UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



723 



Justices, John M. Harlan, of Kentucky, ap- 

 pointed in 1877; Horace Gray, of Massachusetts, 

 appointed in 1881 ; David J. Brewer,, of Kansas, 

 appointed in 1889; Henry B. Brown, of Michigan, 

 appointed in 1890; George Shiras, Jr., of Pennsyl- 

 vania, appointed in 1892; Edward L>. White, of 

 Louisiana, appointed in 1894; Rufus W. Peck- 

 ham, of New York, appointed in 1893; and Joseph 

 McKenna, of California, appointed in 1897. 



At the close of the October term, 1898, 308 cases 

 were not disposed of. The number of cases dock- 

 eted at the October term., 1899, was 384, and 375 

 cases were disposed of during the term. The num- 

 ber actually considered by the court was 328, of 

 which 174 were argued orally and 154 submitted 

 on printed arguments. 



Some of the more important cases decided were 

 as follow: 



The Texas Antitrust Law. In Waters- Pierce Oil 

 Company vs. Texas, decided March 19, 1900, the 

 court held as follows: It is well settled that a 

 State has the power to impose such conditions 

 as it pleases upon foreign corporations seeking to 

 do business within it. The statute of Texas of 

 March 30, 1890, prohibiting foreign corporations 

 that violated the provisions of that act from 

 doing any business within the State, imposed con- 

 ditions which it was within the power of the State 

 to impose. 



Texas vs. Houston and Texas Central Railroad 

 Company.- This was a suit brought by the State 

 of Texas to recover $073,000 from the Houston and 

 Texas Central Railroad Company for loans from 

 the "school fund of the State prior to the civil 

 war, which the company claimed to have paid. 

 The payments were made by the company in 

 Treasury warrants issued by the State under au- 

 thority of acts passed in 18G3 and 1864. The 

 State officials declared that the payments were 

 void on account of having been made in warrants 

 issued in violation of the provision of the Consti- 

 tution that no State should emit bills of credit; 

 that they were in violation of the provision of the 

 Texas Constitution, which forbade the issue of war- 

 rants to circulate as money, and that they were 

 issued in aid of the rebellion, and therefore illegal. 

 The State courts sustained the State officials in 

 all except the contention that the warrants were 

 issued in aid of the rebellion. The Supreme Court 

 decided that the warrants were not issued in vio- 

 lation of the Federal and State Constitutions, and 

 that the payments of the railroad company were 

 valid. Mr. Justice Brown, concurring in the judg- 

 ment of the court, dissented from that part which 

 held the warrants were not bills of creait and 

 used as money. But it was too late now, he said, 

 for the State to repudiate them. To do so would 

 be a plain violation of public faith. 



The Bankruptcy Law.- The case of Bardes vs. 

 the Hawarden Bank involved the question of juris- 

 diction of the United States district court under 

 the present bankruptcy law. The court held that 

 the provisions of the second clause of section 23 of 

 the bankrupt act of 1898 control and limit the 

 jurisdiction of all courts, including the several 

 district courts of the United States, over suits 

 brought by trustees in bankruptcy to recover or 

 collect debts due from third parties or to set aside 

 transfers of property to third parties, alleged to 

 be fraudulent as against creditors, including pay- 

 ments in money or property to preferred creditors. 



The Minnesota ^Railroad Law. In the Wiscon- 

 sin, Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company rs. 

 Jacob F. Jacobson, the opinion of the State court 

 was affirmed, upholding the law. The case in- 

 volves the validity of the Minnesota State law 

 requiring intersecting railroad lines crossing each 



other at grade to make " Ys " connecting the two. 

 The law was attacked upon the ground that it is 

 a violation of the interstate commerce clause of 

 the Constitution. Justices White and McKenna 

 joined in a dissenting opinion. Justice White 

 said the opinion was far reaching in its effect, 

 and amounted to saying that private property 

 might be taken for public use without any com- 

 pensation whatever. 



Governorship of Kentucky. Taylor and Mar- 

 shall vs. Beckham was decided May 21, 1900. 

 This was an action in the nature of <juo warruntn. 

 brought under the statutes of Kentucky by 

 J. C. W. Beckham against William S. Taylor and 

 John Marshall for usurpation of the oflices of 

 Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky. 

 The determination of contests of the election of 

 Governor and Lieutenant Governor in that State 

 is committed to the General Assembly. The court 

 dismissed the writ of error and declined to take 

 jurisdiction. The Chief Justice in delivering the 

 opinion quoted from the decision of the court in 

 Luther vs. Borden as follows : " The high power 

 has been conferred on this court of passing judg- 

 ment upon the acts of the State sovereignties, 

 and of the legislative and executive branches of 

 the Federal Government, and of determining 

 whether they are beyond the limits of power 

 marked out for them respectively by the Con- 

 stitution of the United States. Ihis tribunal, 

 therefore, should be the last to overstep the 

 boundaries which limit its own jurisdiction. And 

 while it should always be ready to meet any ques- 

 tion confided to it by the Constitution, it is 

 equally its duty not to pass beyond its appropriate 

 sphere of action, and to take care not to involve 

 itself in discussions which properly belong to 

 other forums." 



Insurance. New York Life Insurance Company 

 rs. Cravens. The contract for life insurance in 

 this case, made by a New York insurance com- 

 pany in the State of Missouri with a citizen of 

 that State, is subject to the laws of that State 

 regulating life insurance policies, although the pol- 

 icy declares " that the entire contract contained 

 in the said policy and in this application, taken 

 together, shall be construed and interpreted as a 

 whole and in each of its parts and obligations 

 according to the laws of the State of New York, 

 the place of the contract being expressly agreed 

 to be the principal office of the said company in 

 the city of New York." The power of a S'tate 

 over foreign corporations is not less than the power 

 of a State over domestic corporations. 



Legacy Tax Cases. Knowlton vs. Moore was 

 decided May 14, 1900. The contention was that 

 the legacy tax was unconstitutional, on the fol- 

 lowing grounds: That it constitutes a direct tax; 

 that it is not uniform for the reason that it ex- 

 empts from its operation legacies under the value 

 of $10,000, and because it provides for a pro- 

 gressive tax, and is invalid on other grounds of 

 inequality and want of uniformity, and that the 

 right of inheritance is a privilege or franchise 

 within the exclusive power of the State to grant 

 and regulate, and not subject to abridgment or 

 taxation by the General Government. Another 

 point involved was, that the tax does not attach 

 to any individual legacy unless such legacy ex- 

 ceeds the sum of $10,000. The decision, delivered 

 by Justice White, sustained the constitutionality 

 of the law, holding that the tax was not a direct 

 tax within the meaning of the Constitution, but, 

 on the contrary, a duty or excise. The uniformity 

 clause of the Constitution was held to relate only 

 to geographical uniformity. It was decided that 

 legacies not exceeding $10,000 were not taxable, 



