[905] 332 U.S. 742, 745 (1948).

[906] 335 U.S. 252 (1948).

[907] The Court also held that the procedure of Alabama, in requiring the accused to obtain permission from an appellate court before filing a petition in a trial court for a writ of error coram nobis was consistent with due process. Alabama was deemed to possess "ample machinery for correcting the Constitutional wrong of which the * * * [accused] complained."—Ibid. 254, 260-261.

[908] The accused, in his petition, neither denied his guilt nor any of the acts on which his conviction was based. He simply contended that because of fear generated by coercive police methods applied to him, he had concealed such evidence from his own counsel at the time of the trial and had informed the latter that his confessions were voluntary. His charges of duress were supported by affidavits of three associates in crime, none of whom claims to have seen the alleged beatings of the petitioner.—Ibid. 265-266.

[909] In a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Douglas and Rutledge concurred, Justice Murphy maintained that inasmuch as there was some evidence to substantiate the petitioner's claim, the latter should have been allowed a hearing in the trial court. According to Justice Murphy, a conviction based on a coerced confession is "void even though the confession is in fact true" and the petitioner is guilty. Justice Frankfurter criticized this dissenting opinion as having been "written as though this Court was a court of criminal appeals for revision of convictions in the State courts."—Ibid. 272, 275-276.

[910] 338 U.S. 49 (1949).

[911] 338 U.S. 62, 64 (1949).

[912] 338 U.S. 68 (1949).

[913] Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 53 (1949).

[914] 309 U.S. 227 (1940).

[915] 322 U.S. 143 (1944).

[916] Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 57 (1949); citing Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401 (1945); Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596 (1948).

[917] 338 U.S. 49, 60 (1949).

[918] 338 U.S. 62 (1949).

[919] 338 U.S. 68 (1949).

[920] 338 U.S. 49, 61 (1949). In the 1949, 1950, and 1951 terms only one case arose which involved the forced confession issue in any significant way. This was Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), which is discussed immediately below in another connection. See also Jennings v. Illinois, 342 U.S. 104 (1951); and Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181 (1952), in which diverse, but not necessarily conflicting, results were reached.

[921] 232 U.S. 58 (1914).

[922] Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U.S. 541, 552 (1908); Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U.S. 322, 348 (1909).

[923] Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).

[924] 332 U.S. 46 (1947).

[925] 302 U.S. 319 (1937).

[926] 338 U.S. 25, 27-28 (1949).

[927] Ibid. 28-31.—In harmony with his views, as previously stated in Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401 (1945) and Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 59-66 (1947), Justice Frankfurter amplified his appraisal of the due process clause as follows: "Due process of law * * * conveys neither formal nor fixed nor narrow requirements. It is the compendius expression for all those rights which the courts must enforce because they are basic to our free society. But basic rights do not become petrified as of any one time, even though, as a matter of human experience, some may not too rhetorically be called eternal verities. It is of the very nature of a free society to advance in its standards of what is deemed reasonable and right. Representing as it does a living principle, due process is not confined within a permanent catalogue of what may at a given time be deemed the limits of the essentials of fundamental rights. To rely on a tidy formula for the easy determination of what is a fundamental right for purposes of legal enforcement may satisfy a longing for certainty but ignores the movements of a free society. * * * The real clue to the problem confronting the judiciary in the application of the Due Process Clause is not to ask where the line is once and for all to be drawn but to recognize that it is for the Court to draw it by the gradual and empiric process of 'inclusion and exclusion.'"—Ibid. 27.

[928] 332 U.S. 46, 68, 71-72 (1947).

[929] Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 39-40 (1949).

[930] Ibid. 40, 41, 44, 46, 47.

[931] Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117 (1951); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

[932] 342 U.S. 117, 123.

[933] 342 U.S. 105, 168, citing Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 412, 418 (1945).

[934] Ibid., 174.

[935] 332 U.S. 46, 68-123 (1947). "Of course", said Justice Douglas, citing Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 252-253 (1910), "an accused can be compelled to be present at the trial, to stand, to sit, to turn this way or that, and to try on a cap or a coat." 342 U.S. at 179. See the Self-incrimination Clause of Amendment V.

[936] Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935).

[937] Ibid. 110.—Because judicial process adequate to correct this alleged wrong was believed to exist in California and had not been fully invoked by Mooney, the Court denied his petition. Subsequently, a California court appraised the evidence offered by Mooney and ruled that his allegations had not been established.—Ex parte Mooney, 10 Cal. (2d) 1, 73 P (2d) 554 (1937); certiorari denied, 305 U.S. 598 (1938). Mooney later was pardoned by Governor Olson.—New York Times, January 8, 1939.

[938] 315 U.S. 411 (1942).

[939] 317 U.S. 213 (1942).

[940] 324 U.S. 760 (1945). See also New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson, 318 U.S. 688 (1943); Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114 (1944).

[941] 315 U.S. 411, 413, 421-422 (1942).—Justice Black, together with Justices Douglas and Murphy, dissented on the ground that the Florida court, "with intimations of approval" by the majority, had never found it necessary to pass on the credibility of Hysler's allegations, but had erroneously declared that all his allegations, even if true and fully known to the trial court, would not have precluded a conviction.

In an earlier case, Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219 (1941), the Court, without discussion of this principle relating to the use of perjured testimony, sustained a California appellate court's denial of a petition for habeas corpus. The accused, after having been convicted and sentenced to death for murder, filed his petition supported by affidavits of a codefendant, who, after pleading guilty and serving as a witness for the State had received a life sentence. The latter affirmed that his testimony at the trial of the petitioner "was obtained by deceit, fraud, collusion, and coercion, and was known to the prosecutor to be false." Even though the California court had denied the petition for habeas corpus without taking oral evidence and without requiring the State to answer, the Supreme Court upheld this action on the ground that there was no adequate showing of a corrupt bargain between the prosecution and the codefendant and that the appraisal of conflicting evidence was for the Court below. Even if latter's refusal to believe the codefendant's depositions were erroneous, such error, the Court added, would not amount to a denial of due process.

[942] 317 U.S. 213, 216 (1942).

[943] 324 U.S. 760 (1945). Certiorari was denied, however, for the reason that the State court's refusal to issue the writ of habeas corpus was based upon an adequate nonfederal ground.

[944] Schwab v. Berggren, 143 U.S. 442, 448 (1802).—This statement is a dictum, however; for the issue presented by the accused's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was that the State appellate court had denied him due process in ruling on his appeal from his conviction in the absence of both the petitioner and his counsel and without notice to either as to the date of its decision. Insofar as a right to be present exists, its application, the Supreme Court maintained, is limited to courts of original jurisdiction trying criminal cases.

[945] Howard v. Kentucky, 200 U.S. 164 (1906).

[946] 201 U.S. 123, 130 (1906).

[947] 237 U.S. 309, 343 (1915).

[948] Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934).

[949] Ibid. 105, 106, 107, 108, 118.—In a dissent, in which Justices Brandeis, Butler, and Sutherland concurred, Justice Roberts insisted that "it * * * [was] not a matter of assumption but a certainty * * * [that] * * * the * * * privilege of the accused to be present throughout his trial is of the very essence of due process," and, in that connection, "the great weight of authority is that" the view by the jury "forms part of the trial." Even if "the result would have been the same had the [accused] been present, still the denial of the constitutional right ought not to be condoned. * * * Nor ought this Court to convert the inquiry from one as to the denial of the right into one as to the prejudice suffered by the denial. To pivot affirmance on the question of the amount of harm done the accused is to beg the constitutional question involved. * * * The guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment is not that a just result shall have been obtained, but that the result, whatever it be, shall be reached in a fair way."—Ibid. 130-131, 134, 136-137.

[950] 337 U.S. 241 (1949).

[951] Ibid. 246-247, 249-250.—Dissenting, Justice Murphy maintained that the use in a capital case of probation reports which "concededly [would] not have been admissible at the trial, and * * * [were] not subject to examination by the defendant, * * *" violated "the high commands of due process * * *"—Ibid. 253. Justice Rutledge dissented without an opinion.

[952] 339 U.S. 9 (1950).

[953] Ibid. 12-13.—Disagreeing, Justice Frankfurter contended that a State is "precluded by the due process clause from executing a man who has temporarily or permanently become insane"; and thus bereft of unlimited discretion as to "how it will ascertain sanity," a State "must afford rudimentary safeguards for establishing [that] fact."—Ibid. 16, 19, 21, 24-25.

[954] In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948). On application for habeas corpus, the prisoner's commitment was reviewed by the Michigan appellate court in the light, not of the whole record, but only of fragmentary excerpts showing merely the testimony alleged to be false and evasive.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Rutledge advocated disposing of the case on the ground that the Michigan one-man grand jury system was in its entirety in conflict with the requirements of due process.

On the ground that the Michigan courts had not passed on the constitutionality of the procedure at issue, Justices Frankfurter and Jackson dissented and urged the remanding of the case. See also Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 85 (1928).

[955] 336 U.S. 155 (1949).

[956] Justice Douglas, with Justice Black concurring, dissented on the ground that even if "such elements of misbehavior as expression, manner of speaking, bearing, and attitude * * * [had] a contemptuous flavor. * * * freedom of speech should [not] be so readily sacrificed in a courtroom." Stressing that the trial judge penalized Fisher only for his forbidden comment and not for his behavior, and that it took a ruling of the Texas appellate court to settle the issue whether such comment was improper under Texas practice, Justice Douglas concluded that the record suggests only that "the judge picked a quarrel with this lawyer and used his high position to wreak vengeance." There having been no substantial obstruction of the trial, Justice Murphy believed that the trial judge's use of his power was inconsistent with due process; whereas Justice Rutledge, in dissenting, contended "there can be no due process in trial in the absence of calm judgment and action, untinged with anger, from the bench."—Ibid. 165-166, 167, 169.

[957] Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927). See also Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U.S. 167, 176 (1912).

[958] "Unless the costs usually imposed are so small that they may be properly ignored as within the maxim de minimis non curat lex."—See Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523, 531 (1927).

[959] Dugan v. Ohio, 277 U.S. 61 (1928).

[960] Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 335 (1915).

[961] Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 91 (1923).

[962] Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 (1946). See also Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261 (1947), supra p. 1110. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 873, above.]

[963] Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 116, 117 (1934).

[964] Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941).

[965] Buchalter v. New York, 319 U.S. 427, 429 (1943). The Court also declared that the due process clause did "not draw to itself the provisions of State constitutions or State laws."

[966] Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68 (1932); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).

[967] Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 202 (1948). See also Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 292 (1942), wherein the Court also stated that where a conviction in a criminal prosecution is based upon a general verdict that does not specify the ground on which it rests, and one of the grounds upon which it may rest is invalid under the Constitution, the judgment cannot be sustained.

[968] Paterno v. Lyons, 334 U.S. 314, 320-321 (1948).

[969] McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (1894).—The prohibition of the requirement of excessive bail, expressed in the Eighth Amendment as a restraint against the Federal Government, has never been deemed to be applicable to the States by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in a recent civil suit, a United States District Court judge asserted his belief, by way of dictum, that protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures, invasion of freedom of speech and press, unlawful and unwarranted incarcerations, arrests, and failure to allow reasonable bail would all be fundamental rights protected by [the Fourteenth] Amendment from State invasion."—International Union, Etc. v. Tennessee Copper Co., 31 F. Supp. 1015 (1940).

[970] Collins v. Johnston, 237 U.S. 502, 510 (1915).—In affirming a judgment obtained by Texas in a civil suit to recover penalties for violation of its antitrust law, the Supreme Court proffered the following vague standard for determining the validity of penalties levied by States. "The fixing of punishment for crime or penalties for unlawful acts against its laws is within the police power of the State. We can only interfere with such legislation and judicial action of the States enforcing it if the fines imposed are so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law." However, a fine of $1,600,000 levied in this case against a corporation having assets of $40,000,000 and paying out dividends as high as 700%, and which was shown to have profited from its wrong doing was not considered to be excessive.—Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86, 111 (1909).

[971] Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616, 623 (1912). See also Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 208 U.S. 481, 498 (1908).

[972] 136 U.S. 436, 447-448 (1890).

[973] 329 U.S. 459 (1947).

[974] Concurring in the result, Justice Frankfurter concentrated on the problem suggested by the proposed absorption of the Bill of Rights by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and restated his previously disclosed position as follows: "Not until recently was it suggested that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was merely a compendious reference to the Bill of Rights whereby the States were now restricted in devising and enforcing their penal code precisely as is the Federal Government by the first eight amendments. On this view, the States would be confined in the enforcement of their criminal codes by those views for safeguarding the rights of the individual which were deemed necessary in the eighteenth century. Some of these safeguards have perduring validity. Some grew out of transient experience or formulated remedies which time might well improve. The Fourteenth Amendment did not mean to imprison the States into the limited experience of the eighteenth century. It did mean to withdraw from the States the right to act in ways that are offensive to a decent respect for the dignity of man, and heedless of his freedom.

"These are very broad terms by which to accommodate freedom and authority. As has been suggested * * *, they may be too large to serve as the basis for adjudication in that they allow much room for individual notions of policy. That is not our concern. The fact is that the duty of such adjudication on a basis no less narrow has been committed to this Court.

"In an impressive body of decisions this Court has decided that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment expresses a demand for civilized standards which are not defined by the specifically enumerated guarantees of the Bill of Rights. They neither contain the particularities of the first eight amendments nor are they confined to them. * * * Insofar as due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to observe any of the immunities 'that are as valid as against the Federal Government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments' it does so because they 'have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus, through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the States,'" [citing Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 324, 325 (1937).]—Ibid. 467-469.

Justice Burton, with whom Justices Murphy, Douglas, and Rutledge were associated, dissented on the grounds that "the proposed repeated, and at least second, application to the * * * [defendant] of an electric current sufficient to cause death is * * *, a cruel and unusual punishment violative of due process of law."—Ibid. 479.

In Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9 (1950), the Court declined to intervene in case coming up from Georgia in which appellant, claiming that he had become insane following conviction and sentence of death, sought a postponement of execution from the governor of the State. Justice Frankfurter dissented, asserting that the due process clause of Amendment XIV prohibits a State from executing an insane convict.

[975] 187 U.S. 71, 86 (1902). See also Keerl v. Montana, 213 U.S. 135 (1909).

[976] 177 U.S. 155 (1900).

[977] 207 U.S. 188 (1907).

[978] Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616, 623 (1912).

[979] 302 U.S. 319 (1937).

[980] In a lengthy dictum, Justice Cardozo, speaking for the Court, rejected the defendant's view that "Whatever would be a violation of the original bill of rights (Amendments One to Eight) if done by the federal government is now equally unlawful by force of the Fourteenth Amendment if done by a state." By a selective process of inclusion and exclusion, he conceded that "the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may make it unlawful for a state to abridge by its statutes the freedom of speech which the First Amendment safeguards against encroachment by the Congress, * * * or the like freedom of the press, * * * or the free exercise of religion, * * * or the right of peaceable assembly * * *, or the right of one accused of crime to the benefit of counsel." However, insofar as such "immunities, [which] are valid as against the Federal Government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments, have become valid as against the States," that result is attributable, not to the absorption by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of particular provisions of the Bill of Rights, but to the fact that such immunities "have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty * * *" protected by that clause.—Ibid. 323, 324-325.

[981] Justice Butler dissented without an opinion.

[982] 320 U.S. 459, 462, 463 (1947).—In line with its former ruling in Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616 (1912), the Court reiterated in Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728 (1948), that a life sentence imposed on a fourth offender under a State habitual criminal act is a stiffened penalty for his latest offense, which is considered to be an aggravated offense because a repetitive one, and is therefore not invalid as subjecting the offender to a new jeopardy.

[983] Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941).

[984] White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760 n. 1 (1945).

[985] McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684, 687 (1894); Andrews v. Swartz 156 U.S. 272, 275 (1895); Murphy v. Massachusetts, 177 U.S. 155, 158 (1900); Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 508 (1903).

[986] Thus, where on the day assigned for hearing of a writ of error, it appeared that the accused had escaped from jail, the Court, without denial of due process, could order that the writ be dismissed unless the accused surrender himself within 60 days or be captured.—Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138 (1897).

[987] Carter v. Illinois, 329 U.S. 173, 175-176 (1946).

[988] Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915).

[989] For rules of self-limitation formulated by the Court not only to minimize its opportunities for such interference but also to curtail the volume of litigation reaching it for final disposition, see p. 1109.

[990] 297 U.S. 278 (1936).

[991] 237 U.S. 309 (1915).

[992] 261 U.S. 86 (1923).

[993] Despite the court's contention that Moore v. Dempsey was disposed of in conformity with the principles enunciated in Frank v. Mangum, the two decisions are distinguishable not only by the different results reached therein, but by the fact that the State appellate court in Frank v. Mangum had ruled that the trial court had correctly concluded, on the basis of the evidence submitted, that the allegations of mob violence were unsubstantiated whereas the Arkansas appellate court, in Moore v. Dempsey, conceded a similar allegation to be correct but did not deem it sufficient to render the trial a nullity. Although in the later case, Arkansas demurred and thereby admitted the allegations supporting the habeas corpus petition to be true, that fact is a lesser significance, for even in Frank v. Mangum, the Supreme Court abided by the rule that the writ of habeas corpus relates to matters of substance and not of mere form, and declared that the petitioner's allegations should be treated as if conceded by the sheriff having custody of the petitioner.—237 U.S. 309, 332, 346 (1915).

[994] James v. Appel, 192 U.S. 129, 137 (1904); Pittsburgh, C.C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421 (1894); Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri ex rel. Hadley, 224 U.S. 270, 286 (1912); Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc., 283 U.S. 522, 524 (1931).

[995] Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U.S. 170 (1907); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138, 140 (1897); Fallbrook Irrig. District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 157 (1896).

[996] Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490, 492 (1893).

[997] Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U.S. 131 (1889).

[998] Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 258 (1907); Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U.S. 596 (1944); Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728 (1948).

[999] McDonald v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 233 U.S. 665, 670 (1914).

[1000] Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 691, 692, 698 (1891); Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U.S. 655, 656 (1895).

[1001] Rogers v. Peck, 199 U.S. 425, 435 (1905).

[1002] West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258 (1904).

[1003] Chicago L. Ins. Co. v. Cherry, 244 U.S. 25, 30 (1917).

[1004] Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri ex rel. Hadley, 224 U.S. 270, 287 (1912); Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. Attorney General, 205 U.S. 454, 461 (1907); Stockholders v. Sterling, 300 U.S. 175, 182 (1937)

[1005] Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (1880).

[1006] Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26, 28, 29 (1889).

[1007] Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373, 374 (1886).

[1008] Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 8 (1944).

[1009] Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921).

[1010] Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 (1881).

[1011] Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

[1012] Ibid. 19.

[1013] Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 343 (1938).

[1014] Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944). Cf. Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932); Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (1938).

[1015] Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 81 (1873).

[1016] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U.S. 155 (1877); Peik v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 94 U.S. 164 (1877); Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Ackley, 94 U.S. 179 (1877); Winona & St. P.R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U.S. 180 (1877).

[1017] Santa Clara County v. Southern P.R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886).

The ruling stood unchallenged until 1938 when Justice Black asserted in a dissenting opinion that "I do not believe the word 'person' in the Fourteenth Amendment includes corporations." Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77, 85 (1938). More recently Justice Douglas expressed the same view in a dissenting opinion in which Justice Black concurred. Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562, 576 (1949).

[1018] Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886).

[1019] Newark v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 192 (1923); Williams v. Baltimore, 289 U.S. 36 (1933).

[1020] Cf. Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 (1846).

[1021] Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 261 (1898); Sully v. American Nat. Bank, 178 U.S. 289 (1900).

[1022] Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount Auto Exchange Corp., 262 U.S. 544 (1923).

[1023] Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 (1946).

[1024] Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562 (1949); Hanover Insurance Co. v. Harding, 272 U.S. 494 (1926).

[1025] Fire Asso. of Philadelphia v. New York, 119 U.S. 110 (1886).

[1026] Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886).

[1027] Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1885).

[1028] Ibid. 31-32.

[1029] Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332-333 (1921).

[1030] Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U.S. 26 (1913).

[1031] Watson v. Maryland, 218 U.S. 173 (1910).

[1032] Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 562 (1899).

[1033] Bachtel v. Wilson, 204 U.S. 36, 41 (1907). See also Frost v. Corporation Commission, 278 U.S. 515, 522 (1929); Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553, 566-567 (1931).

[1034] Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911).

[1035] Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co., 249 U.S. 152, 157 (1919); Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940).

[1036] Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 257 U.S. 129, 137 (1921).

[1037] West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 400 (1937).

[1038] Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 81 (1911). Cf. United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 8 (1947).

[1039] Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 268 (1919).

[1040] West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 400 (1937).

[1041] Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 268 (1919).

[1042] Watson v. Maryland, 218 U.S. 173, 179 (1910).

[1043] Phelps v. Board of Education, 300 U.S. 319, 324 (1937).

[1044] Chicago Dock & Canal Co. v. Fraley, 228 U.S. 680, 687 (1913).

[1045] Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 106 (1878).

[1046] Fire Asso. of Philadelphia v. New York, 119 U.S. 110 (1886); Santa Clara County v. Southern P.R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886).

[1047] Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 237 (1890). (Emphasis supplied.)

[1048] Louisville Gas & E. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 37 (1928).

Classification for purposes of taxation has been held valid in the following situations:

Banks: a heavier tax on banks which make loans mainly from money of depositors than on other financial institutions which make loans mainly from money supplied otherwise than by deposits. First Nat. Bank v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 289 U.S. 60 (1933).

Bank deposits: a tax of 50c per $100 on deposits in banks outside a State in contrast with a rate of 10c per $100 on deposits in the State. Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940).

Coal: a tax of 2-1/2 percent on anthracite but not on bituminous coal. Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245 (1922).

Gasoline: a graduated severance tax on oils sold primarily for their gasoline content, measured by resort to Baume gravity. Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 281 U.S. 146 (1930).

Chain stores: a privilege tax graduated according to the number of stores maintained, State Tax Comr's. v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527 (1931); Fox v. Standard Oil Co., 294 U.S. 87 (1935); a license tax based on the number of stores both within and without the State, Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Grosjean, 301 U.S. 412 (1937).

Electricity: municipal systems may be exempted, Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Seattle, 291 U.S. 619 (1934); that portion of electricity produced which is used for pumping water for irrigating lands may be exempted, Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost, 286 U.S. 165 (1932).

Insurance companies: license tax measured by gross receipts upon domestic life insurance companies from which fraternal societies having lodge organizations and insuring lives of members only are exempt, and similar foreign corporations are subject to a fixed and comparatively slight fee for the privilege of doing local business of the same kind. Northwestern Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 247 U.S. 132 (1918).

Oleomargarine: classified separately from butter. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40 (1934).

Peddlers: classified separately from other vendors. Caskey Baking Co. v. Virginia, 313 U.S. 117 (1941).

Public utilities: a gross receipts tax at a higher rate for railroads than for other public utilities, Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U.S. 576 (1914); a gasoline storage tax which places a heavier burden upon railroads than upon common carriers by bus, Nashville C. & St. L. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249 (1933); a tax on railroads measured by gross earnings from local operations, as applied to a railroad which received a larger net income than others from the local activity of renting, and borrowing cars, Illinois Central R. Co. v. Minnesota, 309 U.S. 157 (1940); a gross receipts tax applicable only to public utilities, including carriers, the proceeds of which are used for relieving the unemployed, New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. New York, 303 U.S. 573 (1938).

Wine: exemption of wine from grapes grown in the State while in the hands of the producer. Cox v. Texas, 202 U.S. 446 (1906).

Laws imposing miscellaneous license fees have been upheld as follows:

Cigarette dealers: taxing retailers and not wholesalers. Cook v. Marshall County, 196 U.S. 261 (1905).

Commission merchants: requirements that dealers in farm products on commission procure a license, Payne v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 112 (1918).

Elevators and warehouses: license limited to certain elevators and warehouses on right-of-way of railroad, Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U.S. 452 (1901); a license tax applicable only to commercial warehouses where no other commercial warehousing facilities in township subject to tax, Independent Warehouse Inc. v. Scheele, 331 U.S. 70 (1947).

Laundries: exemption from license tax of steam laundries and women engaged in the laundry business where not more than two women are employed. Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U.S. 59 (1912).

Merchants: exemption from license tax measured by amount of purchases, of manufacturers within the State selling their own product. Armour & Co. v. Virginia, 246 U.S. 1 (1918).

Sugar refineries: exemption from license applicable to refiners of sugar and molasses of planters and farmers grinding and refining their own sugar and molasses. American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 89 (1900).

Theaters: license graded according to price of admission. Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Chicago, 228 U.S. 61 (1913).

Wholesalers of oil: occupation tax on wholesalers in oil not applicable to wholesalers in other products. Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas, 217 U.S. 114 (1910).

[1049] Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 237 (1890).

[1050] Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U.S. 59, 62 (1912). See also Hammond Packing Co. v. Montana, 233 U.S. 331 (1914).

[1051] Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Seattle, 291 U.S. 619, 625 (1934).

[1052] Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 422 (1935).

[1053] Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U.S. 400, 417 (1910); Quaker City Cab Co. v. Pennsylvania, 277 U.S. 389, 400 (1928).

[1054] Keeney v. New York, 222 U.S. 525, 536 (1912); State Tax Comrs. v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527, 538 (1931).

[1055] Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893).

[1056] Louisville Gas & E. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 37 (1928). See also Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 237 (1890).

[1057] Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U.S. 550 (1935). See also Valentine v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 299 U.S. 32 (1936).

[1058] Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933).

[1059] Quaker City Cab Co. v. Pennsylvania, 277 U.S. 389 (1928).

[1060] State Tax Comrs. v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527, 537 (1931).

[1061] Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 422 (1935).

[1062] Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U.S. 390, 398 (1912); Farmers & M. Sav. Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U.S. 516, 531 (1914).

[1063] Morf v. Bingaman, 298 U.S. 407, 413 (1936).

[1064] Baltic Min. Co. v. Massachusetts, 231 U.S. 68, 88 (1913). See also Cheney Bros. Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 147, 157 (1918).

[1065] Fire Asso. of Philadelphia v. New York, 119 U.S. 110, 119 (1886).

[1066] Hanover F. Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U.S. 494, 511 (1926).

[1067] Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U.S. 400, 418 (1910).

[1068] Concordia F. Ins. Co. v. Illinois, 292 U.S. 535 (1934).

[1069] Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 325 U.S. 673 (1945).

[1070] Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562, 571, 572 (1949).

[1071] Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412 (1920).

[1072] Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 56, 57 (1920); Travis v. Yale & T. Mfg. Co., 252 U.S. 60, 75, 76 (1920).

[1073] Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134 (1938).

[1074] Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 288, 300 (1898).

[1075] Billings v. Illinois, 188 U.S. 97 (1903).

[1076] Campbell v. California, 200 U.S. 87 (1906).

[1077] Salomon v. State Tax Commission, 278 U.S. 484 (1929).

[1078] Board of Education v. Illinois, 203 U.S. 553 (1906).

[1079] Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U.S. 525 (1919).

[1080] Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932).

[1081] Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. State Revenue Commission, 306 U.S. 72, 78 (1939).

[1082] Alward v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 509 (1931).

[1083] Bekins Van Lines v. Riley, 280 U.S. 80 (1929).

[1084] Morf v. Bingaman, 298 U.S. 407 (1936).

[1085] Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583 (1939).

[1086] Carley & Hamilton v. Snook, 281 U.S. 66 (1930).

[1087] Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Commission, 295 U.S. 285 (1935).

[1088] Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937).

[1089] Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920).

[1090] Missouri v. Dockery, 191 U.S. 165 (1903).

[1091] Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U.S. 140, 161 (1911).

[1092] Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Twp., 247 U.S. 350 (1918); Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U.S. 20, 35, 37 (1907).

[1093] Coulter v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 196 U.S. 599 (1905). See also Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Babcock, 204 U.S. 585 (1907).

[1094] Charleston Assn. v. Alderson, 324 U.S. 182 (1945). Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Browning, 310 U.S. 362 (1940).

[1095] Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U.S. 441, 446 (1923).

[1096] Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620, 623 (1946).

[1097] St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Middlekamp, 256 U.S. 226, 230 (1921).

[1098] Memphis & C.R. Co. v. Pace, 282 U.S. 241 (1931).

[1099] Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Road Improv. Dist., 256 U.S. 658 (1921); Thomas v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 261 U.S. 481 (1923).

[1100] Road Improv. Dist. v. Missouri P.R. Co., 274 U.S. 188 (1927).

[1101] Branson v. Bush, 251 U.S. 182 (1919).

[1102] Columbus & G.R. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96 (1931).

[1103] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 208 (1927).

[1104] Classifications under police regulations have been held valid in the following situations:

Advertising: discrimination between billboard and newspaper advertising of cigarettes, Packer Corp. v. Utah, 285 U.S. 105 (1932); prohibition of advertising signs on motor vehicles, except when used in the usual business of the owner, and not used mainly for advertising, Fifth Ave. Coach Co. v. New York, 221 U.S. 467 (1911); prohibition of advertising on motor vehicles except notices or advertising of products of the owner, Railway Express Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949); prohibition against sale of articles on which there is a representation of the flag for advertising purposes, except newspapers, periodicals and books; Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907).

Amusement: prohibition against keeping billiard halls for hire, except in case of hotels having twenty-five or more rooms for use of regular guests. Murphy v. California, 225 U.S. 623 (1912).

Barber shops: a law forbidding Sunday labor except works of necessity or charity, and specifically forbidding the keeping open of barber shops. Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164 (1900).

Cattle: a classification of sheep, as distinguished from cattle, in a regulation restricting the use of public lands for grazing. Bacon v. Walker, 204 U.S. 311 (1907). See also Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U.S. 343 (1918).

Cotton gins: in a State where cotton gins are held to be public utilities and their rates regulated, the granting of a license to a cooperative association distributing profits ratably to members and nonmembers does not deny other persons operating gins equal protection when there is nothing in the laws to forbid them to distribute their net earnings among their patrons. Corporations Commission v. Lowe, 281 U.S. 431 (1930).

Fish processing: stricter regulation of reduction of fish to flour or meal than of canning. Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).

Food: bread sold in loaves must be of prescribed standard sizes, Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U.S. 578 (1913); food preservatives containing boric acid may not be sold, Price v. Illinois, 238 U.S. 446 (1915); lard not sold in bulk must be put up in containers holding one, three or five pounds or some whole multiple thereof, Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U.S. 510 (1916); milk industry may be placed in a special class for regulation, New York ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr, 199 U.S. 552 (1905); vendors producing milk outside city may be classified separately, Adams v. Milwaukee, 228 U.S. 572 (1913); producing and nonproducing vendors may be distinguished in milk regulations, St. John v. New York, 201 U.S. 633 (1906); different minimum and maximum milk prices may be fixed for distributors and storekeepers; Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934); price differential may be granted for sellers of milk not having a well advertised trade name, Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 251 (1936); oleomargarine colored to resemble butter may be prohibited, Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio ex rel. Attorney General, 183 U.S. 238 (1902); table syrups may be required to be so labelled and disclose identity and proportion of ingredients, Corn Products Ref. Co. v. Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 (1919).

Geographical discriminations: legislation limited in application to a particular geographical or political subdivision of a State, Ft. Smith Light & Traction Co. v. Board of Improvement, 274 U.S. 387, 391 (1927); ordinance prohibiting a particular business in certain sections of a municipality, Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 (1915); statute authorizing a municipal commission to limit the height of buildings in commercial districts to 125 feet and in other districts to 80 to 100 feet, Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909); ordinance prescribing limits in city outside of which no woman of lewd character shall dwell, L'Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U.S. 587, 595 (1900).

Hotels: requirement that keepers of hotels having over fifty guests employ night watchmen. Miller v. Strahl, 239 U.S. 426 (1915).

Insurance companies: regulation of fire insurance rates with exemption for farmers mutuals, German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U.S. 389 (1914); different requirements imposed upon reciprocal insurance associations than upon mutual companies, Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U.S. 313 (1943); prohibition against life insurance companies or agents engaging in undertaking business, Daniel v. Family Ins. Co., 336 U.S. 220 (1949).

Intoxicating liquors: exception of druggists or manufacturers from regulation. Ohio ex rel. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U.S. 445 (1904); Eberle v. Michigan, 232 U.S. 700 (1914).

Lodging houses: requirement that sprinkler systems be installed in buildings of nonfireproof construction is valid as applied to such a building which is safeguarded by a fire alarm system, constant watchman service and other safety arrangements. Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. Saxl, 328 U.S. 80 (1946).

Markets: prohibition against operation of private market within six squares of public market. Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U.S. 621 (1891).

Medicine: a uniform standard of professional attainment and conduct for all physicians, Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U.S. 40 (1926); reasonable exemptions from medical registration law, Watson v. Maryland, 218 U.S. 173 (1910); exemption of persons who heal by prayer from regulations applicable to drugless physicians, Crane v. Johnson, 242 U.S. 339 (1917); exclusion of osteopathic physicians from public hospitals, Hayman v. Galveston, 273 U.S. 414 (1927); requirement that persons who treat eyes without use of drugs be licensed as optometrists with exception for persons treating eyes by the use of drugs, who are regulated under a different statute, McNaughton v. Johnson, 242 U.S. 344 (1917); a prohibition against advertising by dentists, not applicable to other professions, Semler v. Oregon State Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608 (1935).

Motor vehicles: guest passenger regulation applicable to automobiles but not to other classes of vehicles, Silver v. Silver, 280 U.S. 117 (1929); exemption of vehicles from other States from registration requirement, Storaasli v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 57 (1931); classification of driverless automobiles for hire as public vehicles, which are required to procure a license and to carry liability insurance, Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. Cincinnati, 284 U.S. 335 (1932); exemption from limitations on hours of labor for drivers of motor vehicles of carriers of property for hire, of those not principally engaged in transport of property for hire, and carriers operating wholly in metropolitan areas, Welch Co. v. New Hampshire, 306 U.S. 79 (1939); exemption of busses and temporary movements of farm implements and machinery and trucks making short hauls from common carriers from limitations in net load and length of trucks, Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374 (1932); prohibition against operation of uncertified carriers, Bradley v. Public Utilities Commission, 289 U.S. 92 (1933); exemption from regulations affecting carriers for hire, of persons whose chief business is farming and dairying, but who occasionally haul farm and dairy products for compensation, Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U.S. 169 (1933); exemption of private vehicles, street cars and omnibuses from insurance requirements applicable to taxicabs, Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924).

Peddlers and solicitors: a State may classify and regulate itinerant vendors and peddlers, Emert v. Missouri, 156 U.S. 296 (1895); may forbid the sale by them of drugs and medicines, Baccus v. Louisiana, 232 U.S. 334 (1914); prohibit drumming or soliciting on trains for business for hotels, medical practitioners, etc., Williams v. Arkansas, 217 U.S. 79 (1910); or solicitation of employment to prosecute or collect claims, McCloskey v. Tobin, 252 U.S. 107 (1920). And a municipality may prohibit canvassers or peddlers from calling at private residences unless requested or invited by the occupant to do so. Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 (1951).

Property destruction: destruction of cedar trees to protect apple orchards from cedar rust. Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928).

Railroads: forbid operation on a certain street, Richmond, F. & P.R. Co. v. Richmond, 96 U.S. 521 (1878); require fences and cattle guards and allowed recovery of multiple damages for failure to comply, Missouri P.R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U.S. 512 (1885); Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 (1889); Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co. v. Emmons, 149 U.S. 364 (1893); charge them with entire expense of altering a grade crossing, New York & N.E.R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U.S. 556 (1894); makes them responsible for fire communicated by their engines, St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Mathews, 165 U.S. 1 (1897); requires cutting of certain weeds, Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. May, 194 U.S. 267 (1904); create a presumption against a railroad failing to give prescribed warning signals, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ford, 287 U.S. 502 (1933); require use of locomotive headlights of a specified form and power, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U.S. 280 (1914); make railroads liable for damage caused by operation of their locomotives, unless they make it appear that their agents exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Watson, 287 U.S. 86 (1932); require sprinkling of streets between tracks to lay the dust, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Police Court, 251 U.S. 22 (1919).

Sales in bulk: requirement of notice of bulk sale applicable only to retail dealers. Lemieux v. Young, 211 U.S. 489 (1909).

Secret societies: regulations applied only to one class of oath-bound associations, having a membership of 20 or more persons, where the class regulated has a tendency to make the secrecy of its purpose and membership a cloak for conduct inimical to the personal rights of others and to the public welfare. New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928).

Securities: a prohibition on the sale of capital stock on margin or for future delivery which is not applicable to other objects of speculation, e.g., cotton, grain. Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606 (1903).

Syndicalism: a criminal syndicalism statute does not deny equal protection in penalizing those who advocate a resort to violent and unlawful methods as a means of changing industrial and political conditions while not penalizing those who advocate resort to such methods for maintaining such conditions. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).

Telegraph companies: a statute prohibiting stipulation against liability for negligence in the delivery of interstate message, which did not forbid express companies and other common carriers to limit their liability by contract. Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Commercial Milling Co., 218 U.S. 406 (1910).

[1105] Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Harrison, 301 U.S. 459 (1937).

[1106] Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553 (1931).

[1107] Mayflower Farms v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 266 (1936).

[1108] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).

[1109] Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

[1110] Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).

[1111] Fisher v. St. Louis, 194 U.S. 361 (1904).

[1112] Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603 (1927).

[1113] Wilson v. Eureka City, 173 U.S. 32 (1899).

[1114] Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U.S. 183 (1900).

[1115] Kotch v. Pilot Comm'rs., 330 U.S. 552 (1947).

[1116] Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). Cf. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), where the Court sustained the relocation of American citizens of Japanese ancestry on the ground that in this case the fact of origin might reasonably be deemed to have some substantial relation to national security. It was careful to point out however, that normally distinctions based on race or national origin are invidious and hence void.

[1117] Ohio ex rel. Clarke v. Deckebach, 274 U.S. 392 (1927).

[1118] Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (1914).

[1119] Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175 (1915); Crane v. New York, 239 U.S. 195 (1915).

[1120] Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915).

[1121] Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n., 334 U.S. 410 (1948).

[1122] Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923).

[1123] 332 U.S. 633 (1948).

[1124] Ibid. 647, 650.

[1125] Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898).

[1126] Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917).

[1127] Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U.S. 207 (1903).

[1128] Keokee Consol. Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U.S. 224 (1914); see also Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U.S. 13 (1901).

[1129] McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U.S. 539 (1909).

[1130] Prudential Insurance Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530 (1922).

[1131] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Perry, 259 U.S. 548 (1922).

[1132] Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U.S. 219 (1917).

[1133] New York C.R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188 (1917); Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co., 249 U.S. 152 (1919); Ward & Gow v. Krinsky, 259 U.S. 503 (1922).

[1134] Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U.S. 525 (1949).

[1135] Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373 (1915); Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U.S. 385 (1915).

[1136] Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908).

[1137] Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265 (1919).

[1138] Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292 (1924).

[1139] West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937); overruling Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923); and Morehead v. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587 (1936).

[1140] Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948).

[1141] Ibid. 466.

[1142] Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. Missouri ex rel. Jones, 238 U.S. 41 (1915).

[1143] International Harvester Co. v. Missouri ex rel. Atty. Gen., 234 U.S. 199 (1914).

[1144] Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141 (1940), overruling Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540 (1902).

[1145] Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee ex rel. Cates, 217 U.S. 413 (1910).

[1146] Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 199 U.S. 401 (1905).

[1147] Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U.S. 176 (1935). See also Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873); Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 529 (1934).

[1148] Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883).

[1149] Collins v. Johnston, 237 U.S. 502, 510 (1915); Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U.S. 51 (1937).

[1150] McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311 (1901). See also Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673 (1895); Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616 (1912).

[1151] Carlesi v. New York, 233 U.S. 51 (1914).

[1152] Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 208 U.S. 481 (1908).

[1153] Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U.S. 51 (1937).

[1154] Finley v. California, 222 U.S. 28 (1911).

[1155] Minnesota v. Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270 (1940).

[1156] Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883).

[1157] Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947).

[1158] Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Cf. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). (Sterilization of defectives.)

[1159] Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).

[1160] Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926).

[1161] Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). Cf. Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U.S. 24 (1948), where the Court held that a restrictive covenant was unenforceable in the Federal Court of the District of Columbia for reasons of public policy.

[1162] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Cf. Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (1946), where a State statute requiring segregation of passengers on interstate journeys was held to be an unlawful restriction on interstate commerce. See also Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U.S. 485 (1878), where a State law forbidding steamboats on the Mississippi to segregate passengers according to race was held unconstitutional under the commerce clause, and Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28 (1948), where a Michigan statute forbidding discrimination was held valid as applied to an excursion boat operating on the Detroit River; and Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950), where segregation in a dining car operated by an interstate railroad was held to violate a federal statute.

[1163] McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914).

[1164] Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899).

[1165] Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927).

[1166] 305 U.S. 337 (1938).

[1167] Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631 (1948).

[1168] Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U.S. 147 (1948).

[1169] 339 U.S. 629 (1950).

[1170] 339 U.S. 637 (1950).

The "Separate but Equal" Doctrine took its rise in Chief Justice Shaw's opinion in Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass. 198, 200 (1849), for an excellent account of which see the article by Leonard W. Levy and Harlan B. Phillips in 56 American Historical Review, 510-518 (April, 1951). See also Judge Danforth's opinion in Gallagher v. King, 93 N.Y. 438 (1883).

In a case in which Negro children brought a suit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, to enjoin certain school officials from making any distinctions based upon race or color in providing educational facilities, the court found that statutes of South Carolina which required separate schools for the two races did not of themselves violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but ordered the school officials to proceed at once to furnish equal educational facilities and to report to the court within six months as to the action taken. On appeal to the Supreme Court the case was remanded for further proceedings in order that the Supreme Court may "have the benefit of the views of the District Court upon the additional facts brought to the attention of that court in the report which it ordered." Briggs v. Elliott, 342 U.S. 350, 351 (1952).

Recently, the Fourth United States Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting at Richmond, ruled that Negroes must be admitted to the white University of North Carolina Law School in terms which flatly rejected the thesis of separate but equal facilities. "It is a definite handicap to the colored student to confine his association in the Law School with people of his own class," said the opinion of Judge Morris A. Soper.—McKissick v. Carmichael, 187 F. 2d 949, 952 (1951).

[1171] Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915).

[1172] Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 (1898).

[1173] Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475, 486 (1903).

[1174] Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275 (1939).

[1175] See p. 1141, ante.

[1176] Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927).

[1177] Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 89 (1932).

[1178] Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (1935).

[1179] United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941).

[1180] 321 U.S. 649 (1944).

[1181] Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 (1904).

[1182] 321 U.S. 1 (1944).

[1183] 328 U.S. 549, 566 (1946). Justice Black dissented on the ground that the equal protection clause was violated.

[1184] 335 U.S. 281, 287, 288 (1948). Justice Douglas, with whom Justices Black and Murphy concurred, dissented saying that the statute lacked "the equality to which the exercise of political rights is entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment."

[1185] South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276 (1950).

[1186] Dohany v. Rogers, 281 U.S. 362, 369 (1930).

[1187] Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68 (1887).

[1188] Hardware Dealers Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Glidden Co., 284 U.S. 151 (1931).

[1189] Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 81, 82 (1911); see also Mobile, J. & K.C.R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35 (1910); Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 (1904).

[1190] Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 552 (1949).

[1191] Bowman v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22, 30 (1880). See also Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377 (1894); Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park Dist, 281 U.S. 74 (1930).

[1192] Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U.S. 589 (1901); see also Bowman v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22, 30 (1880).

[1193] Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921).

[1194] Cochran v. Kansas, 316 U.S. 255 (1942).

[1195] Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson, 282 U.S. 499 (1931).

[1196] Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U.S. 541 (1908). See also Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U.S. 322 (1909).

[1197] Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490 (1927).

[1198] Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount Auto Exch. Corp., 262 U.S. 544 (1923).

[1199] Fidelity Mut. Life Asso. v. Mettler, 185 U.S. 308, 325 (1902). See also Manhattan L. Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U.S. 123 (1914).

[1200] Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U.S. 81 (1896).

[1201] Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642 (1914); see also Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Harris, 234 U.S. 412 (1914).

[1202] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Larabee, 234 U.S. 459 (1914).

[1203] Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U.S. 96 (1899).

[1204] Gulf, C. & S.F.R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897). See also Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U.S. 56 (1915).

[1205] 18 Stat. 336 (1875); 8 U.S.C. Sec. 44 (1946).

[1206] Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 (1950); Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400, 404 (1942); Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128 (1940); Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354 (1939); Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 (1880).

[1207] Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 322, 323 (1880).

[1208] Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398, 403 (1945).

[1209] Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U.S. 463 (1947). See also Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50 (1951).

[1210] Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565 (1896).

[1211] Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U.S. 638 (1906).

[1212] 332 U.S. 261 (1947).

In an interesting footnote to his opinion, Justice Jackson asserted that "it is unnecessary to decide whether the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment might of its own force prohibit discrimination on account of race in the selection of jurors, so that such discrimination would violate the due process clause of the same Amendment." Ibid. 284. Earlier cases dealing with racial discrimination have indicated that the discrimination was forbidden by the equal protection clause as well as by the Civil Rights Act of 1875. See cases cited to the preceding paragraph. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Section "Selection of Jury", above.]

[1213] Ibid. 285.

[1214] Ibid. 270, 271.

[1215] Ibid. 291.

[1216] Ibid. 288, 289, 299, 300. Four Justices, speaking by Justice Murphy dissented, saying: "The proof here is adequate enough to demonstrate that this panel, like every discriminatorily selected 'blue ribbon' panel, suffers from a constitutional infirmity. That infirmity is the denial of equal protection to those who are tried by a jury drawn from a 'blue ribbon' panel. Such a panel is narrower and different from that used in forming juries to try the vast majority of other accused persons. To the extent of that difference, therefore, the persons tried by 'blue ribbon' juries receive unequal protection." "In addition, as illustrated in this case, the distinction that is drawn in fact between 'blue ribbon' jurors and general jurors is often of such a character as to destroy the representative nature of the 'blue ribbon' panel. There is no constitutional right to a jury drawn from a group of uneducated and unintelligent persons. Nor is there any right to a jury chosen solely from those at the lower end of the economic and social scale. But there is a constitutional right to a jury drawn from a group which represents a cross-section of the community. And a cross-section of the community includes persons with varying degrees of training and intelligence and with varying economic and social positions. Under our Constitution, the jury is not to be made the representative of the most intelligent, the most wealthy or the most successful, nor of the least intelligent, the least wealthy or the least successful. It is a democratic institution, representative of all qualified classes of people. * * * To the extent that a 'blue ribbon' panel fails to reflect this democratic principle, it is constitutionally defective."

[1217] 112 U.S. 94, 102 (1884).

[1218] W.G. Rice, Esq., Jr., University of Wisconsin Law School, The Position of the American Indian in the Law of the United States, 16 Journal of Comp. Leg. 78, 80 (1934).

[1219] 39 Op. Atty. Gen. 518, 519.

[1220] 46 Stat. 26; 55 Stat. 761; 2 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2a (a).

[1221] Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 87, p. 70, January 8, 1941.

[1222] McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 663 (1884).

[1223] Saunders v. Wilkins, 152 F. (2d) 235 (1945); certiorari denied, 328 U.S. 870 (1946); rehearing denied, 329 U.S. 825 (1946).

[1224] Saunders v. Wilkins, 152 F. (2d) 235, 237-238, citing Willoughby, Constitution, 2d ed., pp. 626, 627.

[1225] Legislation by Congress providing for removal was necessary to give effect to the prohibition of section 3; and until removed in pursuance of such legislation, the exercise of functions by persons in office before promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment was not unlawful. (Griffin's Case, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5815 (1869)). Nor were persons who had taken part in the Civil War and had been pardoned therefor by the President before the adoption of this Amendment precluded by this section from again holding office under the United States. (18 Op. Atty. Gen. 149 (1885)).

The phrase, "engaged in Rebellion" has been construed as implying a voluntary effort to assist an insurrection and to bring it to a successful termination; and accordingly as not embracing acts done under compulsion of force or of a well grounded fear of bodily harm. Thus, while the mere holding of a commission of justice of the peace under the Confederate government was not viewed as involving, of itself, "adherence or countenance to the Rebellion," action by such officer in furnishing a substitute for himself to the Confederate Army amounted to such participation in a Rebellion unless said action could be shown to have resulted from fear of conscription and to have sprung, not from repugnance to military service, but from want of sympathy with the insurrectionary movement. (United States v. Powell, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,079 (1871)).

[1226] Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 354 (1935) in which the Court concluded "that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, insofar as it attempted to override" the gold-clause obligation in a Fourth Liberty Loan Gold Bond, "went beyond the congressional power."

See also Branch v. Haas, 16 F. 53 (1883), citing Hanauer v. Woodruff, 15 Wall. 439 (1873) and Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1 (1869) in which it was held that inasmuch as bonds issued by the Confederate States were rendered illegal by section four, a contract for the sale and delivery before October 29, 1881 of 200 Confederate coupon bonds at the rate of $1000 was void, and a suit for damages for failure to deliver could not be maintained.

See also The Pietro Campanella, 73 F. Supp. 18 (1947) which arose out of a suit for the forfeiture, prior to our entry into World War II, of Italian vessels in an American port and their subsequent requisition by the Maritime Commission. The Attorney General, as successor to the Alien Property Custodian, was declared to be entitled to the fund thereafter determined to be due as compensation for the use and subsequent loss of the vessels; and the order of the Alien Property Custodian vesting in himself, for the United States, under authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Order, all rights of claimants in the vessels and to the fund substituted therefor was held not to be a violation of section four. An attorney for certain of the claimants, who had asserted a personal right to a lien upon the fund for his services, had argued that when the Government requisitioned ships under the applicable statute providing for compensation, and at a time before this country was at war with Italy, the United States entered into a binding agreement with the owners for compensation and that this promise constituted a valid obligation of the United States which could not be repudiated without violating section four.

[1227] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 13 (1883). See also United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920) on which it was held that the United States is without power to punish infractions by individuals of the right of citizen to reside peacefully in the several States, and to have free ingress into and egress from such States. Authority to deal with the forcible eviction by a mob of individuals across State boundaries is exclusively within the power reserved by the Constitution to the States.

[1228] Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (1880); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).

[1229] Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 344 (1880).

[1230] United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883). See also Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 685 (1887).

[1231] 325 U.S. 91 (1945).

[1232] 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 242.

[1233] No "opinion of the Court" was given. In announcing the judgment of the Court, Justice Douglas, who was joined by Chief Justice Stone and Justices Black and Reed, declared that the trial judge had erred in not charging the jury that the defendants must be found to have had the specific intention of depriving their victim of his right to a fair trial in accordance with due process of law, that this was the force of the word, "willfully," in section 20, and that any other construction of section 20 would be void for want of laying down an "ascertainable standard of guilt." To avoid a stalemate on the Court, Justice Rutledge concurred in the result; but, on the merits of the case, he would have affirmed the conviction. Justice Murphy announced that he favored affirming the conviction and therefore dissented. Justice Roberts, with whom Justices Frankfurter and Jackson were associated, dissented for reasons stated in the text.

[1234] 100 U.S. 339, 346 (1880).

[1235] 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941).

[1236] 325 U.S. 91, 114-116 (1945). But see Barney v. City of New York, 193 U.S. 430, 438, 441 (1904).

[1237] Ibid. 106-107. The majority supporting this proposition was not the same majority as the one which held that "State" action was involved.

[1238] 341 U.S. 97 (1951).

[1239] Ibid. 103-104.

[1240] 342 U.S. 852.

[1241] Ibid. 853-854.



AMENDMENT 15

RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO VOTE

Page Affirmative interpretation 1183 Negative application; the "Grandfather Clause" 1184 Application to party primaries 1185 Enforcement 1186

AMENDMENT 15.—RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO VOTE

Amendment 15

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Affirmative Interpretation

In its initial appraisals of this amendment the Court appeared disposed to emphasize only its purely negative aspects. "The Fifteenth Amendment," it announced, did "not confer the right * * * [to vote] upon any one," but merely "invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is * * * exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."[1] Within less than ten years, however, in Ex parte Yarbrough,[2] the Court ventured to read into the amendment an affirmative as well as a negative purpose. Conceding "that this article" had originally been construed as giving "no affirmative right to the colored man to vote," and as having been "designed primarily to prevent discrimination against him," Justice Miller, in behalf of his colleagues, disclosed their present ability "to see that under some circumstances it may operate as the immediate source of a right to vote. In all cases where the former slave-holding States had not removed from their Constitutions the words 'white man' as a qualification for voting, this provision did, in effect, confer on him the right to vote, because, * * *, it annulled the discriminating word white, and thus left him in the enjoyment of the same right as white persons. And such would be the effect of any future constitutional provision of a State which should give the right of voting exclusively to white people, * * *"

Negative Application; the "Grandfather Clause"

The subsequent history of the Fifteenth Amendment has been largely a record of belated judicial condemnation of various attempts by States to disfranchise the Negro either overtly through statutory enactment, or covertly through inequitable administration of their electoral laws or by toleration of discriminatory membership practices of political parties. Of several devices which have been voided, one of the first to be held unconstitutional was the "grandfather clause." Without expressly disfranchising the Negro, but with a view to facilitating the permanent placement of white residents on the voting lists while continuing to interpose severe obstacles upon Negroes seeking qualification as voters, several States, beginning in 1895, enacted temporary laws whereby persons who were voters, or descendants of voters on January 1, 1867, could be registered notwithstanding their inability to meet any literacy requirements. Unable because of the date to avail themselves of the same exemption, Negroes were thus left exposed to disfranchisement on grounds of illiteracy while whites no less illiterate were enabled to become permanent voters. With the achievement of this intended result, most States permitted their laws to lapse; but Oklahoma's grandfather clause was enacted as a permanent amendment to the State constitution; and when presented with an opportunity to pass on its validity, a unanimous Court condemned the standard of voting thus established as recreating and perpetuating "the very conditions which the [Fifteenth] Amendment was intended to destroy."[3] Nor, when Oklahoma followed up this defeat with a statute of 1916 which provided that all persons, except those who voted in 1914, who were qualified to vote in 1916 but who failed to register between April 30 and May 11, 1916 (sick persons and persons absent had a second opportunity to register between May 11 and June 30, 1916) should be perpetually disfranchised, did the Court experience any difficulty in holding the same to be repugnant to the amendment.[4] That amendment, Justice Frankfurter declared, "nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination. It hits onerous procedural requirements which effectively handicap exercise of the franchise by the colored race although the abstract right to vote may remain unrestricted as to race."[5] More precisely, the effect of this statute, as discerned by the Court, was automatically to continue as permanent voters, without their being obliged to register again, all white persons who were on registry lists in 1914 by virtue of the hitherto invalidated grandfather clause; whereas Negroes, prevented from registering by that clause, were afforded only a twenty-day registration opportunity to avoid permanent disfranchisement.

Application to Party Primaries

Indecision was displayed by the Court, however, when it was first called upon to deal with the exclusion of Negroes from participation in primary elections.[6] Prior to its becoming convinced that primary contests were in fact elections,[7] the Court had relied upon the equal protection clause to strike down a Texas White Primary Law[8] and a subsequent Texas statute which contributed to a like exclusion by limiting voting in primaries to members of State political parties as determined by the central committees thereof.[9] When exclusion of Negroes was thereafter perpetuated by political parties acting not in obedience to any statutory command, this discrimination was for a time viewed as not constituting State action and therefore not prohibited by either the Fourteenth or the Fifteenth Amendments.[10] But this holding was reversed nine years later when the Court, in Smith v. Allwright,[11] declared that where the selection of candidates for public office is entrusted by statute to political parties, a political party in making its selection at a primary election is a State agency, and hence may not under this amendment exclude Negroes from such elections.

At a very early date the Court held that literacy tests which are drafted so as to apply alike to all applicants for the voting franchise would be deemed to be fair on their face, and in the absence of proof of discriminatory enforcement could not be viewed as denying the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.[12] More recently, the Boswell amendment to the constitution of Alabama, which provided that only persons who understood and could explain the Constitution of the United States to the reasonable satisfaction of boards of registrars was found, both in its object as well as in the manner of its administration, to be contrary to the Fifteenth Amendment. The legislative history of the adoption of the Alabama provision disclosed that "the ambiguity inherent in the phrase 'understand and explain' * * * was purposeful * * * and was intended as a grant of arbitrary power in an attempt to obviate the consequences of" Smith v. Allwright.[13]

Enforcement

Two major questions have presented themselves for decision as a consequence of the exercise by Congress of its powers to enforce this article, an amendment which the Court has acknowledged to be self-executing.[14] These have pertained to the limitations which the amendment imposes on the competency of Congress legislating thereunder to punish racial discrimination founded upon more than a denial of suffrage and to penalize such denials when perpetrated by private individuals not acting under color of public authority. Rulings on both these issues were made very early; and the Court thus far has manifested no disposition to depart from them, although their compatibility with more recent holdings may be doubtful. Thus, when the Enforcement Act of 1870,[15] which penalized State officers for refusing to receive the vote of any qualified citizen, was employed to support a prosecution of such officers for having prevented a qualified Negro from voting, the Court held it to be in excess of the authority conferred upon Congress.[16] The Fifteenth Amendment, Chief Justice Waite maintained, did not confer "authority to impose penalties for every wrongful refusal to receive * * * [a] vote * * *, [but] only when the wrongful refusal * * * is because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, * * *" Voided for the like reason that this amendment "relates solely to action 'by the United States or by any State,' and does not contemplate wrongful individual acts" was another provision of the same act, which authorized prosecution of private individuals for having prevented citizens from voting at a Congressional election.[17]

Notes

[1] United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 217-218 (1876); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 556 (1876).

[2] 110 U.S. 651, 665 (1884); citing Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, 389 (1881). This affirmative view was later reiterated in Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 363 (1915).

[3] Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 360, 363-364 (1915).

[4] Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (1939).

[5] Ibid. 275.

[6] Cases involving this and related issues are also discussed under the equal protection clause, p. 1163.

[7] United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944).

[8] Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927).

[9] Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 89 (1932).

[10] Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45, 55 (1935).

[11] 321 U.S. 649 (1944). Notwithstanding that the South Carolina Legislature, after the decision in Smith v. Allwright, repealed all statutory provisions regulating primary elections and political organizations conducting them, a political party thus freed of control is not to be regarded as a private club and for that reason exempt from the constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination contained in the Fifteenth Amendment. Rice v. Elmore, 165 F. (2d) 387 (1947); certiorari denied, 333 U.S. 875 (1948). See also Brown v. Baskin, 78 F. Supp. 933, 940 (1948) which held violative of the Fifteenth Amendment a requirement of a South Carolina political party, which excluded Negroes from membership, that white as well as Negro qualified voters, as a prerequisite for voting in its primary, take an oath that they will support separation of the races.

[12] Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213, 220 (1898).

[13] Davis v. Schnell, 81 F. Supp. 872, 878, 880 (1949); affirmed, 336 U.S. 933 (1949).

[14] United States v. Amsden, 6 F. 819 (1881).

[15] 16 Stat. 140.

[16] United States v.. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876).

[17] James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 136 (1903) See also Karem v. United States, 121 F. 250, 259 (1903).



AMENDMENT 16

INCOME TAX

Page History and purpose of the amendment 1191 Meaning of income as distinguished from capital 1192 Corporate dividends: when taxable as income 1193 The "stock dividends case" 1193 Other corporate earnings or receipts: when taxable as income 1196 Gains in the form of real estate: when taxable as income 1197 Gains in the form of bequests: when taxable as income 1198 Diminution of loss: not income 1198 Dates applicable in computation of taxable gains 1199 Deductions: exemptions, etc. 1200 Illegal gains as income 1201

INCOME TAX

Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

History and Purpose of the Amendment

The ratification of this amendment was the direct consequence of the decision in 1895[1] whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States[2] was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property,[3] the Court declared, was a "direct tax" which Congress under the terms of article I, section 2, clause 3, and section 9, clause 4, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population; although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained[4] the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War,[5] the only other occasion preceding Amendment Sixteen in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.[6]

During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895, and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented it, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of "direct tax" or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames,[7] Knowlton v. Moore[8] and Patton v. Brady[9] the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the "incidents of ownership" and hence to be excises; a tax which involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and which was held by the manufacturer for resale.

Thanks to such endeavors the Court thus found it possible, in 1911,[10] to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise "measured by income" on the privilege of doing business in corporate form. The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation as to whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in the Pollock Case. Indeed, in its initial appraisal[11] of the amendment it classified income taxes as being inherently "indirect." "The command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.[12] * * * The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged * * *"[13]

Meaning of "Income" as Distinguished From Capital

Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909,[14] the Court initially described income as the "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," inclusive of the "profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets";[15] and in the following array of factual situations has subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.

CORPORATE DIVIDENDS: WHEN TAXABLE AS INCOME

Rendered in conformity with the belief that all income "in the ordinary sense of the word" became taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment, the earliest decisions of the Court on the taxability of corporate dividends occasioned little comment. Emphasizing that in all such cases the stockholder is to be viewed as "a different entity from the corporation," the Court in Lynch v. Hornby[16] held that a cash dividend equal to 24% of the par value of outstanding stock and made possible largely by the conversion into money of assets earned prior to the adoption of the amendment, was income taxable to the stockholder for the year in which he received it, notwithstanding that such an extraordinary payment might appear "to be a mere realization in possession of an inchoate and contingent interest * * * [of] the stockholder * * * in a surplus of corporate assets previously existing." In Peabody v. Eisner,[17] decided on the same day and deemed to have been controlled by the preceding case, the Court ruled that a dividend paid in the stock of another corporation, although representing earnings that had accrued before ratification of the amendment, was also taxable to the shareholder as income. The dividend was likened to a distribution in specie.

THE "STOCK DIVIDENDS CASE"

Two years later the Court decided Eisner v. Macomber,[18] and the controversy which that decision precipitated still endures. Departing from the interpretation placed upon the Sixteenth Amendment in the earlier cases; namely, that the purpose of the amendment was to correct the "error" committed in the Pollock Case and to restore income taxation to "the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged," Justice Pitney, who delivered the opinion in the Eisner Case, indicated that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was merely to "remove the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income." He thereupon undertook to demonstrate how what was not income, but an increment of capital when received, could later be transmitted into income upon sale or conversion, and could be taxed as such without the necessity of apportionment. In short, the term "income" reacquired to some indefinite extent a restrictive significance.

Specifically, the Justice held that a stock dividend was capital when received by a stockholder of the issuing corporation and did not become taxable without apportionment; that is, as "income," until sold or converted, and then only to the extent that a gain was realized upon the proportion of the original investment which such stock represented. "A stock dividend," Justice Pitney maintained, "far from being a realization of profits to the stockholder, * * * tends rather to postpone such realization, in that the fund represented by the new stock has been transferred from surplus to capital, and no longer is available for actual distribution. * * * not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from * * * the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but * * * the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows [that] he has not realized or received any income in" what is no more than a "bookkeeping transaction." But conceding that a stock dividend represented a gain, the Justice concluded that the only gain taxable as "income" under the amendment was "a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived,' that is, received or drawn by the recipient [the taxpayer] for his separate use, benefit, and disposal; * * *." Only the latter, in his opinion, answered the description of income "derived" from property; whereas "a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or an increment of value in the investment" did not.[19]

Although steadfastly refusing to depart from the principle[20] which it asserted in Eisner v. Macomber, the Court in subsequent decisions has, however, slightly narrowed the application thereof. Thus, the distribution, as a dividend, to stockholders of an existing corporation of the stock of a new corporation to which the former corporation, under a reorganization, had transferred all its assets, including a surplus of accumulated profits, was treated as taxable income. The fact that a comparison of the market value of the shares in the older corporation immediately before, with the aggregate market value of those shares plus the dividend shares immediately after, the dividend showed that the stockholders experienced no increase in aggregate wealth was declared not to be a proper test for determining whether taxable income had been received by these stockholders.[21] On the other hand, no taxable income was held to have been produced by the mere receipt by a stockholder of rights to subscribe for shares in a new issue of capital stock, the intrinsic value of which was assumed to be in excess of the issuing price. The right to subscribe was declared to be analogous to a stock dividend, and "only so much of the proceeds obtained upon the sale of such rights as represents a realized profit over cost" to the stockholders was deemed to be taxable income.[22] Similarly, on grounds of consistency with Eisner v. Macomber, the Court has ruled that inasmuch as they gave the stockholder an interest different from that represented by his former holdings, a dividend in common stock to holders of preferred stock,[23] or a dividend in preferred stock accepted by a holder of common stock[24] was income taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment.

OTHER CORPORATE EARNINGS OR RECEIPTS: WHEN TAXABLE AS INCOME

On at least two occasions the Court has rejected as untenable the contention that a tax on undistributed corporate profits is essentially a penalty rather than a tax or that it is a direct tax on capital and hence is not exempt from the requirement of apportionment. Inasmuch as the exaction was permissible as a tax, its validity was held not to be impaired by its penal objective, namely, "to force corporations to distribute earnings in order to create a basis for taxation against the stockholders." As to the added contention that, because liability was assessed upon a mere purpose to evade imposition of surtaxes against stockholders, the tax was a direct tax on a state of mind, the Court replied that while "the existence of the defined purpose was a condition precedent to the imposition of the tax liability, * * * this * * * [did] not prevent it from being a true income tax within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment."[25] Subsequently, in Helvering v. Northwest Steel Mills,[26] this appraisal of the constitutionality of the undistributed profits tax was buttressed by the following observation: "It is true that the surtax is imposed upon the annual income only if it is not distributed, but this does not serve to make it anything other than a true tax on income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. Nor is it true, * * *, that because there might be an impairment of the capital stock, the tax on the current annual profit would be the equivalent of a tax upon capital. Whether there was an impairment of the capital stock or not, the tax * * * was imposed on profits earned during * * *—a tax year—and therefore on profits constituting income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment."[27] Likening a cooperative to a corporation, federal courts have also declared to be taxable income the net earnings of a farmers' cooperative, a portion of which was used to pay dividends on capital stock without reference to patronage. The argument that such earnings were in reality accumulated savings of its patrons which the cooperative held as their bailee was rejected as unsound for the reason that "while those who might be entitled to patronage dividends have, * * *, an interest in such earnings, such interest never ripens into an individual ownership * * * until and if a patronage dividend be declared." Had such net earnings been apportioned to all of the patrons during the year, "there might be * * * a more serious question as to whether such earnings constituted 'income' [of the cooperative] within the Amendment."[28] Similarly, the power of Congress to tax the income of an unincorporated joint stock association has been held to be unaffected by the fact that under State law the association is not a legal entity and cannot hold title to property, or by the fact that the shareholders are liable for its debts as partners.[29]