686 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (THE SUPREME COURT.) 



the question of the validity of the Tennessee 

 statute providing for the collection of a privilege 

 tax on merchandise brokers. It was held that 

 the statute violated the interstate commerce 

 clause of the Constitution, and the decision of the 

 Supreme Court of Tennessee was reversed. When 

 the tax is applied to an individual within the 

 State, selling the goods of his principal, who is 

 a non-resident of the State, it is in effect a tax 

 upon interstate commerce, and the fact is not 

 altered by calling the tax one upon the occupa- 

 tion of the individual residing within the State 

 while acting as the agent of a non-resident prin- 

 cipal. 



Illinois Antitrust Statute. Connolly vs. 

 Union Sewer-Pipe Company, decided March 10, 

 1902. This case grew out of the sale of pipe by 

 the pipe company to Connolly and others, who, 

 after securing it, declined to make payment on 

 the ground that the company was an illegal com- 

 bination for the restraint of trade under the com- 

 mon law and was a combination in violation 

 of the Sherman antitrust law, and, further, a 

 violation of the antitrust law of the State of 

 Illinois. The latter law was declared invalid. 

 The ninth section of the statute declares that 

 " the provisions of the act shall not apply to 

 agricultural products or live stock while in the 

 hands of the producer or raiser," thereby except- 

 ing the articles named under certain conditions 

 from the operation of the statute. This clause 

 the Supreme Court held to be class legislation 

 and void, and the whole act was considered to 

 fall with this clause. An antitrust law to be 

 constitutional must apply indiscriminately to all 

 combinations. The State has the power by 

 appropriate legislation to protect the public 

 morals, the public health, and the public safety; 

 but if, by their necessary operation, its regula- 

 tions looking to either of these ends amount to 

 a denial to persons within its jurisdiction of the 

 equal protection of the laws, they must be 

 deemed unconstitutional and void. Mr. Justice 

 McKenna filed a dissenting opinion. 



Illinois Mine Law. St. Louis Consolidated 

 Coal Company vs. Illinois. This case involved 

 the constitutionality of the Illinois statute pro- 

 viding for the inspection of mines. The law was 

 attacked on the ground that it required an 

 inspection only of mines employing more than 

 five miners, and that it gave a discretion to the 

 inspectors to determine how many times a year 

 a mine should be inspected, and also what fees 

 within certain limits should be charged for in- 

 spection. The court affirmed the decision of the 

 Illinois Supreme Court and held the law to be 

 valid. 



Illinois Statute against dealing in Futures. 

 In the case of Booth vs. Illinois, decided March 3, 

 1902, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of 

 the Illinois statute against dealing in options 

 on grain or other commodities. Under that'law, 

 attempts to corner the market, to influence it 

 by spreading false reports, or contracts to buy 

 or sell at a future time grain or other com- 

 modities are punishable bv fine or imprisonment. 

 Booth, a grain and provision broker, was in- 

 dicted for violation of the statute and was con- 

 victed in the lower courts, and the case was 

 appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground 

 that it was repugnant to the fourteenth amend- 

 ment of the Constitution. Justice Harlan, in de- 

 livering the opinion of the court, said : " The stat- 

 ute here involved may be unwise. But an unwise 

 enactment is not necessarily for that reason in- 

 valid. It may be, as suggested by counsel, that 

 the steady, vigorous enforcement of this statute 



will materially interfere with the handling or 

 moving of vast amounts of grain in the West, 

 which are now disposed of by contracts or ar- 

 rangements made in the Board of Trade in Chi- 

 cago. But these are suggestions for the consid- 

 eration of the Illinois Legislature. The courts 

 have nothing to do with the mere policy of legis- 

 lation." Justices Brewer and Peckham dissented. 



Kentucky Constitution affecting Interstate 

 Commerce. Louisville and Nashville Railroad 

 Company vs. Eubank, decided Jan. 27, !!)():>. 

 This case involved a section of the State Con- 

 stitution of Kentucky prohibiting a greater 

 charge for short than for long hauls on rail- 

 roads, and its validity when the larger haul was 

 beyond the State limits. Eubank alleged that 

 he paid 25 cents a hundred pounds for transport- 

 ing tobacco from Franklin, Ky., to Louisville, 134 

 miles, while only 12 cents w r as charged for trans- 

 porting it from Nashville to Louisville, 50 miles 

 farther. It was held that the section in ques- 

 tion was invalid so far as it was made applicable 

 to or affected interstate commerce, the power of 

 regulating which belongs to Congress exclusively. 

 Justices Brewer and Gray dissented. 



Foreign Insurance Companies. The case of 

 Nutting vs. Massachusetts, decided Jan. 13, 1902, 

 i involved the constitutionality of the law of that 

 State prescribing penalties upon brokers or others 

 who negotiate or make contracts in the State 

 of Massachusetts with insurance companies that 

 are not permitted to do business in the State. 

 The decision upheld the State law as not in con- 

 flict with the federal Constitution. A State has 

 the undoubted power to prohibit foreign insur- 

 ance companies from making contracts of insur- 

 ance, marine or other, within its limits, except 

 upon such conditions as the State may prescribe, 

 not interfering with interstate commerce. A con- 

 tract of marine insurance is not an instrumen- 

 tality of commerce, but a mere incident of com- 

 mercial intercourse. The State, having the power 

 to impose conditions on the transaction of busi- 

 ness by foreign insurance companies within its 

 limits, has the equal right to prohibit the transac- 

 tion of such business by agents of such companies, 

 or by insurance brokers, who are to some extent 

 the representatives of both parties. 



Street-Railway Fare. Detroit vs. Detroit Citi- 

 zens' Street Railway Company. The decision in 

 this case was that the ordinance enacted by the 

 city government of Detroit arbitrarily reducing 

 street-car fares to three cents was without bind- 

 ing effect. The decision was based upon the fact 

 that a previous ordinance had fixed the fares 

 at five cents, such ordinance being in the nature 

 of a contract. Justice Peckham, in delivering 

 the opinion of the court, said: "It is a contract 

 which gives the company the right to charge a 

 rate of fare up to the sum of five cents for a 

 single passenger, and leaves no power with the 

 city to reduce it without the consent of the com- 

 pany." 



State Quarantine Regulations. Compagnie 

 Franchise, etc., vs. Louisiana State Board of 

 Health, decided June 2, 1902. An action A\U> 

 brought against the Louisiana Board of Health 

 for damages by the owners of a French steamer 

 that sought to land passengers in New Orleans 

 in 1898, but was refused. The passengers and 

 cargo were from foreign ports free from any in- 

 fectious disease, but there was a quarantine in 

 force at New Orleans against yellow fever, and 

 the Board of Health, acting under the State law, 

 prohibited the entry of all persons from infected 

 or uninfected ports, for an indefinite period. The 

 law was sustained as not repugnant to the Con- 



