Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

license, is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.-Brown et al. vs. State of Maryland, 12 Wheat., p. 419. Under the power to regulate commerce, Congress can exclude, either partially or wholly, any subject falling within the legitimate sphere of commercial regulation. United States vs. Marigold, 9 Howard, p. 560.

NAVIGATION. — The power to regulate commerce includes power to regulate navigation. It is exclusive, and may be exercised with or without regulations.-The Chusan, 2 St., p. 456. Also to determine what are obstructions.—Penn, vs. Wheeling and Bal. Bridge Co., 18 H., p. 421; Silliman vs. Hud. Riv. Bri. Co., 4 Bl. C. C.; s. C., Wall, p. 403; Gilman vs. Philadelphia, 3 Wall, p. 713; The Passaic Bridges, id., p. 782; U. S. vs. R. R. Bridge Co., 6 McL., p. 517. Also gives jurisdiction over navigable streams to General Government for commercial purposes.-Jolly vs. Terre Haute Drawbridge Co., 6 McL., p. 237. It does not include the means by which it is carried on within a State.-U. S. vs. The Seneca, 10 Am. L. R., p. 281; . Brooks vs. The Peytona, 2 West L, Mo., p. 518; Whitaker vs. Lorents, id., p. 520; U.S. vs. The James Morrison, Newb., p. 241. These cases and the cases of Silliman vs. Hud. Riv. Br. Co., 4 Bi. C. C.; 8. C., 1 Bl., p. 582; 2 Wall, p. 403; Palmer vs. Cuyahoga Co., 3 McL., p. 226; Works vs. Junction R. R., 5 McL., p. 425 (examine opinion of Hall, J., in Silliman vs. H. R. Br. Co., 4 Bl. C. C., contra), hold that the power to regulate commerce in Congress is paramount to that of a State to grant authority to build a bridge over or across a navigable stream. In the absence of any action by Congress exercising such authority, the State may regulate the navigation of streams within it.-See notes to Secs. 2348, 2349, and Secs. 2360-2379, ante, “Navigation;" see, also, U.S. vs. R. R. Br. Co., 6 McL., p. 517; Woodman vs. Kilboun Manufacturing Co., 15 Am. L. R., p. 238; Cooley vs. Bd. Wardens, 12 H., p. 299; Gilman vs. Phil., 3 Wall, p. 713. So, also, to improve its lands and promote public health it may authorize the erection of a dam across a small stream, though it was previously navigable.—Wilson vs. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet., p. 245; s. p., Atkinson vs. Phil. and Trenton R. R. Co., 14 Haz. Pa. Reg., p. 10. State cannot obstruct a navigable stream which extends to other States, or connected with a lake or river that falls into the sea.-Palmer vs. Cuyahoga Co., 3 McL.,

41_VOL. II.-POL.

p. 226; Columbus Ins. Co. vs. Peoria Br. Ass., 6 McL., p. 70. Restrictions on commerce between the States may not be imposed by a State.–Balt. vs. Connellsville and South. Penn. R. W. Co., 13 Pitts L. J., p. 576; s. C., 13 Am. L. R., p. 750; Halderman vs. Beckwith, 4 McL., p. 286. Aliter, where it is exclusively within the State. States may regulate pilotage.--Pac. M. St. S. Co. vs. Joliffe, 2 Wall, p. 450. States right to regulate and establish ferries reserved and not granted to Congress.—Conway vs. Taylor's Express, 1 Bl., p. 604; U. S. vs. The Wm. Pope, id., p. 256. Laws of Pennsylvania and other States concerning pilotage construed.-Cooley vs. Board of Wardens, 12 Howard, p. 299.

PASSENGERS.-Acts of 1838 and 1843, for better security of lives of, construed.-Warring vs. Clark, 5 Howard, p. 441. The Acts of New York, passed February, 1824, concerning passengers, constitutional.--City of New York vs. Miln, 11 Peters, p. 103. The statutes of New York and Massachusetts, imposing taxes upon alien passengers arriving in the ports of those States, declared to be contrary to the Constitution.–Passenger Cases, 7 Howard, p. 283. State law inflicting penalty on shipmaster for not reporting passengers is not regulating commerce and is valid.-N. Y. vs. Miln, 11 Pet., p. 102; s. C., 2 Pa., p. 429; see Smith vs. Turner, 7 H., p. 283. It is the duty of every steamboat to keep a trustworthy person employed as a lookout, and if there be none such additional to the helmsman, or if he was not stationed in the proper place, or not vigilantly employed at his duty, it must be regarded as prima facie evidence that the collision was the fault of the steamboat.- Propeller Genessee Chief vs. Fitzhugh et al., 12 Howard, p. 443. A judgment in personam against a steamboat company for the loss of specie carried in their boat by one of the persons called “express carriers,” and lost by fire in Long Island Sound, affirmed.-New Jersey Steam Navigation Company vs. Merchants’ Bank, 6 Howard, p. 344. See the following cases, recognizing powers of Congress, as follows: Power over commerce and navigation embraces goyernment of seamen, whether in a foreign port or at home.-Roberts vs. Skolfield, 8 Am. L. R., p. 156. To regulate commerce with Indians, but does not have general jurisdiction over Indian territory within the boundary of a State.-U.S. vs. Bailey, 1 McL., p. 234. May prohibit intercourse with Indians except under a license.-U. S. vs. Cesna, 1 McL., p. 254. May legalize a railroad bridge over a navigable stream.-Gray vs. Clinton Bridge, 16 Am. L. R., p. 149. The treaty of 1819, between the United States and Spain, construed.–United States vs. Ferreira, 13 Howard, p. 40.

NATURALIZATION.–The individual States have a constitutional right to pass naturalization laws; provided, they do not contravene the rule established by the authority of the Union.-Collett vs. Collett, 2 Dall., p. 294; see United States vs. Villatto, id., p. 370. The power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress.Chirac vs. Chirac, 2 Wh., p. 259; Golden vs. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. R., p. 313. The County Courts of California have jurisdiction to naturalize, by amendment of 1862 to the State Constitution, but this is concurrent jurisdiction with others having original common law jurisdiction. The power to naturalize is a recognized judicial power. Congress cannot confer judicial powers upon a State Court. The Supreme Court of this State has exclusive appellate jurisdiction, but has no power to naturalize. So held in Ex Parte F. Knowles, 5 Cal., p. 300.

BANKRUPTCY.-A State has authority to pass bankrupt laws which do not conflict with any Act of Congress to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy, nor impair the obligation of contracts.-Sturges vs. Crowningshield, 4 Wheat., p. 122. The power to pass bankrupt laws was held to be exclusively in Congress in case of Golden vs. Prince, 3 W. C. C., p. 313. Law of 1841 constitutional.-Ex Parte Klein, 1 H., p. 277; reversing s. C., 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs., p. 185. Constitutional authority of Congress complete, and the Federal Courts have full law and equity jurisdiction therein.Mitchell vs. Great Works M. & M. Co., 2 Story, p. 648. Under the Constitution, Congress had power to bring all parties, estates, and interests connected with bankrupt into District Court for adjudication, but under the Act of 1867 they have not done so.—Ex Parte Campbell, 16 Am. L. R., p. 100. See note to Preamble, ante.

To Coin MONEY.-Legal Tender Acts all constitutional, and applicable to all payments to be made after passage, etc. So held in the case of Latham vs. U.S., 1 N. & H., p. 149; s. C., 2 N. & H., p. 573. To provide for punishment of counterfeiting.-Campbell vs. U.S., 10 Law Rep., p. 400; U. S. vs. 12 Law Rep., p. 90. See Sec. 3272, ante, and note.

Piracy.-Definition of piracy by the law of nations. U.S. vs. Baker, 5 Wh., p. 184. Robbery or forcible depredation on the sea, "animo furandi,” is piracy by the law of nations and the Act of Congress.-Id., and U.S. vs. Smith, 5 Wh., p. 153. Under the Act of 1790, that which is piracy on the high seas is not punishable with death if committed on land.-U. S. vs. Palmer, 3 Wh., p. 610; U. S. vs. Jones, 3 W. C. C., p. 209; U. S. vs. Perez, 2 Wh. Cr. Cases, p. 96; U. S. vs. Hutchings, id., p. 543. This Act extends to all persons who on board of vessels throw off national character by cruising and committing piracy on other vessels. Eighth section of Act of April 30th, 1790, not repealed by Act of March 3d, 1819.-U. S. vs. Furlong, 5 Wh., p. 184. The Act of Congress referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to define that crime. U.S. vs. Smith, 5 Wheat., p. 153.

War.—The power to make war is vested exclusively in Congress.-United States vs. Smith, Trials of Smith and Ogden, p. 84. Every contention by force between two nations, in external matters, under authority of their respective Governments, is a public war.

r.-Bas vs. Tingy, 4 D., p. 37. A state of war may exist without any formal declaration of it by either party; and this is true both of civil and foreign war.–The Amy Warwick, 2 Bl., p. 635; 8. C., 2 Spr., p. 123. On a declaration of war a citizen, unless ordered by his Government, is not bound to return home from a foreign country. The Joseph, 1 Gall., p. 545.

CAPTURES ON LAND AND WATER.–The power of making rules concerning captures on land and water is not confined to captures which are extra-territorial, and is an express grant to Congress of the power of confiscating an enemy's property found within the territory at the declaration of war, as an independent substantive power.—Brown vs. The United States, 8 Cranch, p. 110. A capture is rightful within neutral territory.-The Anne, 3 Wh., p. 435; The Sir Wm. Peel, 5 Wall., p. 517. All captures jure belli are for the Government.--The Dos Hermanos, 10 Wh., p. 306; The Joseph, 1 Gall., p. 545; s. C., 8 Cr., p. 451; The Emulous, 1 Gall., p. 563.


Limitation of the powers of Congress.

1. The migration or importation of such persons any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight,

powers of

but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, Limitation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Congress, Note.-See Secs. 2949–2968, and notes, ante, “Immigration."

2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

4. No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein. before directed to be taken. 5. No

tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.

6. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.

7. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from

time to time.


8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United

and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Con. gress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State.

Note.-SLAVES.—The ninth section, first Article, of the Constitution, which restrained Congress from forbidding the migration or importation of slaves prior to the year 1808, did not apply to the State Legislatures. Butler vs. Hoppen, 1 Wash. C. C. R., p. 499. As a result of the civil war and the thirteenth amendment of the Constitution, slavery no longer exists in the United States.

HABEAS CORPUS.-All the Courts of the United States have power to issue this writ.-Ex Parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, p. 75; Ex Parte Watkins, 7 Peters, p. 568; Ex Parte Burford, 3 Cranch, p. 448; Ex Parte Kearney, 7 Wheat., p. 38; United States vs. Hamilton,

« AnteriorContinuar »