imposed by a law of any State on stock issued for loans made the United States, is unconstitutional.-Weston et al. vs. The City Council of Charleston, 2 Peters, p. 449. There is no reason why the property of a corporation should be exempted from its share of necessary public burdens.-Philadelphia & Wilmington Railroad Co. vs. Maryland, 10 Howard, p. 376. The taxing power of a State should never be presumed to be relinquished unless the intention is declared in clear and unambiguous terms.-Id. A State has no power to impose a stamp duty on bills of lading.-Almy vs. California, 24 Howard, p. 169. The power of taxation is a sovereign political power, and a branch of the power of eminent domain (Stu. & Ind. R. R. Co. vs. Tuscarawus Co., 6 Pitts. L. J., p. 68), and is co-extensive with the territory of the U. S.-Loughborough vs. Blake, 5 Wh., p. 317. Internal Rev. Act of 1862 held to be constitutional.-U. S. vs. Riley, Circuit Court N. Y., 13th February, 1865, Shipman, J. License tax law of 1864 upheld.-License Tax Cases, 5 Wall., p.

462.

TO REGULATE COMMERCE.-The power to regulate commerce is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State.-Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat., p. 186. The several Acts of the State of New York granting to Livingston and Fulton the exclusive right of navigating the waters within the jurisdiction of that State, are in collision with the law and Constitution of the United States.-Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat., p. 209. That clause of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce, etc., comprehends navigation also. Id. p. 189. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, and among the several States.-Id., p. 193. It does not comprehend that commerce which is completely internal in a State, and which does not affect other States.-Id., p. 194. It extends as well to vessels employed in carrying passengers, as to those employed in transporting property.-Id., p. 215. The power of laying duties on imports is considered in the Constitution as a branch of the taxing power, and not of the power to regulate commerce.-Id., p. 201. An Act of a State Legislature, requiring all importers of foreign goods by the bale, etc., and other persons selling the same by wholesale, bale, etc., to take out a license for which they shall pay fifty dollars, and subjecting them to certain penalties, etc., in case of neglect to take out such

license, is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.-Brown et al. vs. State of Maryland, 12 Wheat., p. 419. Under the power to regulate commerce, Congress can exclude, either partially or wholly, any subject falling within the legitimate sphere of commercial regulation.-United States vs. Marigold, 9 Howard, p.

560.

NAVIGATION. -The power to regulate commerce includes power to regulate navigation. It is exclusive, and may be exercised with or without regulations. The Chusan, 2 St., p. 456. Also to determine what are obstructions.-Penn. vs. Wheeling and Bal. Bridge Co., 18 H., p. 421; Silliman vs. Hud. Riv. Bri. Co., 4 Bl. C. C.; s. c., Wall, p. 403; Gilman vs. Philadelphia, 3 Wall, p. 713; The Passaic Bridges, id., p. 782; U. S. vs. R. R. Bridge Co., 6 McL., p. 517. Also gives jurisdiction over navigable streams to General Government for commercial purposes.-Jolly vs. Terre Haute Drawbridge Co., 6 McL., p. 237. It does not include the means by which it is carried on within a State.-U. S. vs. The Seneca, 10 Am. L. R., p. 281; Brooks vs. The Peytona, 2 West L. Mo., p. 518; Whitaker vs. Lorents, id., p. 520; U. S. vs. The James Morrison, Newb., p. 241. These cases and the cases of Silliman vs. Hud. Riv. Br. Co., 4 Bl. C. C.; s. c., 1 Bl., p. 582; 2 Wall, p. 403; Palmer vs. Cuyahoga Co., 3 McL., p. 226; Works vs. Junction R. R., 5 McL., p. 425 (examine opinion of Hall, J., in Silliman vs. H. R. Br. Co., 4 Bl. C. C., contra), hold that the power to regulate commerce in Congress is paramount to that of a State to grant authority to build a bridge over or across a navigable stream. In the absence of any action by Congress exercising such authority, the State may regulate the navigation of streams within it.-See notes to Secs. 2348, 2349, and Secs. 2360-2379, ante, "Navigation;" see, also, U. S. vs. R. R. Br. Co., 6 McL., p. 517; Woodman vs. Kilboun Manufacturing Co., 15 Am. L. R., p. 238; Cooley vs. Bd. Wardens, 12 H., p. 299; Gilman vs. Phil., 3 Wall, p. 713. So, also, to improve its lands and promote public health it may authorize the erection of a dam across a small stream, though it was previously navigable.-Wilson vs. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet., p. 245; s. p., Atkinson vs. Phil. and Trenton R. R. Co., 14 Haz. Pa. Reg., p. 10. State cannot obstruct a navigable stream which extends to other States, or connected with a lake or river that falls into the sea.-Palmer vs. Cuyahoga Co., 3 McL.,

41-VOL. II.-POL.

p. 226; Columbus Ins. Co. vs. Peoria Br. Ass., 6 McL., p. 70. Restrictions on commerce between the States may not be imposed by a State.-Balt. vs. Connellsville and South. Penn. R. W. Co., 13 Pitts L. J., p. 576; s. c., 13 Am. L. R., p. 750; Halderman vs. Beckwith, 4 McL., p. 286. Aliter, where it is exclusively within the State. States may regulate pilotage.-Pac. M. St. S. Co. vs. Joliffe, 2 Wall, p. 450. right to regulate and establish ferries reserved and not granted to Congress.-Conway vs. Taylor's Express, 1 Bl., p. 604; U. S. vs. The Wm. Pope, id., p. 256. Laws of Pennsylvania and other States concerning pilotage construed.-Cooley vs. Board of Wardens, 12 Howard, p. 299.

States

PASSENGERS.-Acts of 1838 and 1843, for better security of lives of, construed.-Warring vs. Clark, 5 Howard, p. 441. The Acts of New York, passed February, 1824, concerning passengers, constitutional.-City of New York vs. Miln, 11 Peters, p. 103. The statutes of New York and Massachusetts, imposing taxes upon alien passengers arriving in the ports of those States, declared to be contrary to the Constitution.-Passenger Cases, 7 Howard, p. 283. State law inflicting penalty on shipmaster for not reporting passengers is not regulating commerce and is valid.-N. Y. vs. Miln, 11 Pet., p. 102; s. c., 2 Pa., p. 429; see Smith vs. Turner, 7 H., p. 283. It is the duty of every steamboat to keep a trustworthy person employed as a lookout, and if there be none such additional to the helmsman, or if he was not stationed in the proper place, or not vigilantly employed at his duty, it must be regarded as prima facie evidence that the collision was the fault of the steamboat.-Propeller Genessee Chief vs. Fitzhugh et al., 12 Howard, p. 443. A judgment in personam against a steamboat company for the loss of specie carried in their boat by one of the persons called "express carriers," and lost by fire in Long Island Sound, affirmed.-New Jersey Steam Navigation Company vs. Merchants' Bank, 6 Howard, p. 344. See the following cases, recognizing powers of Congress, as follows: Power over commerce and navigation embraces government of seamen, whether in a foreign port or at home.-Roberts vs. Skolfield, 8 Am. L. R., p. 156. To regulate commerce with Indians, but does not have general jurisdiction over Indian territory within the boundary of a State.-U. S. vs. Bailey, 1 McL., p. 234. May prohibit intercourse with Indians except under a license.-U. S. vs. Cesna, 1 McL., p. 254., May legalize a railroad bridge over a navigable stream.-Gray

vs. Clinton Bridge, 16 Am. L. R., p. 149. The treaty of 1819, between the United States and Spain, construed.-United States vs. Ferreira, 13 Howard, p. 40.

NATURALIZATION.-The individual States have a constitutional right to pass naturalization laws; provided, they do not contravene the rule established by the authority of the Union.-Collett vs. Collett, 2 Dall., p. 294; see United States vs. Villatto, id., p. 370. The power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress.— Chirac vs. Chirac, 2 Wh., p. 259; Golden vs. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. R., p. 313. The County Courts of California have jurisdiction to naturalize, by amendment of 1862 to the State Constitution, but this is concurrent jurisdiction with others having original common law jurisdiction. The power to naturalize is a recognized judicial power. Congress cannot confer judicial powers upon a State Court. The Supreme Court of this State has exclusive appellate jurisdiction, but has no power to naturalize. So held in Ex Parte F. Knowles, 5 Cal., p. 300.

BANKRUPTCY.-A State has authority to pass bankrupt laws which do not conflict with any Act of Congress to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy, nor impair the obligation of contracts.-Sturges vs. Crowningshield, 4 Wheat., p. 122. The power to pass bankrupt laws was held to be exclusively in Congress in case of Golden vs. Prince, 3 W. C. C., p. 313. Law of 1841 constitutional.-Ex Parte Klein, 1 H., p. 277; reversing s. c., 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs., p. 185. Constitutional authority of Congress complete, and the Federal Courts have full law and equity jurisdiction therein.Mitchell vs. Great Works M. & M. Co., 2 Story, p. 648. Under the Constitution, Congress had power to bring all parties, estates, and interests connected with bankrupt into District Court for adjudication, but under the Act of 1867 they have not done so.-Ex Parte Campbell, 16 Am. L. R., p. 100. See note to Preamble,

ante.

TO COIN MONEY.-Legal Tender Acts all constitutional, and applicable to all payments to be made after passage, etc. So held in the case of Latham vs. U. S., 1 N. & H., p. 149; s. c., 2 N. & H., p. 573. To provide for punishment of counterfeiting.-Campbell vs. U. S., 10 Law Rep., p. 400; U. S. vs. — 12 Law Rep., p. 90. See Sec. 3272, ante, and note.

PIRACY.-Definition of piracy by the law of nations. U. S. vs. Baker, 5 Wh., p. 184. Robbery or forcible depredation on the sea, "animo furandi," is piracy by the law of nations and the Act of Congress.-Id., and

p. 226; Columbus Ins. Co. vs. Peoria Br. Ass., 6 McL., p. 70. Restrictions on commerce between the States may not be imposed by a State.-Balt. vs. Connellsville and South. Penn. R. W. Co., 13 Pitts L. J., p. 576; s. c., 13 Am. L. R., p. 750; Halderman vs. Beckwith, 4 McL., p. 286. Aliter, where it is exclusively within the State. States may regulate pilotage.—Pac. M. St. S. Co. vs. Joliffe, 2 Wall, p. 450. right to regulate and establish ferries reserved and not granted to Congress.-Conway vs. Taylor's Express, 1 Bl., p. 604; U. S. vs. The Wm. Pope, id., p. 256. Laws of Pennsylvania and other States concerning pilotage construed.-Cooley vs. Board of Wardens, 12 Howard, p. 299.

ner,

States

PASSENGERS.-Acts of 1838 and 1843, for better security of lives of, construed.-Warring vs. Clark, 5 Howard, p. 441. The Acts of New York, passed February, 1824, concerning passengers, constitutional.-City of New York vs. Miln, 11 Peters, p. 103. The statutes of New York and Massachusetts, imposing taxes upon alien passengers arriving in the ports of those States, declared to be contrary to the Constitution.-Passenger Cases, 7 Howard, p. 283. State law inflicting penalty on shipmaster for not reporting passengers is not regulating commerce and is valid.-N. Y. vs. Miln, 11 Pet., p. 102; s. c., 2 Pa., p. 429; see Smith vs. Tur7 H., p. 283. It is the duty of every steamboat to keep a trustworthy person employed as a lookout, and if there be none such additional to the helmsman, or if he was not stationed in the proper place, or not vigilantly employed at his duty, it must be regarded as prima facie evidence that the collision was the fault of the steamboat.-Propeller Genessee Chief vs. Fitzhugh et al., 12 Howard, p. 443. A judgment in personam against a steamboat company for the loss of specie carried in their boat by one of the persons called "express carriers," and lost by fire in Long Island Sound, affirmed.-New Jersey Steam Navigation Company vs. Merchants' Bank, 6 Howard, p. 344. See the following cases, recognizing powers of Congress, as follows: Power over commerce and navigation embraces government of seamen, whether in a foreign port or at home.-Roberts vs. Skolfield, 8 Am. L. R., p. 156. To regulate commerce with Indians, but does not have general jurisdiction over Indian territory within the boundary of a State.-U. S. vs. Bailey, 1 McL., p. 234. May prohibit intercourse with Indians except under a license.-U. S. vs. Cesna, 1 McL., p. 254., May legalize a railroad bridge over a navigable stream.-Gray