1. Controversies between; rules of procedure applicable.
The ordinary rules of legal procedure applicable to cases between in-
dividuals cannot be always applied to controversies between States
involving grave questions of law determinable by this court under
the exceptional grant of jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution.
Virginia v. West Virginia, 117.
2. Controversies between; leave to file supplemental answer in Virginia v.
West Virginia.
In this case the defendant State is permitted to file a supplemental
answer, the averments in which are to be considered as traversed
by the complainant State, and the subject-matter of the supple-
mental answer is referred to the Master before whom previous
hearings were had with directions to report at the commencement
of the next term of this court. Ib.
3. Power to extend operations of its statutes beyond its borders.
A State may not extend the operation of its statutes beyond its borders
into the jurisdiction of other States, so as to destroy and impair the
right of persons not its citizens to make a contract not operative
within its jurisdiction and lawful in the State where made. New
York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 149, 166.
4. Power to regulate business of licensed foreign corporation outside of its
borders.
The power that a State has to license a foreign insurance company to
do business within its borders and to regulate such business does
not extend to regulating the business of such corporation outside of
its borders and which would otherwise be beyond its authority. Ib.
5. Power to extend operation of its statutes beyond its borders; effect of
Missouri statute regulating loans on life insurance.
A statute of Missouri regulating loans on policies of life insurance by
the company issuing the policy, held not to operate to affect a
modifying contract made in another State subsequent to the loan
by the insured and the company neither of whom was a resident or
citizen of Missouri. Ib.
6. Power to regulate railroads engaged in interstate commerce.
In the absence of legislation by Congress, the States may exercise their
powers to secure safety in the physical operation of railroad trains
within their territory, even though such trains are used in interstate
commerce. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 280.
In regulating interstate trains as to matters in regard to which Con-
gress has not acted, a State may not make arbitrary requirements
as to safety devices; but its requirements are not invalid as inter-
fering with interstate commerce because another State, in the ex-
ercise of the same power, has imposed, or may impose, a different
requirement. Ib.
8. Power to legislate to affect conduct in territory within exclusive jurisdic-
tion of United States.
A State cannot legislate so as to affect conduct outside of its jurisdic-
tion and within territory over which the United States has exclu-
sive jurisdiction. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown, 542.
9. Power to determine conduct of telegraph company in another State.
A State may not determine the conduct required of a telegraph com-
pany in transmitting interstate messages by determining the con-
sequences of not pursuing such conduet in another State. Ib.
10. Right to burden access to this court and regulate proceedings therein.
A State cannot burden the right of access to this court, nor does the
power of the State extend to regulating proceedings in this court.
Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v., Larabee, 459.
11. Right to review action of Secretary of Treasury in determining rate of
duty on article in which State financially interested.
A State which happens to operate sugar plantations by its convict
labor may not review the action of the Secretary of the Treasury in
determining the rate of duty to be collected on foreign sugar any
more than any other producer of sugar may do so. Louisiana v.
McAdoo, 627.
12. Public policy; legislature as arbiter of.
Subject to the inhibitions of the Constitution of the United States the
legislature of each State is the arbiter of its public policy. St.
Benedict Order v. Steinhauser, 640.
STATUTES.
A. CONSTRUCTION OF.
1. Debates in Congress; when resorted to.
Debates in Congress may be resorted to for the purpose of showing that
which prompted the legislation. Tap Line Cases, 1.
2. Legislative intent; determination of.
If a given construction was intended by Congress, which it would have
been easy to have expressed in apt terms, other terms actually used
will not be given a forced interpretation to reach that result.
United States v. First National Bank, 245.
3. Legislative meaning; use of terms.
The natural and usual signification of plain terms is to be adopted as
the legislative meaning in the absence of clear showing that some-
thing else was meant. Ib.
4. Departmental construction; weight given.
While the early administration of a statute showing the departmental
construction thereof does not have the same weight which a long
observed departmental construction has, it is entitled to considera-
tion as showing the construction placed upon the statute by com
petent men charged with its enforcement. Ib.
5. Indian interpretation; when rule not applicable.
The rule that words in treaties with, and statutes affecting, Indians,
must be interpreted as the Indians understood them is not appli-
cable where the statute is not in the nature of a contract and does
not require the consent of the Indians to make it effectual. Ib.
6. After facts; weight of; effect of harsh consequences.
The after facts have but little weight in determining the meaning of
legislation and cannot overcome the meaning of plain words used
in a statute; nor can the courts be influenced in administering a law
by the fact that its true interpretation may result in harsh conse-
quences. Ib.
7. Policy of Government; uncertainty as ground of construction.
The policy of the Government in enacting legislation is often an un-
certain thing as to which opinions may vary and it affords an un-
stable ground of statutory construction. Ib.
8. Public policy; declaration of legislature as to; effect of.
This court will not, in interpreting the power of the Interstate Com-
merce Commission in regard to a particular traffic, ignore a decla-
ration of public policy in regard to that traffic as shown by an
enactment of Congress. Tap Line Cases, 1.
9. Omissions; power of courts to supply.
Courts may not supply words in a statute which Congress has omitted;
nor can such course be induced by any consideration of public
policy or the desire to promote justice in dealing with dependent
people. United States v. First National Bank, 245.
10. Superfluous words; meaning to be given.
Although words may be superfluous, if the statute be construed in
accordance with the obvious intent of Congress, the courts should
not, simply in order to make them effective, give them a meaning
that is repugnant to the statute looked at as a whole, and destruc-
tive of its purpose, Van Dyke v. Cordova Copper Co., 188.
11. Controlling effect on court of constitutional statute.
If a statute is constitutional, this court must be governed by it and
its plain meaning; with the wisdom of Congress in adopting the
statute this court has nothing to do. Intermountain Rate Cases,
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 8, 9;
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.
B. STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES.
See ACTS OF CONGRESS.
C. STATUTES OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES.
See LOCAL LAW.
STEVEDORES.
See ADMIRALTY, 2, 5.
STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 22;
CORPORATIONS, 4-12;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 4.
STRICTISSIMI JURIS.
See CONTRACTS, 7.
SUIT AGAINST UNITED STATES.
See ACTIONS, 1;
UNITED STATES.
SUPERSEDEAS BOND.
See ACTIONS, 2.
SURETY BONDS.
See CONTRACTS, 6-9.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 24, 37, 38.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 3.
|