Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T17:29:03.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Law in 1918–1919. II: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1918

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Thomas Reed Powell
Thomas Reed Powell
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several of the cases already considered under the commerce clause involved further questions under the Fourteenth Amendment. Georgia's misuse of the mileage ratio in applying the unit rule to the taxation of wandering cars was found so arbitrary as to violate the requirement of due process. The minority insisted that “the case presents no question of taxing a foreign corporation with respect to personal property that never has come within the borders of the state.” This was not specifically denied by the majority who seem to base their decision on excessive valuation of property within the jurisdiction rather than on taxation of property outside the jurisdiction. Yet in substance the case is one of taxing extra-state values though not extra-state tangible objects.

Missouri's excessive fee for certificates authorizing the issue of bonds secured by railroad property within the state, which was held an unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce, was alleged by complainant to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as well. The opinion of the court did not pass on the due-process question, but the cases cited under the commerce clause relied also on the Fourteenth Amendment.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , February 1920 , pp. 53 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1920

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

75 Union Tank Line v. Wright, (1919) 249 U. S. 275, 39 Sup. Ct. 276, 13 American Political Science Review 614.

76 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, (1918) 248 U. S. 67, 39 Sup. Ct. 24, 13 American Political Science Review 611.

77 American Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis, (1919) 250 U. S. 459, 39 Sup. Ct. 522, 13 American Political Science Review 612.

78 (1919) 250 U. S. 94, 39 Sup. Ct. 428, 13 American Political Science Review 613.

79 (1918) 248 U. S. 165, 39 Sup. Ct. 62, 13 American Political Science Review 613.

80 (1919) 249 U. S. 63, 39 Sup. Ct. 200.

81 Gast Realty Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., (1916) 240 U. S. 55, 36 Sup. Ct. 254, 12 American Political Science Review 451. See the later case between the same parties in Schneider Granite Co. v. Gast Realty Co., (1917) 245 U. S. 288, 38 Sup. Ct. 125, 13 American Political Science Review 70.

82 (1919) 250 U. S. 454, 39 Sup. Ct. 528.

83 (1919) 248 U. S. 501, 39 Sup. Ct. 173.

84 Myles Salt Co. v. Drainage District, (1916) 239 U. S. 478, 36 Sup. Ct. 204, 12 American Political Science Review 451.

85 La Tourette v. McMaster, (1919) 248 U. S. 465, 39 Sup. Ct. 160, 13 American Political Science Review 627.

86 (1919) 249 U. S. 522, 39 Sup. Ct. 366. See 28 Yale Law Journal 824.

87 (1919) 250 U. S. 376, 39 Sup. Ct. 524.

88 (1919) 240 U. S. 86, 39 Sup. Ct. 214. See 4 Cornell Law Quarterly 196, 32 Harvard Law Review 846, and 28 Yale Law Journal 599. For a note on the decision in the court below see 18 Columbia Law Review 459.

89 McCray v. United States, (1904) 195 U. S. 27, 24 Sup. Ct. 769.

90 (1918) 248 U. S. 32, 39 Sup. Ct. 16.

91 (1919) 250 U. S. 1, 39 Sup. Ct. 399.

92 (1919) 249 U. S. 517, 39 Sup. Ct. 361.

93 (1919) 250 U. S. 363, 39 Sup. Ct. 513.

94 In Orr v. Allen, (1918) 248 U. 8. 35, 39 Sup. Ct. 23, the court gave no consideration to a complaint against a statute creating drainage districts with power of eminent domain, since it was clear that the objections urged were founded on an assumed construction of the statute which the state court had expressly decided it would not bear.

95 Pierce Oil Corporation v. New Hope, (1919) 248 U. S. 498, 39 Sup. Ct. 172, 13 American Political Science Review 624

96 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Denver, (1919) 250 U. S. 241, 39 Sup. Ct. 450, 13 American Political Science Review 618, 630.

97 St. Louis Poster Advertising Co. v. St. Louis, (1919) 249 U. S. 269, 39 Sup. Ct. 274, 13 American Political Science Review 624.

98 (1919) 250 U. S. 332, 39 Sup. Ct. 474.

99 (1919) 249 U. S. 517, 39 Sup. Ct. 361, supra, footnote 92.

100 (1919) 249 U. S. 540, 39 Sup. Ct. 371.

101 (1919) 250 U. S. 394, 39 Sup. Ct. 526.

102 (1919) 248 U. S. 294, 39 Sup. Ct. 100. See 17 Michigan Law Review 429.

103 (1919) 248 U. S. 372. 39 Sup. Ct. 117.

104 (1919) 250 U. S. 111, 39 Sup. Ct. 399.

105 (1919) 248 U. S. 268, 39 Sup. Ct. 111.

106 (1919) 249 U. S. 170, 39 Sup. Ct. 202.

107 (1919) 248 U. S. 525, 39 Sup. Ct. 181.

108 (1919) 248 U. S. 399, 39 Sup. Ct. 128.

109 (1919) 250 U. S. 208, 39 Sup. Ct. 486, 13 American Political Science Review 621.

110 (1919) 249 U. S. 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247. See Chafee, Zechariah Jr., “Freedom of Speech in War Time,” 32 Harvard Law Review 932CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Carroll, Thomas F., “Freedom of Speech and of the Press in War Time,” 17 Michigan Law Review 621CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for discussions of all the Espionage Cases. Mr. Chafee's article contains an exhaustive bibliography on the subject of Freedom of speech.

111 (1919) 249 U. S. 204, 39 Sup. Ct. 249.

112 (1919) 249 U. S. 211, 39 Sup. Ct. 252.

113 (1919) 249 U. S. 378, 39 Sup. Ct. 337. Mr. Justice Pitney dissents.

114 (1919) 250 U. S. 273, 39 Sup. Ct. 468.

115 (1918) 248 U. S. 154, 39 Sup. Ct. 25.

116 (1919) 250 U. S. 501, 39 Sup. Ct. 516.

117 (1919) 249 U. S. 375, 39 Sup. Ct. 315.

118 (1919) 248 U. S. 413, 39 Sup. Ct. 138.

119 (1919) 249 U. S. 72, 39 Sup. Ct. 224.

120 (1919) 250 U. S. 269, 39 Sup. Ct. 452.

121 (1919) 248 U. S. 308, 39 Sup. Ct. 112. See 17 Michigan Law Review 591, and 28 Yale Law Journal 500.

122 (1919) 249 U. S. 119, 39 Sup. Ct. 221. See 32 Harvard Law Review 853, and 28 Yale Law Journal 697.

123 (1919) 248 U. S. 289, 39 Sup. Ct. 97. See Scott, Austin W., “Jurisdiction Over Non-residents Doing Business Within a State,” 32 Harvard Law Review 871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also 3 Minnesota Law Review 277, and 28 Yale Law Journal 512.

124 (1919) 250 U. S. 114, 39 Sup. Ct. 411.

125 See cases reviewed in 12 American Political Science Review 662–64, and 13 American Political Science Review 246–47.

126 See 13 American Political Science Review 247.

127 (1919) 250 U. S. 2, 39 Sup. Ct. 431, 13 American Political Science Review 627.

128 (1919) 249 U. S. 490, 39 Sup. Ct. 336.

129 (1919) 249 U. S. 397, 39 Sup. Ct. 324, 13 American Political Science Review 620.

130 (1919) 249 U. S. 422, 39 Sup. Ct. 345, 13 American Political Science Review 630.

131 (1919) 249 U. S. 571, 39 Sup. Ct. 380.

132 (1919) 249 U. S. 440, 39 Sup. Ct. 340.

133 In Lane v. Darlington, (1919) 249 U. S. 331, 39 Sup. Ct. 299, the Supreme Court set aside an injunction awarded by the court below in favor of an owner of land bordering on government land forbidding a resurvey of government land on the direction of the secretary of the interior. The opinion of the Supreme Court said that, as the whole proceeding was merely an effort by the United States to determine the boundary of its own land, “we know of no warrant for the notion that the power is exhausted by a single exercise of it.” It was recognized that “the case is different when the act of the secretary is directed to a third person, as, for instance, the approval of a map of the location of a railroad over public lands, where the approval operates as a grant.”

134 (1919) 249 U. S. 479, 39 Sup. Ct. 332.

135 (1919) 249 U. S. 495, 39 Sup. Ct. 363.