[701] 305 U.S. at 455 (1939).

[702] _See_ McCarroll _v._ Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., 309 U.S. 176,

188-189 (1940).

[703] Freeman _v._ Hewit, 329 U.S. 249 (1946).

[704] 329 U.S. 249.

[705] The Court relied particularly on Adams Mfg. Co. _v._ Storen, 304

U.S. 307 (1938) in which the multiple taxation test had been used.

[706] Justice Black dissented without opinion. Justice Douglas, speaking

also for Justice Murphy, contended that the sale had been local, and

that the only interstate agency employed had been the mails, an argument

which squares badly with the attitude of the same Justices in United

States _v._ South-Eastern Underwriters Assoc., 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

[707] 330 U.S. 422 (1947), reaffirming Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. _v._

Tax Comm., 302 U.S. 90 (1937).

[708] 330 U.S. at 433.

[709] Justices Murphy, Douglas, and Rutledge thought the decision

correct as to receipts from foreign commerce. Speaking for them, Justice

Douglas made an effort to resurrect Maine _v._ Grand Trunk R. Co., 142

U.S. 217 (1891). Justice Black dissented without opinion.

[710] 334 U.S. 653.

[711] Ibid. 663, citing Western Live Stock _v._ Bureau of Revenue, 303

U.S. 250 (1938); and Ratterman _v._ Western Union Teleg. Co., 127 U.S.

411 (1888).

[712] 335 U.S. 80.

[713] 337 U.S. 662, 666, 677-678, 680.

[714] _See supra_, pp. 196, 204-207.

[715] 247 U.S. 321 (1918).

[716] Ibid. 328-329.

[717] Shaffer _v._ Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1920).

[718] Underwood Typewriter Co. _v._ Chamberlain, 254 U.S. 113 (1920);

Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton _v._ State Tax Commission, 266 U.S. 271 (1924).

[719] Hans Rees' Sons _v._ North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123, 132, 133

(1931). In this case a North Carolina tax was assessed on the income of

a New York corporation, which bought leather, manufactured it in North

Carolina, and sold its products at wholesale and retail in New York. The

Court observed: "The difficulty of making an exact apportionment is

apparent and hence, when the State has adopted a method not

intrinsically arbitrary, it will be sustained until proof is offered of

an unreasonable and arbitrary application in particular cases." The

decisions in the Underwood and Bass cases, _supra_, "are not authority

for the conclusion that where a corporation manufactures in one State

and sells in another, the net profits of the entire transaction, as a

unitary enterprise, may be attributed, regardless of evidence, to either

State."

[720] Atlantic Coast Line _v._ Daughton, 262 U.S. 413 (1923).

[721] Matson Nav. Co. _v._ State Board, 297 U.S. 441 (1936). _See also_

Butler Bros. _v._ McColgan, 315 U.S. 501 (1942), where the tax was

sustained under the Fourteenth Amendment.

[722] Memphis Gas Co. _v._ Beeler, 315 U.S. 649 (1942).

[723] Ibid. 656-657

[724] Spector Motor Service _v._ O'Connor, 340 U.S. 602 (1951).

[725] 114 U.S. 196 (1885).

[726] Hays _v._ Pacific Mail S.S. Co., 17 How. 596 (1855).

[727] Packet Co. _v._ Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80 (1877); _see also_

Transportation Co. _v._ Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 (1883).

[728] Ayer & L. Tie Co. _v._ Kentucky, 202 U.S. 409 (1906). For a resume

of the rules for taxing vessels _see_ Northwest Airlines _v._ Minnesota,

322 U.S. 292, 314-315 (1944), note 2.

[729] Old Dominion S.S. Co. _v._ Virginia, 198 U.S. 299 (1905): a vessel

enrolled in New York at domicile of owner, but operating wholly in

Virginia, was held taxable in Virginia.

[730] 336 U.S. 169 (1949).

[731] Northwest Airlines _v._ Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292 (1944).

[732] He also invoked New York Central and H.R.R. Co. _v._ Miller, 202

U.S. 584 (1906), where although 12 to 64 per cent of the rolling stock

of the railroad was outside of New York throughout the tax year, New

York was nevertheless allowed to tax it all because no part was in any

other State throughout the year. The case is atypical, a constitutional

sport; _cf._ Union Refrigerator Transit Co. _v._ Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194

(1905).

[733] 322 U.S. at 301-302.

[734] "The apportionment theory is a mongrel one, a cross between desire

not to interfere with State taxation and desire at the same time not

utterly to crush out interstate commerce. It is a practical, but rather

illogical, device to prevent duplication of tax burdens on vehicles in

transit. It is established in our decisions and has been found more or

less workable with more or less arbitrary formulae of apportionment.

Nothing either in theory or in practice commends it for transfer to air

commerce."--Ibid. 306.

[735] Ibid. 308.

[736] Pullman's Palace Car Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 (1891).

[737] 322 U.S. 309.

[738] 235 U.S. 610 (1915).

[739] Ibid. 622.

[740] Hendrick _v._ Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915).

[741] Kane _v._ New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 (1916).

[742] Morf _v._ Bingaman, 298 U.S. 407 (1936).

[743] Ingels _v._ Morf, 300 U.S. 290 (1937).

[744] Clark _v._ Poor, 274 U.S. 554 (1927); Hicklin _v._ Coney, 290 U.S.

109 (1933).

[745] Interstate Busses Corp. _v._ Blodgett, 276 U.S. 245 (1928);

Continental Baking Co. _v._ Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932).

[746] Aero Mayflower Transit Co. _v._ Georgia Pub. Serv. Commission, 295

U.S. 285 (1935).

[747] Interstate Transit _v._ Lindsey, 283 U.S. 183 (1931). _Cf._ Sprout

_v._ South Bend, 277 U.S. 163 (1928).

[748] _See_ Dixie Ohio Express Co. _v._ State Rev. Comm., 306 U.S. 72

(1939); _also_ Clark _v._ Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583 (1939); Aero

Mayflower Transit Co. _v._ Board of R.R. Commrs., 332 U.S. 495, 503-504

(1947). Here was sustained a State statute imposing a flat tax of $10

annually upon each vehicle operated by a motor carrier over the State's

highways, and a fee of one half of one per cent of the carrier's gross

operating revenue from its operations within the State, with an annual

minimum of $15 per vehicle, in consideration of the use of the highways

and in addition to all other motor vehicle license fees and taxes. This

was held, as applied to a carrier engaged solely in interstate commerce,

not to burden such commerce unconstitutionally, although the proceeds

went into the State's general fund subject to appropriation for other

than highway purposes. (Opinion by Rutledge, J., all concurring.) While

a "State may not discriminate against or exclude such interstate traffic

generally in the use of its highways, * * * [it is not] required to

furnish those facilities to it free of charge or indeed on equal terms

with other traffic not inflicting similar destructive effects. * * *

Interstate traffic equally with intrastate may be required to pay a fair

share of the cost and maintenance reasonably related to the use made of

the highways." Ibid., headnote 6.

[749] 339 U.S. 542 (1950).

[750] Ibid. 561.

[751] Justice Roberts for the Court in Great Northern R. Co. _v._

Washington, 300 U.S. 154, 159-161 (1937).

[752] Charlotte, C. & A.R. Co. _v._ Gibbes, 142 U.S. 386 (1892); New

York ex rel. New York Electric Lines Co. _v._ Squire, 145 U.S. 175, 191

(1892).

[753] Atlantic & P. Teleg. Co. _v._ Philadelphia, 190 U.S. 160 (1903);

Mackay Teleg. & Cable Co. _v._ Little Rock, 250 U.S. 94, 99 (1919).

[754] Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ New Hope, 187 U.S. 419, 425 (1903);

Pure Oil Co. _v._ Minnesota, 248 U.S. 158, 162 (1918).

[755] New Mexico ex rel. McLean _v._ Denver & R.G.R. Co., 203 U.S. 38,

55 (1906). _Cf._ Red "C" Oil Mfg. Co. _v._ Board of Agriculture, 222

U.S. 380, 393 (1912); Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ New Hope, 187 U.S. 419

(1903).

[756] Brimmer _v._ Rebman, 138 U.S. 78, 83 (1891); Postal Teleg. & Cable

Co. _v._ Taylor, 192 U.S. 64 (1904); Pure Oil Co. _v._ Minnesota, 248

U.S. 158, 162 (1918).

[757] Atlantic & P. Teleg. Co. _v._ Philadelphia, 190 U.S. 160, 164

(1903); Postal Teleg. Cable Co. _v._ Taylor, 192 U.S. 64, 69 (1904);

Foote & Co. _v._ Stanley, 232 U.S. 494, 503, 504 (1914).

[758] Foote & Co. _v._ Stanley, 232 U.S. 494, 505 (1914); Lugo _v._

Suazo, 59 F. (2d) 386 (1932).

[759] Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ New Hope, 187 U.S. 419, 425 (1903);

Foote & Co. _v._ Stanley, 232 U.S. 494, 507 (1914).

[760] Postal Teleg. Cable Co. _v._ New Hope, 192 U.S. 55 (1904); Foote &

Co. _v._ Stanley, 232 U.S. 494, 508 (1914).

[761] 10 Stat. 112. Sustained in Pennsylvania _v._ Wheeling & Belmont

Bridge Co., 18 How. 421 (1856).

[762] Pennsylvania _v._ Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518

(1852).

[763] Transportation Co. _v._ Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691, 701 (1883).

[764] 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

[765] 59 Stat. 33 (1945).

[766] 328 U.S. 408 (1946).

[767] Ibid. 429-430, 434-435.

[768] _See_ pp. 163-172.

[769] 9 Wheat. 1 (1824).

[770] Ibid. 203.

[771] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[772] Ibid. 443-444.

[773] _Cf._ 12 Wheat. at 439-440.

[774] 11 Pet. 102 (1837).

[775] Smith _v._ Turner (Passenger Cases), 7 How. 283 (1849).

[776] Henderson _v._ New York, 92 U.S. 259 (1876).

[777] Ibid. 272.

[778] Chy Lung _v._ Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876).

[779] Compagnie Francaise de Navigation _v._ Bd. of Health, 186 U.S.

380, 398, (1902). _See also_ Morgan's L. & T.R.S.S. Co. _v._ Bd. of

Health, 118 U.S. 455 (1886); Louisiana _v._ Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 21

(1900).

[780] 211 U.S. 31, 36-37 (1908).

[781] As to concessions by the Court to the practical necessities of

enforcement, _see also_ Bayside Fish Flour Co. _v._ Gentry, 297 U.S. 422

(1936); and Whitfield _v._ Ohio, 297 U.S. 431 (1936).

[782] 325 U.S. 761, 766-767.

[783] Ibid. 767; citing: Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352, 399, 400

(1913); South Carolina Highway Dept. _v._ Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177,

187 (1938), et seq.; California _v._ Thompson, 313 U.S. 109, 113, 114

(1941) and cases cited; Parker _v._ Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 359, 360

(1943).

[784] 325 U.S. at 767; citing: Cooley _v._ Board of Wardens, 12 How. at

319 (1851); South Carolina Highway Dept. _v._ Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S.

at 185; California _v._ Thompson, 313 U.S. at 113; Duckworth _v._

Arkansas, 314 U.S. 390, 394 (1941); Parker _v._ Brown, 317 U.S. at 362,

363.

[785] 325 U.S. at 767; citing: South Carolina Highway Dept. _v._

Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. at 188 and cases cited; Lone Star Gas Co. _v._

Texas, 304 U.S. 224, 238 (1938); Milk Board _v._ Eisenberg Co., 306 U.S.

346, 351 (1939); Maurer _v._ Hamilton, 309 U.S. 598, 603 (1940);

California _v._ Thompson, 313 U.S. 113, 114 and cases cited.

[786] 325 U.S. at 767, 768; citing: Cooley _v._ Board of Wardens, 12

How. at 319 (1851); Leisy _v._ Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 108, 109 (1890);

Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. at 399, 400 (1913); Edwards _v._

California, 314 U.S. 160, 176 (1941).

[787] 325 U.S. at 768; citing: Brown _v._ Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 447

(1827); Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. at 399, 400; Pennsylvania _v._

West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 596 (1923); Baldwin _v._ Seelig, 294 U.S.

511, 522 (1935); South Carolina Highway Dept. _v._ Barnwell Bros., 303

U.S. at 185 (1938).

[788] 325 U.S. at 768; citing: Welton _v._ Missouri, 91 U.S. 275, 282

(1876); Hall _v._ DeCuir, 95 U.S. 485, 490 (1878); Brown _v._ Houston,

114 U.S. 622, 631 (1885); Bowman _v._ Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 125 U.S.

465, 481, 482 (1888); Leisy _v._ Hardin, 135 U.S. at 109; In re Rahrer,

140 U.S. 545, 559, 560 (1891); Brennan _v._ Titusville, 153 U.S. 289,

302 (1894); Covington & C. Bridge Co. _v._ Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, 212

(1894); Graves _v._ New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 479 (1939);

Dowling, Interstate Commerce and State Power, 27 Va. Law Rev. 1 (1940).

[789] 325 U.S. at 769; citing: Parker _v._ Brown. 317 U.S. at 362

(1943); Terminal Railroad Assn. _v._ Brotherhood, 318 U.S. 1, 8 (1943);

_see_ Di Santo _v._ Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34, 44 (1927) (and compare

California _v._ Thompson, 313 U.S. 109 (1941)); Illinois Gas Co. _v._

Public Service Co., 314 U.S. 498, 504, 505 (1942).

[790] 325 U.S. at 769; citing: Cooley _v._ Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299

(1851); Kansas City Southern R. Co. _v._ Kaw Valley District, 233 U.S.

75, 79 (1914); South Covington R. Co. _v._ Covington, 235 U.S. 537, 546

(1915); Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. _v._ Texas, 245 U.S. 484, 488 (1918);

St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. _v._ Public Service Comm'n., 254 U.S. 535, 537

(1921): Foster-Fountain Packing Co. _v._ Haydel, 278 U.S. 1, 10 (1928);

Gwin, White & Prince _v._ Henneford, 305 U.S. 434, 441 (1939); McCarroll

_v._ Dixie Lines, 309 U.S. 176 (1940).

[791] 325 U.S. at 769; citing: In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. at 561, 562

(1891); Adams Express Co. _v._ Kentucky, 238 U.S. 190, 198 (1915);

Rosenberger _v._ Pacific Express Co., 241 U.S. 48, 50, 51 (1916); Clark

Distilling Co. _v._ Western Maryland R. Co., 242 U.S. 311, 325, 326

(1917); Whitfield _v._ Ohio, 297 U.S. 431, 438-440 (1936); Kentucky Whip

& Collar Co. _v._ Illinois Central R. Co., 299 U.S. 334, 350, 351

(1937); Hooven & Allison Co. _v._ Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 679 (1945).

[792] 325 U.S. at 769, 770; citing: Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. _v._

United States, 175 U.S. 211, 230 (1899); Louisville & Nashville R. Co.

_v._ Mottley, 219 U.S. 467 (1911); Houston, E. & W.T.R. Co. _v._ United

States, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); American Express Co. _v._ Caldwell, 244

U.S. 617, 626 (1917); Illinois Central R. Co. _v._ Public Utilities

Comm'n., 245 U.S. 493, 506 (1918); New York _v._ United States, 257 U.S.

591, 601 (1922); Louisiana Public Service Comm'n. _v._ Texas & N.O.R.

Co., 284 U.S. 125, 130 (1931); Pennsylvania R. Co. _v._ Illinois Brick

Co., 297 U.S. 447, 459, (1936).

[793] 325 U.S. at 770; citing: Gwin, White & Prince _v._ Henneford, 305

U.S. 434, 441 (1939).

[794] 325 U.S. at 770; citing: Terminal Railroad Assn. _v._ Brotherhood,

318 U.S. 1, 8 (1943); Southern R. Co. _v._ King, 217 U.S. 524 (1910).

[795] Peik _v._ Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 94 U.S. 164 (1877).

[796] Wabash, St. L. & P.R. Co. _v._ Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886).

[797] 24 Stat. 379 (1887).

[798] Wisconsin Railroad Com. _v._ Chicago, B. & Q.R.R. Co., 257 U.S.

563 (1922).

[799] Gladson _v._ Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 (1897); followed in Lake

Shore & M.S.R. Co. _v._ Ohio ex rel. Lawrence, 173 U.S. 285 (1899), in

which an Ohio statute requiring that "each company shall cause three,

each way, of its regular trains carrying passengers, * * * Sundays

excepted, to stop at a station, city or village, containing three

thousand inhabitants, for a time sufficient to receive and let off

passengers; * * *" was sustained.

[800] Illinois Central R.R. Co. _v._ Illinois, 163 U.S. 142, 153 (1896).

[801] Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. _v._ Wisconsin R.R. Com.,

237 U.S. 220, 226 (1915); St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. _v._ Public

Service Com., 254 U.S. 535, 536-537 (1921).

[802] St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. _v._ Public Service Com., 261

U.S. 369, 371 (1923).

[803] Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific R.R. _v._ Jacobson, 179 U.S. 287

(1900).

[804] Missouri P.R. Co. _v._ Larabee Flour Mills Co., 211 U.S. 612

(1909).

[805] McNeill _v._ Southern R. Co., 202 U.S. 543 (1906).

[806] St. Louis S.W.R. Co. _v._ Arkansas, 217 U.S. 136 (1910).

[807] _See e.g._ The Court's language in Hannibal & St. L.R. Co. _v._

Husen, 95 U.S. 465, 470 (1878); New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. _v._ New York,

165 U.S. 628, 631 (1897); Lake Shore & M.S.R. Co. _v._ Ohio ex rel.

Lawrence, 173 U.S. 285, 292 (1899); Hennington _v._ Georgia, 163 U.S.

299 (1896); Simpson _v._ Shepard (Minnesota Rate Cases), 230 U.S. 352,

402-410 (1913).

[808] Smith _v._ Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888); _see also_ Nashville, C.

& St. L.R. Co. _v._ Alabama, 128 U.S. 96 (1888); McCall _v._ California,

136 U.S. 104 (1890); Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. _v._ Haber, 109 U.S. 613,

633 (1898).

[809] New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. _v._ New York, 165 U.S. 628 (1807). _See

also_ Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. _v._ Solan, 169 U.S. 133, 137 (1898).

[810] Erb _v._ Morasch, 177 U.S. 584 (1900).

[811] Erie R.R. Co. _v._ Public Utility Commrs., 254 U.S. 394 (1921).

[812] Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. _v._ R.R. Comm., 283 U.S. 380 (1931).

[813] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. _v._ Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453 (1911).

[814] Ibid, 453, 466. _See also_ St. Louis, I.M. & S. Co. _v._ Arkansas,

240 U.S. 518 (1916); Missouri P.R. Co. _v._ Norwood, 283 U.S. 249

(1931).

[815] Terminal Railroad Assn. _v._ Brotherhood, 318 U.S. 1 (1943).

[816] 163 U.S. 299 (1896). In South Covington R. Co. _v._ Covington, 235

U.S. 537 (1915), the Court sustained a municipal ordinance which

prohibits the company from allowing passengers to ride on the rear or

front platforms without suitable barriers, and requires that the cars be

kept clean and ventilated and fumigated. However, provisions of the

ordinance that cars shall never be permitted to fall below a certain

temperature and regulating the number of passengers to be carried in the

cars were held to be unreasonable and violative of the commerce clause.

There was no unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce by a

municipal ordinance which directed a railway company to remove its

tracks from a busy street intersection. Denver & R.G.R. Co. _v._ Denver,

250 U.S. 241 (1919).

[817] Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. _v._ Solan, 169 U.S. 133 (1898);

Richmond & A.R. Co. _v._ Patterson Tobacco Co., 169 U.S. 311 (1898).

[818] 325 U.S. 761, 779-780 (1945).

[819] Kansas City Southern R. Co. _v._ Kaw Valley Drainage Dist., 233

U.S. 75, 79 (1914).

[820] 244 U.S. 310 (1917).

[821] _Cf._ Southern R. Co. _v._ King, 217 U.S. 524 (1910), where the

crossings were fewer and the burden to interstate commerce was shown not

to be unduly heavy.

[822] 302 U.S. 1, 15 (1937).

[823] 325 U.S. 761, 771-776.

[824] 328 U.S. 373, 380, 386 (1946).

[825] Hendrick _v._ Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915); Kane _v._ New Jersey,

242 U.S. 160 (1916).

[826] Sproles _v._ Binford, 286 U.S. 374 (1932). _See also_ Morris _v._

Duby, 274 U.S. 135 (1927).

[827] South Carolina State Highway Dept. _v._ Barnwell Bros. Inc., 303

U.S. 177 (1938).

[828] 289 U.S. 92 (1933).

[829] 309 U.S. 598 (1940).

[830] 306 U.S. 79 (1939).

[831] Eichholz _v._ Public Service Com. of Missouri, 306 U.S. 268

(1939), citing Cooley _v._ Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299 (1851).

[832] Railway Express Agency _v._ New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949).

[833] Ibid. 111. For a more extreme application of this idea by a

narrowly divided Court, in a quite special situation, _see_ Buck et al.

_v._ California, 342 U.S. 99 (1952).

[834] Continental Baking Co. _v._ Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932);

Stephenson _v._ Binford, 287 U.S. 251 (1932); Hicklin _v._ Coney, 290

U.S. 169 (1933).

[835] Michigan Pub. Utilities Com. _v._ Duke, 266 U.S. 570 (1925). _See

also_ Smith _v._ Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553 (1931); and Continental Baking Co.

_v._ Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932).

[836] Buck _v._ Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925). _See also_, Bush & Sons

Co. _v._ Maloy, 267 U.S. 317 (1925); Interstate Busses Corp. _v._

Holyoke Street R. Co., 273 U.S. 45 (1927).

[837] 273 U.S. 34 (1927). _See also_ McCall _v._ California, 136 U.S.

104 (1890). In the former case, agents soliciting patronage for

steamship lines were involved; in the latter, an agent soliciting

patronage for a particular railway line.

[838] California _v._ Thompson, 313 U.S. 109, 115-116 (1941).

[839] 9 Wheat. 1 (1824).

[840] 2 Pet. 245, 252 (1829).

[841] 12 How. 299 (1851).

[842] Foster _v._ Davenport, 22 How. 244 (1859); Sinnot _v._ Davenport,

22 How. 227 (1859). _See also_ Lord _v._ Steamship Co., 102 U.S. 541

(1881).

[843] Foster _v._ Master & Wardens of Port of New Orleans, 94 U.S. 246

(1877).

[844] Ibid. 247.

[845] Northern Transp. Co. _v._ Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 643 (1879);

Willamette Iron Bridge Co. _v._ Hatch, 125 U.S. 1 (1888); Illinois _v._

Economy Power Light Co., 234 U.S. 497 (1914).

[846] Economy Light and Power Co. _v._ United States, 256 U.S. 113

(1921).

[847] Harman _v._ Chicago, 147 U.S. 396, 412 (1893).

[848] 302 U.S. 1 (1937).

[849] Ibid. 10.

[850] 333 U.S. 28 (1948).

[851] Hall _v._ De Cuir, 95 U.S. 485 (1878).

[852] 2 Pet. 245 (1829).

[853] Pound _v._ Turck, 95 U.S. 459 (1878); Lindsay & Phelps Co. _v._

Mullen, 176 U.S. 126 (1900).

[854] 3 Wall. 713 (1866).

[855] Ibid. 729. _See also_, Escanaba & L.M. Transp. Co. _v._ Chicago,

107 U.S. 678 (1883); and Cardwell _v._ American River Bridge Co., 113

U.S. 205 (1885).

[856] 119 U.S. 543 (1886).

[857] Ibid. 548-549.

[858] Packet Co. _v._ Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80 (1877); Ouachita Packet Co.

_v._ Aiken, 121 U.S. 444 (1887).

[859] Prosser _v._ Northern P.R. Co., 152 U.S. 59 (1894). _See also_

Sands _v._ Manistee R. Imp. Co., 123 U.S. 288 (1887); Gring _v._ Ives,

222 U.S. 365 (1912).

[860] Cases cited in note 7 above;[Transcriber's Note: Reference is to

Footnote 858, above.] Parkersburg & O. Transp. Co. _v._ Parkersburg, 107

U.S. 691 (1883).

[861] Gloucester Ferry Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 215 (1885);

Conway _v._ Taylor, 1 Black 603 (1862); Wiggins Ferry Co. _v._ East St.

Louis, 107 U.S. 365 (1883).

[862] Mayor and Board of Aldermen of Vidalia _v._ McNeely, 274 U.S. 676

(1927). _See also_ Helson _v._ Kentucky, 279 U.S. 245, 249 (1929).

[863] Covington & C. Bridge Co. _v._ Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204 (1894).

[864] Port Richmond and Bergen Point Ferry Co. _v._ Bd. of Chosen

Freeholders, 234 U.S. 317 (1914).

[865] New York Central & H.R.R. Co. _v._ Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 227

U.S. 248 (1913).

[866] Wilmington Transp. Co. _v._ R.R. Com., 236 U.S. 151 (1915).

[867] Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ Pendleton, 122 U.S. 347 (1887).

[868] Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ Foster, 247 U.S. 105 (1918).

[869] Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ Crovo, 220 U.S. 364 (1911).

[870] Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ Commercial Milling Co., 218 U.S. 406

(1910).

[871] Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ Brown, 234 U.S. 542 (1914).

[872] Essex _v._ New England Teleg. Co., 239 U.S. 313 (1915).

[873] Pensacola Teleg. Co. _v._ Western U. Teleg. Co., 96 U.S. 1 (1878).

[874] Western Union Teleg. Co. _v._ Richmond, 224 U.S. 160 (1912). _See

also_ Postal Teleg. Cable Co. _v._ Richmond, 249 U.S. 252 (1919).

[875] Northwestern Bell Teleph. Co. _v._ Nebraska State R. Com., 297

U.S. 471 (1936).

[876] Bell Tel. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania Public Util. Com., 309 U.S. 30

(1940).

[877] Missouri ex rel. Barrett _v._ Kansas Natural Gas Co., 265 U.S. 298

(1924).

[878] Public Utilities Com. _v._ Attleboro Steam & Electric Co., 273

U.S. 83 (1927).

[879] Pennsylvania Natural Gas Co. _v._ Public Serv. Com., 252 U.S. 23

(1920); Public Utilities Com. _v._ Landon, 249 U.S. 236 (1919).

[880] Panhandle Eastern Pipe Lines Co. _v._ Public Serv. Com., 332 U.S.

507 (1947).

[881] Panhandle Co. _v._ Michigan Comm'n., 341 U.S. 329 (1951).

[882] Peoples Natural Gas Co. _v._ Public Serv. Com., 270 U.S. 550

(1926).

[883] East Ohio Gas Co. _v._ Tax Com. of Ohio, 283 U.S. 465 (1931).

[884] Western Distributing Co. _v._ Public Serv. Com. of Kansas, 285

U.S. 119 (1932).

[885] Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. _v._ Dept. of Public Utilities, 304

U.S. 61 (1938).

[886] Lone Star Gas Co. _v._ Texas, 304 U.S. 224 (1938).

[887] Cities Service Co. _v._ Peerless Co., 340 U.S. 179 (1950).

[888] Union Brokerage Co. _v._ Jensen, 322 U.S. 202 (1944). _See also_

International Harvester Co. _v._ Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579 (1914); Sioux

Remedy Co. _v._ Cope, 235 U.S. 197 (1914); Interstate Amusement Co. _v._

Albert, 239 U.S. 560 (1916).

[889] 322 U.S. at 207-209.

[890] Sioux Remedy Co. _v._ Cope, 235 U.S. 197 (1914).

[891] International Milling Co. _v._ Columbia T. Co., 292 U.S. 511

(1934).

[892] Natural Gas Pipeline Co. _v._ Slattery, 302 U.S. 300 (1937).

[893] Engel _v._ O'Malley, 219 U.S. 128 (1911).

[894] Merrick _v._ Halsey & Co., 242 U.S. 568 (1917). _See also_ Hall

_v._ Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539 (1917); Caldwell _v._ Sioux Falls

Stock Yards Co., 242 U.S. 559 (1917).

[895] Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. _v._ Illinois ex rel.

McLaughlin, 298 U.S. 155 (1936), citing Cargill Co. _v._ Minnesota, 180

U.S. 452, 470 (1901); Simpson _v._ Shepard (Minnesota Rate Case), 230

U.S. 352, 410 (1913); Hall _v._ Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539, 557

(1917); Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. _v._ McLean, 291 U.S. 17

(1934).

[896] Davis _v._ Cleveland, C.C. & St. L. Co., 217 U.S. 157 (1910).

[897] Martin _v._ West, 222 U.S. 191 (1911).

[898] The "Winnebago," 205 U.S. 354, 362 (1907).

[899] Justice Hughes for the Court in Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson _v._

Shepard), 230 U.S. 352, 406 (1913).

[900] Ibid. 408.

[901] Railroad Co. _v._ Husen, 95 U.S. 465 (1878).

[902] Kimmish _v._ Ball, 129 U.S. 217 (1889).

[903] Smith _v._ St. Louis & S.W.R. Co., 181 U.S. 248 (1901).

[904] Ibid. 255. Morgan's S.S. Co. _v._ Louisiana Bd. of Health, 118

U.S. 455 (1886) is cited.

[905] Hebe Co. _v._ Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919).

[906] Hygrade Provision Co. _v._ Sherman, 266 U.S. 497 (1925).

[907] Mintz _v._ Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (1933).

[908] Pacific States Box & Basket Co. _v._ White, 296 U.S. 176 (1935).

[909] Bayside Fish Flour Co. _v._ Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).

[910] Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. _v._ Agnew, 300 U.S. 608 (1937).

[911] Bourjois, Inc. _v._ Chapman, 301 U.S. 183 (1937).

[912] Clason _v._ Indiana, 306 U.S. 439 (1939).

[913] Milk Control Bd. _v._ Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U.S. 346

(1939).

[914] Patapsco Guano Co. _v._ North Carolina, 171 U.S. 345 (1898).

[915] Savage _v._ Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912); followed in Corn Products

Refining Co. _v._ Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 (1919).

[916] Pure Oil Co. _v._ Minnesota, 248 U.S. 158 (1918).

[917] Mutual Film Corp. _v._ Hodges, 236 U.S. 248 (1915).

[918] Minnesota _v._ Barber, 136 U.S. 313 (1890); _see also_ Brimmer

_v._ Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 (1891).

[919] 136 U.S. at 322. _See also_ pp. 328-329.

[920] Voight _v._ Wright, 141 U.S. 62 (1891).

[921] Hale _v._ Bimco Trading Co., 306 U.S. 375 (1939).

[922] Dean Milk Co. _v._ Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951).

[923] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[924] Ibid. 449.

[925] Woodruff _v._ Parham, 8 Wall. 123 (1869). There were later some

departures from the rule, apparently due to inattention, in cases

involving oil. _See_ Standard Oil _v._ Graves, 249 U.S. 389 (1919);

Askren _v._ Continental Oil Co., 252 U.S. 444 (1920); Bowman _v._

Continental Oil Co., 256 U.S. 642 (1921) and Texas Co. _v._ Brown, 258

U.S. 466 (1922). These cases were "qualified," and in fact disavowed in

Sonneborn Bros. _v._ Cureton, 262 U.S. 506, 520 (1923). _Cf._ the

contemporary case of Wagner _v._ Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1912) where the

true rule is followed.

[926] Mugler _v._ Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887).

[927] Kidd _v._ Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888).

[928] 125 U.S. 465 (1888).

[929] Leisy & Co. _v._ Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890).

[930] 26 Stat. 313 (1890); sustained in In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545

(1891).

[931] Rhodes _v._ Iowa, 170 U.S. 412 (1898).

[932] 37 Stat. 699 (1913); sustained in Clark Distilling Co. _v._

Western Md. Ry. Co., 242 U.S. 311 (1917).

[933] Austin _v._ Tennessee, 179 U.S. 343 (1900).

[934] 155 U.S. 461 (1894).

[935] 135 U.S. 100 (1890).

[936] 155 U.S. at 474.

[937] Schollenberger _v._ Pennsylvania, 171 U.S. 1 (1898).

[938] Collins _v._ New Hampshire, 171 U.S. 30 (1898).

[939] _See_ note 1 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote

933, above.]

[940] State Board _v._ Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59 (1936); Finch &

Co. _v._ McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395 (1939); Brewing Co. _v._ Liquor

Comm'n., 305 U.S. 391 (1939); Ziffrin, Inc. _v._ Reeves, 308 U.S. 132

(1939).

[941] Duckworth _v._ Arkansas, 314 U.S. 390 (1941); followed in Carter

_v._ Virginia, 321 U.S. 131 (1944). Justice Jackson would have preferred

to rest the decision on the Twenty-first Amendment instead of "what I

regard as an unwise extension of State power over interstate commerce,"

314 U.S. at 397; and appears to have converted Justice Frankfurter.

_See_ latter's opinion in 321 U.S. at 139-143.

[942] 297 U.S. 431 (1936).

[943] 45 Stat 1084 (1929).

[944] 297 U.S. at 440. _See also_ Justice Cardozo's remarks in Baldwin

_v._ Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 526-527 (1935).

[945] _Cf._ Plumley _v._ Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 461 (1894); Savage _v._

Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912); Corn Products Refining Co. _v._ Eddy, 249

U.S. 427 (1919).

[946] Elkison _v._ Deliesseline, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4366 (1823).

[947] For interesting particulars _see_ 2 Charles Warren, The Supreme

Court in United States History, 84-87.

[948] 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 659.

[949] 2 Op. Atty. Gen. 426.

[950] 11 Pet. 102 (1837).

[951] Smith _v._ Turner (Passenger Cases), 7 How. 283 (1849).

[952] Crandall _v._ Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 (1868).

[953] 314 U.S. 160 (1941).

[954] Ibid. 172.

[955] Ibid. 173. Justice Cardozo's words, quoted by Justice Byrnes,

occur in Baldwin _v._ Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 523 (1935). Justice Byrnes'

answer to another argument of the State, based on historical conceptions

of the word "indigent," was, "poverty and immorality are not

synonymous."

[956] _See_ especially Justice Douglas' forceful opinion. 314 U.S.

177-181.

[957] 161 U.S. 519 (1896).

[958] Hudson County Water Co. _v._ McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908).

[959] 221 U.S. 229 (1911).

[960] Ibid. 255-256.

[961] 262 U.S. 553 (1923).

[962] 237 U.S. 52 (1915).

[963] Ibid. 61.

[964] 258 U.S. 50, 61 (1922).

[965] 258 U.S. 50 (1922); 66 L. Ed. 458, Hd. 2.

[966] _See_ pp. 193-195.

[967] 291 U.S. 502 (1934); followed in Hegeman Farms Corp. _v._ Baldwin,

293 U.S. 163 (1934).

[968] 294 U.S. 511 (1935).

[969] Milk Control Bd. _v._ Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U.S. 346

(1939).

[970] Ibid. 352.

[971] Hood _v._ Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 535 (1949).

[972] Foster-Fountain Packing Co. _v._ Haydel, 278 U.S. 1 (1928).

[973] Ibid. 13.

[974] Toomer _v._ Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948). Other features of the

South Carolina act were found to violate article IV, section 2. _See_ p.

690.

[975] Bayside Fish Flour Co. _v._ Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).

[976] Ibid. 426, citing Silz _v._ Hesterberg, 211 U.S. 31, 39 (1908).

[977] 34 Stat. 584 (1906).

[978] Chicago, I. & L.R. Co. _v._ United States, 219 U.S. 486 (1911).

[979] Southern R. Co. _v._ Reid, 222 U.S. 424 (1912); Southern R. Co.

_v._ Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99 (1912).

[980] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. _v._ Hardwick Farmers Elevator Co., 226

U.S. 426 (1913).

[981] St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. _v._ Edwards, 227 U.S. 265 (1913).

[982] Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. _v._ Greenwood Grocery Co., 227 U.S. 1 (1913).

In this case the severity of the regulation furnished additional reason

for its disallowance.

[983] 226 U.S. 491 (1913). For the Court's reiteration of the formula

governing such cases, _see_ ibid. 505-506. _See also_ Barrett _v._ New

York, 232 U.S. 14 (1914); Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. _v._ Cramer, 232 U.S.

490 (1914); Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. _v._ Harold, 241 U.S. 371 (1916);

Missouri P.R. Co. _v._ Porter, 273 U.S. 341 (1927). A year before the

enactment of the Carmack Amendment the Court had held that the

imposition by a State upon the initial or any connecting carrier of the

duty of tracing the freight and informing the shipper in writing when,

where, how, and by which carrier the freight was lost, damaged, or

destroyed, and of giving the names of the parties and their official

position, by whom the truth of the facts set out in the information

could be established, was, when applied to interstate commerce, a

violation of the commerce clause. Central of Georgia R. Co. _v._

Murphey, 196 U.S. 194, 202 (1905). The Court's opinion definitely

invited Congress to deal with the subject, as it does in the Carmack

Amendment.

[984] 35 Stat. 65 (1908); 36 Stat. 291 (1910).

[985] 34 Stat. 1415 (1907).

[986] 27 Stat. 531 (1893); 32 Stat. 943 (1903).

[987] Mondou _v._ New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. (Second Employers' Liability

Cases), 223 U.S. 1 (1912); Southern R. Co. _v._ Railroad Com., 236 U.S.

439 (1915).

[988] Erie R. Co. _v._ New York, 233 U.S. 671 (1914).

[989] 26 Stat. 414 (1890).

[990] Crossman _v._ Lurman, 192 U.S. 189 (1904).

[991] 34 Stat. 768 (1906); Savage _v._ Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912),

citing Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. _v._ Haber, 169 U.S. 613 (1898);

Reid _v._ Colorado, 187 U.S. 137 (1902); Asbell _v._ Kansas, 209 U.S.

251 (1908); Southern Ry. Co. _v._ Reid, 222 U.S. 424, 442 (1912).

[992] McDermott _v._ Wisconsin, 228 U.S. 115 (1913).

[993] Ibid. 137.

[994] Armour & Co. _v._ North Dakota, 240 U.S. 510 (1916).

[995] 37 Stat. 315 (1912); 39 Stat. 1165 (1917).

[996] Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. _v._ Washington, 270 U.S. 87

(1926).

[997] 44 Stat. 250 (1926).

[998] Mintz _v._ Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (1933).

[999] 32 Stat. 791 (1903); 33 Stat. 1264 (1905).

[1000] Townsend _v._ Yeomans, 301 U.S. 441 (1937).

[1001] 49 Stat. 731 (1935).

[1002] Allen-Bradley Local _v._ Employment Relations Board, 315 U.S. 740

(1942).

[1003] 49 Stat. 449 (1935).

[1004] Quoting Napier _v._ Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 611

(1926).

[1005] Parker _v._ Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943).

[1006] 50 Stat. 246 (1937).

[1007] 317 U.S. at 368.

[1008] Ibid. 362.

[1009] Union Brokerage Co. _v._ Jensen, 322 U.S. 202 (1944).

[1010] Ibid. 211.

[1011] Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. _v._ Public Serv. Com. of

Indiana, 332 U.S. 507 (1947); Rice _v._ Chicago Board of Trade, 331 U.S.

247 (1947).

[1012] 52 Stat. 821 (1938).

[1013] 49 Stat. 1491 (1936).

[1014] 49 Stat. 543 (1935); 54 Stat. 919-920 (1940).

[1015] California _v._ Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (1949).

[1016] 52 Stat. 821 (1938).

[1017] Illinois Gas Co. _v._ Public Service Co., 314 U.S. 498 (1942).

[1018] 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2320-2327.

[1019] Cloverleaf Co. _v._ Patterson, 315 U.S. 148 (1942). Four

Justices, speaking by Chief Justice Stone dissented, on the basis of

Mintz _v._ Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (1933); Kelly _v._ Washington ex rel.

Foss Co., 302 U.S. 1 (1937); and Welch Co. _v._ New Hampshire, 306 U.S.

79 (1939).

[1020] 39 Stat. 486 (1916); amended by 46 Stat. 1463 (1931).

[1021] Rice _v._ Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947).

[1022] _See_ note 1 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote

1016, above.]

[1023] Interstate Natural Gas Co. _v._ Federal Power Com., 331 U.S. 682

(1947).

[1024] 49 U.S.C.A. 5.

[1025] Schwabacher _v._ United States, 334 U.S. 182 (1948).

[1026] Seaboard Air Line R. Co. _v._ Daniel, 333 U.S. 118 (1948).

[1027] Hill _v._ Florida, 325 U.S. 538 (1945).

[1028] 49 Stat. 449 (1935).

[1029] 325 U.S. at 542.

[1030] Auto Workers _v._ Wisconsin Board, 336 U.S. 245 (1949).

[1031] 49 Stat. 449 (1935); 61 Stat. 136 (1947).

[1032] Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. _v._ Wisconsin Bd., 336 U.S. 301

(1949).

[1033] Automobile Workers _v._ O'Brien, 339 U.S. 454 (1950); Bus

Employees _v._ Wisconsin Board, 340 U.S. 383 (1951).

[1034] United States _v._ Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 384 (1886); _Cf._ United

States _v._ Holliday, 3 Wall. 407 (1866).

[1035] 16 Stat. 544, 566; R.S. 2079.

[1036] _See_ United States _v._ Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1914).

[1037] _See_ Perrin _v._ United States, 232 U.S. 478 (1914); Johnson

_v._ Gearlds, 234 U.S. 422 (1914); Dick _v._ United States, 208 U.S. 340

(1908).

[1038] United States _v._ Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916), overruling Re Heff,

197 U.S. 488, 509 (1905).

[1039] United States _v._ Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1914).

[1040] United States _v._ Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 419 (1866).

[1041] Ex parte Webb, 225 U.S. 663 (1912).

[1042] Boyd _v._ Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892).

[1043] 10 How. 393 (1857).

[1044] Ibid. 417, 419.

[1045] Mackenzie _v._ Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311 (1915).

[1046] 66 Stat. 163; Public Law 414, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952).

[1047] Ibid. tit. III, Sec. 301. The first category comprises, it should

be noted, those who are citizens by the opening clause of Amendment XIV,

which embodies Chief Justice Marshall's holding in Gassies _v._ Ballon,

that a citizen of the United States, residing in any State of the Union,

is a citizen of that State. 6 Pet. 761, 762 (1832).

[1048] 66 Stat. 163; tit. III, Sec. 302-307. These categories illustrate

collective naturalization. "Instances of collective naturalization by

treaty or by statute are numerous." Boyd _v._ Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135,

162 (1892). _See also_ Elk _v._ Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).

[1049] 57 Stat. 600.

[1050] 66 Stat. 163, tit. III, Sec. 311.

[1051] Ibid. Sec. 313 (a) (4-6).

[1052] Ibid. Sec. 313 (c).

[1053] 66 Stat. 163, Sec. 337 (a). In United States _v._ Schwimmer, 279

U.S. 644 (1929); and United States _v._ Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931)

it was held, by a divided Court, that clauses (3) and (4) of the oath,

as previously prescribed, required the candidate for naturalization to

be ready and willing to bear arms for the United States, but these

holdings were overruled in Girouard _v._ United States, 328 U.S. 61

(1946).

[1054] 66 Stat. 163, Sec. 340 (a); _see also_ Johannessen _v._ United

States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912).

[1055] Ibid. Sec. 340 (c). For cancellation proceedings under the

Nationality Act of 1910 (54 Stat. 1158, Sec. 338); _see_ Schneiderman _v._

United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943); Baumgartner _v._ United States 322

U.S. 665 (1944), where district court decisions ordering cancellation

were reversed on the ground that the Government had not discharged the

burden of proof resting upon it. Knauer _v._ United States, 328 U.S. 654

(1946) represents a less rigid view.

[1056] Osborn _v._ Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824).

[1057] 328 U.S. 654 (1946).

[1058] Ibid. 658.

[1059] Johannessen _v._ United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912) and Knauer

_v._ United States, 328 U.S. 654, 673 (1946).

[1060] 66 Stat. 163, tit. III, Sec. 352 (a).

[1061] Perkins _v._ Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329, 334 (1939). Naturalization

has a retroactive effect and removes all liability to forfeiture of land

held while an alien (Osterman _v._ Baldwin, 6 Wall. 116, 122 (1867));

the subsequent naturalization of an alien who takes land by grant or by

location on public land relates back and obviates every consequence of

his alien disability (Manuel _v._ Wulff, 152 U.S. 505, 511 (1894); Doe

ex dem. Governeur's Heirs _v._ Robertson, 11 Wheat. 332, 350 (1826)). A

certificate of naturalization, while conclusive as a judgment of

citizenship, cannot be introduced in a distinct proceeding as evidence

of residence, age or good character of the person naturalized (Mutual

Ben. L. Ins. Co. _v._ Tisdale, 91 U.S. 238 (1876)).

[1062] Chirac _v._ Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, 269 (1817).

[1063] Holmgren _v._ United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910), where it was

also held that Congress may provide for the punishment of false swearing

in such proceedings in State court. Ibid. 520.

[1064] Spragins _v._ Houghton, 3 Ill. 377 (1840); Stewart _v._ Foster, 2

Binney's (Pa.) 110 (1809).

[1065] Shanks _v._ Dupont, 3 Pet. 242, 240 (1830).

[1066] 15 Stat. 223; 8 U.S.C.A. Sec. 800.

[1067] MacKenzie _v._ Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 309, 311-312 (1915). In this

case, a now obsolete statute (34 Stat. 1228), known as the Citizenship

Act of 1907, which divested the citizenship of a woman marrying an

alien, was upheld as constitutional. Under the Act of June 27, 1952,

these conditions comprise the following: (1) Obtaining naturalization in

a foreign State; (2) Taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign State;

(3) Serving in the armed forces of a foreign State without authorization

and with consequent acquisition of foreign nationality; (4) Assuming

public office under the government of a foreign State, for which only

nationals of that State are eligible; (5) Voting in an election or

participating in a plebiscite in a foreign State; (6) Formal

renunciation of citizenship before an American foreign service officer

abroad; (7) Conviction and discharge from the armed services for

desertion in time of war; (8) Conviction of treason or an attempt at

forceful overthrow of the United States; (9) Formal renunciation of

citizenship within the United States in time of war, subject to approval

by the Attorney General; (10) Fleeing or remaining outside the United

States in time of war or proclaimed emergency in order to evade military

training; (11) Residence by a naturalized citizen, subject to certain

exceptions, for two to three years in the country of his birth or in

which he formerly was a national or for five years in any other foreign

State, and (12) Minor children, of naturalized citizens losing

citizenship by such foreign residence, also lose their United States

citizenship if they acquire the nationality of a foreign State; but not

until they attain the age of 25 without having acquired permanent

residence in the United States. 66 Stat. 163; Tit. III Sec. 349-357.

[1068] Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889); _See also_

Fong Yue Ting _v._ United States, 149 U.S. 698, 705 (1893); Japanese

Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86 (1903); Turner _v._ Williams, 194 U.S. 279

(1904); Bugajewitz _v._ Adams, 228 U.S. 585 (1913); Hines _v._

Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).

[1069] 66 Stat. 163; Tit. II, Sec. 212.

[1070] Ibid. Sec. 212 (a) (28) (F).

[1071] 54 Stat. 670.

[1072] Hines _v._ Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 69-70.

[1073] 66 Stat. 163; Tit. II, Sec. 261-266.

[1074] 338 U.S. 537 (1950).

[1075] 59 Stat. 659.

[1076] 338 U.S. at 543.

[1077] Carlson _v._ Landon, 342 U.S. 524 (1952).

[1078] 54 Stat. 670.

[1079] Harisiades _v._ Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 587 (1952).

[1080] 8 U.S.C, Sec. 156 C was the provision in question.

[1081] United States _v._ Spector, 343 U.S. 169 (1952).

[1082] Keller _v._ United States, 213 U.S. 138 (1909).

[1083] Ibid. 149-150. For the requirements of due process of law in the

deportation of alien, _see_ p. 852 (Amendment V).

[1084] Adams _v._ Storey, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 66 (1817).

[1085] 2 Stat. 19 (1800).

[1086] Story's Commentaries, II, 1113 (Cooley's ed. 1873).

[1087] 186 U.S. 181 (1902).

[1088] Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. _v._ Chicago, R.I. &

P.R. Co., 294 U.S. 648, 670 (1935).

[1089] United States _v._ Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938), distinguishing

Ashton _v._ Cameron County Water Improv. Dist., 298 U.S. 513 (1936).

[1090] In re Reiman, Fed. Cas. No. 11,673 (1874), cited with approval in

Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. _v._ Chicago, R.I. & P.R.

Co., 294 U.S. 648, 672 (1935).

[1091] Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. _v._ Chicago, R.I. &

P.R. Co., 294 U.S. 648 (1935).

[1092] Wright _v._ Mountain Trust Bank, 300 U.S. 440 (1937); Adair _v._

Bank of America Assn., 303 U.S. 350 (1938).

[1093] Wright _v._ Union Central Insurance Co., 304 U.S. 502 (1938).

[1094] 294 U.S. 648 (1935).

[1095] Ibid. 671.

[1096] Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank _v._ Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 589,

602 (1935).

[1097] Ashton _v._ Cameron County Water Improvement District, 298 U.S.

513 (1936). _But see_ United States _v._ Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938).

[1098] Chicago Title & Trust Co. _v._ 4136 Wilcox Bldg. Corp., 302 U.S.

120 (1937).

[1099] Re Klein, 1 How. 277 (1843); Hanover Nat. Bank _v._ Moyses, 186

U.S. 181 (1902).

[1100] United States _v._ Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938).

[1101] Stellwagen _v._ Clum, 245 U.S. 605 (1918); Hanover Nat. Bank _v._

Moyses, 186 U.S. 181, 190 (1902).

[1102] Hanover Nat. Bank _v._ Moyses, 186 U.S. 181, 184 (1902).

[1103] Sturges _v._ Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 199 (1819); Ogden _v._

Saunders, 12 Wheat. 212, 368 (1827).

[1104] Tua _v._ Carriere, 117 U.S. 201 (1886); Butler _v._ Goreley, 146

U.S. 303, 314 (1892).

[1105] Sturges _v._ Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 (1819).

[1106] Ogden _v._ Saunders, 12 Wheat. 212, 358 (1827); Denny _v._

Bennett, 128 U.S. 489, 498 (1888); Brown _v._ Smart, 145 U.S. 454

(1892).

[1107] Re Watts, 190 U.S. 1, 27 (1903); International Shoe Co. _v._

Pinkus, 278 U.S. 261, 264 (1929).

[1108] International Shoe Co. _v._ Pinkus, 278 U.S. 261, 265 (1929).

[1109] Kalb _v._ Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (1940).

[1110] Stellwagen _v._ Clum, 245 U.S. 605, 615 (1918).

[1111] Reitz _v._ Mealey, 314 U.S. 33 (1941).

[1112] New York _v._ Irving Trust Co., 288 U.S. 329 (1933).

[1113] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).

[1114] Veazie Bank _v._ Fenno, 8 Wall. 533 (1869).

[1115] Ibid. 548.

[1116] Merchants Nat. Bank _v._ United States, 101 U.S. 1 (1880).

[1117] Nortz _v._ United States, 294 U.S. 317 (1935).

[1118] Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 549 (1871); Juilliard _v._

Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 449 (1884).

[1119] Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457 (1871).

[1120] Norman _v._ Baltimore & O.R. Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935).

[1121] Ling Su Fan _v._ United States, 218 U.S. 302 (1910).

[1122] United States _v._ Marigold, 9 How. 560, 568 (1850).

[1123] Fox _v._ Ohio, 5 How. 410 (1847).

[1124] United States _v._ Marigold, 9 How. 560, 568 (1850).

[1125] Ibid.

[1126] Baender _v._ Barnett, 255 U.S. 224 (1921).

[1127] Knox _v._ Lee (Legal Tender Cases), 12 Wall. 457, 536 (1871).

[1128] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819); Osborn _v._

Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 861 (1824); Farmers' & Mechanics'

Nat. Bank _v._ Dearing, 91 U.S.C. 29, 33 (1875); Smith _v._ Kansas City

Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 208 (1921).

[1129] Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 540-547 (1871).

[1130] Perry _v._ United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).

[1131] Ibid. 361.

[1132] United States _v._ Railroad Bridge Co., Fed. Cas. No. 16,114

(1855).

[1133] Searight _v._ Stokes, 3 How. 151, 166 (1845).

[1134] 91 U.S. 367 (1876).

[1135] Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 732 (1878).

[1136] Searight _v._ Stokes, 3 How. 151, 169 (1845).

[1137] Re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 599 (1895).

[1138] 2 Cong. Globe 4, 10 (1835).

[1139] Ibid. 298. On this point his reasoning would appear to be

vindicated by such decisions, as Bowman _v._ Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 125

U.S. 465 (1888) and Leisy _v._ Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890) denying the

right of the States to prevent the importation of alcoholic beverages

from other States.

[1140] 96 U.S. 727 (1878).

[1141] Ibid. 732.

[1142] Public Clearing House _v._ Coyne, 194 U.S. 497 (1904), followed

in Donaldson _v._ Read Magazine, 333 U.S. 178 (1948).

[1143] 194 U.S. at 506.

[1144] Lewis Publishing Co. _v._ Morgan, 229 U.S. 288, 316 (1913).

[1145] 255 U.S. 407 (1921).

[1146] Hannegan _v._ Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 155 (1946).

[1147] 49 Stat. 803, 812, 813 (1935), 15 U.S.C. 79d, 79e (1946).

[1148] Electric Bond & Share Co. _v._ Securities and Exchange Comm'n.,

303 U.S. 419 (1938).

[1149] Ibid. 442.

[1150] Pensacola Teleg. Co. _v._ Western U. Teleg. Co., 90 U.S. 1

(1878).

[1151] Illinois C.R. Co. _v._ Illinois ex rel. Butler, 163 U.S. 142

(1896).

[1152] Gladson _v._ Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 (1897).

[1153] Price _v._ Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 U.S. 218 (1885); Martin _v._

Pittsburgh & L.E.R. Co., 203 U.S. 284 (1906).

[1154] Railway Mail Assn. _v._ Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (1945).

[1155] United States _v._ Kirby, 7 Wall. 482 (1869).

[1156] Johnson _v._ Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920).

[1157] Pennock _v._ Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 17, 18 (1829).

[1158] Wheaton _v._ Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 656, 658 (1834).

[1159] Kendall _v._ Winsor, 21 How. 322, 328 (1859); Great Atlantic &

Pacific Tea Co. _v._ Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).

[1160] Evans _v._ Jordan, 9 Cr. 199 (1815); Bloomer _v._ McQuewan, 14

How. 539, 548 (1852); Bloomer _v._ Millinger, 1 Wall. 340, 350 (1864);

Eunson _v._ Dodge, 18 Wall. 414, 416 (1873).

[1161] Brown _v._ Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 195 (1857).

[1162] Seymour _v._ Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 549 (1871). _Cf._ Union Paper

Collar Co. _v._ Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 530, 563 (1875); Reckendorfer _v._

Faber, 92 U.S. 347, 356 (1876).

[1163] Smith _v._ Nichols, 21 Wall. 112, 118 (1875).

[1164] Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. _v._ Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 507 (1874);

Clark Thread Co. _v._ Willimantic Linen Co., 140 U.S. 481, 489 (1891).

[1165] Funk Bros. Seed Co. _v._ Kalo Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948).

_Cf._ Dow Chemical Co. _v._ Halliburton Co., 324 U.S. 320 (1945); Cuno

Corp. _v._ Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 89 (1941).

[1166] Sinclair & Carroll Co. _v._ Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327

(1945); Marconi Wireless Teleg. Co. _v._ United States, 320 U.S. 1

(1943).

[1167] Keystone Mfg. Co. _v._ Adams, 151 U.S. 139 (1894); Diamond Rubber

Co. _v._ Consolidated Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428 (1911).

[1168] Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. _v._ Supermarket Equipment

Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950). An interesting concurring opinion was filed

by Justice Douglas for himself and Justice Black: "It is not enough,"

says Justice Douglas, "that an article is new and useful. The

Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. Patents serve a

higher end--the advancement of science. An invention need not be as

startling as an atomic bomb to be patentable. But it has to be of such

quality and distinction that masters of the scientific field in which it

falls will recognize it as an advance." Ibid. 154-155. He then quotes

the following from an opinion of Justice Bradley's given 70 years ago:

"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every

trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would

naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in

the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation

of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate

invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their

business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam

in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax

upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the

real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of

business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown

liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in

good faith. (Atlantic Works _v._ Brady, 107 U.S. 192, 200 (1882))."

Ibid. 155.

The opinion concludes: "The attempts through the years to get a broader,

looser conception of patents than the Constitution contemplates have

been persistent. The Patent Office, like most administrative agencies,

has looked with favor on the opportunity which the exercise of

discretion affords to expand its own jurisdiction. And so it has placed

a host of gadgets under the armour of patents--gadgets that obviously

have had no place in the constitutional scheme of advancing scientific

knowledge. A few that have reached this Court show the pressure to

extend monopoly to the simplest of devices:

"Hotchkiss _v._ Greenwood, 11 How. 248 (1850): Doorknob made of clay

rather than metal or wood, where different shaped doorknobs had

previously been made of clay.

"Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. _v._ Howard, 20 Wall. 498 (1874): Rubber caps put

on wood pencils to serve as erasers.

"Union Paper Collar Co. _v._ Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 530 (1875): Making

collars of parchment paper where linen paper and linen had previously

been used.

"Brown _v._ Piper, 91 U.S. 37 (1875): A method for preserving fish by

freezing them in a container operating in the same manner as an ice

cream freezer.

"Reckendorfer _v._ Faber, 92 U.S. 347 (1876): Inserting a piece of

rubber in a slot in the end of a wood pencil to serve as an eraser.

"Dalton _v._ Jennings, 93 U.S. 271 (1876): Fine thread placed across

open squares in a regular hairnet to keep hair in place more

effectively.

"Double-Pointed Tack Co. _v._ Two Rivers Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 117 (1883):

Putting a metal washer on a wire staple.

"Miller _v._ Foree, 116 U.S. 22 (1885): A stamp for impressing initials

in the side of a plug of tobacco.

"Preston _v._ Manard, 116 U.S. 661 (1886): A hose reel of large diameter

so that water may flow through hose while it is wound on the reel.

"Hendy _v._ Miners' Iron Works, 127 U.S. 370 (1888): Putting rollers on

a machine to make it moveable.

"St. Germain _v._ Brunswick, 135 U.S. 227 (1890): Revolving cue rack.

"Shenfield _v._ Nashawannuck Mfg. Co., 137 U.S. 56 (1890): Using flat

cord instead of round cord for the loop at the end of suspenders.

"Florsheim _v._ Schilling, 137 U.S. 64 (1890): Putting elastic gussets

in corsets.

"Cluett _v._ Claflin, 140 U.S. 180 (1891): A shirt bosom or dickie sewn

onto the front of a shirt.

"Adams _v._ Bellaire Stamping Co., 141 U.S. 539 (1891): A lantern lid

fastened to the lantern by a hinge on one side and a catch on the other.

"Patent Clothing Co. _v._ Glover, 141 U.S. 560 (1891): Bridging a strip

of cloth across the fly of pantaloons to reinforce them against tearing.

"Pope Mfg. Co. _v._ Gormully Mfg. Co., 144 U.S. 238 (1892): Placing

rubber hand grips on bicycle handlebars.

"Knapp _v._ Morss, 150 U.S. 221 (1893): Applying the principle of the

umbrella to a skirt form.

"Morgan Envelope Co. _v._ Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U.S.

425 (1894): An oval rather than cylindrical toilet paper roll, to

facilitate tearing off strips.

"Dunham _v._ Dennison Mfg. Co., 154 U.S. 103 (1894): An envelope flap

which could be fastened to the envelope in such a fashion that the

envelope could be opened without tearing.

"The patent involved in the present case belongs to this list of

incredible patents which the Patent Office has spawned. The fact that a

patent as flimsy and as spurious as this one has to be brought all the

way to this Court to be declared invalid dramatically illustrates how

far our patent system frequently departs from the constitutional

standards which are supposed to govern." Ibid. 156-158.

[1169] "Inventive genius"--Justice Hunt in Reckendorfer _v._ Faber, 92

U.S. 347, 357 (1875); "Genius or invention"--Chief Justice Fuller in

Smith _v._ Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674, 681 (1893); "Intuitive

genius"--Justice Brown in Potts _v._ Creager, 155 U.S. 597, 607 (1895);

"Inventive genius"--Justice Stone in Concrete Appliances Co. _v._

Gomery, 269 U.S. 177, 185 (1925); "Inventive genius"--Justice Roberts in

Mantle Lamp Co. _v._ Aluminum Co., 301 U.S. 544, 546 (1937); Justice

Douglas in Cuno Corp. _v._ Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 91

(1941); "the flash of creative genius, not merely the skill of the

calling." _See also_ Note 2 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to

Footnote 1163, above.]

[1170] _See_ Note 7 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote

1168, above.]

[1171] Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. _v._ Supermarket Equipment

Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950); Mahn _v._ Harwood, 112 U.S. 354, 358 (1884).

[1172] Evans _v._ Eaton, 3 Wheat. 454, 512 (1818).

[1173] United States _v._ Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 586-589 (1899). _See

also_ Butterworth _v._ Hoe, 112 U.S. 50 (1884).

[1174] Wheaton _v._ Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 660 (1834); Holmes _v._ Hurst,

174 U.S. 82 (1899). _Cf._ E. Burke Inlow, The Patent Clause (1950)

Chaps. III and IV, for evidence of a judicial recognition of an

inventor's inchoate right to have his invention patented.

[1175] Wheaton _v._ Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 662 (1834); Evans _v._ Jordan, 9

Cr. 199 (1815).

[1176] Kalem Co. _v._ Harper Bros. 222 U.S. 55 (1911).

[1177] Baker _v._ Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 105 (1880).

[1178] Stevens _v._ Gladding, 17 How. 447 (1855).

[1179] Ager _v._ Murray, 105 U.S. 126 (1882).

[1180] James _v._ Campbell, 104 U.S. 356, 358 (1882). _See also_ United

States _v._ Burns, 12 Wall. 246, 252 (1871); Cammeyer _v._ Newton, 94

U.S. 225, 234 (1877); Hollister _v._ Benedict Manufacturing Co., 113

U.S. 59, 67 (1885); United States _v._ Palmer, 128 U.S. 262, 271 (1888);

Belknap _v._ Schild, 161 U.S. 10, 16 (1896).

[1181] McClurg _v._ Kingsland, 1 How. 202, 206 (1843).

[1182] Bloomer _v._ McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 553 (1852).

[1183] _See_ Motion Picture Co. _v._ Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502

(1917); Morton Salt Co. _v._ Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942); United

States _v._ Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942); and United States _v._

New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952), where the Justices divide 6 to 3

as to the significance for the case of certain leading precedents. _See

also_ Inlow, The Patent Clause, Chap. V.

[1184] Patterson _v._ Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 (1879).

[1185] Allen _v._ Riley, 203 U.S. 347 (1906): Woods & Sons _v._ Carl,

203 U.S. 358 (1906); Ozan Lumber Co. _v._ Union County Bank, 207 U.S.

251 (1907).

[1186] Fox Film Corp. _v._ Doyal, 280 U.S. 123 (1932)--overruling Long

_v._ Rockwood, 277 U.S. 142 (1928).

[1187] 100 U.S. 82 (1879).

[1188] Ibid. 94.

[1189] Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. _v._ Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).

[1190] Bleistein _v._ Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 252

(1903).

[1191] Kent, Commentaries, 1-2, (12th ed. 1873).

[1192] XIX Journals of the Continental Congress 315, 361 (1912). XX Id.

762, XXI id. 1136-1137, 1158.

[1193] Article IX.

[1194] Madison, Journal of the Constitutional Convention, II, 82 (Hunt's

ed. 1908).

[1195] Ibid. 185-186, 372.

[1196] United States _v._ Smith, 5 Wheat. 153, 160, 162 (1820). _See

also_ The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat. 1, 40-41 (1826); United States _v._

Brig Malek Abhel, 2 How. 210, 232 (1844).

[1197] 317 U.S. 1, 27 (1942).

[1198] Ibid. 28.

[1199] United States _v._ Arjona, 120 U.S. 479, 487, 488 (1887).

[1200] United States _v._ Flores, 3 F. Supp. 134 (1932).

[1201] 289 U.S. 137, 149-150 (1933).

[1202] United States _v._ Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184, 200 (1920).

[1203] The Federalist No. 23.

[1204] Penhallow _v._ Doane, 3 Dall. 54 (1795).

[1205] 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).

[1206] Ibid. 407. Emphasis supplied.

[1207] Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 139 (1866) (dissenting opinion);

_see also_ Miller _v._ United States, 11 Wall. 268, 305 (1871); and

United States _v._ Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 622 (1931).

[1208] 58 Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 1st sess., App. 1 (1861).

[1209] Hamilton _v._ Dillin, 21 Wall. 73, 86 (1875).

[1210] Northern P.R. Co. _v._ North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135, 149 (1919).

[1211] Home Bldg. & Loan Assoc. _v._ Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934).

[1212] Northern P.R. Co. _v._ North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135, 149 (1919).

[1213] 299 U.S. 304 (1936).

[1214] Ibid. 316, 318.

[1215] 334 U.S. 742 (1948).

[1216] Ibid. 757-758.

[1217] Ibid. 755.

[1218] II Madison Journal of the Constitutional Convention 82 (Hunt's

ed. 1908).

[1219] Ibid. 188.

[1220] 11 Annals of Congress 11 (1801).

[1221] Works of Alexander Hamilton, VII, 746 (Hamilton's ed. 1851).

_Cf._ Bas _v._ Tingy, 4 Dall. 37 (1800).

[1222] 2 Stat. 129, 130 (1802). Emphasis supplied.

[1223] The Prize Cases, 2 Bl. 635, 668 (1863).

[1224] Ibid. 683, 688.

[1225] 12 Wall. 700 (1872).

[1226] Ibid. 702.