No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
It is an essential theory of our constitutional system that the relations between the Union and the States are determined by the Constitution of the United States, and hence that the powers of the government of the one may be neither increased nor diminished (except in the few instances provided for in the Constitution) by the action of the government of the other. How far this theory has been actually embodied in law it is important to inquire in regard to all three functions of government, legislation, jurisdiction, and administration, but the present discussion will be limited to illustrations of the delegation of legislative power by congress to the States. The acts of congress with which we are here concerned form three distinct classes: those involving the concurrent powers of the States which may be exercised in the absence of conflicting congressional legislation; those involving powers of the States which may be exercised only by reason of some positive action of congress; and, last, a class in which there is an adoption of laws of the States as laws of the United States.
1 Act of Aug. 7, 1789, ch. 9, 1 Stat. L. 53, Rev. Stats., sec. 4235.
2 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 23, 73 (1824).
3 Below, p. 375.
4 5 How. 504, 12 L. Ed. 256, 290 (1847).
5 To the same effect in Low v. Commrs., Charlt. 302, 314 (1830). The difficulty was mentioned, but avoided, in Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108, 9 L. Ed. 363, 368 (1836), and The Wave, Fed. Cas., No. 17, 300, p. 467 (1827–40).
6 12 How. 299, 13 L. Ed. 996, 1006 (1851).
7 7 How. 283, 12 L. Ed. 702, 752 (1849).
8 Below, pp. 364–5.
9 12 How. 299, 13 L. Ed. 996, 1004 (1851).
10 To the same effect in McNiel, Banta v., Fed. Cas., No. 996, p. 764 (1871).Google Scholar
11 Fed. Cas., No. 10, 702, p. 1070 (1861).
12 To the same effect in Edwards, v. S. S. Panama, 1 Ore. 418, 424 (1861).Google Scholar See also Churchill, Utica v., 33 N. Y. 161, 242 (1865)Google Scholar, ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall, 236, 20 L. Ed. 624, 626 (1871); ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 25 L. Ed. 717, 722 (1879); Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572, 26 L. Ed. 324 (1881); The Glenearne, 7 Fed. 604, 606 (1881); The Chase, 14 Fed. 854, 855 (1882). But “adoption” appears again in Cribb v. State, 9 Fla. 409, 419 (1861), and Banta v. McNiel, above, note 10. In The Clymene, 9 Fed. 164, 166 (1881), it is said that the act of 1789 “adopted the existing laws of the States * * * and provided for the adoption of such others as they might thereafter make.”
13 Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108, 9 L. Ed. 363, 367 (1836); ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236, 20 L. Ed. 626 (1871); The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 22 L. Ed. 654, 663 (1875); The Manhasset, 18 Fed. 918, 927 (1884); Welsh v. North Carolina, 40 Fed. 655, 656 (1889); The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. 98, 108 (1893).
14 Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 33, sec. 2, 1 Stat. L. 271. Cf. Annals of Congress, 1791–3, pp. 418–21.
15 Act of Jan. 21, 1903, ch. 196, sec. 2, 32 Stat. L. 775.
16 Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 33, sec. 3, 1 Stat. L. 271, Rev. Stats., sec. 1630.
17 22 Pick. 571, 575 (1839).
18 Cf. People v. Hill, 126 N. Y. 497, 505 (1891); 36 Cong. Rec. 779–81 (1903).
19 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 23, 72 (1824); Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 420, 6 L. Ed. 678, 687 (1827); License Cases, 5 How. 504, 12 L. Ed. 256, 291 (1847). But see below, pp. 352 and 357.
20 Below, p. 375.
21 Act of June 3, 1864, ch. 106, sec. 41, 13 Stat. L. 99, Rev. Stats., sec. 5219.
22 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819).
23 Cong. Globe, 1863–4, especially pp. 1393, 1893–9, 1957.
24 Ibid., 1394.
25 Ibid., 1891, 1895–6, 1899.
27 3 Wall. 573, 18 L. Ed. 229, 235 (1865).
28 56 Me. 274, 284 (1868).
29 3 Wall. 573, 18 L. Ed. 229, 238 (1865). See also Utica v. Churchill, 33 N. Y. 161, 242 (1865).
30 9 Wall. 353, 19 L. Ed. 701, 703 (1869).
31 100 U. S. 539, 25 L. Ed. 705, 706 (1880).
32 Farmers' and Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 23 L. Ed. 196, 199 (1875): Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U.S. 138, 30 L. Ed. 895, 901 (1887); Talbot v. Silver Bow Co., 139 U. S. 438, 35 L. Ed. 210 (1891); Owensboro Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, 43 L. Ed. 850, 852 (1899).
33 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819).
34 2 Pet. 449, 7 L. Ed. 481 (1829).
35 E.g., Act of Feb. 25, 1862, ch. 33, sec. 2, 12 Stat. L. 345; Act of July 14, 1870, ch. 256, sec. 1, 16 Stat. L. 272.
36 Act of Aug. 13, 1894, ch. 281, sec. 1, 28 Stat. L. 278.
37 26 Cong. Rec. 7140, 7145, 7170–1, 8209. By the act of 1864 (sec. 30, Rev. Stats., sec. 5197), the national banks are allowed to take interest “at the rate allowed by the laws of the State, Territory, or district where the bank is located.” Although the prospective operation of this bill was recognized in congress, there was no contention as to delegation of power, and the validity of State laws passed after this act has often been assumed by the courts, or no comparison of dates made. E.g., Tiffany v. National Bank, 18 Wall. 409, 21 L. Ed. 862 (1873); La Dow v. First National Bank, 37 N. E. (Ohio) 11 (1894)Google Scholar; Gilhooley, Schlesinger v., 81 N. E. (N. Y.) 619 (1907).Google Scholar
38 Act of July 3, 1866, ch. 162, sec. 5, 14 Stat. L. 81, Rev. Stats., sec. 4280.
39 66 Fed. 957, 960 (1895).
40 Below, pp. 357–8.
41 21 Cong. Rec. 5324–5 (1890).
42 Ibid., 5327.
43 Act of Aug. 8, 1890, ch. 728, 26 Stat. L. 313.
44 Senate Rpt., 1889–90, No. 993; 21 Cong. Rec. 4642 (1890).
45 135 U. S., 100, 34 L. Ed. 128, 132 (1890).
46 Senate Bill, No. 1067, 20 Cong. Rec., 1882, 1884 (1889).
47 See the similar reasoning in Lyng v. Michigan, 135 U. S. 161, 34 L. Ed. 150, 153 (1890).
48 125 U. S., 465, 31 L. Ed. 700, 707 (1888).
49 E. g., 21 Cong. Rec. 4642, 4954 (1890); Senate Rpt., 1889–90, No. 993.
50 21 Cong. Rec., 4904 (1890).
51 20 Cong. Rec., 1885 (1889).
52 20 Cong. Rec., 1886; 21 Cong. Rec., 4957 (1890).
53 E. g., 21 Cong. Rec., 4642, 4956, 5324, 5332 (1890).
54 Ibid., 4964. Senator Eustis said: ‘Call it permission, call it pretermission * * * call it a license, call it a grant, disguise it as you may by cunning phraseology, looking to the dictionary for some words which can cover the true purpose and effect of this bill, and, after all, it is nothing but bestowing upon the State * * * that which she has not now, in order to enable her to regulate commerce among the States in violation of the Constitution of the United States.” Ibid., 5332.
55 Ibid., 4962–3.
56 21 Cong. Rec., 4962 (1890).
57 See also ibid., 5324–5.
58 In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545, 35 L. Ed., 572, 576 (1891).
59 The court suggests, but does not decide, that this act might be justified on the local option principle.
60 See also in re Rahrer, 43 Fed., 556 (1890); in re Van Vliet, 43 Fed. 761 (1890); in re Spickler, 43 Fed. 653, 657 (1890); North Dakota v. Fraser, 1 N. D 25, 433 (1891); Indianapolis v. Bieler, 138 Ind. 30, 36 (1893); ex parte Edgerton, 59 Fed. 115, 118 (1893); ex parte Jervey, 66 Fed. 957, 960 (1895); Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171. U. S. 1, 43 L. Ed. 49, 57 (1898).
61 Indianapolis v. Bieler, 138 Ind., 30, 36 (1893).
62 Ex parte Jervey, 66 Fed. 957, 960 (1895); Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 43 L. Ed. 49 (1898).
63 In re Bergen, 115 Fed. 339, 342 (1900).
64 People v. Hesterberg, , 184 N. Y. 126, 132 (1906).Google Scholar
65 Delameter v. South Dakota, 205 U. S., 93, 51 L. Ed. 724, 728 (1907).
66 State v. Hanaphy, , 90 N. W. (Ja) 601, 602 (1902).Google Scholar
67 Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw, 198 U. S., 17, 49 L. Ed., 925, 929 (1905).
68 Act of May 25, 1900, ch. 553, secs. 3, 5, 31 Stat. L. 187; House Rpt., 1899–1900, No. 474; 33 Cong. Rec. 4873; People v. Bootman, 180 N. Y., 1, 6 (1904).
69 Act of May 9, 1902, ch. 784, sec. 1, 32 Stat. L. 193; 35 Cong. Rec. 1311, 1358, 1554, 3241; Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 43 L. Ed. 49, 57 (1898); United States v. Green, 137 Fed., 179, 187 (1905).
70 Wells Fargo Express Co. v. State, 96 S. W. (Ark.) 189, 190 (1906.)
71 See also Act of Aug. 1, 1888, ch. 729, 25 Stat. L. 357; Blair v. Ostrander, 109 Ia., 204, 208 (1899).
72 Act of July 26, 1866, ch. 262, sec. 1, 14 Stat. L. 251; Act of May 10, 1872, ch. 152, sec. 1, 17 Stat. L. 91; Rev. Stats., sec. 2319. For the status of these local regulations prior to the act of 1866 see especially Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453, 25 L. Ed. 791 (1879).
73 Act of July 26, 1866, ch. 262, sec. 5, 14 Stat. L. 251, Rev. Stats., sec. 2338.
74 Act of May 10, 1872, ch. 152, sec. 5, 17 Stat. L. 91, Rev. Stats., sec. 2324.
75 See also Act of July 9, 1870, ch. 235, sec. 13, 16 Stat. L. 217, Rev. Stats., sec. 2332; Act of May 10, 1872, ch. 152, sec. 3, 17 Stat. L. 91, Rev. Stats., sec. 2322; Act of Mar. 1, 1893, ch. 183, 27 Stat. L. 507.
76 Cong. Globe, 1865–6, pp. 3234, 3452; Cong. Globe, 1871–2, p. 2460.
77 King v. Edwards, 1 Mont. 235, 239 (1870); McCormick v. Varnes, 2 Utah 355, 357 (1879).
78 Woodruff v. Gravel Min. Co., 18 Fed. 753, 774 (1884).
79 Mining Co., v. Allman, 23 Utah 410, 417 (1901).
80 11 Colo. 147, 154 (1887).
81 30 Mont. 117, 120 (1904).
82 177 U. S., 505, 44 L. Ed. 864, 865 (1900).
83 Above, pp. 357–8.
84 See also Trafton v. Noughes, Fed. Cas., No. 14, 134 (1877); Miller's Executors v. Swann, 150 U. S. 132, 37 L. Ed. 1028, 1029 (1893).
85 Act of July 10, 1886, ch. 764, sec. 1, 24 Stat. L. 143.
86 162 U. S. 512, 40 L. Ed. 1057, 1060 (1896).
87 Other acts of congress in regard to the public lands involving the same principles are: Act of May 23, 1844, ch. 17, 5 Stat. L. 657; Act of June 21, 1866, ch. 127, sec. 2, 14 Stat. L. 66, Rev. Stats., sec. 2292; Act of Mar. 2, 1867, ch. 177, 14 Stat. L. 541, Rev. Stats., sec. 2387. In decisions of the courts construing such acts, no considerations of delegation of power have been noticed, but their constitutionality appears not to have been questioned.
88 Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, sec. 34, 1 Stat. L. 73, Rev. Stats., sec. 721.
89 Fed. Cas. No. 5, 509, p. 543 (1814).
90 See also Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 253, 264 (1825).
91 Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 253, 264 (1825).
92 Hayden v. Oriental Mills, 15 Fed. 605, 606 (1883). See also Golden v. Prince, Fed. Cas., No. 5, 509, p. 543 (1814); ex parte Biddle, Fed. Cas., No. 1, 391 (1822); Bank v. Dudley's Lessee, 2 Pet. 492, 7 L. Ed. 496, 525 (1829); Hawkins v. Barney's Lessee, 5 Pet. 457, 8 L. Ed. 190, 193 (1831).
93 United States v. Reid, 12 How. 361, 13 L. Ed., 1023 (1851).
94 Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S., 257, 25 L. Ed. 648, 653 (1880).
95 Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 10 L. Ed., 865 (1842). See also Boyce v. Tabb., 18 Wall. 546, 21 L. Ed. 757 (1873); Sandford v. Portsmouth, Fed. Cas., No. 12, 315, p. 364 (1877).
96 M'Niel v. Holbrook, 12 Pet. 84, 9 L. Ed. 1009, 1011 (1838); Potter v. National Bank, 102 U. S. 163, 26 L. Ed. 111 (1880).
97 Act of July 16, 1862, ch. 189, sec. 1, 12 Stat. L. 588, Rev. Stats., sec. 858.
98 Cong. Globe, 1861–2, p. 3261; Robinson v. Mundell, Fed. Cas., No. 11, 959, pp. 1027, 1029, (1868); United States v. Brown, Fed. Cas., No. 14, 671, p. 1275 (1871).
99 E. g., United States v. Brown, Fed. Cas. No. 14, 671, p. 1275 (1871); Packet v. Clough, 20 Wall. 528, 22 L. Ed. 406, 407 (1874).
100 10 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 253, 264 (1825).
101 Act of Sept. 29, 1789, ch. 21, 1 Stat.L. 93. Continued to 1792. Act of May 26, 1790, ch. 13, 1 Stat.L. 123; Act of Feb. 18, 1791, ch. 8, 1 Stat. L. 191; Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 36, sec. 8, 1 Stat. L. 275.
102 Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 36, sec. 2, 1 Stat. L. 275.
103 Cf. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 253, 260 (1825); Ross v. Duval, 13 Pet. 45, 10 L. Ed., 51, 57 (1839).
104 10 Wheat 51, 6 L. Ed. 264, 266 (1825).
105 Fullerton v. Bank of United States, 1 Pet., 604, 7 L. Ed., 280,284 (1828). See also argument of counsel in Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed., 253, 256 (1825).
106 Act of May 19, 1828, ch. 68, sec. 1, 4 Stat. L. 278.
107 Beers v. Haughton, 9 Pet. 329, 357 (1835); Ross v. Duval, 13 Pet. 45, 10 L. Ed. 51 (1839).
108 Cf. Beers v. Haughton, 9 Pet. 329, 9 L. Ed. 145, 158 (1835); Shrew v. Jones, Fed. Cas. No. 12, 818, p. 41 (1840); Catherwood v. Gapete, Fed. Cas. No. 2, 513 (1854).
109 Fed. Cas. No. 10, 444, p. 600 (1859). In congress an attempt was made to strike out the word “now,” in order to include State laws to be passed in the future. 4 Cong. Debates 583. See Rowan's distinction between the adoption of the “potential legislation” of the States and the adoption of their “exerted will.” Ibid., 358, 360.
110 Act of Aug. 1, 1842, ch. 109, 5 Stat. L. 499.
111 Act of May 26, 1824, ch. 181, sec. 1, 4 Stat. L. 62.
112 Sec. 3.
113 The same principle is contained in the law at present. Act of June 1, 1872, ch. 255, sec. 6, 17 Stat. L. 196, Rev. Stats., sec. 916.
114 Act of June 1, 1872, ch. 255, sec. 5, 17 Stat. L. 196, Rev. Stats., sec. 914.
115 106 U. S. 272, 27 L. Ed., 196, 198 (1882).
116 Lamaster v. Keeler, 123 U. S., 376, 31 L. Ed., 238, 241 (1887).
117 Indianapolis & St. L. R. R. Co., v. Horst, 93 U. S., 291, 23 L. Ed., 898, 901 (1876). See also Sandford v. Portsmouth, Fed. Cas., No. 12, 315, p. 365 (1877); ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 28 L. Ed. 1117, 1120 (1885).
118 Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. S. 426, 23 L. Ed. 286, 290 (1875).
119 Cf. Cong. Globe, 1872–3, p. 2493.
120 Act of Mar. 14, 1848, ch. 18, 9 Stat. L. 213 (Cf. Cong. Globe, 1847–8, p. 196), Rev. Stats., sec. 933; Act of June, 1872, ch. 255, sec., 6, 17 Stat. L. 196, Rev. Stats., sec. 915; Act of Aug. 1, 1888, ch. 728, 25 Stat. L. 357; Act of Mar. 1, 1889, ch. 333, sec. 6, 25 Stat. L. 783; Act of Aug. 18, 1890, ch. 797, sec. 1, 26 Stat. L. 316.
121 E. g., Gaines v. Travis, Fed. Cas., No. 5, 180, p. 1064 (1849); Low v. Durfee, 5 Fed. 256, 259 (1880); in re Secretary of Treasury of united States, 45 Fed. 396 (1891).
122 Act of Mar. 9, 1892, ch. 14, 27 Stat. L. 7.
123 Mulcahey v. Lake Erie and W. R. Co., 69 Fed. 172 (1895).
124 Act of Feb. 28, 1839, ch. 35, 5 Stat. L. 321.
125 “By at least one of the courts” (opinion not found in reports). “A letter from a judge of the supreme court * * * stated that to be the proper construction, according to the uniform decisions of that high tribunal in similar cases.” 8 Cong. Globe 251 (1840); 9 Cong. 41 (1841). See also in re Freeman, Fed. Cas. No. 5,083, p. 752 (1855). United States v. Walsh, Fed. Cas. No. 16, 635, p. 393 (1867).
126 Act of Jan. 14, 1841, ch. 2, 5 Stat. L. 410.
127 Mr. Adams, in the house, urged “some constitutional objections” to the bill in this form, and offered an amendment to strike out “or shall be hereafter.” But the result of the debate which followed, “involving split-hair distinctions in matters of law,” was the rejection of the amendment. 9 Cong. Globe 96 (1841). A similar bill had passed the house at the last session, 8 Cong. Globe 251 (1840).
128 In re Freeman, Fed. Cas., No. 5, 083, p. 751 (1855). See also United States v. Walsh, Fed. Cas., No. 16, 635, p. 393 (1867).
129 Hanson v. Fowle, Fed. Cas., No. 6, 041, p. 466, (1871).
130 Act of Mar. 2, 1867, ch. 180, 14 Stat. L. 543.
131 The original bill here inserted “or which may hereafter be adopted,” but these words were struck out upon the recommendation of the senate committee on judiciary. Cong. Globe, 1866–7, p. 1579.
132 United States v. Tetlow, Fed. Cas., No., 16, 456, p. 44 (1872).
133 Sec. 990. See also first part of the act of 1867, embodied in Rev. Stats., sec. 991.
134 Fed. Cas., No. 5, 180, p. 1064, (1849).
135 Act of May 5, 1792, ch. 29, sec. 1, 1 Stat. L. 265; Act of May 30, 1794, ch. 34, 1 Stat. L. 370; Act of May 28, 1796, ch. 38, sec. 1, 1 Stat. L. 482; Act of Jan. 6, 1800, ch. 4, sec. 1, 2 Stat. L. 4; Rev. Stats., sec. 992.
136 The “now” of the early process acts is here omitted. Cf. counsel in United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 10 L. Ed. 465, 468 (1840).
137 Fed. Cas., No. 15,894, p. 177 (1825).
138 Cf. counsel in United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 10 L. Ed. 465, 468 (1840)
139 Fed. Cas., No. 15,539, p. 797 (1838).
140 United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 10 L. Ed. 465, 472 (1840).
141 See argument of counsel in the case to show the prospective character of the act and the power of congress to pass such an act.
142 Act of Mar. 2, 1867, ch. 176, sec. 14, 14 Stat. L. 517.
143 Cong. Globe, 1871–2, p. 4182.
144 Act of June 8, 1872, ch. 339, 17 Stat. L. 334.
145 Act of July 1, 1898, ch. 541, sec. 6, 30 Stat. L. 544.
146 A proposed amendment to the bill substituted “at the time when such proceedings shall have been commenced” for “in the year 1864.” Cong. Globe, 1866–7, p. 955.
147 Act of Apr. 4, 1800, ch. 19, 2 Stat. L. 19; Act of Aug. 19, 1841, ch. 9, 5 Stat. L. 440.
148 Cf. in re Stuyvesant Bank, Fed. Cas., No. 12,919 (1874).
149 186 U. S. 181, L. Ed. 1113, 1120 (1902).
150 Above, pp. 357–8.
151 In re Hopkins, Fed. Cas., No. 6,683, p. 490 (1856); in re Ruth, Fed. Cas., No. 12,172, p. 95 (1867); in re Wyllie, Fed. Cas., No. 18,112, p. 735 (1872); in re Smith, Fed. Cas., No. 12,996, p. 413 (1876); Richardson v. Woodward, 104 Fed. 873, 874 (1900); Steele v. Buel, 104 Fed. 968, 972 (1900). Cf. Act of June 1, 1872, ch. 255, sec. 14, 17 Stat. L. 198, Rev. Stats., secs. 1042, 5296. The force of State laws in the civil procedure of the federal courts is further seen in Act of July 4, 1840, 5 Stat. L., 393, Rev. Stats., sec. 962; Act of Aug. 23, 1842, ch. 188, sec. 8, 5 Stat. L. 516, Rev. Stats., sec. 966; Perkins v. Fourquinet, 14 How. 328, 14 L. Ed. 441, 443 (1852); Railroad Co. v. Tobriner, 147 U. S. 571, 37 L. Ed., 284, 290 (1893). See also above, p. 359, note 71.
152 United States v. Reid, 12 How. 361, 13 L. Ed. 1023, 1024 (1851).
153 Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, sec. 33, 1 Stat. L. 73, Rev. Stats., sec. 1014.
154 E. g., United States v. Rundlett, Fed. Cas., No. 16,208 (1854); in re Dana, 68 Fed. 886,893 (1895); United States v. Zarafonitis, 150 Fed. 97,100 (1907).
155 Act of July 16, 1798, ch. 83, 1 Stat. L. 609, Rev. Stats., sec. 727.
156 Act of June 1, 1872, ch. 255, 17 Stat. L. 198, Rev. Stats., sec. 1041.
157 Above, pp. 364–70. See the recommendation of the commission to revise the federal criminal law to extend the principle of conformity in civil actions to criminal actions. Senate Rpt., 1901–2, No. 68, Pt. 1, p. 287.
158 Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, sec. 29, 1 Stat. L. 73.
159 United States v. Price, Fed. Cas., No. 16,088 (1810).
160 Act of May 13, 1800, ch. 61, 2 Stat. L. 82.
161 United States v. Woodruff, Fed. Cas., No. 16,758 (1846); United States v. Stowell, Fed. Cas., No. 16,409, p. 1354 (1854); United States v. Richardson, 28 Fed. 61, 68 (1886).
162 Act of July 20, 1840, ch. 47, 5 Stat. L. 394.
163 Cf. United States v. Douglas, Fed. Cas., No. 14,989 (1851); United States v. Richardson, 28 Fed. 61, 68 (1886).
164 Sec. 800. See also the special legislation for Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 19, 1842, ch. 7, 5 Stat. L. 471; Act of Mar. 3, 1849, ch. 118, 9 Stat. L. 403; Act of June 30, 1879, ch. 52, sec. 2, 21 Stat. L., 43.
165 Cf. United States v. Wilson, Fed. Cas., No. 16,737 (1855).
166 United States v. Woodruff, Fed. Cas., No. 16,758 (1846).
167 Fed. Cas., No. 14,837, p. 546 (1873).
168 See also Alston v. Manning, Fed. Cas., No. 266, p. 576 (1869); Pointer v. United States, 151 U. S. 396, 38 L. Ed. 208, 213 (1894); 9 Cong. Rec. 2007–8 (1879).
169 Pp. 365–70.
170 E. g., United States v. Reed, Fed. Cas., No. 16,134 (1852); United States v. Stowell, Fed. Cas., No. 16,409 (1854); United States v. Richardson, 28 Fed. 61, 68 (1886). See also Act of Apr. 29, 1802, ch. 31, 2 Stat. L. 167, Rev. Stats., sec. 805.
171 Sec. 788.
172 Act of Feb. 28, 1795, ch. 36, 1 Stat. L. 424.
173 Act of July 29, 1861, ch. 25, 12 Stat. L. 282.
174 Ex parte Ringgold, Fed. Cas., No. 11,841 (1827); Hyman v. Chales, 12 Fed. 855 (1882); in re Acker, 66 Fed. 290, 294, 296 (1894); John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U. S. 529, 44 L. Ed. 874, 876 (1900). Clearly expressed in State v. Williams. 72 Miss. 992, 993 (1895).
175 The E. W. Gorgas, Fed. Cas., No. 4, 585 (1879).
176 Act of Sept. 29, 1789, ch. 21, sec. 2, 1 Stat. L. 93.
177 Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 36, sec. 3, 1 Stat. L. 275; Act of Feb. 28, 1799, ch. 19, sec. 1, 1 Stat. L. 624.
178 Act of Feb. 26, 1853, ch. 80, sec. 1, 10 Stat. L. 161, 164, Rev. Stats., sec. 829.
179 Fed. Cas., No. 14, 170, p. 190 (1830).
180 Townsend v. United States, Fed. Cas., No. 14,119, p. 106 (1822). Pomroy v. Harter, Fed. Cas., No. 11,263 (1839).
181 E. g., Amato v. Jacobus, 58 Fed. 855 (1893); Dexter v. Sayward, 78 Fed. 275, 276 (1897). So, until 1883, it is provided that the clerk of the supreme court shall receive, in part, “double the fees of the clerk of the supreme court of the State in which the supreme court shall be holden.” Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 36, sec. 3, 1 Stat. L. 275; Act of Feb. 28, 1799, ch. 19, sec. 9, 1 Stat. L. 624; Act of Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 143, 22 Stat. L. 603, 631; 4 Compt. Dec. 101, note (1876–7). And when justices of the peace and other committing magistrates render services in cases of violation of the laws of the United States, though there is no statute of the United States regulating their fees, it is held that charges for such services must be made under the State or territorial fee bill. 1 Compt. Dec. 54; Senate Doc., 1906–07, No. 395, pp. 277–8.
182 Act of Feb. 25, 1796, ch. 31, 1 Stat. L. 474.
183 Act of Feb. 25, 1799, ch. 12, 1 Stat. L. 619.
184 Rev. Stats., secs. 4792–6.
185 Quarantine at Alexandria, 2 Op. Atty.-Gen., 263, 264 (1829).
186 Morgan v. Louisiana, 118 U. S., 455, 30 L. Ed., 237, 242 (1886). See also Bartlett v. Lockwood, 160 U. S. 357, 40 L. Ed. 455, 457 (1896). For legislation containing the same principle see Act of Feb. 28, 1803, ch. 10, sec. 3, 2 Stat. L. 205; Act of Apr. 29, 1878, ch. 66, sec. 2, 20 Stat. L. 37. 20 Op. Atty.-Gen. 467; Act of Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, sec. 3, 27 Stat. L. 449.
187 Act of Mar. 3, 1825, ch. 65, secs. 1, 3, 4 Stat. L. 115.
188 6 Pet. 141, 8 L. Ed. 348 (1832).
189 Hollister v. United States, 145 Fed. 773, 779 (1906). See also United States v. Barney, Fed. Cas., No. 14, 524, p. 1013 (1866).
190 Act of Apr. 5, 1866, ch. 24, sec. 2, 14 Stat. L. 12, Rev. Stats., sec. 5391; Act of July 7, 1898, ch. 576, sec. 2, 30 Stat. L. 717.
191 Cf. above, pp.
192 51 Fed. 20, 23 (1892). See also House Ex. Doc., 1893, No. 14.
193 Ibid., p. 5.
194 Act of Feb. 2, 1903, ch. 351, sec. 3, 32 Stat. L. 793.
195 Hollister v. United States, 145 Fed. 773, 779 (1906).
196 Act of June 30, 1834, ch. 163, 4 Stat. L. 739, Rev. Stats., sec. 5539.
197 Act of June 14, 1870, ch. 128, 16 Stat. L. 151, Rev. Stats., sec. 5544.
198 E. g., in re Willis, 83 Fed. 148, 150 (1897); in re Walters, 128 Fed. 791, 795 (1904).
199 E. g., in re Coy, 31 Fed. 794; 32 Fed. 542; 127 U. S., 731, 32 L. Ed. 274 (1887); United States v. O'Connor, 31 Fed. 449 (1887); United States v. Logan, 45 Fed. 872, 888 (1891); Motes v. United States, 178 U. S., 458, 44 L. Ed. 1150, 1151 (1900). But see the objections to such legislation made by the commission to revise the criminal law of the United States. Senate Doc., 1900–1, No. 68, Part 2, p. viii.
200 Act of Aug. 8, 1894, ch. 25, sec. 1, 28 Stat. L. 36.
201 Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S., 371, 25 L. Ed., 717, 723 (1879).
202 Act of May 31, 1870, ch. 114, secs. 5–7, 16 Stat. L. 140, Rev. Stats., secs. 5507–9.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.