Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

410

512

... 130
Worcester v. Railroad Co., 109 Mass. 112 595
World's Columbian Exposition v. U. S., 56
Fed. 657, 6 C. C. A. 71....

479

591

Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321, 1 L. Ed. 619

504

81

661

252

...

325

Wiscomb v. Cubberly, 51 Kan. 580, 33
Pac. 320....
Wisconsin v. Insurance Co., 127 U. S. 265,
8 Sup. Ct. 1370, 32 L. Ed. 239..
Wisconsin C. R. Co. v. Forsythe, 159 U.
S. 46, 54, 15 Sup. Ct. 1020, 40 L. Ed. 71,
73
Wisconsin C. R. Co. v. U. S., 164 U. S.
190, 17 Sup. Ct. 45, 41 L. Ed. 399......
Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179
U. S. 287, 302, 21 Sup. Ct. 115, 120, 45
L. Ed. 194, 201,...
.592, 595
Wisconsin & M. R. Co. v. Powers, 191 U.
S. 379, 24 Sup. Ct. 107, 48 L. Ed. 229...
Wisner, Ex parte, 203 U. S. 449, 27 Sup.
Ct. 150, 51 L. Ed. 150..
Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. 217, 18 L.
Ed. 342.

377

.640, 646 23 Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497, 504, 505, 19 L. Ed. 984, 986, 987..... Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 1, 21 Sup. Ct. 240, 45 L. 45 L. Ed. 395 .475, 676 York Mfg. Co. v. Cassell, 201 U. S. 344, 352, 26 Sup. Ct. 481, 50 L. Ed. 782, 785 ..599, 685, 723 Young v. Amy, 171 U. S. 179, 18 Sup. Ct. 802, 43 L. Ed. 127... 278

731

267

Wolcott v. Railroad Co., 5 Wall. 681, 18 L.
Ed. 689....

252

[blocks in formation]

Wright v. Denn, 10 Wheat, 204, 239, 6 L.
Ed. 303, 312...
Wright v. Skinner, 136 Fed. 694.....
W. W. Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U.
S. 38, 24 Sup. Ct. 307, 48 L. Ed. 608...
Wyatt v. Wallace, 67 Ark. 575, 55 S. W.
1105
...97,
Wylie v. Coxe, 14 How. 1, 14 L. Ed. 301..
Wyman v. Halstead, 109 U. S. 654, 3 Sup.
Čt. 417, 27 L. Ed. 1068....

[blocks in formation]

÷

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

OCTOBER TERM, 1906.

TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO EX REL., pute, where the validity of a treaty or statE. J. MCLEAN & COMPANY, Appt.

V.

DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY.

Appeal from territorial supreme courtFederal question.

1. A controversy as to the constitutional right of a territorial legislature to pass a specified law under the bred legislative power conferred by U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1851, involves the validity of an authority exercised under the United States within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. at L. 443, chap. 355, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 572), § 2, defining the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States over the supreme courts of

the territories.*

Appeal from territorial supreme courtamount in dispute.

2. Some sum or value must be in dispute in order to sustain the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court over the supreme courts of the territories which is conferred by the act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. at L. 443, chap. 355, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 572), § 2, without regard to the sum or value in dispute, in cases involving the validity of a treaty or statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States.†

ute of, or authority exercised under, the United States is involved.‡ Commerce-duties on imports or exports.

4. Only articles imported from, or exported to, foreign countries, are within the purview of U. S. Const. art. 1, § 10, forbidding any state, without the consent of Congress to lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection

laws.

[blocks in formation]

6. The prohibition against the receipt by common carriers for transportation beyond the limits of the territory of hides which do not bear the evidence of inspection required by N. M. act of March 19, 1901, is a valid exercise of the police power, and does not there being no congressional legislation covering the subject and making a

Appeal from territorial supreme court-different provision-violate the commerce

amount in dispute.

3. A suit in which the matter in dispute is the right of consignors to have a consignment shipped by a common carrier to its destination involves a valuable right, measurable in money, and therefore satisfies the requirements of the act of March 3, 1885, conferring upon the Supreme Court of the United States appellate jurisdiction over the supreme courts of the territories without regard to the sum or value in dis

*Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Courts, § 1032.

tEd. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Courts, § 1032.

27 S.C.-1.

hides not offered for transportation are not required to be inspected after thirty days in slaughterhouses, and not at all outside of the slaughterhouses, and although the incidental effect of the statute may be to levy a tax upon this class of property. Commerce-territorial tion fee.

clause of the Federal Constitution, although

legislation-inspec

7. The amount of the fee imposed by N.

Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Courts, § 1032.

TEd. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 10, Cent. Dig. Commerce, §§ 7, 24, 61.

M. act of March 19, 1901, for the inspection, lowed from any judgment or decree of the of hides offered for transportation beyond supreme court of a territory unless the matthe limits of the territory, does not render ter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds that statute-if otherwise valid-repugnant the sum of $5,000. Section 2 of the act to the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, where it is not so unreasonable and disproportionate to the services rendered as to challenge the good faith of the law.

[No. 18.]

makes exception to the application of § 1 as to the sum in dispute, in cases wherein is involved the validity of a treaty or statute of or authority exercised under the United States, and in all such cases an appeal

Argued March 14, 15, 1906. Decided Octo- or writ of error will lie without regard to the sum or value in dispute.

ber 15, 1906.

[blocks in formation]

Confessedly, $5,000 is not involved; and in order to be appealable to this court the case must involve the validity of an authority exercised under the United States, and also be a controversy in which some sum or value is involved. This court, in the case of United States v. Lynch, 137 U. S. 280285, 34 L. ed. 700-702, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114-116, laid down the test of the right to appeal under the statute in the following

terms:

"The validity of a statute, or the validity of an authority, is drawn in question when the existence or constitutionality or legality of such statute or authority is denied, and the denial forms the subject of direct inCamp-quiry."

See same case below (N. M.) 78 Pac. 74. The facts are stated in the opinion. Messrs. William B. Childers and T. B. Catron for appellant.

Messrs. Charles A. Spiess, A. C. bell, and D. J. Leahey for appellee.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of

[blocks in formation]

pany.

From the allegations of the writ it appears that the relators, the appellants here, had delivered to the railroad company at Santa Fe, New Mexico, a bale of hides consigned to Denver, Colorado, a point on the line of the defendant's railroad. The railroad company refused to receive and ship the hides for the reason that they did not bear the evidence of inspection required by the act of the legislature of New Mexico, approved March 19, 1901, which act, to be more fully noticed hereafter, made it an offense for any railroad company to receive hides for shipment beyond the limits of the territory which had not been inspected within the requirements of the law.

An objection is made to the jurisdiction of this court upon the ground that the case is not appealable under the act of Congress of March 3, 1885. 23 Stat. at L. 443, chap. 355 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 572).

Section 1 of the act provides, in substance, that no appeal or writ of error shall be al

The right to legislate in the territories is conferred, under constitutional authority, by the Congress of the United States, and the passage of a territorial law is the exertion of an authority exercised under the United States. While this act was passed in pursuance of the authority given by the United States to the territorial legislature, it is contended by the relators below, appellants here, that it violates the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore invalid, although it is an attempted exercise of power conferred by Congress upon the territory. The objection of the relator to the law raises a controversy as to the right of the legislature to pass it under the broad power of legislation conferred by Congress upon the territory. In other words, the validity of an authority exercised under the United States in the passage and enforcement of this law is directly challenged, and the case does involve the validity of an authority exercised under the power derived from the United States. It is not a case merely involving the construction of a legislative act of the territory, as was the fact in Snow v. United States, 118 U. S. 346, 30 L. ed. 207, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1059. The power to pass the act at all, in view of the requirements of the Constitution of the United States, is the subject-matter of controversy, and brings the case in this aspect within the 2d section of the act.

Is there any sum or value in dispute in this case? While the act does not prescribe

the amount, some sum or value must be in dispute. Albright v. New Mexico, 200 U. S. 9, 50 L. ed. 346, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 210. The matter in dispute is the right to have the goods which were tendered for shipment transported to their destination. As a common carrier, the railroad was bound to receive and transport the goods. Its refusal so to do was based upon the statute in question because of the noninspection of the goods tendered. The relators claimed the right to have their goods transported because the statute was null and void, being an unconstitutional enactment. The controversy, therefore, relates to the right of the appellants to have their goods transported by the railroad company to the place of destination. We think this was a valuable right, measurable in money. At common law, a cause of action arose from the refusal of a common carrier to transport goods duly tendered for carriage. Ordinarily, the measure of damages in such case is the difference between the value of the goods at the point of tender and their value at their proposed destination, less the cost of carriage. We are of the opinion that this controversy involves a money value within the meaning of the statute, and the motion to dismiss the appeal will be overruled.

to the effect of this law upon interstate commerce, and it is urged that it is in violation of the Constitution, because it undertakes to regulate interstate commerce, and lays upon it a tax not within the power of the local legislature to exact. It has been too frequently decided by this court to require the restatement of the decisions, that the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce is vested by the Constitution in Congress, and that other laws which undertake to regulate such commerce or impose burdens upon it are invalid. This doctrine has been reaffirmed and announced in cases decided as recently as the last term of this court. Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321, 50 L. ed. 772, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 491; McNeill v. Southern R. Co. 202 U. S. 543, 50 L. ed. 1142, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722. While this is true, it is equally well settled that a state or a territory, for the same reasons, in the exercise of the police power, may make rules and regulations not conflicting with the legislation of Congress upon the same subject, and not amounting to regulations of interstate commerce. It will only be necessary to refer to a few of the many cases decided in this court holding valid enactments of legislatures having for their object the protection, welfare, and safety of the people, although Passing to the merits of the controversy, such laws may have an effect upon interCongress has conferred legislative power state commerce. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. upon the territory to an extent not incon- v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613-635, 42 L. ed. 878sistent with the Constitution and laws of 885, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; Chicago, M. & the United States. U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1851. St. P. R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133, 42 L. It is contended that the act under considered. 688, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; Pennsylvania ation contravenes that part of article 1, R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477, 48 L. ed. § 10, of the Constitution of the United 268, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 132. States, which reads: "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 its inspection laws." And also that part of the 8th section of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which gives to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states, and with the Indian tribes.

The principle

decided in these cases is that a state or territory has the right to legislate for the safety and welfare of its people, and that this right is not taken from it because of the exclusive right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, except in cases where the attempted exercise of authority by the legislature is in conflict with an act of Congress, or is an attempt to regulate interstate commerce. In Patapsco Guano Co. As to the objection predicated on § 10 v. Board of Agriculture, supra, it was diof article 1, that section can have no ap-rectly recognized that the state might pass plication to the present case, as that provision directly applies only to articles imported or exported to foreign countries. Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345-350, 43 L. ed. 191-193, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862, and cases cited. Moreover, that paragraph of the Constitution expressly reserves the right of the states to pass inspection laws, and if this law is of that character it does not run counter to this requirement of the Constitution.

The question principally argued is as

inspection laws for the protection of its people against fraudulent practices and for the suppression of frauds, although such legislation had an effect upon interstate commerce.

The same principle was recognized in Neilson v. Garza, 2 Woods, 287, Fed. Cas. No. 10,091,-a case decided by Mr. Justice Bradley on the circuit and quoted from at length with approval by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in the Patapsco Case.

Applying the principles recognized in these cases to the case at bar, does the act

in question do violence to the exclusive | whom each of said cattle was bought, the right of Congress to regulate interstate brands and marks upon each hide, and any commerce? We take judicial notice of the fact that, in the territory of New Mexico, and in other similar parts of the West, cattle are required to be branded in order to identify their ownership, and that they run at large in great stretches of country with no other means of determining their separate ownership than by the brands or marks upon them. In view of these considerations, and for the purpose of protecting the owners of cattle against fraud and criminal seizures of their property, the territory of New Mexico has made provision, by means of a system of laws enacted for the purpose, for the protection of the ownership of cattle and the prevention of fraudulent appropriations of this kind of property. The legislation upon the subject in the territory is thus summarized in the opinion, in this case, of the supreme court of New Mexico (78 Pac. 74):

information that may be obtained touching the violation by the owner of any such slaughterhouse, or any other person, of the provisions of an act entitled "An Act for the Protection of Stock, and for Other Purposes," approved April 1, 1884. For the purpose of making the inspection authorized by this act, any inspector employed by the said sanitary board shall have the right to enter, in the day or nightime, any slaughterhouse or other place where cattle are killed in this territory, and to carefully examine the same, and all books and records required by law to be kept therein, and to compare the hides found therein with such records' (§ 213). In 1893 it was provided that the cattle sanitary board might fix fees for the inspection of cattle and hides (§ 221) (repealed in 1899 [Laws 1899 chap. 53, p. 107]) and that such fees shall be paid to the secretary of the board and placed to the credit of the cattle sanitary board (§ 222), and shall be used, together with funds realized from taxes levied and assessed, or to be levied and assessed, upon cattle only, to defray the expenses of the board (§ 220). Chapter 44, p. 94, of the Laws of 1899, makes no changes in the law material to the consideration of this case. Section 2, chap. 53, p. 107, of the Laws of 1899, provides a fee of 3 cents for

In pari materia with this legislation the act of 1901, now under consideration, was passed. Sections 3 and 4 of that act are as follows:

"The first act relating to inspection of hides was passed in 1884, and provided that all butchers should keep a record of all animals slaughtered, and keep the hides and horns of such animals for thirty days after slaughter, free to the inspection of all persons (Comp. Laws, § 84); and provided a penalty for failure to keep the record and the hides and horns (§ 86), and a penalty for refusal of inspection of the record or hides (§ 87). In 1891 all persons were re-inspection of cattle." quired to keep hides for thirty days for the inspection of any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or any constable, or any board or inspector, or any officer authorized to inspect hides (§ 89), and provided a penalty (§ 90). In 1889, amended in 1895 (Laws 1895, chap. 29, § 4, p. 70), a cattle sanitary board was created (§ 183), with power to adopt and enforce quarantine regulations and regulations for the inspection of cattle for sale and slaughter (§ 184), and pay inspectors not to exceed $2.50 per day and their expenses (§ 190). In 1891 the cattle sanitary board was authorized and required to make regulations concerning inspection of cattle for shipment, and hides and slaughterhouses (§ 208), and there was provided the details of arrangement for inspection of cattle (§ 212), and the duties of cattle inspectors were enlarged by providing: 'Every slaughterhouse in this territory shall be carefully inspected by some one of the inspectors aforesaid, and all hides found in such slaughterhouses shall be carefully compared with the records of such slaughterhouses, and a report in writing setting forth the number of cattle killed at any such slaughterhouse since the last inspection,

the names of the persons from

"Sec. 3. Hereafter it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to offer, or any railroad company or other common carrier to receive, for the purpose of shipment or transportation beyond the limits of this territory, any hides that have not been inspected and tagged by a duly authorized inspector of the cattle sanitary board of New Mexico, for the district in which such hides originate. For each hide thus inspected there shall be paid by the owner or holder thereof a fee or charge of 10 cents, and such fee or charge shall be a lien upon the hides thus inspected, until the same shall have been paid. Each inspector of hides shall keep a complete record of all inspections made by him, and shall at once forward to the secretary of the cattle sanitary board, on blanks furnished him for that purpose, a complete report of each inspection, giving the names of the purchaser and shipper of the hides, as well as all the brands thereon, which said report shall be preserved by the secretary as a part of the records of his office.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »