among those to whom this privilege is granted. | -Hendrick v. State of Maryland, 35 S. Ct. 140. An automobile owner cannot complain of discrimination, under Laws Md. 1910, c. 207, for licensing automobiles because the fee is graduated according to the horse power where the power of his car does not appear.-Id.

regulations in the interest of public safety which the Legislature has duly enacted, if the means employed have a substantial relation to the purpose to be accomplished.-Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. City of Omaha, 35 S. Ct. 82.

IV. POLICE POWER IN GENERAL. § 42 (U.S.Sup.) A carrier cannot object on constitutional grounds to procedure under Ky. lawful police regulation cannot be made such by § 81 (U.S.Sup.) A statutory provision not a St. § 820, to recover payments in excess of rates being placed in the same act with a police regufound by State Railroad Commission to be rea- lation, or by enactment under title declaring sonable, because it cannot produce evidence oth-a prover purpose for the exercise of such power than that presented to the Commission at a er-Coppage v. State of Kansas, 35 S. Ct. 240. trial in the court, unless the court is satisfied that the evidence could not have been produced before the Commission with reasonable diligence, where no defense is shown that the carrier has not either interposed or waived before the Commission.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Finn, 35 S. Ct. 146.

$42 (U.S.Sup.) An employer cannot object to discrimination, so far as it affects employés, which the Ohio Workmen's Compensation Act (Page & A. Gen. Code, § 1465-37 et seq.) makes between employés in shops with five or more employés and those in shops having a lesser number.-Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Blagg, 35 S. Ct.

167.

§ 42 (U.S.Sup.) A person is not precluded from complaining that taking of his property to satisfy an alleged debt was without notice and hearing, necessary, under Const. U. S. Amend. 14, because he had no adequate defense on the merits.-Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 35 S. Ct. 625.

§ 42 (U.S.Sup.) Validity under due process of law clause of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, of Rev. St. Mo. 1909, § 10322, requiring affidavit from officers that corporation has not issued and does not own trust certificates, cannot be attacked for uncertain meaning of such term, by corporation refusing to file affidavit on theory that it was not obliged to make any such disclosure.-Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. State of Missouri ex rel. Jones, 35 S. Ct. 671.

§ 46 (U.S.Sup.) The tax on gross receipts of sleeping and parlor car companies imposed under Laws Fla. 1907, c. 5596, § 47, held not discriminatory because not affecting railroads operating their own sleeping cars, where there does not appear to be any such railroad in the state.-Pullman Co. v. Knott, 35 S. Ct. 2.

III. DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERN-
MENTAL POWERS AND
FUNCTIONS.

(A) Legislative Powers and Delegation
Thereof.

§ 62 (U.S.Sup.) Legislative power is not unlawfully delegated by Act April 16, 1913 (103 Ohio Laws, p. 399), creating board of censors to examine motion picture films to be publicly exhibited, and to approve only such as are of an educational or harmless character.-Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 35 S. Ct. 387; Mutual Film Co. v. Same, 35 S. Ct. 393.

$62 (U.S.Sup.) Administrative officers are not unlawfully given legislative power, by Laws Kan. 1913, c. 294, requiring motion picture films to be first approved by superintendent of public instruction, before exhibition; his disapproval being reviewable by a commission.Mutual Film Corp. of Missouri v. Hodges, 35 S. Ct. 393.

(B) Judicial Powers and Functions.

$70 (U.S.Sup.) Courts cannot interfere with the exercise of the police power by enjoining

V. PERSONAL, CIVIL, AND POLITI-
CAL RIGHTS.

$ 82 (U.S.Sup.) Under Const. Amend. 14, the restriction of liberty or of property rights cannot be denominated public welfare and treated as a legitimate object of the police power.Coppage v. State of Kansas, 35 S. Ct. 240.

$83 (U.S.Sup.) A condition of peonage forbidden by Const. I. S. Amend. 13, and Rev. St. . S. $$ 1990, 5526 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1266, 3715), results from Code, Ala. § 6846, under which a person fined for a misdemeanor may confess judgment with a surety in the amount of the fine and agreeing with the surety on payment of the judgment to reimburse him by working for him on terms approved by the court.-United States v. Reynolds, 35 S. Ct. 86. $90 (U.S.Sup.) The freedom of speech and publication under Const. Ohio art. 1, § 11, with responsibility only for abuse, is not violated by April 16, 1913 (103 Ohio Laws, p. 399), creating a board of censors of motion picture films.-Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 35 S. Ct. 387; Mutual Film Co. V. Same, 35 S. Ct. 393.

$90 (U.S.Sup.) Constitutional freedom of speech is not violated by Laws Kan. 1913, c. 294, requiring motion picture films to be first examined before exhibition by superintendent of public instruction.- Mutual Film Corp. of Missouri v. Hodges, 35 S. Ct. 393.

VI. VESTED RIGHTS.

§ 110 (U.S.Sup.) No vested rights of the owners of realty are interfered with by overruling earlier decisions so as to render property liable for an assessment for the widening of a street after damages for the part taken have been fixed.-Willoughby v. City of Chicago, 35 S. Ct.

23.

VII. OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. (B) Contracts of States and Municipalities.

§ 133 (U.S.Sup.) The common-enemy doctrine as to surface water was not so imported into railroad's irrepealable charter or its contracts with landowners from whom its right of way was acquired, as to be protected by the contract clause of the federal Constitution.-Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Tranbarger, 35 S. Ct. 678.

Compelling railroads to construct openings in roadbeds to take care of surface water under amendment Laws Mo. 1907, p. 169, to Rev. St. 1899, § 1110, does not impair obligation of railroads' charters.-Id.

§ 134 (U.S.Sup.) Acceptance of permit granted by a city under legislative authority to place wires in a city's streets creates a contract which cannot thereafter constitutionally be revoked by resolution or ordinance unless the franchise is lost by misuser or nonuser.-New York Electric Lines Co. v. Empire City Subway Co., 35 S. Ct. 72.

§ 229 (U.S.Sup.) There is no denial of the § 240 (U.S.Sup.) An ordinance passed under equal protection of the laws in the imposition authority of the Legislature, making it unlawFor cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (§) NUMBER

ful to conduct a livery stable within a designated area, does not infringe on rights granted by the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution.-Reinman v. City of Little Rock, 35 S. Ct. 511.

$240 (U.S.Sup.) Requiring from officers of corporation an affidavit setting forth nonparticipation in trust combinations under Rev. St. Mo. 10,322, does not deny equal protection of the laws because individuals, partnerships, and associations are not required to make such affidavits, Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. State of Missouri ex rel. Jones, 35 S. Ct. 671.

$241 (U.S.Sup.) Equal protection of the laws is not denied by Laws Mo. 1907, p. 169, amending Rev. St. 1899, § 1110, requiring openings in rights of way to take care of surface water. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Tranbarger, 35 8. Ct. 678.

§ 247 (U.S.Sup.) A state statute imposing enormous penalties for violating orders of state railroad commission, held violative of Const. U. 8. Amend. 14 as denying equal protection of the laws though full hearing is necorded where resort to the courts may be had only at great risk.Wadley Southern Ry. Co. v. State of Georgia, 35 S. Ct. 214.

Penalty of $5,000 per day for violating orders of state railroad commission imposed by Civ. Code Ga. 1910, § 2667 does not deny equal protection of the laws contrary to Const. U. S Amend. 14 where judicial review is accorded by Civ. Code Ga. 1910, § 2625.-Id.

Carrier failing to resort to remedy accorded by Civ. Code Ga. 1910, § 2625 for relief against order of railroad commission but attacking validity of order when sued under section 2667, held not denied equal protection of the laws by being compelled to pay the penalties imposed. -Id.

cludes notice and a hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction.-Frank v. Mangum, 35 S. Ct. 582.

$257 (U.S.Sup.) Person indicted for perjury in testifying, in a suit by his alleged wife for alimony, that they were not married, held not able to contend that his conviction under a new indictment for perjury on the trial of the first indictment was lacking in due process of law, on the ground that the court refused to consider his defense that the evidence was not material to the issue.-Collins v. Johnston, 35 S. Ct. 649.

§ 268 (U.S.Sup.) There is no denial of due process of law guaranteed by Const. U. S. Amend. 14, in practice in Georgia, that accused may waive his right to be present when the jury renders its verdict, and waiver is inferred by a motion for new trial on other grounds alone.-Frank v. Mangum, 35 S. Ct. 582.

$269 (U.S.Sup.) Allowance of a new trial by a state under better auspices, where the first trial is rendered abortive by mob domination, satisfies due process of law clause of Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Frank v. Mangum, 35 S. Ct.

582.

$270 (U.S.Sup.) A sentence of 14 years' imprisonment for perjury, under Pen. Code Cal. § 126, does not deprive the convict of liberty without due process of law, - Collins v. Johnston, 35 S. Ct. 649,

§ 274 (U.S.Sup.) The state may require a member of a Greek letter fraternity at another college to renounce his allegiance with such fraternity before admitting him as a student to the state university, without denying him due process of law.-Waugh v. Board of Trustees of University of Mississippi, 35 S. Ct. 720. $275 (U.S.Sup.) Whatever right an employer 247 (U.S.Sup.) A penalty of from $300 to or employé has, under the due process clause of $600, imposed by the so-called Ohio "run-of-Const. U. S. Amend. 14, to treat as ground for mine" or "anti-screen" law, for each separate terminating the employment, he can provide violation of the net, is not so great as to ren- against by a stipulation which may be a sine der the statute a violation of the equal protec qua non of the employment.-Coppage v. State tion of the laws under Const. U. S. Amend. 14. of Kansas, 35 S. Ct. 240. by preventing resort to the courts to test con- | stitutional-ty of the law. Rail & River Coal Co. v. Yaple, 35 S. Ct. 359,

The rights of personal liberty and property are infringed without due process of law contrary to Const. U. S. Amend. 14, by Laws Kan. 1903, c. 222, punishing an employer for having prescribed as a condition of employment that the employé shall not become or remain a member of a labor organization pending employment.

$248 (U.S.Sup.) Equal protection of the laws is denied railway companies by Laws Kan. 1905, c. 345, under which, as amended by Laws Kan. 1907, c. 275, an attorney's fee is allowed ship per who successfully sues a railroad for failure-Id. to furnish cars, while no such allowance is made in successful action by railroad in suit under such statute against a shipper failing to use the cars.-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Vosburg,

35 S. Ct. 675.

§ 250 (U.S.Sup.) Equal protection of the laws is not denied to a person sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment on conviction of perjury, under Pen. Code Cal. § 126, though for other crimes of greater gravity 5 years' imprisonment may be the average maximum penalty.-Collins v. Johnston, 35 S. Ct. 649.

ding employment of women for more than 8 § 275 (U.S.Sup.) St. Cal. 1911, p. 437, forbidhours a day or 48 hours a week, does not, as applied to women employed in hotels, violate Const. U. S. Amend. 14, as infringing freedom to contract.-Miller v. Wilson, 35 S. Ct. 342.

$275 (U.S.Sup.) A graduate woman pharmacist employed in a hospital is not denied freedom to contract given by Const. U. S. Amend. 14, because under St. Cal. 1911, p. 437, as amended by St. Cal. 1913, p. 713, she is forbidden to work more than 8 hours a day or 48 hours a week.-Bosley v. McLaughlin, 35 S. Ct. 345. Forbidding women student nurses in a hos§pital school to work for longer than certain hours under St. Cal. 1911, p. 437, as amended by St. Cal. 1913, p. 713, does not infringe freedom to contract given by Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Id.

XI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. $255 (U.S.Sup.) Rem. & Bal. Code Wash. 2564, making criminal editing of printed matter advocating disrespect for law, held not a violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, as an unjustifiable restriction of liberty.-Fox v. State of Washington, 35 S. Ct. 383.

257 (U.S.Sup.) Criminal prosecution in a state court under law not repugnant to federal Constitution according to the course of judicial proceedings in such state is due process of law within Const. U. S. Amend. 14, where it in

Extension by St. Cal. 1913, p. 713, to women employed in hospitals, office assistants, and those engaged in household work, of the provisions of St. Cal. 1911, p. 437, does not render the statute invalid as denying freedom to con-tract.-Id.

§ 275 (U.S.Sup.) Freedom to contract secured | land for $166 to satisfy a tax amounting, with by Const. U. S. Amend. 14, against state inva- penalties, to but $16.19.-Chapman v. Zobelein, sion, is not infringed by the so-called Ohio 35 S. Ct. 518. "run-of-mine" or "anti-screen" law.-Rail & River Coal Co. v. Yaple, 35 S. Ct. 359.

§ 275 (U.S.Sup.) Due process of law is not denied by Act Ind. March 8, 1907 (Laws 1907, c. 121), requiring owners of coal mines and other similar places to provide suitable washhouses for employés on request.-Booth v. State of Indiana, 35 S. Ct. 617.

$278 (U.S.Sup.) Any right to have beneficiaries on behalf of deceased Creek citizen ascertained by Creek tribal laws under provision of Original Creek Agreement March 1, 1901, § 28, could without denying due process of law be recalled by Act May 27, 1902, and Supplemental Creek Agreement June 30, 1902, § 6.Sizemore v. Brady, 35 S. Ct. 135.

§ 278 (U.S.Sup.) The reserved right of state to amend corporate charter cannot be so exercised as to take property of corporation without due process of law.-Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. State of Wisconsin, 35 S. Ct. 869.

§ 278 (U.S.Sup.) Prohibition of sale of food preservatives containing boric acid, made to protect the public health, by Hurd's Rev. St. Ill. 1913, c. 127b, §§ 8, 22, as construed by the state court, held not a deprivation of property without due process of law.-Price v. People of State of Illinois, 35 S. Ct. 892.

§ 296 (U.S.Sup.) A foreign life foreign life insurance company is not denied due process of law, within Const. U. S. Amend. 14, because the state insurance commissioner, in his discretion, under Act S. C. March 8, 1910 (26 St. at Large, p. 774) § 13, has refused to accept bond of surety company on insurance company's application for a license.-State of South Carolina ex rel. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. McMaster, 35 S. Ct. 504.

§ 296 (U.S.Sup.) An ordinance making it unlawful to conduct a livery stable within a designated area held not violation of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution.-Reinman v. City of Little Rock, 35 S. Ct. 511.

§ 296 (U.S.Sup.) Requiring managers of corporation organized prior to 1900 to make affidavit prescribed by Rev. St. Mo. 1909, § 10322, as to nonparticipation in any combination, etc., is not inconsistent with due process of law, though statute prescribes a form of affidavit stating the year as "19-," as the year of incorporation, with instructions that no changes shall be made.-Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. State of Missouri ex rel. Jones, 35 S. Ct. 671.

Corporation doing business in St. Louis, which, under laws of Missouri, is not a part of any county, required to make affidavit by § 280 (U.S.Sup.) The property rights of abut-Rev. St. Mo. 1909, § 10322, of nonparticipating owner are not taken without due process of law because, in suit to recover for loss by erection of an elevated road, the court refused to submit questions of damage under instruction to exclude from market value after construction of railroad any enhancement from facilities furnished by the improvement.-Brand v. Union Elevated R. Co., 35 S. Ct. 846.

§ 283 (U.S.Sup.) Property of a foreign rail§ 283 (U.S.Sup.) Property of a foreign railway company beyond the jurisdiction of the state held not taxed contrary to due process of law by the annual franchise tax imposed by Laws Ark. 1911, p. 67.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. State of Arkansas ex rel. Norwood, 35 S. Ct. 99. There is no denial of due process of law in the imposition on a foreign railway company under Laws Ark. 1911, p. 67, in addition to the general property tax of an annual franchise tax for the privilege of transacting intrastate business.-Id.

tion in trust combinations, is not denied due process of law though the affidavit, which the statute makes immutable, has a jurat in a county, since section 8057 provides that the word "county" shall be construed to include St. Louis. —Id.

§ 297 (U.S.Sup.) A railroad may, consistently with due process of law, be required to conexpense.-Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. City of struct overhead crossings or viaducts at its own Omaha, 35 S. Ct. 82.

struct at its own expense a viaduct at a street An ordinance requiring a railroad to concrossing is not wanting in due process of law because it is to be built along one side of the street only, leaving the other open to public

travel.-Id.

§ 297 (U.S.Sup.) An order of a state railroad commission directing a railroad company to discontinue demanding prepayment of freight from a connecting carrier, held not violative of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, as denying due process 283 (U.S.Sup.) The annual 2 per cent. priv-of law. Wadley Southern Ry. Co. v. State of ilege tax imposed by Act Pa. June 28, 1895 (P. Georgia, 35 S. Ct. 214. L. 408), on gross premiums of foreign life insurance company from business within the state, § 297 (U.S.Sup.) A state, not acting in violamay be levied on premiums paid to the company tion of any federal regulation of interstate comoutside the state by citizens of the state, with-merce, may, without denying due process of out rendering tax a taking of property without law, regulate the hauling of empty or loaded due process of law.-Equitable Life Assurance cars from its line to connecting line for delivery Soc. of the United States v. Commonwealth of or loading of intrastate freight.-Michigan Cent. Pennsylvania, 35 S. Ct. 829. R. Co. v. Michigan R. R. Commission, 35 S. Ct. 422.

§ 284 (U.S.Sup.) Sleeping and parlor car companies failing to make return of their gross receipts between points in the state as required by Laws Fla. 1907, c. 5596, § 47, have no right, under the due process clause of Const. Amend. 14, to a hearing when the state comptroller estimates their gross receipts and adds 10 per cent. to the taxes for failure to obey the law.-Pullman Co. v. Knott, 35 S. Ct. 2.

Property of steam railroad held not taken without due process of law by order of Michigan Railroad Commission under Pub. Acts Mich. 1907, No. 312, § 7, relating to interchange of railroad with interurban electric railway.-Id. § 297 (U.S.Sup.) Compelling railroads to construct openings in roadbeds to take care of surface water under amendment, Laws Mo. 1907, P. 169, to Rev. St. 1899, § 1110, does not take their property without due compensation.-Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Tranbarger, 35 S. Ct. 678. § 297 (U.S.Sup.) Property of Property of two carriers furnishing switching service to each other in a

§ 285 (U.S.Sup.) There was no want of due process of law in proceedings under Pol. Code Cal. § 3897, forfeiting land for nonpayment of taxes because the state, having become vested with title with no offer to redeem, sold the For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (§) NUMBER

§ 298 (1.8.Sup.) Rate of 2 cents a mile fixed for passenger traffic by Acts W. Va. 1907, c.& 41 (Code 1913, c. 54, §8 71fI, 71fII [secs. 3020, 3021]), is a violation of the due process of law clause, as confisentory, where rate yields a very narrow margin over the cost. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Conley, 35 S. Ct. 437.

§309 (U.S.Sup.) Casual notice or granted as a matter of favor in proceedings for the taking of property to satisfy an alleged debt is not a substitute for the due process of law § 298 (U.S.Sup.) The exercise by a state of required by Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Coe v. its power to fix street railway rates, notwith-Armour Fertilizer Works, 35 S. Ct. 625. standing municipal rate ordinance, does not de- § 311 (U.S.Sup.) Rebuttable presumption esprive street railway company of its property tablished by Act Feb. 4, 1887, § 16, as amendwithout due process of law. Milwaukee Elec-ed by Act June 29, 1906, § 5, that findings and trie Ry. & Light Co. v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin, 35 8. Ct. 820,

§303 (U.S.Sup.) Imposition on telephone company, under Kirby's Dig. Ark. § 7948, of penalties aggregating $6,300 for its enforcement Penalty of $5,000 per day for violating order against a patron in arrears of a regulation not of state railroad commission imposed by Civ. to furnish telephone service, takes the property Code Ga. 1910, § 2667, does not deny due proof the company without due process of law.cess of law contrary to Const. I. S. Amend. 14, Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. a judicial review being accorded by Civ. Code, Danaher, 35 S. Ct. 886. Ga. 1910, § 2025.--Id.

305 (1.8.Sup.) Defendant in possessory ac tion for land with a demand for damages for timber taken is not deprived of property without due process of law contrary to Const. Amend. 14, because under Code Prac. La. art. 55, he may not sue to establish title until after judgment in the possessory action and until he shall have satisfied the judgment if against him. Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 35 S. See Bankruptcy, § 453. Ct. 279.

$ 306 (U.S.Sup.) Procedure under Ky. St. § 820, for a recovery before the State Railroad Commission of reparation for payments made to a carrier in excess of the rates found reasonable, does not deny the due process of law guaranteed by Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Finn, 35 S. Ct. 146.