only when questions arise in courts which bring such acts, records, or proceedings in issue, and has nothing to do with the acts of corporations or individuals. Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48.

The decision by a state court that a right of action accruing by virtue of a statute of another can not be enforced in the state where suit is brought, is not a failure to give full faith and credit to the laws of the state enacting such statute. Finney v. Guy, 189 U. S. 335.

If rights are asserted in a state under a judgment rendered in another state, the court in which such rights are asserted may inquire into the validity of such judgment; and a state may provide by law that a decree of divorce between parties who are residents of such states, that is rendered in another state in violation of such law shall be void in the state where such parties reside, and the courts of such state may refuse to recognize such decree. Andrews v. Andrews, 188, U. S. 14; German Savings Soc. v. Dormitzer, 192 U. S. 125.

When it is sought to enforce in a state court a judgment rendered in another state, the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment may be inquired into. Dunn v. Dilks, 31 App. 673.

If under a power of attorney given to confess a judgment a judgment can be confessed only in favor of a certain person, and judgment is confessed in favor of another person, the validity of such judgment may be disputed in another state. National Ex. Bank v. Wiley, 195 U. S. 257.

The states of Indiana and Kentucky have concurrent jurisdiction over, and the right to serve process upon the Ohio river where such river is the boundary line between such states, and a judgment duly rendered in either state may be enforced in the other state. Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573.

19. Privileges of citizens.

Section 2 of article 4 of the constitution of the United States, does not authorize the board of directors of an infirmary in a state to compel a sheriff of another state to receive in his custody a pauper who is a resident of the latter state and who was found by such directors in the state of their residence. State v. Overman, 157 Ind. 141. Persons who are charged with being fugitives from justice have no constitutional right to demand a hearing, and a governor of a state who is requested to issue a warrant of extradition must act upon such evidence as is satisfactory to him. lr it is clear that the person alleged to be a fugitive was not in the state where the crime was committed at the time of its commission, he will be discharged on habeas corpus. Munsey v. Clough, 196 U. S. 364.

20. Admission of states-Territories.

Power of congress over the territories of the United States, and authority of congress to levy and collect tax in the territories for the use and benefit of the general government. Binns v. United States, 194 U. S. 486.

Power of the United States to govern the Philippine Islands, and construction of the powers of the Philippine commission. Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138. The annexation of Hawaii to the United States did not affect the validity of sentences imposed upon persons convicted of crimes under the laws of such country between August 12, 1898, and June 14, 1900, although the proceedings leading to such convictions were not in accordance to the 5th and 6th amendments to the United States constitution. Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197.

ARTICLES IN AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

ARTICLE 1. RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL FREEDOM.

25. Effect of amendments.

The first eight articles of amendment to the constitution of the United States have reference to powers exercised by the United States government and not to those of the states. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445.

Th fifth amendment to the United States constitution operates solely on the federal government, and not on the states. Capital City Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238.

ARTICLE 4.-UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

28. Search and seizure.

The fact that papers are obtained by illegal proceedings under a warrant of search and seizure, does not prevent the use of such papers as evidence when they are competent and pertinent to the issue. Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585. The admission in evidence of documents obtained from an accused by a search warrant, is not in violation of the provision of the constitution declaring that persons shall not be compelled to criminate themselves. Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585. The compellng of common carriers to produce contracts entered into by competing companies, and requiring persons to testify concerning the same, is not in violation of the 4th and 5th amendments to the federal constitution. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25.

ARTICLE 5.-TRIALS, HOW INITIATED.

29. Appropriating property-Jeopardy.

Congress may authorize the placing of objects in navigable rivers for the purpose of improving navigation without compensating the owner of adjacent land although his access to such river is permanently obstructed. Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141. When the federal government appropriates private property there is an implied contract that it will pay the value thereof, and if in pursuance of an act of congress dams are placed in streams and the lands of persons are thereby flooded and the value thereof destroyed, there is a taking of private property within the meaning of the 5th amendment to the constitution. United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445.

The flooding of lands by structures erected under the authority of the federal government to protect the banks of navigable streams from erosion, is not a taking of the lands flooded within the meaning of the 5th amendment to the constitution. Bedford v. United States, 192 U. S. 217.

If a jury is properly discharged in a cause without rendering a verdict, a second trial of the accused does not put him twice in jeopardy for the same offense within the meaning of the constitution. Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71.

ARTICLE 7.-TRIAL BY JURY.

31. Jury, waiver.

In prosecutions to recover penalties for violations of statutes, the accused may waive the right to a trial by jury. Schick v. United States, 195 U. S. 65.

ARTICLE 8.-EXCESSIVE BAIL, FINES AND PUNISHMENT.

32. Punishment for crimes.

The fact that persons jointly charged with crime are assessed with different pun. ishments, does not make the greater punishment assessed cruel or unusual within the meaning of the constitution. Howard v. Fleming, 191 U. S. 126.

ARTICLE 11.-LIMITATION OF JUDICIAL POWER.

35. Judicial power.

The supreme court of the United States has original jurisdiction of an action by a state against another state in a controversy between such states as to their rights in streams of water which flow through both of such states. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125.

An action can not be brought against a state to set aside a tax sale where the property has been purchased and is claimed by the state and no provision is made by law for suing the state. Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590.

ARTICLE 14.--CITIZENSHIP, REPRESENTATION, OFFICIAL DISABILTIESPUBLIC DEBT.

39. Due process of law-Privileges and immunities.

Due process of law, as used in the 14th amendment to the constitution, means that there shall be a regular course of proceeding, and that notice of claims shall be given and interested parties given an opportunity to appear and assert their rights. Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. 427.

Due process of law is not necessarily judicial process, nor is the right of appeal essential to due process of law. Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505; Public Clearing

House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497.

Exactly what due process of law requires in the assessment and collection of general taxes has never yet been decided by this court, and laws for the assessment and collection of such taxes stand upon a different footing than laws providing for the assessment of special taxes, and it has been held that no notice is required to be given of the assessment of general taxes. Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51; Gildden v. Harrington 189 U. S. 255.

Equal protection and due process of law considered in construing the statute of Indiana of 1901 regulating the sale of merchandise by retail dealers in bulk. Sellers v. Hayes, 163 Ind. 422; McKinster v. Sager, 163 Ind. 671.

The requirement of the federal constitution as to equal privileges and protection is complied with when all persons similarly situated are treated alike in privileges conferred or liabilities imposed. Field v. Barber Asphalt Co., 194 U. S. 618.

The statute of a state requiring orders issued to laborers and payable in merchandise to be paid in money in certain contingencies, is not in conflict with any of the provisions of the federal constitution. Knoxville Co. v. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13.

The statute of Indiana regulating the operation of telegraph lines and imposing penalties for violations of the statute, is not in conflict with the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Western Union Co. v. Ferguson, 157 Ind. 37.

A state statute declaring certain contracts relating to the buying or selling of property shall be considered gambling contracts and imposing a penalty for making such contracts, does not violate any of the provisions of the 14th constitutional amendment. Booth v. Illinois, 184 U. S. 425.

Statutes providing for the taxation of a fee for the attorney of the plaintiff against the defendant when judgment is obtained in a certain class of cases, are not in conflict with the equality clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Dobney, 189 U. S. 301.

The statute of Indiana providing that where railroad companies neglect to fence their rights of way and a fence is built by the adjoining land-owner that he may recover in addition to the costs of the fence a fee for his attorney, does not violate the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Terre Haute Ry. Co. v. Salmon, 161 Ind. 131.

A statute of a state fixing a number of hours to constitute a day's labor, and the pay of laborers engaged upon public works, does not violate the 14th amendment to the constitution. Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207.

A statute which fixes the minimum rate of wages to be paid to unnskilled labor employed upon public work, is in the violation of the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Street v. Varney Electrical Co., 160 Ind. 338.

States may regulate the practice of medicine, and many confer upon tribunals other than courts the power to determine legal questions. Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505.

States may enact statutes regulating the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine within their limits. Capital City Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238.

A state can not enact a statute regulating the control and operation of stock yards, and fix the rate of charges thereof, and make such statute apply only to such stock yards as may do a designated amount of business during a year when other persons engaged in the same business are exempt from the operation of such statute. Cotting v. Kansas City Stk. Yds. Co., 183 U. S. 79.

The statute of Indiana regulating the business of express companies, and preventing discrimination, does not violate the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Adams Ex. Co. v. State, 161 Ind. 328.

States may regulate by law the height of buildings, and may provide how persons who may suffer damages caused by the enactment of such a law shall proceed to enforce their claims against the state or some political division thereof. Williams v. Parker, 188 U. S. 491.

States may enact statutes providing for the collection of taxes for previous years which were not collected because of the want of laws authorizing their collection, or because of the misunderstanding or neglect of officers. Florida R. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 183 U. S. 471.

States may make distinction between wholesale and retail dealers in the imposition of taxes. Cook v. Marshall County, 196 U. S. 261.

A state may provide by law that non-resident owners shall pay a direct tax to the state on corporate stock owned by them within the state, and that resident owners of such stock shall pay only a local tax thereon when such non-resident owners are exempted from the local tax. Travellers Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, 185 U. S. 364.

The imposition of a license tax by cities upon vehicles that are used upon the public streets is not in violation of the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. City of Terre Haute v. Kersey, 159 Ind. 300; Kersey v. City of Terre Haute, 161 Ind. 471.

The Indiana statute requiring transient merchants to obtain a liscense to do business in the state, does not violate the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Levy v. State, 161 Ind. 251.

When taxpayers have an opportunity to test the validity of a tax at any time before it is made final, they are not denied due process of law. Hodge v. Muscatine Co., 196 U. S. 276.

Statutes may be enacted by states imposing license taxes upon persons doing business in the state, and such tax may be regulated according to the business done. Clark v. Titusville, 184 U. S. 329.

A state statute imposing a license tax upon persons engaged in refining sugar and molasses, does not deny equal protection of the law because farmers and planters who grind and refine their own sugar and molasses are exempted from the operation of the statute. American Sugar Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U. S. 89.

States may impose a tax on stock of a foreign corporation held by citizens of the state, when the stock of similar domestic corporations is not taxed. Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730.

A statute imposing a tax on persons engaged in employing persons to labor outside of a state, does not violate the 14th amendment because a like tax is not imposed on persons employing persons to labor within the state. Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270.

A state may impose a tax upon liquors brought into the state and sold in the original packages, when the manufacturers of liquors within the state are exempted from taxation for sales made of designated quantities at the place of manufacture. Reyman Co. v. Brister, 179 U. S. 445.

The state of Kentucky can not impose a tax on a franchise granted under the laws of Indiana to maintain a ferry across the Ohio river where such river is the boundary line between such states. Louisville Co. v. Kentucky, 188 U. S. 385.

The statute of a state requiring railroad companies to maintain depots at such places as may be necessary for the accommodation of the public, does not deprive such companies of their property without due process of law. Minnesota R. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53.

If the owner of land is not known, a state may proceed directly against the land to enforce a lien for taxes, and a general notice to all persons having an interest in the land to appear and assert their claims is due process of law within the meaning of the 14th amendment. Leigh v. Green, 193 U. S. 79.

If a statute or ordinance regulating the issuing of licenses for the sale of liquors provides that such licenses shall be forfeited when the licensee shall commit or permit certain acts, a forfeiture of such licenses under such statute or ordinance is not a deprivation of property without due process of law. Cronin v. Adams, 192 U. S. 108. The right to sell intoxicating liquors is not a privilege or immunity which the 14th amendment to the federal constitution prevents a state from abridging. Jordan v. City of Evansville, 163 Ind. 512.

Consideration and construction of the 14th amendment to the constitution as applied to statutes authorizing the assessment against property of the expense of public improvements made under the direction of municipal authority. French v. Barber Asphalt Co., 181 U. S. 324; Tonawanda v. Lyon, 181 U. S. 389; King v. Portland City, 184 U. S. 61; Goodrich v. Detroit, 184 U. S. 432; Chadwick v. Kelley, 187 U. S. 540; Schaefer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 516; Shepard v. Barron, 194 U. S. 553; Field v. Barber Asphalt Co. 194 U. S. 618; Seattle v. Kelleher, 195 U. S. 351; Voris v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. 163 Ind. 599.

Construction of the statute of Illinois providing for the construction of drains and levees, the issuing of bonds and the assessment of lands benefited to obtain means to pay such bonds. O'Brien v. Wheelock, 184 U. S. 450.

If under the laws of a state where a cause of action accrues a defendant has a good defense to the action, a statute of another state which precludes the pleading of such defense when it is sought to enforce the cause of action in such state, is unconstitutional. Baltimore Ry. Co. v. Reed, 158 Ind. 25.