1. Foreign; right to carry on; power of Congress over.
The power of Congress over foreign commerce is complete; no one has
a vested right to carry on foreign commerce with the United States.
(Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470.) The Abby Dodge, 166.
2. Foreign; power of Congress to regulate.
Congress can, by exertion of its power to regulate foreign commerce,
forbid the importation of sponges gathered under conditions ex-
pressed in the act of June 20, 1906. Ib.
Rules of; power of legislature to change.
A person has no property-no vested interest-in any rule of the
common law. While rights of property created by the common
law cannot be taken without due process, the law as a rule of
conduct may, subject to constitutional limitations, be changed
at will by the legislature. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 1.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 5;
COPYRIGHT, 3, 4.
CONGRESS, POWERS OF.
1. Inaction of Congress; effect on power.
The inaction of Congress on a subject within its power does not affect
that power. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 1.
2. Foreign commerce; burden of proving exemption from prohibition.
When Congress, under its power to regulate foreign commerce, pro-
hibits the importation of certain merchandise, it may cast on the
one seeking to bring merchandise in the burden of establishing
that it is exempt from the operation of the statute. The Abby
Dodge, 166.
3. Indians; effect of decree of Court of Claims on power of Congress.
Notwithstanding a decree of the Court of Claims determining the
rights of Indians in a case over which Congress gave the court
jurisdiction, it is competent for Congress to deal further with the
subject. (Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445; Wallace v.
Adams, 204 U. S. 415.) Lowe v. Fisher, 95.
4. Interstate commerce; regulation of relations of common carriers and
employés engaged in.
Congress, in the exertion of its power over interstate commerce,
subject to the limitations prescribed in the Constitution, may
regulate those relations of common carriers by railroad and their
employés which have a substantial connection with interstate
commerce and while both carrier and employé are engaged
therein. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 1.
5. Interstate commerce; power to change rules of common law.
Under the power to regulate relations of employers and employés
while engaged in interstate commerce, Congress may establish
new rules of law in place of common-law rules including those in
regard to fellow-servants, assumption of risk, contributory negli-
gence, and right of action by personal representatives for death
caused by wrongful neglect of another. Ib.
6. Interstate commerce; regulation of relations of employers and employes.
In regulating the relations of employers and employés engaged in
interstate commerce, Congress may regulate the liability of em-
ployers to employés for injuries caused by other employés even
though the latter be engaged in intrastate commerce. Ib.
Commerce includes navigation; Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713;
and the power of Congress over navigation has no limits except
those prescribed in the Constitution. (Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat.
1, 196.) Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 605.
The authority of Congress is not limited to water as it flowed at any
preceding time. Alterations in the course of a stream do not
affect the power of Congress. Ib.
It is for Congress to decide what shall or shall not be deemed in judg-
ment of law an obstruction to navigation.
Wheeling Bridge Co., 18 How. 421.)
Commerce. See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 19, 23, 25.
1. Contract impairment; contract of sale; effect of subsequent statute mak-
ing certain evidence prima facie.
A contract of sale of state lands, on which periodic payments are to
be made, with forfeiture in case of non-payment is not impaired
by a subsequent state statute making the official entries in public
records prima facie, but not conclusive, evidence, of the validity
of proceedings for forfeiture. Reitler v. Harris, 437.
2. Contract impairment; deprivation of property without due process of
law; evidence; validity of Kansas law of 1997, ch. 373.
The statute of Kansas of 1907, c. 373, making entries of default and
proceedings for forfeiture made in usual course of business in the
records of sales of school lands prima facie, but not conclusive,
evidence of the validity of forfeiture proceedings, is not uncon-
stitutional either as depriving one who had previously purchased
lands under the act of 1879, c. 161, § 2, of his property without due
process of law, or as impairing the obligation of the contract under
the act of 1879. Ib.
3. Contract impairment; validity of Ohio act of 1908, § 3283; eminent
domain.
The act of the Ohio legislature of 1908, § 3283, and the ordinance of
the city of Cincinnati thereunder, condemning a right of way
across the public landing at Cincinnati, are not unconstitutional
as impairing the obligation of the contract dedicating the landing
as a common for the use and benefit of the town forever. Cincin-
nati v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 390.
4. Contract within protection of Constitution.
A dedication of land as a common for use and benefits of the town
forever as shown on a plan, and the acceptance by the town and
the sale of lots under the plan constitutes a contract the obliga-
tion whereof is protected by the contract clause of the Federal
Constitution.
5. Criminal law; right of accused to be present at trial; effect of voluntary
One not in custody cannot avail of the right to be heard so as to de-
feat the right of the Government to try him by absenting himself
voluntarily and claiming that under the right to be present provi-
sions of the Sixth Amendment the trial cannot proceed. Diaz v.
United States, 442.
See PHILIPPINE Islands, 5, 6.
6. Due process of law; liberty of contract; effect to deny, of prohibition of
agreements in contravention of act of Congress.
The power of Congress to insure the efficiency of regulations ordained
by it is equal to the power to impose the regulations; and prohibit-
ing the making of agreements by those engaged in interstate com-
merce which in any way limit a liability imposed by Congress on
interstate carriers does not deprive any person of property with-
out due process of law, or abridge liberty of contract in violation
of the Fifth Amendment. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 1.
7. Due process and equal protection of the law; quære as to.
Quare: Whether an element of the due process provisions of the Fifth
Amendment is the equivalent of the equal protection provision
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ib.
8. Due process of law; notice required.
While an essential element of due process of law is opportunity to be
heard, a necessary condition of which is notice, Simon v. Craft,
182 U. S. 427, personal notice is not always necessary. (Ballard
v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241.) Jacob v. Roberts, 261.
9. Due process of law; effect of service of process by publication.
In this case, held, that the proceedings for service by publication show
sufficient inquiry was made to ascertain the whereabouts of the
persons to be served and who were served by publication under
provisions of § 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure of California,
and that due process of law was not denied by service in that
Ib.
10. Due process and equal protection of the law; validity of Texas statute
of 1907 regulating practice of osteopathy.
The Texas statute of 1907, establishing a Board of Medical Examiners,
and conditions under which persons will be licensed to practise
osteopathy, does not deprive one who refuses to apply for a license
thereunder of his property without due process of law, or deny
him the equal protection of the law. Collins v. Texas, 288.
11. Due process of law; effect to deprive, of statute relative to evidence.
One is not deprived of his property without due process of law by a
statute making entries in public records prima facie, but not con-
clusive, evidence, of the validity of the proceedings referred to.
Reitler v. Harris, 437.
12. Due process of law; effect of omission of state court as denial of.
The refusal of the courts of the State to consider as essential to pro-
ceedings to foreclose tax liens certain ministerial duties, the
omission of which can in no way affect the rights of the property
holder, does not amount to denial of due process of law. Ontario
Land Co. v. Wilfong, 543.
13. Due process of law; effect of judgment in proceeding to foreclose tax
lien under laws of Washington.
The tax laws of the State of Washington involved in this case are
clear and simple in their requirements; and the judgment of the
Supreme Court of that State attacked in this suit did not deprive
plaintiff in error of his property without due process of law,
either because of lack of compliance with the statute or of suffi-
ciency of notice to the owner or description of the property.
(Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 212 U. S. 152.) Ib.
See Supra, 2;
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, 2.
14. Equal protection of the law; due process; classification of railroad em-
ployés not denial of.
A classification of railroad employés, even if including all employés,
whether subjected to peculiar hazards incident to operation of
trains or not, is not so arbitrary or unequal as to amount to denial
of equal protection of the laws. Such a classification does not
violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment even if
equal protection is an element of due process. Second Employers'
Liability Cases, 1.
15. Equal protection of the law; effect of state revenue laws to deny.
A State does not deny equal protection of the laws by adjusting its
revenue laws to favor certain industries. Quong Wing v. Kirken-
dall, 59.
|