662 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (THE SUPREME COURT.) 



fendants. A writ of error was issued to the Su- 

 preme Court of the United States, where it was 

 decided that the tax was in contravention of the 

 Constitution requiring that " no tax or duty shall 

 be laid on articles exported from any State. ' The 

 substance of the decision was as follows: "We 

 are of the opinion that a stamp tax on a foreign 

 bill of lading is in substance and effect equiva- 

 lent to a tax on the articles included in that 

 bill of lading." Justices Harlan, Gray, White, 

 and McKenna dissented. The dissenting opinion 

 said : " We submit that the denial, at this late 

 day, of the power of Congress to impose what is 

 strictly a stamp-duty on the vellum, parchment, 

 or paper upon which is written or printed a bill 

 of lading for goods to be exported to a foreign 

 port or place, involves not only a departure from 

 canons of constitutional construction by which 

 it has been controlled for more than a century, 

 but, in the words of Prigg vs. Commonwealth, 

 delivers the interpretation of the Constitution 

 ' over to interminable doubt throughout the whole 

 progress of legislation and of national operations.' 

 Practically no weight has been given in the opin- 

 ion just filed to the fact that the power now 

 denied to Congress has been exercised since the 

 organization of the Government, without any sug- 

 gestion or even intimation by a single jurist or 

 statesman during all that period that the Con- 

 stitution forbade its exercise." 



Tax on Calls. A suit was instituted in the 

 southern district of New York by S. V. White 

 against Charles H. Treat, collector of internal 

 revenue, to recover stamp tax paid by the plain- 

 tiff on stock transactions denominated as " calls." 

 This tax was collected in accordance with an 

 opinion rendered by the Attorney-General April 

 27, 1899, that they were liable under Schedule A, 

 act of June 13, 1898. The case was taken to the 

 United States Circuit Court of Appeals and certi- 

 fied to the United States Supreme Court, which 

 rendered a decision April 29, 1901, holding that 

 a " call " is an agreement to sell, and therefore 

 subject to taxation at the rate of 2 cents for each 

 $100 in value. 



Constitutionality of State Laws. In the case 

 of McDonald vs. Massachusetts, the court decided, 

 Feb. 25, that the statute of Massachusetts of 1887, 

 by which " whoever has been twice convicted of 

 crime, sentenced, and committed to prison, in this 

 or any other State, or once in this and once at 

 least in any other State, for terms of not less 

 than three years each, shall, upon conviction of 

 a felony committed in this State, after the passage 

 of this act, be deemed to be an habitual criminal, 

 and shall be punished by imprisonment in the 

 State prison for twenty-five years," is constitu- 

 tional. The statute imposing a punishment on 

 none but future crimes is not ex post facto. 



State Quarantine Laws. The case of W. P. 

 Smith vs. the St. Louis and Southwestern Rail- 

 way Company, decided April 22, 1901, involved 

 the constitutionality of quarantine regulations of 

 Texas in 1897, against the importation of cattle. 

 The shipment of cattle involved was made from 

 Plaindealing, La., to Fort Worth, Texas, the offi- 

 cials of the road being unaware that a quarantine 

 had been established. When the regulations be- 

 came known, the railroad company refused to de- 

 liver the cattle to the consignee, and reshipped 

 them to Plaindealing. Smith refused to receive 

 them, and brought suit for damages, contending 

 that the regulations were an interference with 

 interstate commerce. The State court of appeals 

 decided in favor of the railroad company, which 

 decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, on the 

 ground that the State has a right, under its 



police power, to protect itself against infectious 

 disease, even though commerce may be inciden- 

 tally interfered with. Justices Harlan, White, and 

 Brown dissented. 



In the case of Rasmussen vs. the State of Ne- 

 vada, the court affirmed the constitutionality of 

 the law of the State of Idaho authorizing a 

 quarantine against sheep from other States sup- 

 posed to be affected by an infectious disease. 

 The statute contemplated solely the protection 

 of sheep of that State from the introduction 

 among them of an infectious disease, and pro- 

 vided for such restraint upon the introduction of 

 sheep from other States as in judgment of the 

 State was necessary to prevent the spread of dis- 

 ease. The act was considered a purely quaran- 

 tine act, and its constitutionality was sustained. 



Kansas City Stock- Yards. The case of Cotting 

 et al. vs. Godard, decided Nov. 25, 1901, involved 

 the validity of the State law of Kansas empower- 

 ing the State authorities to fix rates of charges 

 on stock in stock-yards in that State. The court 

 held that the law was invalid because it applied 

 only to the Kansas City Stock-Yards Company 

 and not to other companies engaged in like busi- 

 ness in the State, and was in conflict with the equal- 

 protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. 



Chinese Residents. The case of Li Sing vs. 

 United States was decided March 18, 1901. Li 

 Sing was a Chinaman who, after residing for 

 years in the United States, returned temporarily 

 to China, taking with him a certificate purporting 

 to have been issued by the Imperial Government 

 of China at its consulate in New York, and signed 

 by its consul, stating that he was permitted to 

 return to the United States, that he was entitled 

 to do so, and that he was a wholesale grocer. 

 On his return to the United States by way of 

 Canada, he presented this certificate to the United 

 States collector of customs at Malone, N. Y., who 

 canceled it and permitted him to enter the coun- 

 try. Subsequently he was brought before a com- 

 missioner of the United States for the southern 

 district of New York, charged with having un- 

 lawfully entered the United States, being a la- 

 borer. At the examination he set up that he had 

 a right to remain here, and that he was a mer- 

 chant. The commissioner found that on his de- 

 parture from the United States he was, and had 

 long been, a laborer, and ordered his deportation. 

 Held, that the decision of the collector at Malone 

 was not final, and that, by the act of Oct. 1, 1888, 

 the certificate issued to him by the Chinese con- 

 sul on his departure from the United States was 

 annulled. 



Controversies between States. In the case of 

 Missouri vs. Illinois and the sanitary district of 

 Chicago, the State of Missouri had filed a bill 

 against the State of Illinois and the sanitary dis- 

 trict of Chicago, asking an injunction restraining 

 the defendants "from receiving or permitting sew- 

 age to be received or discharged into the artificial 

 channel or drain constructed by the sanitary dis- 

 trict of Chicago under authority derived from the 

 State, in order to draw off and discharge into 

 the Mississippi river the sewage of Chicago, and 

 from permitting the same to flow through said 

 channel or drain into the Des Plaines river, and 

 thence by the Illinois river into the Mississippi. 

 The bill did not assail the drainage canal as an 

 unlawful structure, nor aim to prevent its use as 

 a waterway, but its object was to obtain relief 

 against the pouring of sewage and filth through 

 it into the Mississippi river, to the detriment of 

 the State of Missouri and her inhabitants. The 

 opinion reviewed the decisions of the Supreme 

 Court on the question of its jurisdiction in con- 



