The Essentials of American Constitutional Law
CHAPTER XII
THE LAW OF CITIZENSHIP
163. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside.”[453] The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.”[454] The supreme law clearly recognizes and establishes a distinction between United States citizenship and State citizenship. To be a citizen of a State, a person must reside within that State, but to be a citizen of the United States, it is necessary only that he or she be born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States. Thus American citizenship, like the operation of American constitutional law in all its aspects, is a matter of jurisdiction, or sovereignty.
In America there are two citizenships, distinct from each other, and depending upon different characteristics and circumstances, and the essential difference is caused by a difference of jurisdiction. In strict conformity to this distinction, the Constitution prohibits a State from making or enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”[455] The limitation is not as to laws affecting the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States; equality of citizens of States is secured by another provision.[456]
The privileges and immunities of the citizen of one State removing to another State are the same, no more, no less, than the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the State into which he or she removed.[457] The privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States rest for security and protection with the States themselves,—where they rested before the Constitution was made. These privileges and immunities are not placed under the care of the United States except so far as the Constitution declares that, “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” These privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States are _fundamental_,[458] and are commonly set forth in Bills of Rights found in the State constitutions. The sole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to declare to the several States that
whatever those rights,—as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit, or qualify, or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither more nor less, shall be the measure of the rights of citizens of other States within your jurisdiction.[459]
164. What then are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? They are the privileges and immunities secured to them by the Constitution. Among them are
to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government; to transact any business he may have with it; to share its offices; to engage in administering its functions; the right of free access to its seaports, through which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted; to the subtreasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several States[460]; “to demand the care and protection of the federal government over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas, or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government; to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances; the privilege of _habeas corpus_; to use the navigable waters of the United States however they may penetrate the territory of the several States; all rights secured to (American) citizens by treaties with foreign nations”; the right, on his own volition to become a citizen of any State of the United States by a _bona fide_ residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State.[461]
Thus it appears that the rights of a citizen—his “privileges and immunities”—are measurable by the jurisdiction of the sovereignty to which he owes allegiance. Between allegiance and protection as between citizenship and sovereignty there is a reciprocal relation.
165. The Fourteenth Amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen.[462] It simply furnished an additional guaranty to the protection of such as he already had. It did not add the right of suffrage to these privileges and immunities as they existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The United States guarantees to every State in the Union a republican form of government,[463] but this is not a guarantee to any citizen of the right to vote, nor does the Constitution confer that right on any person.[464] That right (or privilege, as it is in strict contemplation of law) was not the same among the original States, the qualifications for voting differing widely among them, and also in the same State at different times.[465] When the Constitution confers citizenship it does not confer the right to vote.
There is, however, a right to vote possessed by certain citizens of the United States, namely they who vote for members of Congress and Senators of the United States, and (by implication) electors of President and Vice-President. The Constitution defines electors of Congressmen and Senators as the same persons who are entitled in the several States to vote for the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.[466] The United States thus
adopts the qualification thus furnished as the qualification of its own electors of Congress. It is not true, therefore, that electors for members of Congress owe their right to vote to the State law in any sense which makes the exercise of the right depend exclusively on the law of the State.[467]
The United States has sovereign power to prescribe electoral qualifications for its own citizens; it has chosen to adopt State qualifications. The non-exercise of the power does not work denial of its existence. The principle involved is one of sovereignty, that non-user of a sovereign right cannot invalidate the right.
166. While the Fourteenth Amendment added nothing to the rights and privileges of citizens, for “the equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism,”[468] it guaranteed those rights; but “the power of the national government is limited to the enforcement of the guaranty.”[469] The Amendment does not invest Congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of State legislation; but to provide modes of relief against State legislation, or State action “which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to them the equal protection of the laws.”[470] Congress is empowered by the Amendment “to adopt appropriate legislation for correcting the effects of such prohibited State laws and State acts, and thus to render them effectually null, void, and innocuous.”[471]
The essential matter here involved is sovereignty.
The true doctrine is, that whilst the States are really sovereign as to all matters which have not been granted to the jurisdiction and control of the United States, the Constitution and constitutional laws of the latter are the supreme law of the land; and when they conflict with the laws of the States, they are of paramount authority and obligation. This is the fundamental principle on which the authority of the Constitution is based; and unless it be conceded in practice, as well as theory, the fabric of our institutions, as it was contemplated by its founders, cannot stand. The questions involved have respect not more to the autonomy and existence of the States, than to the continued existence of the United States as a government to which every American citizen may look for security and protection in every part of the land.[472]
Thus, in application of this principle, the law of a State discriminating against persons of color by eliminating them to serve as jurors is unconstitutional.[473] So too is an act of Congress unconstitutional, that operates as, or creates, a municipal law for the regulation of private rights, and that places Congress in the stead, or office of the State legislatures, so that the federal Legislature, instead of enacting laws corrective of prohibited State laws, or counteracting such laws, assumes the office of the State legislatures in their general legislation. Such Congressional legislation “steps into the domain of local jurisprudence.”[474]
167. Such unconstitutional legislation by Congress was the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, which declared that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States should be entitled
to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.[475]
Here again the essential matter is one of jurisdiction, or sovereignty. The several States have jurisdiction over the matters comprised within the so-called Civil Rights Bill. Inn-keepers, public carriers, owners or managers of theaters and public halls are bound, to the extent of their facilities, to furnish proper accommodations to all unobjectionable persons who in good faith apply for them. No race or class is a special favorite of the laws, and the enjoyment of accommodations in inns, public conveyances, and places of amusement, is not a “privilege or immunity” of a citizen, in the sense that he or she possesses a civil or legal right to such enjoyment. The act, or decision, of a mere individual,—the owner of an inn, or of a public conveyance, or place of amusement, refusing such accommodation, is not the imposition of a badge of slavery or involuntary servitude upon the applicant; neither does such act or decision inflict a civil injury, unless the law of the State makes such act or decision an injury.[476]
The principle here involved is illustrated by a law of California, held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, that “due process of law” is not denied to a person who, in that State, by its law, was “prosecuted by information,” and (as was claimed) was “tried and illegally found guilty of (murder) without any presentment or indictment of any grand or other jury.”[477]
The Court sustained the State law as securing due process of law in principle,—that “prosecution by information” instead of “indictment of a jury” is not a violation of the principle but merely a variation of the form of due process of law.[478] In other words, the California law in no way disparaged or abridged the privileges or immunities of the citizen.[479]
168. The principle regulating the definition of United States citizenship is that principle of the common law which recognizes “the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.”[480]
Naturalization is an artificial birth made possible by the will of sovereignty. It is effected by the operation of law,—and in America, by operation of statutory law only. Congress has not the exclusive power to pass naturalization laws, but it has the exclusive power “to establish a _uniform_ rule of naturalization.”[481] The power exercised here is suggested in the word “uniform.”[482] Congress has seen fit to vest the exercise of this power in certain courts of law. Strictly speaking, the exercise of the function, in any of its aspects, is not essentially judicial. Courts of law have no functions, can exercise no functions, and no functions can be imposed upon them except those of a judicial nature.[483] If the courts are willing to exercise a ministerial function and are empowered to exercise it by Congress, as in the naturalization of aliens, that exercise cannot be questioned as being unconstitutional.
169. The test here is jurisdiction. A person may by voluntary expatriation become allegiant to another jurisdiction or sovereignty, but he cannot escape allegiance to some one jurisdiction. He must be citizen or subject of a sovereignty. As all property capable of ownership must have an owner, so must every person be citizen or subject of some sovereignty. A vessel, wherever it may be, is part of the territory of the country to which it belongs.[484] By parity of reasoning a person is deemed allegiant to some jurisdiction or sovereignty. A vessel owning no jurisdiction is a pirate.
170. The Fifteenth Amendment declares that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This Amendment
does not take away from the State governments in a general sense the power over suffrage which has belonged to those governments from the beginning, and without the provision of which power the whole fabric upon which the division of State and national authority under the Constitution and the organization of both governments rest would be without support and both the authority of the nation and of the State would fall to the ground. In fact, the very command of the Amendment recognizes the possession of the general power by the States since the Amendment seeks to regulate its exercise as to the particular subject with which it deals.[485] The Amendment does not change, modify, or deprive the States of their full power as to suffrage, except of course as to the subject with which the Amendment deals, and to the extent that obedience to its command is necessary. Thus the authority over the suffrage which the States possess, and the limitations which the Amendment imposes, are co-ordinate, and one may not destroy the other without bringing about the destruction of both.[486]
But while the Amendment “gives no right of suffrage”
... the result might arise that as a consequence of the striking down of a discriminating clause, a right of suffrage would be enjoyed by reason of the generic character of the provision which would remain after the discrimination was stricken out.[487]
171. Both the States and the United States are forbidden by the Constitution to enact _ex post facto_ laws. The prohibition affects every citizen as securing him from the peril of legislation of the kind forbidden. It is a sweeping limitation of power for his or her benefit, and operates for all citizens of whatever age, condition, or circumstance. An _ex post facto_ law is one that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes that action; that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed; that changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less or different testimony than the law required, at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. But no law is _ex post facto_ within the constitutional prohibition that “mollifies the rigor of the criminal law.” Only those laws are _ex post facto_ which “create, or aggravate the crime, or increase the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction.”[488]
172. But he who, under State law, voluntarily waived his right of trial by jury and elected to be tried by the court and by it was adjudged guilty and was condemned to be hanged, was not deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity for his protection by the Fourteenth Amendment, but was tried and condemned in strict accordance with the forms prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State, and with special regard to the rights of accused persons under its jurisdiction.[489] A person may waive a fundamental right[490] but neither the State nor the United States can lawfully invade the indefeasible right of a person to personal security[491]; such invasion constitutes an “unwarrantable search and seizure.” The service of a lawful warrant operates practically as a waiver of right by the person searched or seized; but were a person to waive his right, say of trial by jury, such waiver would not confer power on any court or jury to try him. “Consent can never confer jurisdiction.”[492]
173. Am act of Congress that no person shall be excused from attending and testifying, or from producing books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents before the Interstate Commerce Commission, or in obedience to its subpœna, on the ground that he might thus be compelled to be a witness against himself and so become subject to penalty is constitutional because its additional provision immuning him from future prosecution by reason of his evidence thus given sufficiently satisfies the constitutional guarantee of protection.[493]
So too the stenographic report of testimony given in court, supported by the oath of the stenographer that it is a correct transcript of his notes and of the testimony of a deceased witness is competent evidence, is admissible, and does not conflict with the provision of the Constitution that an accused person shall have the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”[494] The principle here is essentially one of sovereignty,—the court declaring: “the rights of the public shall not be wholly sacrificed in order that an incidental benefit may be preserved to the accused.”[495] The sovereign right of a State, or of the United States with respect to citizenship, is sufficient, in either, to effect the purposes for which either exists; but in the American dual system of government, citizenship has fundamental rights, which are guaranteed, and political privileges, which are conferred and protected.
174. Civil rights and their guarantees, both in the States and in the United States, are formulated as limitations on government,—as fundamentals reserved “and above any constitutional sanction.” These rights include those of religious liberty, personal security, security of dwellings, papers, and property, personal freedom, due process of law, jury trial, and equal protection of the laws. The line of demarcation between these fundamental rights is not easily drawn, nor even drawn with precision. These rights, being fundamental rights, exist independent of the government which the people of a State, or the people of the United States ordain and establish. That sovereignty—the people themselves—has power to alter, to modify, or even to destroy these rights, or any of them, must be admitted, but that sovereignty ever, under a republican form of government, will alter, modify, or destroy these rights, may with equal assurance be denied.
175. The political privileges of citizenship rest on a different conception of government. Political privileges—of which the most important are the right to vote and the right to be voted for, and to execute an office because of election to office—are not fundamental, that is, they are not civil rights. The State, or the United States, has the right to prescribe qualifications for an elector, or for candidacy for any office. Usually these qualifications are of age, residence, sex, and tax-paying,—the people of the United States having also declared that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This inhibition does not make the fact of race, or color, or previous condition of servitude a fundamental civil right guaranteed by the United States under the Constitution. In no sense does the Fourteenth Amendment confuse civil and political rights. No person can vote unless he or she has complied with the requirements (qualifications) for voting, prescribed by the State in which he or she resides. No person acquires civil rights by a similar compliance. By birth or naturalization (and naturalization is a sort of legal birth by the will of the sovereign), a person possesses civil rights, but no person possesses the privilege of voting either by birth or by naturalization. The privilege of voting may be lost by removing from a polling district; by neglect to register; by neglect to pay a tax,—in brief, by failure to comply with any electoral law of the State; but no person forfeits his or her civil rights by mere neglect. Infants, minors, adults, men, women, and children possess equal civil rights. Impairment, suspension, forfeiture of civil rights is effected only by commission of crime, that is, by a voluntary act, inimical to sovereignty itself. Such an act also cuts off the privilege of voting, or of being voted for with effect of induction into office, because the person who imperils sovereignty by commission of a crime would, in all probability, imperil sovereignty by voting. The exercise of the suffrage has long continued in America, and, both in laws and in constitutions, is commonly referred to as a “right.” The tendency of privileges is to become rights. In America, however, the republican form of government exists both in the States and in the United States. Practically, civil rights and political privileges are determined by the will of the people.
Appendix
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE)
WE THE PEOPLE[496] of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.
ARTICLE I.
SECTION 1.
1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
SECTION 2.
1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
2. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
3.[497]Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
4. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
5. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
SECTION 3.
1.[498]The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year; so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
3. No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
4. The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
5. The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore in the Absence of the Vice-President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
6. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
7. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
SECTION 4.
1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
SECTION 5.
1. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
2. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
3. Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
4. Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
SECTION 6.
1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
2. No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
SECTION 7.
1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
2. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
3. Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment), shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
SECTION 8.
1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4. To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7. To establish Post-Offices and Post Roads;
8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
SECTION 9.
1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as 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, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
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 States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
SECTION 10.
1. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any title of Nobility.
2. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
3. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops or Ships of War, in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or Engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
ARTICLE II.
SECTION 1.
1. The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same Term, be elected as follows:
2. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
3.[499]The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such a Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse, by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List, the said House shall in like manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice-President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.
4. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
5. No Person except a natural-born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
6. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability both of the President and Vice-President declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
7. The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be Increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period, any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
8. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
SECTION 2.
1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the Executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other Public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
3. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of the next Session.
SECTION 3.
1. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the Officers of the United States.
SECTION 4.
1. The President, Vice-President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
ARTICLE III.
SECTION 1.
1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
SECTION 2.
1.[500]The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects.
2. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
3. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
SECTION 3.
1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
ARTICLE IV.
SECTION 1.
1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
SECTION 2.
1. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
2. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
3.[501]No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
SECTION 3.
1. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
SECTION 4.
1. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
ARTICLE V.
1. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
ARTICLE VI.
1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
ARTICLE VII.
1. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the[502] States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth _In Witness_ whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
Go: WASHINGTON—_Presidt. and deputy from Virginia._
Attest William Jackson Secretary.
[Note by Department of State: The interlined and rewritten words mentioned in the above explanation, are in this edition, printed in their proper places in the text.]
_New Hampshire_: John Langdon Nicholas Gilman
_Massachusetts_: Nathaniel Gorham Rufus King
_Connecticut_: Wm: Saml. Johnson Roger Sherman
_New York_: Alexander Hamilton
_New Jersey_: Wil: Livingston David Brearley Wm. Paterson Jona: Dayton
_Pennsylvania_: B Franklin Thomas Mifflin Robt. Morris Geo. Clymer Thos. Fitz Simons Jared Ingersoll James Wilson Gouv Morris
_Delaware_: Geo: Read Gunning Bedford jun John Dickinson Richard Bassett Jaco: Broom
_Maryland_: James McHenry Dan of St. Thos. Jenifer Danl Carroll
_Virginia_: John Blair— James Madison Jr.
_North Carolina_: Wm: Blount Richd. Dobbs Spaight Hu Williamson
_South Carolina_: J. Rutledge Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Charles Pinckney Pierce Butler
_Georgia_: William Few Abr Baldwin
[_Articles in Addition to and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, Proposed by Congress and Ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, Pursuant to the Fifth Article of the Constitution._]
(ARTICLE I.)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(ARTICLE II.)
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(ARTICLE III.)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor, in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
(ARTICLE IV.)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(ARTICLE V.)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(ARTICLE VI.)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of Counsel for his defence.
(ARTICLE VII.)
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
(ARTICLE VIII.)
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
(ARTICLE IX.)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(ARTICLE X.)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(ARTICLE XI.)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
(ARTICLE XII.)
SECTION 1.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President; and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two thirds of the whole number of Senators, a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
(ARTICLE XIII.)
SECTION 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
SECTION 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(ARTICLE XIV.)
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
SECTION 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.
SECTION 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
(ARTICLE XV.)
SECTION 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
SECTION 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(ARTICLE XVI.)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.
(ARTICLE XVII.)
SECTION 1.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The Electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.
SECTION 2.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the Legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the Legislature may direct.
SECTION 3.
This amendment shall not be construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
RATIFICATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The Constitution was adopted by a Convention of the States September 17, 1787, and was subsequently ratified by the several States, in the following order, viz.:
Delaware, December 7, 1787. Pennsylvania, December 12, 1787. New Jersey, December 18, 1787. Georgia, January 2, 1788. Connecticut, January 9, 1788. Massachusetts, February 6, 1788. Maryland, April 28, 1788. South Carolina, May 23, 1788. New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. Virginia, June 26, 1788. New York, July 26, 1788. North Carolina, November 21, 1789. Rhode Island, May 29, 1790.
The State of Vermont, by convention, ratified the Constitution on the 10th of January, 1791, and was, by an act of Congress of the 18th of February, 1791, “received and admitted into this Union as a new and entire member of the United States of America.”
RATIFICATIONS OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
The first ten articles of amendment (with two others which were not ratified by the requisite number of States) were submitted to the several State Legislatures by a resolution of Congress which passed on the 25th of September, 1789, at the first session of the First Congress, and were ratified by the Legislatures of the following States:
New Jersey, November 20, 1789. Maryland, December 19, 1789. North Carolina, December 22, 1789. South Carolina, January 19, 1790. New Hampshire, January 25, 1790. Delaware, January 28, 1790. Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790. New York, March 27, 1790. Rhode Island, June 15, 1790. Vermont, November 3, 1791. Virginia, December 15, 1791.
The acts of the Legislatures of the States ratifying these amendments were transmitted by the governors to the President, and by him communicated to Congress. The Legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Georgia, do not appear by the record to have ratified them.
The eleventh article was submitted to the Legislatures of the several States by a resolution of Congress passed on the 5th of March, 1794, at the first session of the Third Congress; and on the 8th of January, 1798, at the second session of the Fifth Congress, it was declared by the President, in a message to the two Houses of Congress, to have been adopted by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, there being at that time sixteen States in the Union.
The twelfth article was submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, there being then seventeen States, by a resolution of Congress passed on the 12th of December, 1803, at the first session of the Eighth Congress; and was ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, in 1804, according to a proclamation of the Secretary of State dated the 25th of September, 1804.
The thirteenth article was submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, there being then thirty-six States, by a resolution of Congress passed on the 1st of February, 1865, at the second session of the Thirty-eighth Congress, and was ratified, according to a proclamation of the Secretary of State dated December 18, 1865, by the Legislatures of the following States:
Illinois, February 1, 1865. Rhode Island, February 2, 1865. Michigan, February 2, 1865. Maryland, February 3, 1865. New York, February 3, 1865. West Virginia, February 3, 1865. Maine, February 7, 1865. Kansas, February 7, 1865. Massachusetts, February 8, 1865. Pennsylvania, February 8, 1865. Virginia, February 9, 1865. Ohio, February 10, 1865. Missouri, February 10, 1865. Indiana, February 16, 1865. Nevada, February 16, 1865. Louisiana, February 17, 1865. Minnesota, February 23, 1865. Wisconsin, March 1, 1865. Vermont, March 9, 1865. Tennessee, April 7, 1865. Arkansas, April 20, 1865. Connecticut, May 5, 1865. New Hampshire, July 1, 1865. South Carolina, November 13, 1865. Alabama, December 2, 1865. North Carolina, December 4, 1865. Georgia, December 9, 1865.
The following States not enumerated in the proclamation of the Secretary of State also ratified this amendment:
Oregon, December 11, 1865. California, December 20, 1865. Florida, December 28, 1865. New Jersey, January 23, 1866. Iowa, January 24, 1866. Texas, February 18, 1870.
The fourteenth article was submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, there being then thirty-seven States, by a resolution of Congress passed on the 16th of June, 1866, at the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress; and was ratified, according to proclamation of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868, by the Legislatures of the following States:
Connecticut, June 30, 1866. New Hampshire, July 7, 1866. Tennessee, July 19, 1866. [503]New Jersey, September 11, 1866. [504]Oregon, September 19, 1866. Vermont, November 9, 1866. New York, January 10, 1867. [505]Ohio, January 11, 1867. Illinois, January 15, 1867. West Virginia, January 16, 1867. Kansas, January 18, 1867. Maine, January 19, 1867. Nevada, January 22, 1867. Missouri, January 26, 1867. Indiana, January 29, 1867. Minnesota, February 1, 1867. Rhode Island, February 7, 1867. Wisconsin, February 13, 1867. Pennsylvania, February 13, 1867. Michigan, February 15, 1867. Massachusetts, March 20, 1867. Nebraska, June 15, 1867. Iowa, April 3, 1868. Arkansas, April 6, 1868. Florida, June 9, 1868. [506]North Carolina, July 4, 1868. Louisiana, July 9, 1868. [506]South Carolina, July 9, 1868. Alabama, July 13, 1868. [506]Georgia, July 21, 1868. Mississippi, January 17, 1870. Texas, February 18, 1870.
[506]Virginia ratified this amendment on the 8th of October, 1869, subsequent to the date of the proclamation of the Secretary of State. Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky rejected the amendment.
The fifteenth article was submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, there being then thirty-seven States, by a resolution of Congress passed on the 27th of February, 1869, at the first session of the Forty-first Congress; and was ratified, according to a proclamation of the Secretary of State dated March 30, 1870, by the Legislatures of the following States:
Nevada, March 1, 1869. West Virginia, March 3, 1869. North Carolina, March 5, 1869. Louisiana, March 5, 1869. Illinois, March 5, 1869. Michigan, March 8, 1869. Wisconsin, March 9, 1869. Massachusetts, March 12, 1869. Maine, March 12, 1869. South Carolina, March 16, 1869. Pennsylvania, March 26, 1869. Arkansas, March 30, 1869. [507]New York, April 14, 1869. Indiana, May 14, 1869. Connecticut, May 19, 1869. Florida, June 15, 1869. New Hampshire, July 7, 1869. Virginia, October 8, 1869. Vermont, October 21, 1869. Alabama, November 24, 1869. Missouri, January 10, 1870. Mississippi, January 17, 1870. Rhode Island, January 18, 1870. Kansas, January 19, 1870. [508]Ohio, January 27, 1870. Georgia, February 2, 1870. Iowa, February 3, 1870. Nebraska, February 17, 1870. Texas, February 18, 1870. Minnesota, February 19, 1870.
[509]The State of New Jersey ratified this amendment on the 21st of February, 1871, subsequent to the date of the proclamation of the Secretary of State.
The States of California, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Oregon, and Tennessee rejected this amendment.
The sixteenth article was passed by a resolution of Congress July 12, 1909; proclaimed by the Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox, as part of the Constitution February 25, 1913, there then being forty-eight States. The article was ratified by the States as follows:
Alabama, August 17, 1909. Kentucky, February 9, 1910. South Carolina, February 19, 1910. Illinois, March 1, 1910. Mississippi, March 7, 1910. Oklahoma, March 14, 1910. Maryland, April 8, 1910. Georgia, August 3, 1910. Texas, August 17, 1910. Ohio, January 19, 1911. Idaho, January 20, 1911. Oregon, January 23, 1911. Washington, January 26, 1911. Montana, California, January 31, 1911. Indiana, February 6, 1911. Nevada, February 8, 1911. Nebraska, North Carolina, February 11, 1911. Colorado, February 20, 1911. North Dakota, February 21, 1911. Michigan, February 23, 1911. Iowa, February 27, 1911. Missouri, March 16, 1911. Maine, March 31, 1911. Tennessee, April 7, 1911. Arkansas, April 22, 1911. Wisconsin, May 26, 1911. New York, July 12, 1911. South Dakota, February 3, 1912. Arizona, April 9, 1912. Minnesota, June 11, 1912. Delaware, Wyoming, February 3, 1913. New Jersey, New Mexico, February 5, 1913.
The States of Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Utah rejected this amendment.
The seventeenth article was passed by a resolution of Congress June 12, 1911; proclaimed by the Secretary of State, William J. Bryan, as part of the Constitution May 31, 1913, there then being forty-eight States. The article was ratified by the States as follows:
Massachusetts, May 22, 1912. Arizona, June 3, 1912. Minnesota, June 10, 1912. New York, January 13, 1913. Kansas, January 17, 1913. Oregon, January 23, 1913. North Carolina, January 25, 1913. Michigan, California, January 28, 1913. Idaho, January 31, 1913. West Virginia, February 4, 1913. Nebraska, February 5, 1913. Iowa, February 6, 1913. Washington, Montana, Texas, February 7, 1913. Wyoming, February 11, 1913. Illinois, Colorado, February 13, 1913. North Dakota, February 18, 1913. Nevada, Vermont, February 19, 1913. Maine, February 20, 1913. New Hampshire, February 21, 1913. Oklahoma, February 24, 1913. Ohio, February 25, 1913. South Dakota, February 27, 1913. Indiana, March 6, 1913. Missouri, March 7, 1913. Tennessee, April 1, 1913. Arkansas, April 14, 1913. Pennsylvania, Connecticut, April 15, 1913. Wisconsin, May 9, 1913.
CASES CITED
A
Addystone (The), Pipe & Steel Co. _v._ U. S., 175 U. S., 211, (87)
American Insurance Company _v._ Canter, 1 Peters, 511, (15, 47, 127, 159, 193)
Ames _v._ Kansas, 111 U. S., 449, (139)
Arndt _v._ Griggs, 134 U. S., 316, (96)
B
Baldwin _v._ Hale, 1 Wallace, 223, (37, 38)
Bank of Commerce _v._ New York City, 2 Black, 620, (51, 52, 122)
Barbier _v._ Connolly, 113 U. S., 27, (207, 209)
Barron _v._ Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243, (11, 32, 47, 156, 161)
Bartemeyer _v._ Iowa, 18 Wallace, 129, (98)
Battle _v._ U. S., 209 U. S., 36, (43)
Beck _v._ Perkins, 139 U. S., 628, (137)
Bedford, _v._ U. S., 192 U. S., 217, (100)
Beef Trust, Swift and Co. _v._ U. S., 196 U. S., 375, (84)
Beer Co. _v._ Massachusetts, 97 U. S., 25, (92)
Blake _v._ McClung, 172 U. S., 239, (150, 151, 198)
Börs _v._ Preston, 111 U. S., 252, (120, 137)
Boyd _v._ Alabama, 94 U. S. 645, (92)
Boyd _v._ U. S., 116 U. S., 616, (203, 225)
Brewer Brick Co. _v._ Brewer, 62 Maine, 62, (60)
Brig Wilson _v._ U. S., 1 Brockenbrough, 437, (63)
Brimmer _v._ Rebman, 138 U. S., 78, (68, 79)
Briscoe _v._ Bank of Kentucky, 11 Peters, 257, (41)
Brown _v._ Houston, 114 U. S., 622, (80)
Brown _v._ Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 419, (66, 75, 76)
Brown _v._ U. S., 8 Cranch, 110, (47)
Brown _v._ Walker, 161 U. S., 591, (162, 226)
Bucher _v._ Cheshire, R. R. Co., 125 U. S., 555, (145)
Buckner _v._ Finley, 2 Peters, 590, (148, 149)
Burgess _v._ Seligman, 107 U. S., 20, (145)
Buttfield _v._ Stranahan, 192 U. S., 470, (88)
C
Calder _v._ Bull, 3 Dallas, 386, (32, 224)
Callan _v._ Wilson, 127 U. S., 540, (160)
Capitol Traction Co. _v._ Hof, 174 U. S., 1, (210)
Central Bridge Corporation _v._ City of Lowell, 4 Gray (Mass.), 474, (99)
Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. _v._ Wellman, 143 U. S., 339, (186)
Chisholm _v._ Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419, (114, 141 [note])
Cincinnati, Wilmington, etc., R. R. Co. _v._ Commissioners, 1 Ohio St., 88, (169)
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3, (17, 24, 94, 217, 218, 220)
Clark Distilling Co. _v._ Am. Ex. Co., and State of W. Va., (64)
Clark Distilling Co. _v._ W. Md. R.R. Co., (64)
Coe _v._ Errol, 116 U. S., 525, (73)
Cohens _v._ Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 382, (13, 119, 121, 138, 162)
Collector (The) _v._ Day, 11 Wallace, 113, (54, 55)
Commissioners of Immigration _v._ North German Lloyd, 92 U. S., 259, (32)
Commonwealth _v._ McCloskey, 2 Rawle (Pa.), 374, (186)
Cook _v._ Marshall Company, 196 U. S., 261, (10)
Corfield _v._ Coryell, 4 Washington C. C., 371, (200, 213)
Cooley _v._ Board of Port Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, 12 Howard, 299, (74)
Corporation Tax Cases, 220 U. S., 611, (62)
Cotting _v._ Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S., 79, (198)
County of Mobile _v._ Kimball, 102 U. S., 691, (32)
Crandall _v._ Nevada, 6 Wallace, 36, (214)
Crutcher _v._ Kentucky, 141 U. S., 47, (78, 79)
Cunningham _v._ Macon & Brunswick R. R. Co., 109 U. S., 446, (141)
Cunnius _v._ Reading School District, 198 U. S., 458, (97)
D
Dalby _v._ Wolf, 14 Iowa, 228, (31)
Dale Tile Mfg. Co. _v._ Hyatt, 125 U. S., 46, (44)
Danbury Hatters’ Case, Loewe _v._ Lawler, 208 U. S., 274, (85)
_Daniel Ball_ (The), 10 Wallace, 557, (71)
Darrington _v._ Bank of Alabama, 13 Howard, 12, (41)
Davis _v._ Beason, 133 U. S., 333, (195)
Davis _v._ Packard, 7 Peters, 276, (120)
Dent _v._ West Virginia, 129 U. S., 114, (207)
Dooley _v._ U. S., 183 U. S., 151, (49)
Dorr _v._ U. S., 195 U. S., 138, (49, 163)
Douglas _v._ Kentucky, 168 U. S., 488, (92, 93)
Downes _v._ Bidwell, 182 U. S., 244, (14, 49, 50, 160, 162, 163, 201)
Drake _v._ U. S., _ex rel._ Bates, 30 App. D. C., 312; 36 Wash. Law Rep., 140, (111)
E
East Hartford _v._ Hartford Bridge Co., 10 Howard, 511, (93)
Escanaba Company _v._ Chicago, 107 U. S., 678, (74)
_Ex parte_ Boyer, 109 U. S., 629, (138)
_Ex parte_ Garland, 4 Wallace, 333, (107)
_Ex parte_ Griffiths, 118 Indiana, 83, (136, 222)
_Ex parte_ Milligan, 4 Wallace, 2, (198)
_Ex parte_ Reggel, 114 U. S., 642, (17, 151, 152)
_Ex parte_ Siebold, 100 U. S., 37, (138, 156, 218)
_Ex parte_ Wall, 107 U. S., 265, (205)
_Ex parte_ Watkins, 7 Peters, 568, (143)
_Ex parte_ Yarbrough, 110 U. S., 651, (157, 177, 215, 216, 223)
F
Field _v._ Clark, 143 U. S., 649, (25, 169, 190)
Fish _v._ Jefferson Police Jury, 116 U. S., 131, (91)
Florida Central R. R. Co. _v._ Reynolds, 183 U. S., 476, (60)
Fong Yue Ting _v._ U. S., 149 U. S., 698, (156)
Foster _v._ Kansas, 112 U. S., 201, (98)
Fox _v._ Ohio, 5 Howard, 410, (42)
Franklin Needle Co. _v._ Franklin, 65 N. H., 177, (60)
Frees _v._ Ford, 6 New York, 176, (186)
French _v._ Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U. S., 324, (62)
Ft. Leavenworth R. R. Co. _v._ Loewe, 114 U. S. 525, (48)
G
Gaines _v._ Fuentes, 92 U. S., 10, (143)
Garfield _v._ U. S., _ex rel._ Frost, 30 App. D. C., 165; 35 Wash. Law Rep., 771, (111)
Gelpoke _v._ City of Dubuque, 1 Wallace, 175, (144)
Georgia R. R. and Banking Co. _v._ Smith, 128 U. S., 174, (93)
Georgia _v._ Stanton, 6 Wallace, 57, (107)
Gibbons _v._ Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 1, (32, 67, 68, 184)
Gilman _v._ Philadelphia, 3 Wallace, 713, (32)
Green _v._ Neal’s Lessee, 6 Peters, 291, (144)
Griffin _v._ U. S., _ex rel._ Le Cuyer, 30 App. D. C., 291; 36 Wash. Law Rep., 103, (111)
Guinn and Beal _v._ U. S., 238 U. S., 347, (223)
Gunn _v._ Barry, 15 Wallace, 610, (94)
H
Hanley _v._ Donaghue, 116 U. S., 1, (147, 148)
Hanley _v._ Kansas City Southern Railroad Co., 187 U. S., 617, (70, 88)
Hans _v._ Louisiana, 134 U. S., 1, (141)
Harman _v._ Chicago, 147 U. S., 396, (75)
Harris _v._ People, 128 Illinois, 585, (225)
Hartell _v._ Tilghman, 99 U. S., 558, (44)
Hawaii _v._ Mankichi, 190 U. S., 197, (94, 163)
Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dallas, 409, note, (222)
Henderson _et al._ Mayor of the City of New York _et al._ (32)
Henderson _v._ Mayor of New York, 92 U. S., 259, (68)
Hepburn _v._ Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, (47, 126)
Hepburn _v._ Griswold, 8 Wallace, 603, (39)
Herdic _v._ Roessler, 109 N. Y., 127, (44)
Hill and Co. Lmtd. _v._ Hoover, 220 U. S., 329, (44)
Holden _v._ Hardy, 169 U. S., 366, (207)
Hollinger _v._ Davis, 146 U. S., 314, (225)
Hooe _v._ Jamieson, 166 U. S., 395, (142)
Hope _v._ U. S., 227 U. S., 308, (88)
Hull _v._ De Cuir, 95 U. S., 485, (32)
Hurtado _v._ California, 110 U. S., 514, (205, 220)
I
Inman S. S. Co., _v._ Tinker, 94 U. S., 238, (81)
_In re_ Debs, 158 U. S., 564, (87)
_In re_ Neagle, 135 U. S., 1, (85, 106, 116)
_In re_ Rapier, 143 U. S., 110, (43)
J
Juilliard _v._ Greenman, 110 U. S., 421, (38, 39, 95)
K
Kelly _v._ Pittsburgh, 104 U. S., 78, (62)
Kendall _v._ U. S., 12 Peters, 524, (107)
Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S., 321, (62)
Kidd _v._ Pearson, 128 U. S., 1, (73)
Kimmish _v._ Ball, 129 U. S., 217, (10)
Kingman _v._ City of Brockton, 153 Mass., 255, (61)
Kirtland _v._ Hotchkiss, 100 U. S., 491, (53, 54)
Knox _v._ Lee, 12 Wallace, 554, (40)
Kohl _v._ U. S., 91 U. S., 367, (100)
Kring _v._ Missouri, 107 U. S., 221, (224)
L
Lamar _ex_ _v._ Browne _et al._, 92 U. S., 187, (47)
Lascelles _v._ Georgia, 148 U. S., 537, (152, 153, 154)
Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wallace, 457, (156)
Leisy _v._ Hardin, 135 U. S., 100, (68, 79, 81)
License Cases (The), 5 Howard, 504, (10, 32, 97)
Loan Association _v._ Topeka, 20 Wallace, 655, (52, 61)
Lockner _v._ New York, 198 U. S., 45, (198, 209)
Lord _v._ S. S. Co., 102 U. S., 541, (88)
Lottery Cases, 188 U. S., 321, (83)
L. S. & M. S. Railway Co. _v._ Ohio, 173 U. S., (68, 79)
Luria _v._ U. S., 231 U. S., 9, (221)
Luther _v._ Borden, 7 Howard, 1, (128, 131, 154, 155)
M
Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 177, (16, 18, 24, 64, 107, 119, 125, 129, 131, 135, 143 [note], 176 [note], 185)
Martin _v._ Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304, (4, 125, 143, 188)
Mattingly _v._ District of Columbia, 97 U. S., 687, (97)
Mattox _v._ U. S., 156 U. S., 237, (226)
Maxwell _v._ Dow, 176 U. S., 606, (220)
Mayor (The) _etc._, of the City of New York _v._ Miln, 11 Peters, 102, (32)
McCrackin _v._ Hayward, 2 Howard, 608, (89, 94)
McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316, (3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 19, 26, 31, 34, 38, 51, 52, 53, 54, 66, 156, 187)
McElmayle _v._ Cohen, 13 Peters, 312, (147)
Metropolitan R. R. Co. _v._ District of Columbia, 132 U. S., 1, (48)
Minor _v._ Happersett, 21 Wallace, 162, (155, 215)
Mississippi _v._ Johnson, 4 Wallace, 475, (107, 110, 111)
Missouri Pacific Ry. _v._ Nebraska, 164 U. S., 403, (95)
Mitchell _v._ Clark, 110 U. S., 633, (94, 95)
Moore _v._ Houston, 3 S. and R. (Pa.), 179, (36)
Morgan S. S. Co. _v._ La. Board of Health, 118 U. S., 455, (68, 79)
Morley _v._ L. S. & W. S. R. R., 146 U. S., 162, (93)
Mormon Church _v._ U. S., 136 U. S., 1, (47)
Mugler _v._ Kansas, 123 U. S., 623, (98, 209)
Munn _v._ Illinois, 94 U. S., 113, (209)
Murray _v._ Charleston, 96 U. S., 432, (90)
Murray’s Lessee _v._ The Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., 18 Howard, 272, (205)
N
National Bank _v._ County of Yankton, 101 U. S., 129, (159, 160)
Neal _v._ Delaware, 103 U. S., 170, (223)
New Orleans Gas Co. _v._ Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S., 650, (93)
Nishimura Ekin _v._ U. S., 142 U. S., 651, (221)
Northern Securities Co. _v._ U. S., 193 U. S., 197, (84)
Norton _v._ Shelby County, 118 U. S., 425, (188)
O
Ogden _v._ Saunders, 12 Wheaton, 332, (188)
Ohio (The) and Mississippi R. R. Co. _v._ Wheeler, 1 Black, 286, (142)
Osborn _v._ Bank of the U. S., 9 Wheaton, 738, (136, 137)
P
Packet Co. _v._ Keokuk, 95 U. S., 80, (81)
Pana _v._ Bowler, 107 U. S., 529, (144)
Parker _v._ Davis, 12 Wallace, 79, (39)
Passenger (The) Cases, 7 Howard, 283, (81)
Patterson _v._ Kentucky, 97 U. S., 501, (44)
Paul _v._ Virginia, 8 Wallace, 168, (71, 149, 198, 213)
Pembina Mining Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 125 U. S., 181, (207)
Pennoyer _v._ Neff, 95 U. S., 714, (96, 151)
Pennsylvania College Cases, (Washington and Jefferson Colleges), 13 Wallace, 190, (91)
Pensacola Telegraph Co. _v._ Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S., 1, (32, 67, 70)
People _v._ Ruggles, 8 Johns (N.Y.), 290, (196)
Pfeiffer _v._ Board of Education, 77 N. W. Rep., 250, (196, 203)
Philadelphia and Southern S. S. Co. _v._ Pa., 122 U. S., 325, (59)
Pierce _v._ Drew, 136 Mass., 75, (100)
Pollock _v._ Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co., 158 U. S., 601, (190)
P. R. Co. _v._ Pa., 15 Wallace, 300, (52, 53)
Presser _v._ Illinois, 116 U. S., 252, (220)
Prize (The) Cases, 2 Black, 635, (46)
Pullman Car Co., 64 Fed. Reporter, 724, (85)
Pumpelly _v._ Green Bay Co., 13 Wallace, 166, (99)
R
Railroad Co. _v._ Huson, 95 U. S., 465, (79, 81)
Railroad Co. _v._ Tennessee, 101 U. S., 337, (141)
Rasmussen _v._ U. S., 197 U. S., (49, 163)
Rex _v._ Dawson, 5 State Trials, (45)
Reynolds _v._ U. S., 98 U. S., 145, (195, 203)
Rhodes _v._ Iowa, 170 U. S., 412, (81)
Riggs _v._ Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 166, (143)
Robbins _v._ Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S., 489, (78)
Robertson _v._ Baldwin, 165 U. S., 275, (204)
Robertson _v._ Cease, 97 U. S., 646, (118)
Rogers _v._ Alabama, 192 U. S., 226, (17)
S
Salt Co. _v._ E. Saginaw, 13 Wallace, 373, (91)
Sands _v._ Manistee River Improvement Co., 123 U. S., 238, (75, 157)
Savings and Loan Society _v._ Multnomah County, 169 U. S., 421, (54)
Schellenberger _v._ Pa., 171 U. S., 1, (68, 81)
Scott _v._ Sandford, 19 Howard, 393, (58)
Secretary (The) _v._ McGarrahan, 9 Wallace, 298, (189)
Security Mutual Life Insurance Co. _v._ Prewitt, 202 U. S., 246, (143)
Shreveport (The) Case (Houston East and West Texas Railway Co. _v._ U. S.; Texas and Pacific Railway Co. _v._ U. S.), 234 U. S., 342, (88)
Sinnot _v._ Davenport, 22 Howard, 227 (32)
Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wallace, 77, (150, 156, 200, 212, 214, 215)
Smith _v._ Alabama, 124 U. S., 465, (145)
South Carolina _v._ U. S., 199 U. S., 437, (62)
South Dakota _v._ North Dakota, 192 U. S., 286, (139)
Southern Pacific Railroad Co. _v._ California, 118 U. S., 109, (137)
Spaulding _v._ Vilas, 161 U. S., 483, (107)
Spring Valley Water Works _v._ Schottler, 110 U. S., 347, (209)
Sproule _v._ Fredericks, 69 Miss., 898, (3)
Stanley _v._ Schwalby, 162 U. S., 255, (138)
State _ex rel._ _v._ Simons, 32 Minn., 540, (136)
State _ex rel._ _v._ Stone, 120 Missouri, 428, (111, 131, 189)
State _ex rel._ Weiss _v._ District Board, 76 Wis., 177, (196)
Steamboat (The) _Magnolia_, 20 Howard, 296, (137)
Stone _v._ City of Charleston, 114 Mass., 214, (32)
Strander _v._ West Virginia, 100 U. S., 303, (218)
Sturgis _v._ Crowningshield, 4 Wheaton, 122 (188)
Supervisors of Elections (Case of), 114 Mass., 247, (135)
T
Talbot _v._ Seeman, 1 Cranch, 38, (148)
Taylor _v._ Place, 4 R. I., 324, (19, 31)
Telegraph Co. _v._ Texas, 105 U. S., 460, (80)
Texas _v._ White, 7 Wallace, 700, (156)
Thompson _v._ Utah, 170 U. S., 343, (160, 163, 224)
Thompson _v._ Whitman, 18 Wallace, 457, (146)
Transportation Co. _v._ California Railroad Commission, 236 U. S., 151, (88)
Transportation Co. _v._ Wheeling, 99 U. S., 273, (52, 82)
Trebilcock _v._ Wilson, 12 Wallace, 687, (39)
Trustees of Dartmouth College _v._ Woodward, 4 Wheaton, 518, (91)
Turner _v._ Maryland, 107 U. S., 38, (81)
Twining _v._ State of New Jersey, 211 U. S., 78, (221)
U
U. S. _v._ Aaron Burr, Cotton’s Constitutional Opinions of John Marshall, i., 100, (188)
U. S. _v._ Black, 128 U. S., 40, (107, 111, 112, 189)
U. S. _v._ Blaine, 139 U. S., 306, (107, 189)
U. S. _v._ Boyd, 116 U. S., 616, (198)
U. S. _v._ Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542 (156, 197, 217)
U. S. _v._ Del. & Hudson Ry., 213 U. S., 366 (88)
U. S. _v._ E. C. Knight Co., 165 U. S., 1, (72)
U. S. _ex rel._ Daly, 28 App. D. C., 552; 35 Wash. Law. Rep., 81, (111)
U. S. _ex rel._ _v._ Duell, 172 U. S., 576, (222)
U. S. _ex rel._ Newcomb Motor Co., 30 App. D. C., 464; 36 Wash. Law Rep., 150, (111)
U. S. _v._ Fisher, 2 Cranch, 396, (26, 27)
U. S. _v._ Freight Association, 166 U. S., 290, (127)
U. S. _v._ Holliday, 3 Wallace, 407, (88)
U. S. _v._ Lee, 106 U. S., 196, (133, 141)
U. S. _v._ Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co., 236 U. S., 318, (198)
U. S. _v._ Marigold, 9 Howard, 560, (42)
U. S. _v._ Rauscher, 119 U. S., 407, (153)
U. S. _v._ Rodgers, 150 U. S., 249, (46, 222)
U. S. _v._ R. R. Co., 17 Wallace, 322, (59)
U. S. _v._ Smith, 5 Wheaton, 153, (45)
U. S. _v._ Texas, 143 U. S., 621, (139)
U. S. _v._ Villato, 2 Dallas, 373, (221)
U. S. _v._ Windom, 137 U. S., 636, (107, 189)
U. S. _v._ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., 649, (221)
V
Vanini _et al._ _v._ Paine _et al._, 1 Harr. (Del.) 65, (44)
Veazie Bank _v._ Fenno, 8 Wallace, 533, (62)
W
Walker _v._ Sauvinet, 92 U. S., 90, (220)
Walton _v._ Missouri, 91 U. S., 275, (76, 77)
Ward _v._ Maryland, 12 Wallace, 418, (150)
Weaver _v._ Fegely, 29 Pa. St., 27, (36)
Weeks _v._ U. S., 232 U. S., 383, (198)
Weems _v._ U. S., 217 U. S., 394, (49)
Wellington, Petitioner, 16 Pickering (Mass.), 96, (186)
Wells _v._ Bain, 75 Pa. St., 39, (3)
West _v._ Cabell, 153 U. S., 78, (198)
West _v._ Louisiana, 194 U. S., 258, (220)
Western Union Telegraph Co. _v._ Call Publishing Co., 181 U. S., 92, (145)
Weston _et al._ _v._ City of Charleston, 2 Peters, 466, (13)
Wheaton _v._ Peters, 8 Peters, 591 (43)
Whitten _v._ Tomlinson, 160 U. S., 231, (143)
Wiley _v._ Sinkler, 179 U. S., 58, (157, 177, 216)
Williamette Iron Bridge Co. _v._ Hatch, 125 U. S., 1, (32)
Williamson _v._ Berry, 8 Howard, 540, (147)
Wilson _v._ New Ferris, Receivers Mo. Ok. and G. Railway Co., (64)
Wisconsin Central R. R. Co. _v._ Price County, 133 U. S., 496, (60)
Wisconsin _v._ Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U. S., 265, (140)
Woodruff _v._ Trapnall, 10 Howard, 190, (89, 90)
Y
Yick Wo _v._ Hopkins, 118 U. S., 356, (206, 211)
INDEX
A
Aliens, as citizens and allegiance of, 1
Allegiance, 222
Ambassadors, 119, 120, 137
Amendments, protect fundamental rights, 22; the Sixteenth, 23, 24, 57, 61; I.-XVII., 28, 29, 57, 58, 61; Fourteenth, 96, 97; Eleventh, the, 114, 115; first ten, 173–175, 199, 200; Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, 175; Thirteenth, 176, 198, 200; Fourteenth, 176, 198, 200, 206, 207, 216, 217; Fifth, 198; Fifteenth, 222, 223; Ninth, 200; Tenth, 200, 203; Fourth, 203; Seventh, 210
Anti-Trust Act, 83, 84, 85
Appropriations, 22, 171; of Representatives and Senators, 179
Arizona, admission of, 158
Army, 171
Asylum, right of, 152, 153
Attainder, bill of, 22, 171, 172
B
Bank, State, 89, 90
Bankruptcies, 36, 37
Bible, in public schools, 202, 203
Bill of credit, 41
Bill of Rights, 173–175; the Constitution a, 187, 210, 211
Bonds, 90
Boycott, 84
C
Cabinet, the, 105, 106
California, law of, held constitutional, 220
Carriers, Common, 87
Charters, 91
Checks and balances, 164, 165; on the Executive, 166–169; on Congress, 170–177, 178; on the States, 176–181
Checks on Congress, 27
Chief Justice, in Court of Impeachment, 103, 108, 109
Cities, jurisdiction over, 48
Citizen, of a territory, of a State, 141, 142; privileges and immunities of, 149, 150, 212, 215, 220; as participant in the federal government, 182; as elector, 216
Citizens, privileges and immunities of, 149, 150, 163 (note)
Citizenship, defined, 212; two citizenships, 212, 213, 226–229
Civil Rights Bill, 218, 219
Comity, the law of State, 146–163
Commerce, regulation of interstate, 22; law of, 63–88; regulation of, belongs to sovereignty, 63, 64; defined, 67; State and interstate, 63–88; unlawful restraint of, 72; when an article is of, 73; distinguished from manufacture, 73; “taxation of commerce,” meaning of, 75; principal of regulation of, 76, 77, 78; interstate, 78, 88; intrastate, 79, 80, 88; “foreign commerce,” 87, 88
Confederation, a league, 7; unable to regulate commerce, 66
Congress, law making by, 2, 18–50; determines extent of taxation, regulates commerce, protects citizens, determines jurisdiction of federal courts, assigns duties and powers to the President, 25; powers of, political, 26; abuse of powers by, 27; checks on, 27; test of authority of, 30, 31; powers of, derived, 34, 35; war power of, 46; power over territory, 48, 49, 50; power of, over commerce, 63–88; limitation of powers of, as to commerce, 69–88; debates in, as evidence in court, 127; decides political questions, 128; governs territory, 158–163; power over outlying possessions, 161, 162, 163; checks on, 170–176; unconstitutional legislation, 218, 219
Constitution, the supreme law, 1; essential to sovereignty, 2; ordained by the people, 2; a practical instrument, 19, 20; provides only for judicial interpretation, 24; relative rank with act of Congress, 24, 25; unwritten, 27; how amended, 180, 181; administrative provisions in, 191, 192; essential features of, 194
Constitutions, State, 1776–1787, 21; limit Legislatures, 22, 23
Consuls, 119, 120, 137
Contracts, between citizens of different States, 37, 38; obligation of, 37; a lawful, 40; law of, the, 89–101; obligation of, under the Constitution, 93, 94; constitutional use of the word, 98
Convention, 107, 108
Convention (federal), 6; to amend Constitution, 180, 181
Cooley, quoted, 205
Copyrights, 36, 43
Corporations, municipal, 59; as citizen, 139, 142; rights of, 139, 140, 149
Counterfeiting, 36, 41, 42
Counties, jurisdiction over, 48
Courts, inferior, 122 _et seq._
Courts, Territorial, 125
Courts, Supreme and inferior, 113, 122, 123; jurisdiction of federal, 115 _et seq._; Territorial, 125; political questions and the, 126; do not decide political questions, 128; province and duty of, 129; judicial supremacy, 129–131; essential power of the Supreme Court, 142, 143; federal sitting as State, 144, 145; limitation of federal, 178
D
Debts, of the U. S., 40
Domain, eminent, exercise of, by U. S. or the States, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100
“Due process of law,” charitable institutions not entitled to, or a person, 60; a fundamental right, 95, 204, 220
Duties, export, 22; uniform, 40, 171
Duty, a ministerial, 110, 111, 112
E
Election, disputed, of President or Vice-President, 180
Elections, disputed presidential, 167
Electors, denial of right of, 179
England, as sovereign, 2
Excises, 40, 171
Executive, law of, 102–112; checks on, 166–169
Exemption, from taxation (Churches, Schools, etc.), 60; from income tax, 61
Expatriation, 222
Expenditures, public statement of, 22
_Ex post facto_ law, 22, 171, 177, 224
F
_Federalist, The_, quoted or cited, 4, 8, 12, 13, 17, 33, 34, 35, 36, 116, 117, 118, 187
Fee, license, 74
Felonies, 44
Florida, as a territory, status in U. S., 127
France, as sovereign, 2
Fugitives from justice, 151, 152; political, 153, 154
Ft. Leavenworth Military Reservation, 48
G
Gallatin, Albert, on Louisiana purchase, 14, 15
Government, representative, 2; republican form guaranteed, 6; a unit, 19; distinguished from sovereignty, 23; limited, affected by Sixteenth Amendment, 23, 24; national, when supreme, 34; nature of national, 38; Marshall’s differentiation between State and federal, 51; of the U. S., distinct from the State, 116; what constitutes a lawful State, 128; principal of separation of powers of, 135, 136; of the U. S. power of, 137, 138; what is a republican form of? 154, 155, 156
Governor, power of extradition, 151, 152; issues writs of election, 179
H
Habeas Corpus, 21, 143
Hamilton, on National and State systems, 13; as interpreter of the Constitution, 28; as to State and federal sovereignty 35, 36; on residuary sovereignty, 177; on the Constitution as a Bill of Rights, 187
Hayes, President, on power of the President, 109, 110
House of Representatives (U. S.) members, 103, 172, 179; election of, 182, 216. (_See also_ _Congress_, _Powers_.)
I
Impeachment, 107
Imports, 40
Imposts, 171
Information, prosecution by, 220
Interstate commerce, testimony before, 225, 226
J
Jefferson, on Louisiana purchase, 13; as interpreter of the Constitution, 28
Johnson, President, 103
Judges, bound by the Constitution, 1
Judiciary Act, 141
Judiciary, as agent, 3, 4; law of judicial power, the, 113–145; supremacy of, 129–133
Jurisdiction, of congress and legislatures, 18–50; principle of, 38; of the U. S., 45, 58, 63; of a State, 48; State and federal compared, 51, 68, 72, 73, 78, 80, 81, 82, 86, 91, 92, 95, 97; the test, 53; of the Executive, 102–112; of the Judiciary, 113–145; of Supreme and of inferior federal courts, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123; admiralty, 121; federal and State distinguished, 124, 125; as to political questions, 126, 127; original of Supreme Court, 136, 137; national commercial, 137; principal of State, 146, 147; no new conferred by the constitution, 146; determines citizenship, 151
_Jury_, as used in the Constitution, 209, 210; indictment of, 220
Justice, principles of natural, 50
K
Kansas, jurisdiction over Ft. Leavenworth Military Reservation, 48
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, 17 (note)
L
Law, presumption of, 31; test of constitutionality, 30, 31; bankrupt, insolvent, 37, 38; postal, 42; patent, 44; common, 45; inspection, 81; due process of, 95; what is constitutional? 132, 135; _ex post facto_, 22, 171, 224
Legislatures, State, powers of, 22, 35–37, 53, 90; discretion of, 54, 79; appoints presidential electors, 167; office of, 218
Limitations, the law of, 164–190
Lincoln, Levi, on Louisiana purchase, 14
Lincoln, President, on law of limitations, 166; on tenure of Cabinet officers, 105
Liquors, 97, 98
Louisiana, power to purchase, 13, 14, 15
M
Madison, defines a republic, 4, 5; on power of national government, 12, 13
Mails, 42; and lottery tickets, 43, 85, 86
Mandamus, 111
Manufacture, distinguished from commerce, 73; right to, 98
Marque and reprisal, 37
Marshall, Chief Justice, defines U. S. government, 6, 7; on taxing power, 9, 10; on war and treaty-making powers, 15; enthrones Hamilton’s ideas, 28; on sovereignty, 34; distinction by, between State and federal, 51; on regulation of commerce, 63, 119; on international law, 148; lays down principle of constitutional interpretation, 186, 187
Massachusetts, constitution of 1780, 5
Measures, 36, 37
Ministers, public, 119, 120, 137
Monopolies, 72, 83, 84
N
Naturalization, 221
Nobility, title of, 172
Nuisance, 97
Nullification, 17
O
Oath, 2
Office, legal right to, 91; constitutional meaning of, 103
P
Package, original, 75
Parliament, 21
Parties, political, interpret the Constitution, 27, 28
Patent rights, 36, 43
People, The, sovereign, 2; author of supreme law, 5, 6; power to amend constitution, 7; sovereignty of, 12, 13
Piracies, 44, 45
Polygamy, 203
Possessions, outlying, power of Congress over, 161, 162, 163
Post offices, 42
Post roads, 42
Powers, derivative 2; original and derivative distinguished, 5; taxing, 9; legislative, 18–50; defined, 18; character of, 18–50; separation of, 19, 20; of respective Houses, 20, 21, 22; limitations of, 18, 22, 23, 24; American doctrine of, 19; parliamentary, 20, 21; nature and extent of Constitutional, 21; of Congress reflect eighteenth century ideas, 25, 26; of Congress derivative, 34, 35; implied, 36; conflict between State and federal, 36–39; implied or expressed, 38, 39, 55; police, 42–45, 73, 74, 79, 81, 91, 92, 98, 121, 205–208; of Congress as to crime or immorality, 42; taxing, 52, _et seq._; of State governments, 55, 56; judicial review of taxing, 57, 58; police powers of U. S. and States distinguished, 68; residuary of States, 73; taxing by State and U. S. defined, 76; law of executive, 102–112; law of judicial, 113–145; the U. S. Government, 137–139; exact division between State and federal unknown, 183; delegated, 191
Preamble, 26, 76
President, veto of, 2; military and naval power, 46; executes U. S. laws, 46; character of his decisions, 46, 47; nature of powers of, 102–112; oath of, 102; trial of, 103; test of execution of office of, 103; Johnson, 103; impeachment of, 102, 103, 107, 108
Principles of Constitutional law, as to sovereignty, 9, 39, 217; separation of powers, 19; limitations, 22, 27; learned from judicial decisions, 30; as to adequate federal powers, 33, 34, 54; of natural justice, 50; as to commerce, 70; as to the police power, 92; as to obligation of contracts, 93; consequentive damages, 99; of judicial power, 130; 136; of federal judicial jurisdiction, 142, 143; of State comity, 147, 150; as to powers of Congress, 183; constitutional interpretation, 186, 187; fundamental rights, 191–211; equality of citizens, 217; due process of law, 219, 220; of citizenship, 221
Prohibition, 97, 98
R
Receipts, publication of, 22
Residuary sovereignty, 12
Revenue, bills of, 172
Rights, the law of fundamental, 190–211; religious liberty, 191, 195; freedom of speech, of the press, 196, 197; right of petition, 197; exemption from searches and seizures, 197, 198, 225; life, liberty, property, 199; realized through the Judiciary, 201; relation to Constitutional limitations, 202; trial by jury, 209, 210; bills of, 210, 211
S
Senate (U. S.) members, 103, 172, 179; treaties, 104; as Court of Impeachment, 108; represents the States, 180; election of, 216. (_See also_ _Congress_, _Powers_.)
Services, Constitutional meaning of, 103
Sovereignty, agent of, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; delegated to Congress, 19, 20; of the people, 34; Hamilton on State and federal, 35, 36; national, 38, 39, 41, 100; possessed by U. S. and by States, 47; State distinguished from federal, 51; as to commerce, 63; of Congress over outlying possessions, 161–163
State (in the Union), quasi-sovereign, 2; Legislature, 2; sovereignty of, 6–9, 55, 100; supremacy of, 34; powers of Legislatures derivative, 35, 36
State, powers of legislature extinguished by Congress, 36; implied powers of, 36; power to punish counterfeiting, 41, 42; police power of, 43, 44, 45, 79, 81, 91, 92, 98, 121, 205, 206, 207, 208; meaning of “State” in the Constitution, 47, 48, 141; and U. S. possess sovereignty, 47; subdivisions of, 48; system of State government distinguished from federal, 51; power of, over commerce, 64, 67; limitation of jurisdiction of, 82; may be petitioned, not suable, 114, 115; what constitutes a republican form of, 128; suability, 140; the word “States” in the Constitution, 141; jurisdiction of, determined, 147; principle of relation of State to State, 147, 148; law of in federal courts, 148; the States mutually foreign to one another, 148; rights of citizens of, 149; admission of a, 156, 157; the States indestructible, 158; new States, 173; limitation of power of, 176–181; the States as limitations on the U. S., 179, 180; appoints presidential electors, 179; subdivision of, 180; guaranteed a republican form of government, 180; States and amendment of the Constitution, 180, 181; citizenship, 213
Suffrage, 223
Supreme Court of the U. S., Marshall’s decisions, 28; principle of interpretation, 31, 34, 39, 186; on boundary between the federal and State systems, 51; part of the judicial department, 56; powers not delegated, 59; has not defined power over commerce, 63; nature of power of U. S. over commerce, 65, 76, 77; decisions on Anti-Trust Act, 83, 84; on obligation of contracts, 93; adequacy of its authority, 106; on executive and ministerial powers, 112; judicial power of, 113, 114 _et seq._; jurisdiction, original and appellate, 119–136; on the war power, 127; nature of jurisdiction, 129–142; determines constitutional law, 133–135; jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act, 141; relation to State tribunals, 144, 145; as to republican form of government, 155, 156; decision of as to power of Congress over Territories and possessions, 160–163, 183, 184, 201; on delegated powers, 175; jurisdiction when a State is a party, 178; function of the Judiciary, 185; power of U. S. to acquire territory, 193; power vested in, 194; on the nature of American institutions, 210, 211; on citizens’ rights, 214; on “due process of law,” 220; on the Fifteenth Amendment, 222, 223
“Sweeping Clause,” 26
T
Tax, export, 22, 52; essentials of a good, 52, 60, 61; income, 58 (_and see under_ Amendment); exemptions, 60; direct, indirect, 61
Taxation, law of, 51–62; by a State, 52–56; national, 54; power of U. S. over, 65, 66
Tender, legal, 38, 39
Territory, when sovereign, 47; power of Congress over, 48, 141, 183; the law of, and of territories, 146–163; becoming a State, 157, 158; governed by Congress, 159, 160, 162, 163
Texas, law of, regulating commerce, 80
Tickets, lottery, 43, 83, 85
Treason, 172
Treaties, 104; in the Senate, 180
U
United States, supreme law of, 2 _et seq._; laws of, by whom made, 2; guarantees republican form of government, 6; sovereignty of, 8–13; organization of, reflects popular will, 18; governmental functions of, 19, 20; powers of, 20 _et seq._; admiralty, jurisdiction of, 45, 46; war power of, 46; and States possess sovereignty, 47; civil system of, distinguished from State, 51; powers of, as to States, 54–57; power over commerce, 63–88; the peace of, 85; police power of, 95; citizenship, 214, 216, 217
V
Veto, 2
Vice-President, 108
W
Waite, Chief Justice, quoted, 92
Waters, navigable, 46
Webster, Daniel, his definition of law, 205
Weights, 36, 37
Wilson, James, on the Constitution a Bill of Rights, 187, 188
FOOTNOTES
[1] Art. vi., 2, 3, and Preamble.
[2] Art. i., 7: 2.
[3] The Supreme Court of Mississippi in Sproule _v._ Fredericks, 69 Miss. 898 (1892), decided that the Constitutional Convention of that State (1890) “wielded the powers of sovereignty specially delegated to it, for the purpose and the occasion, by the whole electoral body, for the good of the whole Commonwealth.” The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Wells _v._ Bain, 75 Pa. St. 39 (1874), decided that the Convention of 1872 was “not a co-ordinate branch of the government,” and possessed only “delegated powers.” The Supreme Court of the United States, through Marshall, C. J., decided in McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316 (1819), that the Constitution which came from the hands of the Federal Convention of 1787 “was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. By the Convention, by Congress, and by the State Legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it, in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true they assembled in their several States; and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments. From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is “ordained and established” in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, “in order to@ form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.” The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived by the State governments. The Constitution when thus adopted was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties.” The character of the Constitution, its purport and principles, is examined in Martin _v._ Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304 (1816). Decision by Story, J.
[4] No. xxxix.
[5] Art. v.
[6] Constitution (1780 to date) Pt. I. Art. iv. The words “substitutes and agents” may be considered equivalent to the modern words “administrative officers.”
[7] Art. iv., 4.
[8] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, note, _supra_.
[9] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, note, _supra_.
[10] _Idem._ (The language of the Court slightly paraphrased.)
[11] Art. v.
[12] _The Federalist_, No. lxii.
[13] McCulloch _v._ Maryland.
[14] Art. i., 8: 1; but see Amendment XVI.
[15] McCulloch _v._ Maryland.
[16] Articles i., 8: 5; ii., 2: 2; i., 10: 3; i., 8: 2.
[17] The License Cases, 5 Howard, 504 (1846); Kimmish _v._ Ball, 129 U. S., 217 (1889); Cook _v._ Marshall Company, 196 U. S., 261.
[18] Discussed at length in the chapters on State Comity, and Commerce.
[19] Art. iv. (and preceding note).
[20] See also Chapters XII and XIII.
[21] Barron _v._ Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243 (1833).
[22] No. xxxix.
[23] Cohens _v._ Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 382 (1821). Madison’s thought is incorporated into Weston _et al._ _v._ the City of Charleston, 2 Peters, 466 (1829.)
[24] _The Federalist_, No. lxxxii.
[25] Gallatin’s _Writings_, i., 11.
[26] Sustained by Downes _v._ Bidwell, 182 U. S., 244 (1901).
[27] The American Insurance Company _v._ Canter, 1 Peters, 511 (1828).
[28] Compare the Preamble. The entire discussion in _The Federalist_ is of the conformity of the Constitution to a republican government and of the necessity of governmental powers adequate to governmental purposes.
[29] Art. x.
[30] Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 176 (1803).
[31] Every question in constitutional law, in the United States, sooner or later leads back to a question of sovereignty. What that sovereignty is can be known only by its operation,—that is, by political experience. What powers are delegated by the Constitution is the question answered (at least in part) by courts of law and legislatures, by publicists and by the actual administration of government. Widely divergent interpretations of that sovereignty and that law have been held throughout our history as a nation. These divergent opinions are recorded in the Debates during the formation and ratification of the Constitution; in the discussions incident to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798; in the discussions relating to Nullification, in 1833; again in 1860 and immediately prior; and in various decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice Marshall’s decisions (some thirty-six in number), the opinion of that Court in his time, remain the classic interpretation of national sovereignty. _The Federalist_ remains the classic contemporaneous interpretation of the Constitution.
The issue involved is, fundamentally, one of _functions_, and is viewed at different times with different understandings. As a practical question, it is one of _jurisdiction_ as legally understood, but as a question of _service_ as politically understood. Here enter many and diverse factors as morals, industry, communal interest, public safety, social needs, and the like. Questions growing out of these are not and cannot be decided finally by any generation. Each generation interprets these factors. Thus constitutional interpretation becomes, not a fixed quantity, but an adjustment to reason and necessity. Prudence dictates that interpretation be conservative. The constitutional and political history of America must be read along with its constitutional law. In addition to cases already cited in this chapter, the following may advantageously be read, though each contains matter of special application to other aspects of the subject: _Ex parte_ Siebold, 100 U. S., 371 (1879); The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3 (1883); Rogers _v._ Alabama, 192 U. S., 226 (1904).
[32] Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 177.
[33] Art. i., 1.
[34] Art. vi., 2.
[35] A typical formulation in Massachusetts, (1780) Pt. I., xxx. Discussed in Taylor _v._ Place, 4 R. I., 324 (1856.)
[36] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316.
[37] Art. i., v.; Amendment XII.
[38] “The Sources and Authorship of the Constitution,” in the author’s _Constitutional History of the United States_, iii., 464–515.
[39] Art. i., 8: 1.
[40] Art. i., 9: 2.
[41] _Id._, 3.
[42] _Id._, 5.
[43] _Id._, 6.
[44] _Id._, 7.
[45] See the Chapters on _The Law of Limitations_, and _The Law of Fundamental Rights_.
[46] _Pennsylvania_, 1873, Art. i., 26.
[47] Thus annulling Art. i., 2: 3.
[48] It will be profitable to compare this amendment with the doctrine laid down in Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 137. See also _The Reconciliation of Government and Liberty_, J. W. Burgess (1915).
[49] The fundamental principle of judicial interpretation is laid down in Marbury _v._ Madison; the principle is examined in the Chapter on _The Law of Judicial Power_.
[50] Art. iii.
[51] This point is elaborated and examined by the Supreme Court in the decision declaring the Civil Rights Bill of April 9, 1866, unconstitutional. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3 (1883). The doctrine annunciated is that Congress has no power to legislate _generally_ upon subjects, power over which is reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.
[52] See authorities at close of preceding Chapter; also Chapter XI.
[53] In this connection as to the President see Field _v._ Clark, 143 U. S., 649 (1892).
[54] Art. i., 8: 18.
[55] Preamble. As to “necessary and proper,” see United States _v._ Fisher, 2 Cranch, 396; McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 421.
[56] U. S. _v._ Fisher, _supra_.
[57] The great opinions interpretative of the Constitution have each their historical setting. Illustration of this is given in the annotated editions of Marshall’s decisions, _e. g._, J. P. Cotton’s edition, 2 vols. 1905.
[58] For a detailed history of the first fifteen amendments see the author’s _Constitutional History of the United States_; the social and political history from 1789 to 1870 are related, respectively, by John Bach McMaster in his _History of the People of the United States_, and by James Schouler in his _History of the United States_. J. F. Rhodes in his _History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850_, 7 vols. (1850–1877), gives the history of congressional legislation and of judicial interpretation during the period. Much of the history relevant to the great decisions of the Court is given in the decisions.
[59] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316 (1819). Many later decisions apply this principle.
For an examination of the character and scope of the Legislative Department, see
Taylor _v._ Place, 4 R. I., 324 (1856); Dalby _v._ Wolf, 14 Iowa, 228 (1862); Stone _v._ City of Charleston, 114 Mass., 214 (1873); Barrno _v._ Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243 (1833); Calder _v._ Bull, 3 Dallas, 386 (1798).
The powers of Congress over taxation, commerce, the currency, war, territories, outlying possessions, etc., are particularly examined under appropriate headings in later chapters.
In addition to cases cited in the present Chapter, and to the above, and relating to the powers of Congress, see Gibbons _v._ Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 1 (1824); The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York _v._ Miln, 11 Peters, 102 (1837); The License Cases, 5 Howard, 504 (1847); Sinnot _v._ Davenport, 22 Howard, 227 (1859); Gilman _v._ Philadelphia, 3 Wallace, 713 (1865); Henderson _et al._ Mayor of the City of New York, _et al._ Commissioners of Immigration _v._ North German Lloyd, 92 U. S., 259 (1875); Hull _v._ De Cuir, 95 U. S., 485 (1877); Pensacola Telegraph Co. _v._ Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S., 1 (1877); County of Mobile _v._ Kimball, 102 U. S., 691 (1880); Williamette Iron Bridge Co. _v._ Hatch, 125 U. S., 1 (1888).
The best brief treatise on the legislative in America is _American Legislatures and Legislative Methods_, by Paul S. Reinsch, 1907; the most exhaustive and authoritative treatise is _Constitutional Limitations_, by Thomas M. Cooley. The general powers of Congress are discussed by Justice Story in his _Commentaries on the Constitution_, and by Chancellor Kent in his _Commentaries on American Law_.
See also the authorities cited in the present work on _The Law of the Judicial Power_.
[60] No. xvi.
[61] No. xxxi.
[62] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316 (1819).
[63] _The Federalist_, xxxii.
[64] _Idem._ and Weaver _v._ Fegely, 29 Pennsylvania State, 27 (1857).
[65] Moore _v._ Houston, 3 S. and R. (Pa.), 179, and the cases cited in Weaver _v._ Fegely.
[66] See cases as under preceding note.
[67] Baldwin _v._ Hale, 1 Wallace, 223 (1863).
[68] Baldwin _v._ Hale, _supra_.
[69] Juilliard _v._ Greenman, 110 U. S., 421 (1884), citing and quoting McCulloch _v._ Maryland.
[70] Art. i., 8: 1, 2, 5.
[71] Distinctions as to United States notes, coin, currency, legal tender, etc., are brought out in Juilliard _v._ Greenman, _supra_; Hepburn _v._ Griswold, 8 Wallace, 603 (1869); Parker _v._ Davis, 12 Wallace, 79 (1871); Trebilcock _v._ Wilson, 12 Wallace, 687 (1871).
[72] Knox _v._ Lee, Parker _v._ Davis, 12 Wallace, 554 (1871).
[73] An account of the struggles of political parties, and of the successive decisions of the Supreme Court as to Legal Tender Acts belongs to the history of the law rather than to a statement of the essentials of present constitutional law. Accounts of this struggle, available in histories of the United States, may be compared with Justice Stephen J. Field’s account in J. Norton Pomeroy’s _Some Account of the Work of Stephen J. Field as a Legislator, State Judge, and Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States_ (1881), (Edition by George C. Gorham, 1895) pp. 65–86. Mr. Justice Field’s dissenting opinions from the decisions of the Supreme Court which sustain the constitutionality of the Acts are based largely on his conception of the principle of the obligation of a contract as contained in the Constitution respecting “gold and silver coin.” For the history of the Acts, the decision of the Court invalidating them (1869); the increase of the membership of the Court (1870); the reversal of the earlier decisions (1871), and the final decision in Juilliard _v._ Greenman (1883), consult Rhodes, vi., 268, 270–273, and Note.
[74] Art. i., 10: 1.
[75] Briscoe _v._ Bank of Kentucky, 11 Peters, 257 (1837).
[76] Darrington _v._ The Bank of Alabama, 13; Howard, 12 Briscoe _v._ Bank of Kentucky, _supra_.
[77] Art. i., 8: 6.
[78] _Id._ 5, 10: 1.
[79] United States _v._ Marigold, 9 Howard, 560 (1849); Fox _v._ Ohio, 5 Howard, 410.
[80] _In re_ Rapier, 143 U. S., 110 (1892); Battle _v._ U. S., 209 U. S., 36.
[81] Wheaton _v._ Peters, 8 Peters, 591 (1834).
[82] Vanini _et al._ _v._ Paine _et al._ 1 Harr. (Del.) 65, quoted in Patterson _v._ Kentucky, 97 U.S., 501 (1878).
[83] _Id._ See also Herdic _v._ Roessler, 109 New York, 127 (1888); Hill and Co. Lmtd. _v._ Hoover, 220 U.S., 329. “Where a suit is brought on a contract of which a patent is the subject matter, either to enforce such contract, or to annul it, the case arises on the contract and not under the patent laws.” Hartell _v._ Tilghman, 99 U.S., 558. See also Dale Tile Mfg. Co. _v._ Hyatt, 125 U.S., 46 (1888).
[84] Rex _v._ Dawson, 5 State Trials.
[85] U. S. _v._ Smith, 5 Wheaton, 153 (1820).
[86] Art. iii., 2: 1.
[87] U. S. _v._ Rodgers, 150 U. S., 249 (1893).
[88] Art. i., 8: 11; The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635 (1862).
[89] Brown _v._ U. S., 8 Cranch, 110; American Insurance Co. _v._ Canter, 1 Peters, 511; Lamar _ex._ _v._ Browne _et al._, 92 U. S., 187; Mormon Church _v._ U. S., 136 U. S., 1.
[90] Hepburn _v._ Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445 (1804).
[91] Barron _v._ Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243 (1833).
[92] Metropolitan R. R. Co. _v._ District of Columbia, 132 U. S., 1 (1889).
[93] Ft. Leavenworth R. R. Co. _v._ Lowe, 114 U. S., 525 (1885).
[94] Art. iv., 3.
[95] Dorr _v._ U. S., 195 U. S., 138 (1904); Hawaii _v._ Mankichi, 190 U. S., 197 (1903); Dooley _v._ U. S., 183 U. S., 151 (1901); Downes _v._ Bidwell, 182 U. S. (1901); Rasmussen _v._ U. S., 197 U. S., Weems _v._ U. S., 217 U. S., 349. (But see dissenting opinions in above cases.)
[96] Downes _v._ Bidwell, _supra_, and cases and laws therein cited and quoted.
[97] _Idem._
[98] There are powerful dissenting opinions in the various Insular Cases. The chief objection to the unlimited control of insular territory by Congress is that Congress itself, by the Constitution, possesses only limited powers. How can a limited Congress exercise unlimited powers?
[99] Downes _v._ Bidwell, _supra_. (The Court cites, in confirmation, the history of Congress and of the British Parliament.)
[100] Bank of Commerce _v._ New York City, 2 Black, 620 (1862) quoting from McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 431 (1819). The principle is laid down in the decision that “the sovereignty of a State extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission; but it does not extend to these means which are employed by Congress to carry into execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the United States.” _Id._ 429.
[101] Bank of Commerce _v._ New York City, _supra_.
[102] Loan Association _v._ Topeka, 20 Wallace, 655 (1874), quoting Cooley on _Constitutional Limitations_, 479.
[103] P. R. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 15 Wallace, 300 (1872). The constitutional use of the taxing power by the United States and by the several States is examined by Hamilton in _The Federalist_, No. xxxii.,—the classic contemporaneous exposition of the taxing clauses of the Constitution. For a judicial examination of these clauses see Transportation Company _v._ Wheeling, 99 U. S., 273 (1878). The idea held both by Hamilton and by the Court is that taxation is the exercise of sovereign power; that “all subjects over which the sovereign power of a State extends are objects of taxation,” but that “objects over which it does not extend, as for example, the means and instruments of the general government, are exempt from taxation.” (The quotation in Transportation Co. _v._ Wheeling, from McCulloch _v._ Maryland is not verbally accurate.)
[104] The phrase (_Federalist_, No. lxii.) may be Hamilton’s or Madison’s.
[105] P. R. Co., _v._ Pennsylvania, 15 Wallace, 300.
[106] This principle applies also in international law.
[107] The principle is established in McCulloch _v._ Maryland.
[108] Kirtland _v._ Hotchkiss, 100 U. S., 491 (1879).
[109] Kirtland _v._ Hotchkiss, _supra_. Thus, “If the law treats the mortgagee’s interest in the land as real estate for his protection, it is not easy to see why the law should forbid it to be treated as real estate for the purpose of taxation.” Savings and Loan Society _v._ Multnomah County, 169 U. S., 421 (1898).
[110] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, _supra_, quoted in The Collector _v._ Day, 11 Wallace, 113 (1870).
[111] The Collector _v._ Day, _supra_. (The Court quotes the Tenth Amendment, in this connection, as the basis of its decision.)
[112] _Idem._
[113] The Collector _v._ Day, _supra_.
[114] _Id._
[115] The Collector _v._ Day, _supra_.
[116] _Id._
[117] Amendment XVI.
[118] Compare the effect of the Thirteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments on the decision of the Supreme Court in Scott _v._ Sandford, 19 Howard, 393 (1857).
[119] To what extent a salaried official of a State is exempt from inclusion of his salary as income taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment is as yet not determined by judicial decision. “The corporate franchises, the property, the business, the income of corporations created by a State may undoubtedly be taxed by the State; but in imposing such taxes care should be taken not to interfere with or hamper, directly or by indirection, interstate or foreign commerce, or any other matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal government. This is a principle so often announced by the courts, and especially by this court (the Supreme Court of the United States) that it may be received as an axiom of our constitutional jurisprudence.” Philadelphia and Southern Steamship Company _v._ Pennsylvania, 122 U. S., 326 (1887).
[120] United States _v._ R. R. Co., 17 Wallace, 322 (1873).
[121] See the Chapter on _The Law of Fundamental Rights_, _post_.
[122] Wisconsin Central R. R. Co. _v._ Price County, 133 U. S., 496 (1890). As to exemptions, the decisions are conflicting. Not infrequently notices may be seen of exemption of manufacturing plants, or other industrials, from taxation, if they locate within a community. Mississippi in its constitution of 1890 made such exemptions by special ordinance. Such exemption has been held valid in Franklin Needle Co. _v._ Franklin, 65 N. H., 177; Florida Central Railway Co. _v._ Reynolds, 183 U. S., 476; _Per contra_, Brewer Brick Co. _v._ Brewer, 62 Maine, 62.
[123] Loan Association _v._ Topeka, 20 Wallace, 655 (1874); Kingman _v._ City of Brockton, 153 Mass., 255 (1891); an admirable note citing decisions as to a good tax may be found in L. B. Evans, _Leading Cases on American Constitutional Law_ (Ed. 1916), p. 211.
[124] Art. i., 2: 3; 8: 1.
[125] Art. i., 8: 1. Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S., 321 (1885); Kelly _v._ Pittsburgh, 104 U. S., 78 (1881); French _v._ Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U. S., 324 (1901); Veazie Bank _v._ Fenne, 8 Wallace, 533 (1869); Corporation Tax Cases, 220 U. S., 611 (1911).
[126] South Carolina _v._ United States, 199 U. S., 437 (1905). The State conducted dispensatories and derived profit from them. It was held liable for internal revenue. The exercise by the State, as a dispenser, was held not to exempt it from the operation of the law.
[127] Art. i., viii., 3.
[128] Brig Wilson _v._ U. S., 1 Brockenbrough, 437 (1820).
[129] See decision of the Supreme Court sustaining the “Webb-Kenyon” Law decommercializing (interstate) intoxicating liquors, Clark Distilling Company _v._ W. Md. R. R. Co.; _Id._ _v._ Am. Ex. Co. and State of W. Va. (January 8, 1917).
The power of Congress to deal with the hours of work and wages of employees engaged in interstate commerce is examined in Wilson _v._ New and Ferris, Receivers, Mo. Ok., & G. Railway Co., March 19, 1917. (Constitutionality of the “Adamson” law.)
[130] Art. vi., 2.
[131] Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 177 (1803).
[132] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 430 (1819).
[133] Brown _v._ Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 419 (1827).
[134] Gibbons _v._ Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 1 (1824).
[135] Pensacola Telegraph Co. _v._ Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S., 1 (1877).
[136] So in Gibbon _v._ Ogden, _supra_.
[137] Henderson _v._ Mayor of New York, 92 U. S., 259 (1875); L. S. & M. S. Railway Co. _v._ Ohio, 173 U. S. (1899); Railroad Co. _v._ Husen, 95 U. S., 465 (1877); Brimmer _v._ Rebman, 138 U. S., 78 (1891); Morgan’s S. S. Co. _v._ Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S., 455 (1886); Leisy _v._ Hardin, 135 U. S., 100 (1890); Schellenberger _v._ Pennsylvania, 171 U. S., 1 (1898).
[138] The trend of these respective lines is disclosed by the decisions in the cases cited in this Chapter.
[139] Pensacola Telegraph Co. _v._ Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S., 1 (1877). The important word here is “jurisdiction.” “To bring the transportation within the control of the State, as part of its domestic commerce, the subject transported must be within the entire voyage under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.” Hanley _v._ Kansas City Southern Railroad Co., 187 U. S., 617 (1903). The Immigration Law (February 20, 1897, amended March 26, 1910), contains the protective features the State would demand through exercise of its police power. So too the Federal Meat Inspection Act (March 4, 1907).
[140] _The Daniel Ball_, 10 Wallace, 557 (1870).
[141] Act of Congress, March 2, 1893.
[142] “The insurance business does not constitute interstate commerce.” Paul _v._ Virginia, 8 Wallace, 168 (1868). But the power to regulate commerce doubtless includes legislation placing common carriers engaged in interstate commerce under such federal control as to constitute federal ownership of railroads, telegraph and telephone lines, steamships, sailing vessels, etc., etc. Such ownership is illustrated in France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and in other countries.
[143] The Sherman Anti-Trust Law of July 2, 1890, and decisions of the Supreme Court concerning it, are illustrations.
[144] See the Hours of Service Act (March 4, 1907); the Adamson Act (1916), and other acts indicative of the trend in the congressional exercise of the power.
[145] United States _v._ E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S., 1 (1895).
[146] Art. i., 8: 3.
[147] Coe _v._ Errol, 116 U. S., 525.
[148] Kidd _v._ Pearson, 128 U. S., 1.
[149] Cooley _v._ Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, 12 Howard, 299 (1851).
[150] Escanaba Company _v._ Chicago, 107 U. S., 678 (1882).
[151] Harman _v._ Chicago, 147 U. S., 396 (1893).
[152] Sands _v._ Manistee River Improvement Company, 123 U. S., 238.
[153] Brown _v._ Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 419 (1827).
[154] Brown _v._ Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 419 (1827).
[155] Walton _v._ Missouri, 91 U. S., 275 (1875).
[156] The evil effect of discriminating State legislation, and the like, during the Articles of Confederation, are dwelt on by the Court in Walton _v._ Missouri, _supra_.
[157] Walton _v._ Missouri, _supra_.
[158] Robbins _v._ Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S., 489 (1887).
[159] _Idem._
[160] Crutcher _v._ Kentucky, 141 U. S., 47 (1891).
[161] As by the act forbidding the transportation of lottery tickets through the mails.
[162] Crutcher _v._ Kentucky, 141 U. S., 47 (1891).
[163] _Idem._ Cases decisive of the police powers of a State are numerous. The principle involved may be deduced from Railroad Company _v._ Huson, 95 U. S., 465 (1877); Brimmer _v._ Rebman, 138 U. S., 78 (1891); Morgan’s S. S. Company _v._ Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S., 455 (1886); Leisy _v._ Hardin, 135 U. S., 100 (1890); L. S. and M. S. R. R. _v._ Ohio, 173 U. S., 285 (1899).
[164] Crutcher _v._ Kentucky, _supra_.
[165] Brown _v._ Houston, 114 U. S., 622 (1885), in which the cases are cited.
[166] Telegraph Company _v._ Texas, 105 U. S., 460 (1881).
[167] Leisy _v._ Hardin, 135 U. S., 100 (1890). An act of the Legislature, or a constitutional provision prohibiting the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors within a State, is an example of exercise of the police power by a State. See also Rhodes _v._ Iowa, 170 U. S., 412 (1898). Schellenberger _v._ Pennsylvania, 171 U. S., 1 (1898); and cases cited _supra_ touching State police power.
[168] The Passenger Cases, 7 Howard, 283.
[169] R. R. Co. _v._ Huson, 95 U. S., 465 (1877).
[170] Turner _v._ Maryland, 107 U. S., 38 (1882).
[171] Inman S. S. Co. _v._ Tinker, 94 U. S., 238 (1876).
[172] Packet Co. _v._ Keokuk, 95 U. S., 80 (1877).
[173] Transportation Co. _v._ Wheeling, 99 U. S., 273 (1878).
[174] Lottery Cases, 188 U. S., 321 (1903).
[175] _Id._
[176] 26 Statutes at Large, 209.
[177] Northern Securities Company _v._ United States, 193 U. S., 197 (1904).
[178] Beef-Trust case, Swift and Co. _v._ U. S., 196 U. S., 375.
[179] Danbury Hatters’ Case, Loewe _v._ Lawler, 208 U. S., 274; see also Pullman Car Company, 64 Fed. Reporter, 724.
[180] _In re_ Neagle, 135 U. S., 1 (1889).
[181] _In re_ Debs, 158 U. S., 564 (1895).
[182] The Addystone Pipe & Steel Company _v._ United States, 175 U. S., 211 (1899).
[183] The Shreveport Case, (Houston, East and West Texas Railway Co. _v._ United States; Texas and Pacific Railway Co. _v._ United States) 234 U. S., 342 (1914).
NOTE.—Cases further illustrating prohibition of a business or activity by operation of laws passed under the commerce clause: United States _v._ Holliday, 3 Wallace, 407 (1866); Buttfield _v._ Stranahan, 192 U. S., 470 (1904); U. S. _v._ Del. & Hudson Ry., 213 U. S., 366 (1909); Hope _v._ U. S., 227 U. S., 308 (1913).
Cases illustrating exercise of the power over commerce given by the clause and exercising jurisdiction over commerce claimed to be intrastate but forming as it were a link in the chain of interstate commerce: Lord _v._ S. S. Co., 102 U. S., 541 (1880); Wilmington Transportation Co. _v._ California Railroad Commission, 236 U. S., 151 (1915); Hanley _v._ Kansas City Southern Ry., 187 U. S., 617 (1903).
It will be well to read the dissenting opinions in any of these cases as these usually emphasize the power of the State over commerce.
[184] Art. i., 10: 1.
[185] McCrackin _v._ Hayward, 2 Howard, 608 (1844).
[186] Woodruff _v._ Trapnall, 10 Howard, 190 (1850).
[187] Woodruff _v._ Trapnall, 10 Howard, 190 (1850).
[188] Murray _v._ Charleston, 96 U. S., 432 (1877).
[189] _Idem._
[190] Salt Company _v._ East Saginaw, 13 Wallace, 373 (1871).
[191] Fisk _v._ Jefferson Police Jury, 116, U. S., 131 (1885).
[192] Trustees of Dartmouth College _v._ Woodward, 4 Wheaton, 518 (1819).
[193] Case of the conjunction of Washington and Jefferson Colleges, Pennsylvania College Cases, 13 Wallace, 190 (1871).
[194] Boyd _v._ Alabama, 94 U. S., 645.
[195] Beer Company _v._ Massachusetts, 97 U. S., 25 (1877).
[196] Douglas _v._ Kentucky, 168 U. S., 488 (1897).
[197] Douglas _v._ Kentucky, _supra_; New Orleans Gas Co. _v._ Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S., 650 (1885).
[198] See the cases cited in New Orleans Gas Co. _v._ Louisiana, _supra_.
[199] Georgia R. R. and Banking Co. _v._ Smith, 128 U. S., 174 (1888); East Hartford _v._ Hartford Bridge Co., 10 Howard, 511 (1850). But a judgment (judicial decision) is not a contract in the meaning of the Constitution. Morley _v._ L. S. & M. S. R. R., 146 U. S., 162 (1892).
[200] McCrackin _v._ Hayward, 2 Howard, 608 (1844). All legal remedies for the enforcement of a contract belonging to it at the time and place when and where it is made are a part of its obligation. Any provision of a State law or constitution impairing such remedies are void. Gunn _v._ Barry, 15 Wallace, 610 (1872); Mitchell _v._ Clark, 110 U. S. (1884). But the prohibition, in the Constitution, of any State to make any law impairing the obligation of contracts “did not give to Congress power to provide laws for the general enforcement of contracts; nor power to invest the courts of the United States with jurisdiction over contracts, so as to enable parties to sue upon them in those courts. It did, however, give the power to provide remedies by which the impairment of contracts by State legislation might be counteracted and corrected: and this power was exercised.” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3 (1883).
[201] Juilliard _v._ Greenman, 110 U. S., 421 (1884), and see note _supra_, p. 92.
[202] Consult Mitchell _v._ Clark, 110 U. S., 633 (1884) from which the quotation is taken.
[203] This raises the whole question of national sovereignty.
[204] Amendment V.; XIV.
[205] Missouri Pacific Ry. _v._ Nebraska, 164 U. S., 403 (1896).
[206] Pennoyer _v._ Neff, 95 U. S., 714 (1877); Arndt _v._ Griggs, 134 U. S., 316 (1890).
[207] Cunnius _v._ Reading School District, 198 U. S., 458 (1905), sustaining a Pennsylvania statute that provided for administration upon estates of persons presumed to be dead by reason of long absence from the State. Mattingly _v._ District of Columbia, 97 U. S., 687 (1878); that which a State Legislature may have dispensed with by a prior statute it may dispense with by a subsequent one; an irregularity or defect which might be made immaterial by prior law, the Legislature has power to make immaterial by a subsequent law. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 371.
[208] License Cases, 5 Howard, 588.
[209] Bartemeyer _v._ Iowa, 18 Wallace, 129.
[210] Foster _v._ Kansas, 112 U. S., 201.
[211] Mugler _v._ Kansas, 123 U. S., 623 (1887).
[212] _Idem._
[213] Amendment V.
[214] Pumpelly _v._ Green Bay Co., 13 Wallace, 166 (1871).
[215] _Idem._
[216] Preceding case and Central Bridge Corporation _v._ City of Lowell, Gray (Mass.), 474 (1855).
[217] Pierce _v._ Drew, 136 Mass., 75 (1883). The case grew out of plaintiff’s claim for damages because the town had granted a telegraph company the right to erect its poles, wires, etc., along the highway abutting plaintiff’s land. The highway being land in public use, plaintiff claimed indirect or consequential damages because of the erection of the poles, wires, etc., of the duly franchised telegraph company. Plaintiff’s complaint was (_inter alia_) that said poles, wires, etc., disfigured and depreciated his property. See also Bedford _v._ U. S., 192 U. S., 217 (1904); the principle therein further examined.
[218] Kohl _v._ United States, 91 U. S., 367 (1875).
[219] Kohl _v._ United States, 91 U. S., 367 (1875).
[220] Art. i., 2: 5; 3: 6.
[221] Compare Art. i., 6: 1, 2; 9: 8; Art. ii., 1: 1; Art., 5, 8; “officer” in Art. ii., 2: 1,2; Art. ii., 4: 1; “offices” in Art. iii., 1: 1; vi., 3. There is every reason that the framers of the Constitution used words with profound discernment and discriminating care.
[222] Art. ii., 2: 1.
[223] _Id._ i., 8: 11.
[224] _Id._ i., 7: 2.
[225] Constitution of Pennsylvania, 1873, iv., 16.
[226] Art. ii., 2: 2.
[227] _Id._ _The Federalist_, No. lxxv.
[228] Art. ii., 2: 2.
[229] _Id._, 2: 1.
[230] July (14?), 1864. Lincoln’s _Works_ (Century Ed.) i., 548.
[231] _In re_ Neagle, 135 U. S., 1 (1889).
[232] Spaulding _v._ Vilas, 161 U. S., 483; U. S. _v._ Windom, 137 U. S., 636; U. S. _v._ Blaine, 139 U. S., 306. Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Kendall _v._ U. S., 12 Peters, 524; U. S. _v._ Black, 128 U. S., 40; Mississippi _v._ Johnson, 4 Wallace, 475; Georgia _v._ Stanton, 6 Wallace, 57.
[233] _Ex parte_ Garland, 4 Wallace, 333 (1886).
[234] Art. i., 3: 6.
[235] _Id._, 3: 4, 5.
[236] Notes of conversation, etc., C. E., Stevens, _Sources of the Constitution of the United States_, 169.
[237] _Id._, 168.
[238] Mississippi _v._ Johnson, 4 Wallace, 475 (1866).
[239] _Idem._
[240] Mississippi _v._ Johnson, 4 Wallace, 475 (1866).
[241] Many cases; see State _ex rel._ _v._ Stone, 120 Missouri, 428 (1894), in which most of the cases are cited. But _mandamus_ will issue to an appointee of the executive, a ministerial officer, to perform a ministerial act. U. S. _ex rel._ Daly, 28 App. D. C., 552; 35 Wash. Law Rep., 81; Garfield _v._ U. S. _ex rel._ Frost, 30 App. D. C., 165; 35 Wash. Law Rep., 771; Griffin _v._ U. S., _ex rel._ Le Cuyer, 30 App. D. C., 291; 36 Wash. Law Rep., 103; Drake _v._ U. S., _ex rel._ Bates, 30 App. D. C., 312; 36 Wash. Law Rep., 140; U. S. _ex rel._ Newcomb Motor Co., 30 App. D. C., 464; 36 Wash. Law Rep., 150; also 36 Wash. Law Rep., 681. Also U. S. _ex rel._ _v._ Black, 128 U. S., 40 (1888).
[242] United States _ex rel._ _v._ Black, 128 U. S., 40; and see the cases cited in preceding note.
[243] Art. iii., 1: 1.
[244] For the history of this amendment see the author’s _Constitutional History of the United States_, ii., 264–290.
[245] See Iredell’s dissenting opinion in Chisholm _v._ Georgia, 2 Dallas 419 (1793).
[246] _The Federalist_, No. xvi.
[247] Art. iii., 2: 1; Amendment XI.
[248] No. lxxx.
[249] _In re_ Neagle, 135 U.S., 1 (1889).
[250] _The Federalist_, No. lxxx.
[251] _Id._ For example, were the Vice-President to preside over the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment.
[252] _The Federalist_, _id._
[253] _The Federalist_, _id._
[254] Robertson _v._ Cease, 97 U. S., 646.
[255] Art. iii., 2: 2.
[256] Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 174.
[257] Cohens _v._ Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 414 (1821).
[258] _Idem._
[259] So Congress has denied such jurisdiction to State courts,—Revised Statutes, U. S., Sec. 687.
[260] Davis _v._ Packard, 7 Peters, 276; Börs _v._ Preston, in U. S., 252 (1884).
[261] Cohens _v._ Virginia, _supra_.
[262] This power has been discussed in the preceding Chapters on Sovereignty, Legislation, Commerce, Taxation, Contracts, etc. See index.
[263] Bank of Commerce _v._ New York City, 2 Black, 620 (1862).
[264] Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 137 (1803).
[265] The relation of the United States to the State judiciary; the subject of concurrent (State and federal) judicial jurisdiction, is examined by Hamilton in _The Federalist_, Nos. lxxviii-lxxxiii. See also Martin _v._ Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304 (1816).
[266] Hepburn _v._ Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445 (1805).
[267] Art. iii.
[268] United States _v._ Freight Association, 166 U. S., 290, citing many cases.
[269] American Insurance Company _v._ Cantor, 1 Peters, 542.
[270] Luther _v._ Borden, 7 Howard, 1 (1848).
[271] The whole subject of the American judiciary is largely technical and can be known only through intimate knowledge of the _Reports_, of the _Statutes at Large_, and familiarity with _practice_. In the present chapter the _essentials of the law_ of judicial procedure are the immediate subject.
[272] Marbury, _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 163.
[273] Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 176–180.
[274] All of Marshall’s decisions rest on the principle, thus set forth, and it remains fundamental in America, applying alike in the States and in the United States.
[275] The principle is examined in State _ex rel._ _v._ Stone, 120 Missouri, 428 (1894). Also in Luther _v._ Borden, 7 Howard, 1 (1848).
[276] See Constitution of Massachusetts, Judiciary, III.
[277] _Political Science and Constitutional Law_, J. W. Burgess, ii., 365; “I do not hesitate to call the governmental system of the United States the aristocracy of the robe; and I do not hesitate to pronounce this the truest aristocracy for the purposes of government which the world has yet produced.” _Id._
[278] United States _v._ Lee, 106 U. S., 196 (1882).
[279] Case of Supervisors of Elections, 114 Mass., 247 (1873); the quotation (in the decision) is from the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780, Part I, xxx. “The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 163.
[280] State _ex rel._ _v._ Simons, 32 Minn., 540 (1884). _Ex parte_ Griffiths, 118 Indiana, 83 (1889).
[281] _Idem._
[282] Harwood _v._ Wentforth, 162 U. S., 547 (1896).
[283] Osborn _v._ Bank of the United States, 9 Wheaton, 738 (1824).
[284] Osborn _v._ Bank of the United States, 9 Wheaton, 738 (1824).
[285] Many cases; see Southern Pacific Railroad Co. _v._ California, 118 U. S., 109 (1866); Beck _v._ Perkins, 139 U. S., 628 (1891).
[286] Börs _v._ Preston, 111 U. S., 252. (1884).
[287] The steamboat _Magnolia_, 20 Howard, 296 (1857).
[288] _Ex parte_ Siebold, 100 U. S., 37 (1879). Thus canals are highways of commerce and subject to “regulation” by Congress. The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S., 17 (1903); _Ex parte_ Boyer, 109 U. S., 629 (1884).
[289] Stanley _v._ Schwalby, 162 U. S., 255 (1896), where the cases are cited.
[290] Cohens _v._ Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 414 (1821).
[291] United States _v._ Texas, 143 U. S., 621 (1892). The doctrine also in South Dakota _v._ North Dakota, 192 U. S., 286 (1904).
[292] Ames _v._ Kansas, 111 U. S., 449 (1884); the “party” may be a State (including its corporate subdivisions), or a natural person (or persons), or an artificial person (a corporation).
[293] Wisconsin _v._ Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U. S., 265 (1888).
[294] Hans _v._ Louisiana, 134 U. S., 1 (1890). The history of the Eleventh Amendment includes the entire record as to suits against States. The principles involved may be found as discussed by Hamilton in _The Federalist_, No. lxxxi; by Marshall, Madison, Mason, and Henry, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 3 Elliott’s Debates; in Mr. Justice Iredell’s dissenting opinion in Chisholm _v._ Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419; and a special history of the Amendment in the author’s _Constitutional History of the United States_, ii., 264–293. The Eleventh Amendment overruled the decision in the Chisholm case. As to suits against a State by its own citizens see Railroad Co. _v._ Tennessee, 101 U. S., 337 (1879). The principle here is that the sovereign may assent to being sued by its own citizens,—an assent declared by the State constitution, but available by the citizen only according to acts of the Legislature. The privilege (if it exists) is statutory. But suit against an officer, or agent of the State,—or of the United States, is not barred if that officer exercises a ministerial function; such suit is not a suit against the sovereign (United States, or State). See U. S. _v._ Lee, 106 U. S., 196 (1882); Cunningham _v._ Macon & Brunswick R. R. Co., 109 U. S., 446 (1883).
[295] Judiciary Act, 1789, 1888 (and so amended.)
[296] The Ohio and Mississippi R. R. Co. _v._ Wheeler, 1 Black, 286 (1861). Hooe _v._ Jamieson, 166 U. S., 395 (1897).
[297] Martin _v._ Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304 (1816); opinion by Mr. Justice Story; this case remains the leading case on the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts. The appellate jurisdiction of the courts is discussed by Marshall in Marbury _v._ Madison: “The essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause,” _Ex parte_, Watkins, 7 Peters, 568 (1833).
[298] Gaines _v._ Fuentes, 92 U. S., 10 (1875). Security Mutual Life Insurance Company _v._ Prewitt, 202 U. S., 246 (1906).
[299] Whitten _v._ Tomlinson, 160 U. S., 231 (1895). But as to conflicting jurisdiction of State and federal courts see Riggs _v._ Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 166 (1867).
[300] Green _v._ Neal’s Lessee, 6 Peters, 291 (1832).
[301] _Idem._ The question is examined in Pana _v._ Bowler, 107 U. S., 529 (1882). Gelpoke _v._ City of Dubuque, 1 Wallace, 175 (1863).
[302] Burgess _v._ Seligman, 107 U. S., 20 (1883). Bucher _v._ Cheshire R. R. Co., 125 U. S., 555 (1888).
[303] Smith _v._ Alabama, 124 U. S., 465 (1888). Western Union Telegraph Company _v._ Call Publishing Company, 181 U. S., 92 (1901).
[304] Art. i., 8: 17; 9: 6, 8; 10: 1, 2, 3; Art. iii.,2: 1, 2, 3; Art. iv., 1: 1; 2: 1, 2, 3; 3: 1, 2; 4: 1; Art. v., Art. vi., 2, 3; Art. vii., 1; Amendments VI., X., XI., XIII., XIV., XV., XVI., XVII.
[305] Thompson _v._ Whitman, 18 Wallace, 457 (1873).
[306] McElmayle _v._ Cohen, 13 Peters, 312. Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution_, 1313.
[307] Williamson _v._ Berry, 8 Howard, 540.
[308] Thompson _v._ Whitman, 18 Wallace, 457.
[309] Hanley _v._ Donaghue, 116 U. S., 1 (1885).
[310] Hanley _v._ Donaghue, 116 U. S., 1 (1885).
[311] _Idem._
[312] Talbot _v._ Seeman, 1 Cranch, 38 (1801). The principle here declared is not to be applied strictly in extradition cases, whether between the several States or between the United States and another nation.
[313] Buckner _v._ Finley, 2 Peters, 590 (1829).
[314] Buckner _v._ Finley, 2 Peters, 590 (1829).
[315] Art. iii., 2: 1.
[316] Paul _v._ Virginia, 8 Wallace, 168 (1868).
[317] _Idem._
[318] Ward _v._ Maryland, 12 Wallace, 418.
[319] Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wallace, 77 (1872). Blake _v._ McClung, 172 U. S., 239 (1898).
[320] Blake _v._ McClung, _supra_.
[321] _Ex parte_ Reggel, 114 U. S., 642 (1885). Pennoyer _v._ Neff, 95 U. S., 714 (1877).
[322] Art. iv., 2: 2. Revised Statutes, §§ 5278, 5279.
[323] _Ex parte_ Reggel, _supra_.
[324] Lascelles _v._ Georgia, 148 U. S., 537 (1893).
[325] Art. i., 10: 1.
[326] Lascelles _v._ Georgia, _supra_. In international law the right of extradition does not include fugitives for _political_ offenses. This exemption is an incident of sovereignty.
[327] Consult United States _v._ Rauscher, 119 U. S., 407.
[328] Lascelles _v._ Georgia, _supra_.
[329] Luther _v._ Borden, 7 Howard, 1 (1848).
[330] _Idem._
[331] Luther _v._ Borden, 7 Howard, 1 (1848).
[332] Art. iv., 4: 1.
[333] Minor _v._ Happersett, 21 Wallace, 162 (1874).
[334] _Idem._
[335] Texas _v._ White, 7 Wallace, 700 (1868).
[336] There are many cases expository of this principle: McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316; Barron _v._ Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wallace, 36; United States _v._ Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542; _Ex parte_ Siebold, 100 U. S., 371; Fong Yue Ting _v._ U. S., 149 U. S., 698; Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wallace, 457.
[337] Art. iv., 3: 1.
[338] Art. iii.; Art. iv. § 10; Amendments VI., X., XI., XIII., XIV., XV., XVII., and doubtless also in the matter of federal elections (election of members of the House of Representatives, and of United States Senators) as by Wiley _v._ Sinkler, 179 U. S., 58; _Ex parte_ Yarbrough, 110 U. S., 651, and in all other Federal relations.
[339] Sands _v._ Manistee Improvement Company, 123 U. S., 288 (1887).
[340] If admitted by Proclamation of the President (and so Congress may provide) conformity to conditions imposed is duly announced by him. The enabling acts since 1789 vary in content. They are reprinted in _The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the States, Territories and Colonies Forming the United States of America_. 7 vols. Washington, Government Printing Office 1909.
[341] The provision of the Ohio constitution of 1912 limiting the right to vote to “white male citizens of the United States” (Ohio, Art. v., § 1) citizens with the Fifteenth Amendment of the national Constitution. The power of the Judiciary of the United States to declare constitutions and laws that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States unconstitutional, null, and void is discussed in the preceding chapter.
[342] Art. iv., 3: 2.
[343] American Insurance Company _v._ Canter, 1 Peters, 551 (1828). National Bank _v._ County of Yankton, 101 U. S., 129 (1879).
[344] National Bank _v._ County of Yankton, _supra_. But all rights commonly known as _fundamental_ do not work as limitations of the power of Congress to govern Territories or “outlying possessions”; see Downes _v._ Bidwell, 182 U. S., 244 (1901). Until this decision these _fundamental_ rights were construed as _limitations_ of the power of Congress in its government of Territories; see Callan _v._ Wilson, 127 U. S., 540 (1888). Thompson _v._ Utah, 170 U. S., 343 (1898).
[345] Downes _v._ Bidwell, _supra_, and supporting cases.
[346] Barron _v._ Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243 (1833).
[347] Downes _v._ Bidwell, _supra_.
[348] _Idem._ In Brown _v._ Walker, 161 U. S., 591 (1896), (_i. e._, five years before the decision in Downes _v._ Bidwell), the Court declared: “The object of the first eight amendments to the Constitution was to incorporate into the fundamental law of the land certain principles of natural justice which had become permanently fixed in the jurisprudence of the mother country, etc.”
[349] The dissenting opinions in Downes _v._ Bidwell should be read; powerful as they are, they are _not_ the opinion of the Court and _do not declare what the law is_.
[350] Cohens _v._ Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 414 (1821).
[351] The power of Congress over territory incorporated into the United States,—that is, over territory over which the Constitution has been extended by Congress is limited by the Constitution: Thompson _v._ Utah, 170 U. S., 343 (1898). Rasmussen _v._ United States, 197 U. S., 516 (1905); but over territory _not so incorporated_, see Hawaii _v._ Mankichi, 190 U. S., 197 (1903); Dorr _v._ U. S., 195 U. S., 138 (1904). The decisions support the doctrine that once the Constitution has been extended over territory, it cannot be withdrawn (Downes _v._ Bidwell) and consequently, all the limitations which by the Constitution affect Congress operate as limitations of its power over the territory, and therefore operate as fundamental rights and privileges of the inhabitants of such territory.
[352] So throughout _The Federalist_, and notably in Nos. xliv., xlv., li.
[353] But note the Sixteenth Amendment.
[354] First Inaugural. _Works_ (Century Ed.), ii., 7.
[355] Art. ii., 1: 2; Amendment XII.
[356] In 1787 distrust of the people, among the framers of the Constitution, explains the constitutional provision. James Wilson urged election of the President by popular vote. South Carolina in 1860 was the last State to appoint presidential electors by its Legislature. There is widespread belief in America now that the President should be elected by direct popular vote, as are Congressmen and United States Senators. At present the “electoral vote” is 531; the person receiving the majority of these 531 votes is President of the United States. By American laws there are upwards of 20,000,000 voters; by American constitutional law, the person receiving 266 “electoral” votes is President.
[357] Art. ii., 2: 1.
[358] _Id._ 3.
[359] Cincinnati, Wilmington, etc., R. R. Co. _v._ Commissioners, 1 Ohio St., 88; and see a full discussion of the issue in Field _v._ Clark, 143 U. S., 649 (1892).
Thus technically, the veto power is not a legislative but an executive power, though it is common to speak of the participation of the executive in legislation.
[360] Art. i., 2: 5; 3: 6. The subject is discussed in Chapters VII and VIII.
[361] Art. i., 8: 1.
[362] _Id._, 8: 12. In practice appropriations are for one year; if the purpose for which the appropriation was made is not effected within the year, the appropriation ceases to be available, unless to the contrary as declared in the law; but an unexpended appropriation may be made available (sometimes) by resolution of Congress, or even of the branch of Congress specially concerned.
[363] Art. i., 8: 16.
[364] _Id._, 9: 3. The limitation as to prohibition of the slave trade was temporary. _Id._, 9: 1.
[365] _Id._, 9: 5.
[366] _Id._, 9: 6.
[367] Art. i., 9: 8.
[368] _Id._, 5: 4.
[369] _Id._, 7: 1.
[370] _Id._, 6: 2. This is a limitation of the freedom of choice of certain individuals rather than a limitation of Congress as a legislative body; but what is forbidden to a member of Congress cannot be made lawful for him by act of Congress; thus the limitation may be one of legislation. The provision (Art. i., 9: 2) concerning the suspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_ is not a limitation of the power of Congress, for Congress is the judge whether public safety requires the suspension of the writ.
[371] Art. iii., 3: 1, 2.
[372] Art. iii., 3: 2; _Id._ i., 9: 3.
[373] _Id._ iv., 3: 1.
[374] _Id._, 3: 2.
[375] The first ten Amendments were demanded in 1787–8 as specific limitations of legislative power of the United States, and as a protection of fundamental, original rights of the people.
[376] The history of these Amendments in the author’s _Constitutional History of the United States_, ii., 199–263.
[377] First Amendment.
[378] Amendments II., III., IV., V.
[379] See the Ninth Amendment.
[380] It will be noticed that this Amendment is not a limitation of the States; it applies to the United States.
[381] This is brought out by Marshall in Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 137,—the corner-stone of many later decisions.
[382] The limitations of the States by the Constitution of the United States have already been discussed in earlier chapters. Examination of present State constitutions will disclose existing limitations prescribed by the sovereignty, the people of the State.
[383] Art. i., 4: 1. The right to vote for members of Congress has its foundation in the Constitution of the United States, not in that of any State: Wiley _v._ Sinkler, 179 U. S., 58; _Ex parte_ Yarbrough, 110 U. S., 651. This means a limitation of State powers,—as some might say; in strictness, it means a definition of federal powers; the jurisdiction of a State cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the United States.
[384] _Id._, 8: 17.
[385] No. lxii. (The authorship, strictly speaking, is uncertain, being assigned “to Hamilton _or_ Madison.”)
[386] Art. i., 10: 1.
[387] Art. i., 10: 2, 3.
[388] _Id._ ii., 2: 1.
[389] _Id._ iii., 2: 2.
[390] Amendment XI.
[391] Amendment XIII.
[392] Amendment XIV.
[393] _Id._
[394] Art. i., 2: 3.
[395] _Id._ v.
[396] _Id._ i., 2: 4. Amendment XVII., 2.
[397] Art. iv., 1: 2.
[398] Amendment XII.
[399] Art. ii., 2: 2.
[400] _Id._ iv., 2: 1.
[401] _Id._, 4. But the Governor cannot so apply if the Legislature is in session. The reason here is that the people of the State have fully empowered their representatives in the Legislature “to see that the Commonwealth suffers no harm.”
[402] Art. v.
[403] The Sixteenth Amendment (income tax) bears most heavily on States having large cities and a manufacturing population. It is possible that States which would be but slightly affected by a proposed amendment, might favor and ratify it; to avoid this possible discrimination, the suggestion has been made that in such a case the power of a State to ratify or to oppose ratification should be in proportion to its interests as affected by the proposed amendment. To this suggestion answer has been made that the Constitution is national, not local, in purpose and operation.
[404] Art. vi., 2, 3.
[405] Tenth Amendment.
[406] Ninth Amendment.
[407] The first quotation is from Downes _v._ Bidwell, 182 U. S., 244 (1901); the second, from Gibbons _v._ Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 235 (1824), decision by Marshall. The application of the principle laid down by Chief Justice Marshall in 1824 and elaborated, at times, by the Supreme Court,—as in 1901,—was discussed by the eminent jurist, Thomas M. Cooley, in a brief address to the North Dakota Constitutional Convention, July 17, 1889. At that time he was Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission. “Don’t, in your constitution-making, legislate too much. In your constitution you are tying the hands of the people. Don’t do that to any such extent as to prevent the Legislature, hereafter, from meeting all evils that may be within the reach of proper legislation. Leave something for them. _Take care to put proper restrictions upon them_, but at the same time leave what properly belongs to the field of legislation to the Legislature of the future. _You have got to trust somebody in the future and it is right and proper that each department of government should be trusted to perform its legitimate functions._” Proceedings and Debates of the First Constitutional Convention of North Dakota, Assembled in the City of Bismarck, July 4 to August 17, 1889, p. 67. (Italization in text, not in original.)
[408] Thirty-three States have an elective judiciary. In Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Mississippi, and New Jersey, the Governor nominates and the Senate confirms judges; in Rhode Island, Vermont, South Carolina, and Virginia, the Legislature elects the judges; in Florida, the Governor appoints judges of the Superior Courts and judges of the Supreme Court are elected by the people.
[409] Strictly executive functions are not within the jurisdiction of courts of law. See the discussion in Chapter VII.
[410] Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 137 (1803).
[411] Art. vi., 2, 3.
[412] Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. _v._ Wellman, 143 U. S., 339 (1892); Frees _v._ Ford, 6 New York, 176 (1852); Commonwealth _v._ McCloskey, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 374; Wellington, Petitioner, 16 Pickering (Mass.), 96.
[413] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 421 (1819).
[414] _Idem._, 423.
[415] No. lxxxiv.
[416] _Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution_, McMaster and Stone, 254. Both Hamilton and Wilson were overruled by the public demand for a Bill of Rights, and the first ten Amendments were speedily added to the Constitution.
[417] Ogden _v._ Saunders, 12 Wheaton, 332 (1827); Martin _v._ Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304 (1816); United States _v._ Aaron Burr, Cotton’s _Constitutional Opinions of John Marshall_, 1.100; Sturgis _v._ Crowningshield, 4 Wheaton, 122 (1819); Cohens _v._ Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 264 (1821); Cooley, _Constitutional Limitations_, 6th Edition, 204.
[418] Norton _v._ Shelby County, 118 U. S., 425.
[419] The relation of the judiciary to ministerial officers has already been examined; see Chapters VII and VIII. But see in this connection, the Secretary _v._ McGarrahan, 9 Wallace, 298; United States _v._ Black, 128 U. S., 40; United States _v._ Windom, 137 U. S., 636; United States _v._ Blaine, 139 U. S., 306; State _ex rel._ _v._ Stone, 120 Missouri, 428.
[420] Pennsylvania, 1873, Art. iv. §16. This provision does not empower the Governor to cut down an item, but in practice, it is so construed.
[421] As sovereignty is a unit, any examination of particular aspects of it must be but a partial examination of its operations. The Constitution of the United States is a unit, in so far as the sovereignty,—the people of the United States,—have made it the expression of their plan of government. It follows that close examination of any department or feature of the Constitution as a plan of government discloses that feature in relation with other features; the Constitution is an expression of a mass of relations. Thus it is that a decision of the Supreme Court may relate to several matters, seemingly without relation, but necessarily co-related. The present chapter on _The Law of Limitations_ discusses executive, legislative, and judiciary and the principles of government by which it acts. _The entire subject of American constitutional law must be viewed as a whole._ See Pollock _v._ Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 158 U. S., 601 (1895); Field _v._ Clark, 143 U. S., 649 (1892). Also _The Federalist_, Nos. xliv.-lvi.
[422] Art. ii., 2: 2.
[423] American Insurance Company _v._ Canter, 1 Peters, 511.
[424] Amendments IX., X.
[425] Art. vi., 3. The ratifying conventions, 1788–9, formulated in the aggregate some two hundred amendments in the nature of provisions in a Bill of Rights. These, reduced to twelve, were presented by Madison (May 25, 1789) in the House of Representatives and were duly submitted to the States for ratification. Ten were ratified (1790).
[426] Reynolds _v._ United States, 98 U. S., 145 (1878).
[427] Davis _v._ Beason, 133 U. S., 333.
[428] Cooley, _Principles of Constitutional Law_, 3d Edition, 226. As to “Readings from the Bible” in public schools, _see_ Pfeiffer _v._ Board of Education, 77 N. W. Reporter, 250 (1898); State _ex rel._ Weiss _v._ District Board, 76 Wisconsin, 177 (1890).
[429] People _v._ Ruggles, 8 Johns (N. Y.), 290. The exemption from taxation of property belonging to religious bodies (corporations) is not because of any fundamental right of such bodies to exemption, but because of the will of the legislature. It is a matter of policy.
[430] The winning of these and other fundamental rights is largely the subject of English constitutional history.
[431] So expressed in many State constitutions, as Pennsylvania, 1873, i., 7.
[432] A right fully established at the trial of the Seven Bishops, 1688.
[433] United States _v._ Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542 (1875).
[434] West _v._ Cabell, 153 U. S., 78; Weeks _v._ U. S., 232 U. S., 383; _Ex parte_ Milligan, 4 Wallace, 2; U. S. _v._ Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 236 U. S., 318; U. S. _v._ Boyd, 116 U. S., 616 (the leading case), and Cotting _v._ Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S., 79 (1901).
[435] Paul _v._ Virginia, 8 Wallace, 168 (1808); Blake _v._ McClung, 172 U. S., 239 (1898); Lockner _v._ New York, 198 U. S., 45 (1905).
[436] The rights of the person, and his or her rights of property are the essential subject of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments. Similar provisions are included in the Bills of Rights in the State constitutions.
[437] Corfield _v._ Coryell, 4 Washington C. C., 371; Slaughter House Cases 16 Wallace, 36.
[438] This act of sovereignty is so rare as almost to be unknown. In America the act takes the form of an amendment to the Constitution.
[439] The forty-eight States have had, in the aggregate, some one hundred and twenty-five constitutions, and to these have been added some three hundred amendments (1776–1917). The federal Constitution has been amended seventeen times (1787–1913).
[440] Downes _v._ Bidwell, 182 U. S., 244 (1901).
[441] Pfeiffer _v._ Board of Education of the City of Detroit, 77 N. W. Rep., 250 (1898).
[442] Reynolds _v._ United States, 89 U. S., 145 (1878).
[443] Boyd _v._ United States, 116 U. S., 616 (1886). (Important historical data given in this case.)
[444] Robertson _v._ Baldwin, 165 U. S., 275 (1897).
[445] Cooley, _Constitutional Limitations_, 353; _Ex parte_ Wall, 107 U. S., 265 (1883). Murray’s Lessee _v._ The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company, 18 Howard, 272 (1855), considered the leading case.
[446] Hurtado _v._ California, 110 U. S., 516 (1884).
[447] Yick Wo _v._ Hopkins (San Francisco Laundry Cases), 118 U. S., 356 (1886).
[448] Pembina Mining Company _v._ Pennsylvania, 125 U. S., 181 (1888). Barbier _v._ Connolly, 113 U. S., 27 (1885). Holden _v._ Hardy, 169 U. S., 366 (1898). But an act making it a criminal offense to employ a female in any clothing factory more than forty-eight hours in any one week violates the Fourteenth Amendment as violating the right of contract and being class legislation: Ritchie _v._ State, 155 Illinois, 98 (1895).
[449] Dent _v._ West Virginia, 129 U. S., 114 (1889). And cases cited.
[450] Barbier _v._ Connolly, _supra_. Mugler _v._ Kansas, 123 U. S., 623 (1887). The power to regulate, that is, the jurisdiction of the police power of the State, as decided in Munn _v._ Illinois, 94 U. S., 113 (1876), includes the power “to provide a maximum charge for the storage and handling of grain” in a warehouse privately owned. This is settled law, but careful reading should be made of the dissenting opinions in this case: Budd _v._ New York, 143 U. S., 517 (1892), sustaining Munn _v._ Illinois, with strong dissenting opinions; Spring Valley Water Works _v._ Schottler, 110 U. S., 347 (1884) sustaining Munn _v._ Illinois, with strong dissenting opinions. The economic question here is whether the State can fix prices, wages, compensation, hours of labor, etc. In this connection examine Lockner _v._ New York, 198 U. S., 45 (1905), sustaining a law of New York State making it a penal offense for any employer to require and permit any employee to work for him more than sixty hours in any one week. The law was sustained as a constitutional exercise by the State of its police power; but see dissenting opinions. The _per contra_ was “the right of the individual to liberty of person and freedom of contract.”
[451] Capital Traction Company _v._ Hof, 174 U. S., 1 (1899). Many cases cited and the history of trial by jury given.
[452] Mr. Justice Matthews in Yick Wo _v._ Hopkins, 118 U. S., 356 (1886).
[453] Amendment XIV., July 28, 1868. It will be noticed here that the word “territory” is not used.
[454] Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wallace, 36 (1872).
[455] Amendment XIV.
[456] Art. iv., 2: 1.
[457] See p. 150.
[458] Canfield _v._ Coryell, 4 Washington, C. C., 371, 380; Paul _v._ Virginia, 8 Wallace, 180, and see pp. 191–211 of the present volume.
[459] Slaughter House Cases, _supra_.
[460] Crandall _v._ Nevada, 6 Wallace, 36 (1867).
[461] Slaughter House Cases, _supra_. (Some additional rights are secured citizens of the United States by Amendment XIV., §2; and by Amendments XIII. and XV.)
[462] Minor _v._ Happersett, 21 Wallace, 162 (1874).
[463] Art. iv., 4.
[464] Minor _v._ Happersett, _supra_. (But see _Ex parte_ Yarbrough, 110 U. S., 651.)
[465] These qualifications, in the aggregate, have been of age, sex, residence, religion, property, race, and tax-paying. See the provisions in the State constitutions in _Charters and Constitutions_, 7 vols., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1909; and a detailed account of these early qualifications (1776–1850) in the author’s _Constitutional History of the American People_, i., ch. iii.
[466] Art. i., 2: 1; Amendment XVII.
[467] _Ex parte_ Yarbrough, 110 U. S., 651, 653; Wiley _v._ Sinkler, 179 U. S., 58 (1900).
[468] United States _v._ Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542 (1875).
[469] _Idem._
[470] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3 (1883).
[471] _Idem._
[472] _Ex parte_, Siebold, 100 U. S., 371 (1879).
[473] Strauder _v._ West Virginia, 100 U. S., 303 (1879).
[474] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3 (1883).
[475] 14 Statutes at Large, 27, Ch. 31; Enforcement Act, May 31, 1870, 16 Statutes at Large, 140, Ch. 114.
[476] Civil Rights Cases, _supra_.
[477] That is, violating Amendments VI. and XIV.
[478] Hurtado _v._ California, 110 U. S., 516 (1884).
[479] “The trial by jury in civil cases guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker _v._ Sauvinet, 92 U. S., 90) and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser _v._ Illinois, 116 U. S., 252) have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado _v._ California, 110 U. S., 516) and with respect to the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth Amendment (West _v._ Louisiana, 194 U. S., 258). In Maxwell _v._ Dow, 176 U. S., 606, when the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a State court of a felony upon an information, and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment.... We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination (‘see Amendment V.’) is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship guaranteed by this clause (‘the first clause’) of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States.” Twining _v._ State of New Jersey, 211 U. S., 78 (1908).
[480] United States _v._ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., 649 (1898).
[481] Art. i., 8: 4.
[482] United States _v._ Villato, 2 Dallas, 373; Nishimura Ekin _v._ U. S., 142 U. S., 651; Luria _v._ U. S., 231 U. S., 9.
[483] _Ex parte_ Griffiths, 118 Indiana, 83 (1889), citing many cases, (_inter alia_) Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dallas, 409, n.; United States _v._ Ferrera, 13 Howard, 40, n.; United States _ex rel._ _v._ Duell, 172 U. S., 576 (1898), also to be consulted.
[484] United States _v._ Rodgers, 150 U. S., 249 (1893).
[485] Guinn and Beal _v._ United States, 238 U. S., 347 (1915).
[486] _Idem._
[487] _Idem._ and citing _Ex parte_ Yarbrough 110 U. S., 651 (already considered in the present Chapter) and Neal _v._ Delaware, 103 U. S., 370. The decisions of the Supreme Court do not conflict with a State constitution that requires, as a qualification for voting, a literacy test, or a religious test, or a property test, or indeed any test which is not a discrimination on account of race color or previous condition of servitude.
[488] Calder _v._ Bull, 3 Dallas, 386 (1798); Kring _v._ Missouri, 107 U. S., 221 (1882); Thompson _v._ Utah, 170 U. S., 343 (1898). All the State constitutions forbid _ex post facto_ laws.
The right secured to the citizen by the constitutional inhibition of _ex post facto_ legislation forms part of his, or her, privileges and immunities; for though the inhibition cannot be said to be derived from the common law,—and may be said to be essentially statutory, it has become recognized as a fundamental right and of rank with any other fundamental right.
[489] Hollinger _v._ Davis, 146 U. S., 314 (1892).
[490] _Idem._
[491] Boyd _v._ United States, 116 U. S., 616 (1886). The right covers “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” Art. iv.
[492] Harris _v._ People, 128 Illinois, 585 (1889).
[493] Art. v., Act of February 11, 1893, Statutes at Large, 443; Brown _v._ Walker, 161 U. S., 591 (1896).
[494] Amendment VI. Mattox _v._ United States, 156 U. S., 237 (1895).
[495] _Idem._
[496] In the original the clauses are not numbered, nor is there any title to the document. It begins, “WE THE PEOPLE.”
[497] See Amendments XIII., XIV., XV., XVI.
[498] See Amendment XVII.
[499] See Amendment XII.
[500] See Amendment XI.
[501] See Amendments XIII., XIV., XV.
[502] The word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being interlined between the thirty-second and thirty-third Lines of the first Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty-third and forty-fourth Lines of the second Page.
[503] New Jersey withdrew her consent to the ratification on March 27, 1868.
[504] Oregon withdrew her consent to the ratification October 15, 1868.
[505] Ohio withdrew her consent to the ratification in January, 1868.
[506] North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia had previously rejected the amendment.
[507] New York withdrew her consent to the ratification January 5, 1870.
[508] Ohio had previously rejected the amendment May 4, 1869.
[509] New Jersey had previously rejected the amendment.
Transcriber’s Notes
Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced quotation marks corrected.
Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences of inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed.
Index not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page references.
Page 1: Duplicate book title removed by Transcriber.
Page 148: “and another nation” was printed as “notion”; changed here.