United States, 580. Secs. 2984, 3689 (see Admiralty, 2): United States
v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 184. Customs Administrative Act of Decem-
ber 15, 1902, 32 Stat. 753, § 20 (see Customs Duties, 2): Franklin
Sugar Co. v. United States, 580.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Acts of February 12, 1901, 31 Stat. 767, 774 and
February 28, 1903, 32 Stat. 909 (see Congress, B 3): Millard v. Roberts,
429.

FEES OF SOLICITORS, Rev. Stat. § 824 (see Costs, 2): Missouri v. Illinois,
598.

INDIANS, Cherokee Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 726, as construed by act
of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 996 (see Indians): United States v. Cherokee
Nation, 101.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (see Carriers): Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v.
Mugg, 242.

Rev. Stat. § 709 (see
Rev. Stat. § 714 (see

JUDICIARY, Rev. Stat. § 639, sub-sec. 1, and acts of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat.
470; March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 556 and August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433
(see Jurisdiction, C 5): O'Conor v. Texas, 501.
Jurisdiction, A 3): Hulbert v. Chicago, 275.
Courts, 6): James v. United States, 401. Appropriation Act of 1895
(see Courts, 8): Ib.

NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. § 5139 (see National Banks, 3): McDonald
v. Dewey, 510. National Bank Acts (see Jurisdiction, A 5): Merchants'
Nat. Bank v. Wehrmann, 295.

OFFICERS OF GOVERNMENT, Rev. Stat. § 1782 (see Congress, B 1; Criminal
Law, 6, 7, 8, 9; Jurisdiction, E): Burton v. United States, 344.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691 (see Philippine Islands):
Lincoln v. United States, 484.

PORTO RICO, Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, § 34 (see Local Law): Perez
v. Fernandez, 80.

PUBLIC LANDS, Acts of June 27, 1902, and January 4, 1889 (see Action, 1):
Naganab v. Hitchcock, 473.

RECOVERIES ON FORFEITURES, Rev. Stat. § 961 (see Bonds, 2): United
States v. Dieckerhoff, 302.

SWAMP LANDS, Acts of September 28, 1850, 9 Stat. 519, and March 12,
1860, 12 Stat. 3 (see Jurisdiction, A 8): Oregon v. Hitchcock, 60.
TARIFF ACT of July 24, 1897 (see Customs Duties, 1): United States v.
American Sugar Co., 563.

See STATUTES, A 1.

ADMINISTRATION.

See TESTAMENTARY LAW, 1.

ADMIRALTY.

1. Salvage; jurisdiction of Court of Claims of claim against Government.
While a claim for salvage of Government property based on services ren-
dered without request of any officer of the Government does not arise
upon any contract, express or implied, it is properly one for unliquidated
damages in a case not sounding in tort, in respect to which the claimant

would be entitled to redress in the admiralty court if the United States
were suable, and, under the Tucker Act, the Court of Claims, or the
proper District Court where the claim is for less than $1,000, has juris-
diction of a suit therefor. United States v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 184.

2. Salvage; recovery from Government for salving merchandise subject to
refund of duties paid.

The successful salving of undelivered merchandise on which duties have
been paid, but which the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized by
§§ 2984, 3689, Rev. Stat., to refund if the goods were lost, entitles the
salvors to recover from the Government a reasonable salvage, equal to
that recovered on the private property saved at the same time, on the
amount of duties which the Government would have been under obliga-
tion to refund had the merchandise been lost. In such a case it will be
assumed that the duties will be refunded, and the claim therefor will
be regarded as a liability, although § 2984 is permissive and not manda-
tory in form. Ib.

3. Jurisdiction of courts; application of equitable principles.

Although courts of admiralty have no general equity jurisdiction, and
cannot afford equitable relief in a direct proceeding for that purpose,
they may apply equitable principles to subjects within their juris-
diction. Ib.

ADMISSION OF STATES.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
JURISDICTION, A;
STATUTES, A.

AGENCY.

See LOCAL LAW (Okla.).

AGREEMENTS.

See CONTRACTS;

CRIMINAL LAW, 9;
JURISDICTION, E.

ALIENS.

Deportation under Contract Labor Law-Sufficiency of hearing.

The Secretary of Commerce and Labor, has a right under § 21 of the act
of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1218, to order the deportation of an alien as
having come to this country under contract to perform labor, after a
second hearing before a board of special inquiry, although there had
previously been a special inquiry, pursuant to § 25 of the act at the
time of his landing before the same persons, and upon the same ques-
tions, and he had been allowed to land. The board of inquiry under
§ 25 of the act of 1903 is not a court, but an instrument of the executive

power, and its decisions do not constitute res judicata in a technical
sense. Pearson v. Williams, 281.

APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC MONEY.

Character of appropriation as one for governmental purposes or private use.
An act of Congress appropriating money to be paid to railway companies
to carry out a scheme of public improvements in the District of Co-
lumbia, and which also requires those companies to eliminate grade
crossings and erect a union station, and recognizes and provides for
the surrender of existing rights, is an act appropriating money for
governmental purposes and not for the private use exclusively of
those companies. Millard v. Roberts, 429.

ARBITRATION AND AWARD.
See INDIANS.

ASSESSMENTS.

See NATIONAL BANKS.

ATTACHMENT.

See BANKRUPTCY, 1, 2;

LOCAL LAW (PORTO RICO).

ATTORNEYS.

See COSTS, 2.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. Attachment; loss of preferential character by institution of bankruptcy
proceedings.

Under § 67 of the bankruptcy law of 1898 attachments obtained within
four months of filing the petition on property which in the absence of
the attachment would pass to other persons, and to which the bank-
rupt has only a bare legal title, may be preserved for the general benefit
of the estate, and whatever the trustee realizes thereon may be dis-
tributed among the body of the creditors. The lien is valid, but it
loses its preferential character in favor of the attaching creditor by
the institution of the bankruptcy proceedings. First National Bank
v. Staake, 141; McHarg v. Staake, 150.

2. Extent of court's recognition of rights of attachment creditors.
The extent to which the bankruptcy court shall recognize the rights ob-

tained by creditors upon property attached as property of the bank-
rupt, but which has been conveyed by unrecorded contract, and the
extent to which liens obtained by prior judicial proceedings shall be
recognized are wholly within the discretion of Congress. Ib.

1. Validity of bond given collector of customs under § 2899, Rev. Stat.
A bond given by an importer to a collector of customs and purporting to
be executed under cover of § 2899, Rev. Stat., conditioned in double
the value of packages delivered to the importer by the collector and
to be forfeited if such packages are opened without consent of the
collector and in presence of an inspector, or if not returned to collector
on his demand therefor, is a valid bond, for, although not conditioned
in express words of the statute, it does not run counter thereto and it
is within the authority of the collector to accept it. United States v.
Dieckerhoff, 302.

2. Recovery on such bond.

Under such a bond the obligation is fixed and the Government is not re-
quired to prove any actual loss or damage but is entitled to recover
the full amount specified in the bond-double the value of the package
ordered to be returned as a definite sum, to be paid by the importer
for nonfulfillment of his statutory duty; and this obligation is not
affected by anything contained in § 961, Rev. Stat., limiting recoveries
on forfeitures to amount due in equity. Ib.

BOUNDARIES.

1. Between States of Louisiana and Mississippi.

The real, certain and true boundary south of the State of Mississippi and
north of the southeast portion of the State of Louisiana, and separating
the two States in the waters of Lake Borgne, is the deep water channel
sailing line emerging from the most eastern mouth of Pearl river into
Lake Borgne and extending through the northeast corner of Lake
Borgne, north of, Half Moon or Grand Island, thence east and south
through Mississippi Sound, through South Pass between Cat Island
and Isle à Pitre to the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana v. Mississippi, 1.

2. Effect of long acquiescence and sovereignty.

As between the States of the Union long acquiescence in the assertion of a
particular boundary, and the exercise of sovereignty over the territory

within it, should be accepted as conclusive, whatever the international
rule may be in respect of the acquisition by prescription of large tracts
of country claimed by two States. Ib.

3. Meaning of term “thalweg.”

The term thalweg is commonly used by writers on international law in
the definition of water boundaries between States, meaning the middle
or deepest or most navigable channel and while often styled “fairway"
or "midway" or "main channel," the word has been taken over into
various languages and the doctrine of the thalweg is often applicable
in respect of water boundaries to sounds, bays, straits, gulfs, estuaries
and other arms of the sea, and also applies to boundary lakes
and land-locked seas whenever there is a deep water sailing channel
therein. Ib.

4. Between States of Iowa and Illinois.

The boundary line between the State of Iowa and the State of Illinois is
the middle of the main navigable channel of the Mississippi river at
the places where the nine bridges mentioned in the pleadings cross
said river. Iowa v. Illinois, 59.

See JURISDICTION, A 7.

BREACH OF PROMISE.
See LOCAL LAW (PORTO RICO), 4.

BURDEN OF PROOF.

See NATIONAL BANKS, 4.

CARRIERS.

Rates-Right of recovery by shipper obtaining less than published rates.
One obtaining from a common carrier transportation of goods from one
State to another at a rate specified in the bill of lading, less than the
schedule rates published and approved and in force at the time, whether
he does or does not know the rate is less than schedule rate, is not en-
titled to recover the goods, or damages for their detention, upon ten-
dering payment of the amount specified in the bill of lading, or of any
sum less than the published charges. Whatever may be the rate agreed
upon, the carrier's lien on the goods is, by force of the Interstate Com-
merce Law, the amount fixed by the published schedule of rates and
charges, and this lien can be discharged, and the consignee become
entitled to the goods, only by payment or tender of such amount.
Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Mugg, 242.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, distinguished in Cox v.
Texas, 446.

Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373, distinguished in Naganab v. Hitch-
cock, 473.