Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.

[ocr errors]

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

Limitation of the

powers of Congress.

U. S. vs. Smith, 5 Wh., p. 153. Under the Act of 1790,
that which is piracy on the high seas is not punishable
with death if committed on land.-U. S. vs. Palmer, 3
Wh., p. 610; U. S. vs. Jones, 3 W. C. C., p. 209; U.
S. vs. Perez, 2 Wh. Cr. Cases, p. 96; U. S. vs. Hutch-
ings, id., p. 543. This Act extends to all persons who
on board of vessels throw off national character by
cruising and committing piracy on other vessels. Eighth
section of Act of April 30th, 1780, not repealed by Act
of March 3d, 1819.-U. S. vs. Furlong, 5 Wh., p. 184.
The Act of Congress referring to the law of nations for
a definition of the crime of piracy is a constitutional
exercise of the power of Congress to define that crime.
U. S. vs. Smith, 5 Wheat.,
p. 153.

WAR.-The power to make war is vested exclusively in Congress.-United States vs. Smith, Trials of Smith and Ogden, p. 84. Every contention by force between two nations, in external matters, under authority of their respective Governments, is a public war.-Bas vs. Tingy, 4 D., p. 37. A state of war may exist without any formal declaration of it by either party; and this is true both of civil and foreign war.-The Amy Warwick, 2 Bl., p. 635; s. c., 2 Spr., p. 123. On a declaration of war a citizen, unless ordered by his Government, is not bound to return home from a foreign country. The Joseph, 1 Gall., p. 545.

CAPTURES ON LAND AND WATER.-The power of making rules concerning captures on land and water is not confined to captures which are extra-territorial, and is an express grant to Congress of the power of confiscating an enemy's property found within the territory at the declaration of war, as an independent substantive power.-Brown vs. The United States, 8 Cranch, p. 110. A capture is rightful within neutral territory. The Anne, 3 Wh., p. 435; The Sir Wm. Peel, 5 Wall., p. 517. All captures jure belli are for the Government.-The Dos Hermanos, 10 Wh., p. 306; The Joseph, 1 Gall., p. 545; s. c., 8 Cr., p. 451; The Emulous, 1 Gall., p. 563.

SECTION 9.

1. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight,

but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, Limitation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

NOTE.-See Secs. 2949-2968, and notes, ante, "Immigration."

2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

4. No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.

5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.

6. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.

7. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from

time to time.

8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State.

NOTE.-SLAVES.-The ninth section, first Article, of the Constitution, which restrained Congress from forbidding the migration or importation of slaves prior to the year 1808, did not apply to the State Legislatures. Butler vs. Hoppen, 1 Wash. C. C. R., p. 499. As a result of the civil war and the thirteenth amendment of the Constitution, slavery no longer exists in the United States.

HABEAS CORPUS.-All the Courts of the United States have power to issue this writ.-Ex Parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, p. 75; Ex Parte Watkins, 7 Peters, p. 568; Ex Parte Burford, 3 Cranch, p. 448; Ex Parte Kearney, 7 Wheat., p. 38; United States vs. Hamilton,

of the powers of Congress.

3 Dall., p. 17; Ex Parte Milburn, 9 Peters, p. 704; Ex Parte Dorr, 3 Howard, p. 103. President cannot suspend unless Act of Congress authorizes it.-Ex Parte Merryman, 9 Am. L. R., p. 524; s. c., 24 L. R., p. 78; Ex Parte Benedict, 4 West L. Mo., p. 449; McCall vs. McDowell, 1 Pacific Law Mag., p. 360; see Ex Parte McQuillon, 3 West L. Mo., p. 440; s. c., 9 Pitt's L. J., p. 27. Only when public safety requires it.-Ex Parte Keeler, Hamp., p. 306. The right is above the sphere of ordinary legislation.-U: S. vs. Williamson, 4 Am. L. R., p. 5. Under Act of 1863, one arrested, if not indicted at next term of Circuit or District Court, entitled to discharge.-Ex Parte Mulligan, 4 Wall., p. 3. Congress may indemnify officers disregarding writ under suspension of.-McCall vs. McDowell, supra; see Ex Parte Blum, 2 Spr., p. 73; Fagan, id., p. 93; see Act March 3, 1863.

EXPORT DUTY.-Tonnage duty is not prohibited from being imposed on foreign vessels.-Aguire vs. Maxwell, 3 Bl. C. C., p. 140.

Ex POST FACTO LAWS.-The prohibition in the Federal Constitution of ex post facto laws extends to penal statutes only, and not to cases affecting only the civil rights of individuals.-Calder et ux. vs. Bull et ux., 3 Dall., p. 386. A resolution or law of a State Court setting aside a decree of a Court and granting a new trial to be had before the same Court, is not void under the Constitution as an ex post facto law.-Id. The words and intent of the ex post facto prohibition embraces: 1. Every law that makes an action done before the framing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action; 2. Every law that aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; 3. Every law that changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; 4. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence and receives Jess or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.-Id. A law merely divesting antecedent vested rights of property, where there is no contract, is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. A retrospective law is within the constitutional powers of the States. Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad vs. Nesbit et al., 10 Howard, p. 395.

SECTION 10.

of the

powers of

States.

1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, Limitation or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

2. 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 the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

3. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.See note to Preamble, ante. Tonnage duty.-See Agure vs. Maxwell, in note to Sec. 9, ante; is not inhibited to the States. The prohibition of the Constitution embraces all contracts between a State and individuals, or corporations, or between the States themselves, or between individuals.-Green vs. Biddle, 8 Wh., p. 1; Bridge Proprietors vs. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall., p. 117. A compact between two States is such contract, the obligation whereof is protected by the Constitution when the consent of Congress thereto is given.-Green vs. Biddle, 8 Wh., p. 1; Spooner vs. McConnell, 1 McL., p. 338. A grant of lands by a State is such contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired by a subsequent law. Fletcher vs. Peck, 6 Cr., p. 87; Tenett vs. Taylor, 9 id., p. 43; Town of Pawlet vs. Clark, id., p. 292; McGee vs. Mathis, 4 Wall., p. 143. The repeal of a law which is a contract cannot take away vested rights.-See last above cases; and The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall., p. 51; Thompson vs. Holton,

« PreviousContinue »