Слике страница
PDF
ePub

the States in respect to a subject on which it has not acted cannot
be inferred from the fact that such subject has been investigated

under its authority. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 280.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 40; STATES.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

See CONTRACTS.

GRAND JURY.
See PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 5.

HEIRS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 35;

LOCAL LAW (Tenn.).

HEPBURN ACT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 19, 39;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 17-21.

HOMESTEADS.
See PUBLIC LANDS, 2.

IDEM SONANS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16, 17.

IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT OBLIGATION.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 10.

INDIANS.
1. Allotments; restrictions on alienation; policy of Congress.
The policy of Congress in regard to restrictions upon alienation of allot-

ments has been to protect Indians against their own improvidence,
whether shown by acts of commission or omission, contracts or
torts. Mullen v. Simmons, 192.

2. Allotments; prohibition against encumbering; application of.
The prohibition, contained in g 15 of the act of July 1, 1902, as to

affecting or encumbering allotments made under the act by deeds,
debts or obligations contracted prior to the termination of period
of restriction on alienation, applies to a judgment entered against
an allottee whether based on a tort or on a contract. Ib.

3. Allotments; restriction on alienation; effect of sale under judgment for

tort.
A tort may be a breach of a mere legal duty or a consequence of neg-

ligent conduct, and a confessed judgment based on a prearranged
tort might become an easy means of circumventing the policy of
the statutes restricting alienation of Indian allotments if alienation
could be effected by levy and sale under such a judgment. Ib

4. Allotments; removal of restrictions upon alienation; class to which Clapp

Amendments of 1906, 1907, applicable.
The Clapp Amendments of June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 325, 353, and

March 1, 1907, Id. 1015, 1034, removing restrictions imposed by
the act of February 8, 1887, upon alienation of Chippewa allot-
ments as to mixed bloods apply to mixed bloods of all degrees and
not only to those of half or more than half white blood. Such was
not the congressional intent as expressed in the statute and this
court cannot interpret the statute except according to the import
of its plain terms. United States v. First National Bank, 245.

5. Classification; policy of Congress.
Congress has on several occasions put full blood Indians in one class

and all others in another class. Ib.

6. Intoricating liquors; boundaries contemplated by Article VII of Treaty

of 1855 with Minnesota Chippewas.
The provision in Article VII of the treaty with the Minnesota Chip-

pewa Indians of 1855, that the laws of Congress prohibiting the
manufacture and introduction of liquor in Indian country shall be
in force within the entire boundaries of the country ceded by that
treaty to the United States until otherwise provided by Congress,
relates to the outer boundaries and includes all the reservations
that lie within. Johnson v. Gearlds, 422.

7. Intoxicating liquors; power of Congress to prohibit; lands comprehended.
It is within the constitutional power of Congress to prohibit the manu-

facture, introduction or sale of intoxicants upon Indian lands, in-
cluding not only land reserved for their special occupancy, but also
lands outside of the reservations to which they may naturally re-
sort; and tiris prohibition may extend even with respect to lands
lying within the bounds of States. Ib.

8. Intoxicating liquors; intent of treaties of 1855, 1865 and 1867, with

Chippewas; effect of act admitting Minnesota.
Article VII of the Chippewa treaty of 1855 was not repealed directly or

by implication by the subsequent act of Congress admitting Minne-
sota into the Union, nor was that article repealed by the effect of
the subsequent treaties with the same bands of Chippewas of 1865
and 1867; but the intent of treaties of 1855, 1865 and 1867, as con-
strued together, was that the acts of Congress relating to the in-
troduction and sale of liquor in Indian country should continue in
force within the entire boundaries of the country in question until
otherwise provided by Congress. Ib.

9. Intoxicating liquors; Article VII of Chippewa Treaty of 1855; effect

of Nelson Act and change of character of territory affected by treaty.
Article VII of the Chippewa Treaty of 1855 has not been superseded

by any of the provisions of the Nelson Act of 1889, or the cessions
made by the Indians to the United States pursuant thereto; nor has
that article been superseded by reason of any change in the char-
acter of the Territory affected by the treaty and the status of the
Indians therein. Ib.

10. Intoxicating liquors; abrogation of article of treaty concerning; ques-

tion for Congress and not for courts.
The abrogation of an article in an Indian treaty prohibiting the sale of

liquor within territory specified therein until Congress otherwise
provides is, in the absence of any considerable number of Indians
remaining in that territory, a question primarily for Congress and
not for the courts. Ib.

11. Intoxicating liquors; Article VII of Chippewa Treaty of 1855 in

force.
Article VII of the Chippewa Treaty of 1855 having provided for the

prohibition against sale of liquor within the entire territory ceded
by that treaty until Congress should otherwise provide, held that
notwithstanding the subsequent admission of Minnesota to the
Union, and the later treaties with the Chippewas of 1865 and 1867
and the changed condition of the country and the status of the In-
dians, Congress not having otherwise provided, the prohibition is
still in force throughout that entire territory including the City of
Bemidji in which there are but few Indians and in the vicinity of
which there is a large area of territory unrestricted by the probibi-
tions of Article VII. Ib.

See STATUTES, A 5.

INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.

See PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 5, 6.

INHERITANCE.
See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 35;

DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.

INJUNCTION.
To stay proceeding in state court; power of Federal court to issue; applica-

tion of prohibition in § 265, Judicial Code.
The prohibition, $ 720, Rev. Stat., now $ 265, Judicial Code, against

granting the writs of injunction by the Federal court to stay pro-
ceedings in a state court except where authorized by the Bank-
ruptcy Act held, in this case, to apply to a case commenced after
adjudication of bankruptcy to enjoin the trustee from prosecuting
a suit in ejectment, in the courts of the State where the land is
situated. Such a case is not within the ex' eption or in aid of the
bankruptcy proceeding. Hull v. Burr, 712.

See ACTIONS, 1; JURISDICTION, A 2; D;
COURTS, 5; PUBLIC LANDS, 5;

Public Works, 2.

INSURANCE.
See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 11;

PAYMENT;
STATES, 4, 5.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
1. What constitutes, transportation by ferry as; power of States to regulate.
Transportation of persons and property from one State to another by

ferry is interstate commerce and subject to regulation by Congress,
and it is beyond the competency of the States to impose direct bur-
dens thereon; Congress not having acted on the subject, however,
the States may exercise a measure of regulatory power not incon-
sistent with the Federal authority and not actually burdening, or
interfering with, interstate commerce. Port Richmond Ferry v.
Hudson County, 317.

2. What constitutes; effect of purchase by carrier of article transported.
The fact that the article transported between interstate points has

been purchased by the carrier, is not conclusive against the trans-
portation being interstate commerce; and in this case, held that
interstate transportation of oil purchased from the producers by
the owner of the pipe is interstate commerce and under the control
of Congress. The Pipe Line Cases, 548.

3. Federal power over interstate highways.
Congress may, whenever it pleases, make the rule and establish the

standard to be observed on interstate highways. Atlantic Coast
Line v. Georgia, 280.

4. Federal power over intrastate rates; delegation of power.
Congress having the power to control intrastate charges of an interstate

carrier to the extent necessary to prevent injurious discrimination
against interstate commerce may provide for its execution through
the aid of a subordinate body. Houston & Texas Ry. Co. v. United
States, 342.

5. Federal authority; effect of order of Commission on inconsistent local

requirement.
No local rule can nullify the lawful exercise of Federal authority; and

after the Interstate Commerce Commission has made an order
within its jurisdiction there is no compulsion on the carrier to com-
ply with any inconsistent local requirement. Ib.

6. Federal authority; effect of order of Commission on inconsistent local

requirement.
An order made by the Interstate Commerce Commission that in

order to correct discrimination found to exist against specified
localities interstate carriers should desist from charging higher
rates for transportation between certain specified interstate points
than between certain specified intrastate points, held to be within
the power delegated by Congress to the Commission notwithstand-
ing the carriers might be required to disregard rates established by
the State Railroad Commission in order to comply with the order
of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Ib.

7. Federal authority; effect of exertion to supersede state laws.
When Congress has exerted its paramount legislative authority over &

particular subject of interstate commerce, state laws upon the same
subject are superseded. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 412.

8. Federal authority; creation of Commission; effect on police power of

States.
The mere creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the

grant to it of a measure of control over interstate commerce, does
not, in the absence of specific action by Congress or the Commis-
sion, interfere with the police power of the States as to matters
otherwise within their respective jurisdictions and not directly bur-

« ПретходнаНастави »