RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
Amendment 14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Citizens of the United States
KIND AND SOURCES OF CITIZENSHIP
There are three categories of persons who, if subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens thereof: (1) those who are born citizens, of whom there are two classes, those who are born in the United States and those who are born abroad of American parentage; (2) those who achieve citizenship by qualifying for it in accordance with the naturalization statutes; (3) those who have citizenship thrust upon them, such as the members of certain Indian tribes and the inhabitants of certain dependencies of the United States. In the present connection we are interested in those who are citizens by virtue of birth in the United States.[1]
HISTORY
In the famous Dred Scott Case,[2] Chief Justice Taney had ruled that United States citizenship was enjoyed by two classes of individuals: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendants of "persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States and [who] became also citizens of this new political body," the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been "born outside the dominions of the United States," had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein. The States were competent, he conceded, to confer State citizenship upon anyone in their midst, but could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. The Negro, however, according to the Chief Justice, was ineligible to attain United States citizenship either from a State or by virtue of birth in the United States, even as a free man descended from a Negro residing as a free man in one of the States at the date of ratification of the Constitution. That basic document did not contemplate the possibility of Negro citizenship.[3] By the Fourteenth Amendment this deficiency of the original Constitution was cured.[4]
JUDICIAL ELUCIDATION OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE
By the decision in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,[5] all children born in the United States to aliens, even temporary sojourners, if they are not exempt from territorial jurisdiction, are citizens irrespective of race or nationality. But children born in the United States to alien enemies in hostile occupation or to diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, not being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," i.e., of the United States, are not citizens.[6] Likewise persons born on a public vessel of a foreign country while within the waters of the United States are not considered as having been born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and hence are not citizens thereof.[7] Conversely, a Chinese born on the high seas aboard an American vessel of Chinese parents residing in the United States was declared not to be a citizen on the ground of not having been born "in the United States."[8] But a child who was born in like circumstances of parents who were citizens of the United States was declared, shortly before the Civil War, to be a citizen thereof.[9]
NATIONAL AND STATE CITIZENSHIP
With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment a distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State was clearly recognized and established. "Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union. It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual."[10] National citizenship, although not created by this amendment, was thereby made "paramount and dominant."[11]
CORPORATIONS
Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this article must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.[12]
Privileges and Immunities
PURPOSE AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE CLAUSE
Unique among constitutional provisions, the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enjoys the distinction of having been rendered a "practical nullity" by a single decision of the Supreme Court rendered within five years after its ratification. In the Slaughter-House Cases[13] a bare majority of the Court frustrated the aims of the most aggressive sponsors of this clause, to whom was attributed an intention to centralize "in the hands of the Federal Government large powers hitherto exercised by the States" with a view to enabling business to develop unimpeded by State interference. This expansive alteration of the Federal System was to have been achieved by converting the rights of the citizens of each State as of the date of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment into privileges and immunities of United States citizenship and thereafter perpetuating this newly defined status quo through judicial condemnation of any State law challenged as "abridging" any one of the latter privileges. To have fostered such intentions, the Court declared, would have been "to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights * * * to the Federal Government, * * * to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States," and to "constitute this court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States, on the civil rights of their own citizens, with authority to nullify such as it did not approve as consistent with those rights, as they existed at the time of the adoption of this amendment * * * [The effect of] so great a departure from the structure and spirit of our institutions; * * * is to fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress, in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character; * * * We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress * * *, nor by the legislatures * * * which ratified" this amendment, and that the sole "pervading purpose" of this and the other War Amendments was "the freedom of the slave race."
Conformably to these conclusions the Court advised the New Orleans butchers that the Louisiana statute conferring on a single corporation a monopoly of the business of slaughtering cattle abrogated no rights possessed by them as United States citizens and that insofar as that law interfered with their claimed privilege of pursuing the lawful calling of butchering animals, the privilege thus terminated was merely one of "those which belonged to the citizens of the States as such, and" that these had been "left to the State governments for security and protection" and had not been by this clause "placed under the special care of the Federal Government." The only privileges which the latter clause expressly protected against State encroachment were declared to be those "which owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws."—privileges, indeed, which had been available to United States citizens even prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment; and inasmuch as under the principle of federal supremacy no State ever was competent to interfere with their enjoyment, the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was thereby reduced to a superfluous reiteration of a prohibition already operative against the States.[14]
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
Although the Court has expressed a reluctance to attempt a definitive enumeration of those privileges and immunities of United States citizens such as are protected against State encroachment, it nevertheless felt obliged in the Slaughter-House Cases "to suggest some which owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws." Among those then identified were the following: right of access to the seat of Government, and to the seaports, subtreasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several States; right to demand protection of the Federal Government on the high seas, or abroad; right of assembly and privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; right to use the navigable waters of the United States; and rights secured by treaty.[15]
In a later listing in Twining v. New Jersey,[16] decided in 1908, the Court recognized "among the rights and privileges" of national citizenship the following: The right to pass freely from State to State;[17] the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances;[18] the right to vote for national officers;[19] the right to enter public lands;[20] the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal;[21] and the right to inform the United States authorities of violations of its laws.[22] Earlier in a decision not referred to in the aforementioned enumeration, the Court had also acknowledged that the carrying on of interstate commerce is "a right which every citizen of the United States is entitled to exercise."[23]
During the past fifteen years this clause has been accorded somewhat uneven treatment by the Court which, on two occasions at least, has manifested a disposition to magnify the restraint which it imposes on State action by enlarging previous enumerations of the privileges protected thereby. In Hague v. C.I.O.,[24] decided in 1939, the Court affirmed that freedom to use municipal streets and parks for the dissemination of information concerning provisions of a federal statute and to assemble peacefully therein for discussion of the advantages and opportunities offered by such act was a privilege and immunity of a United States citizen. The latter privilege was deemed to have been abridged by city officials who acted in pursuance of a void ordinance which authorized a director of safety to refuse permits for parades or assemblies on streets or parks whenever he believed riots could thereby be avoided and who forcibly evicted from their city union organizers who sought to use the streets and parks for the aforementioned purposes.[25] Again in Edwards v. California,[26] four Justices[27] who concurred in the judgment that a California statute restricting the entry of indigent migrants was unconstitutional preferred to rest their decision on the ground that the act interfered with the right of citizens to move freely from State to State. In thus rejecting the commerce clause, relied on by the majority as the basis for disposing of this case, the minority thereby resurrected an issue first advanced in the old decision of Crandall v. Nevada[28] and believed to have been resolved in favor of the commerce clause by Helson and Randolph v. Kentucky.[29] Colgate v. Harvey,[30] however, which was decided in 1935 and overruled in 1940,[31] represented the first attempt by the Court since adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to convert the privileges and immunities clause into a source of protection of other than those "interests growing out of the relationship between the citizen and the national government." Here the Court declared that the right of a citizen, resident in one State, to contract in another, to transact any lawful business, or to make a loan of money, in any State other than that in which the citizen resides was a privilege of national citizenship which was abridged by a State income tax law excluding from taxable income interest received on money loaned within the State.[32] Whether or not this overruled precedent is again to be revived and the privileges and immunities clause again placed in readiness for further expansion cannot yet be determined with assurance; but in Oyama v. California,[33] decided in 1948, the Court, in a single sentence, affirmed the contention of a native-born youth that California's Alien Land Law, applied so as to work a forfeiture of property purchased in his name with funds advanced by his parent, a Japanese alien ineligible to citizenship and precluded from owning land by the terms thereof, deprived him "of his privileges as an American citizen." In none of the previous enumerations has the right to acquire and retain property been set forth as one of the privileges of American citizenship protected against State abridgment; nor is any connection readily discernible between this right and the "relationship between the citizen and the national government." However, the right asserted by Oyama was supported by a "federal statute enacted before the Fourteenth Amendment" which provided that "all citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to * * * purchase, * * * and hold * * * real * * * property."[34]
PRIVILEGES HELD NOT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE CLAUSE
In the following cases State action was upheld against the challenge that it abridged the immunities or privileges of citizens of the United States:
(1) Statute limiting hours of labor in mines.[35]
(2) Statute taxing the business of hiring persons to labor outside the State.[36]
(3) Statute requiring employment of only licensed mine managers and examiners, and imposing liability on the mine owner for failure to furnish a reasonably safe place for workmen.[37]
(4) Statute restricting employment under public works of the State to citizens of the United States, with a preference to citizens of the State.[38]
(5) Statute making railroads liable to employees for injuries caused by negligence of fellow servants, and abolishing the defense of contributory negligence.[39]
(6) Statute prohibiting a stipulation against liability for negligence in delivery of interstate telegraph messages.[40]
(7) Refusal of State court to license a woman to practice law.[41]
(8) Law taxing in the hands of a resident citizen a debt owing from a resident of another State and secured by mortgage of land in the debtors' State.[42]
(9) Statutes regulating the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.[43]
(10) Statute regulating the method of capital punishment.[44]
(11) Statute restricting the franchise to male citizens.[45]
(12) Statute requiring persons coming into a State to make a declaration of intention to become citizens and residents thereof before being permitted to register as voters.[46]
(13) Statute restricting dower, in case wife at time of husband's death is a nonresident, to lands of which he died seized.[47]
(14) Statute restricting right to jury trial in civil suits at common law.[48]
(15) Statute restricting drilling or parading in any city by any body of men without license of the Governor. "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill * * *, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship."[49]
(16) Provision for prosecution upon information, and for a jury (except in capital cases) of eight persons.[50] Upon an extended review of the cases, the Court held that "the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government"; and specifically, that the right to be tried for an offense only upon indictment, and by a jury of 12, rests with the State governments and is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. "Those are not distinctly privileges or immunities [of national citizenship] where everyone has the same as against the Federal Government, whether citizen or not." Similarly, freedom from testimonial compulsion, or self-incrimination, is not "an immunity that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against State invasion."[51]
(17) Statute penalizing the becoming or remaining a member of any oath-bound association (other than benevolent orders, etc.,) with knowledge that the association has failed to file its constitution and membership lists. The privilege of remaining a member of such an association, "if it be a privilege arising out of citizenship at all," is an incident of State rather than United States citizenship.[52]
(18) Statute allowing a State to appeal in criminal cases for errors of law and to retry the accused.[53]
(19) Statute making the payment of poll taxes a prerequisite to the right to vote.[54]
(20) Statute whereby deposits in banks outside the State are taxed at 50¢ per $100 and deposits in banks within the State are taxed at 10¢ per $100. "* * * the right to carry out an incident to a trade, business or calling such as the deposit of money in banks is not a privilege of national citizenship."[55]
(21) The right to become a candidate for State office is a privilege of State citizenship, not national citizenship.[56]
(22) The Illinois Election Code which requires that a petition to form and nominate candidates for a new political party be signed by at least 200 voters from each of at least 50 of the 102 counties in the State, notwithstanding that 52% of the voters reside in only one county and 87%, in the 49 most populous counties.[57]
Due Process of Law Clause
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Although many years after ratification the Court ventured the not very informative observation that the Fourteenth Amendment "operates to extend * * * the same protection against arbitrary State legislation, affecting life, liberty and property, as is offered by the Fifth Amendment,"[58] and that "ordinarily if an act of Congress is valid under the Fifth Amendment it would be hard to say that a State law in like terms was void under the Fourteenth,"[59] the significance of the due process clause as a restraint on State action appears to have been grossly underestimated by litigants no less than by the Court in the years immediately following its adoption. From the outset of our constitutional history due process of law as it occurs in the Fifth Amendment had been recognized as a restraint upon government, but, with one conspicuous exception,[60] only in the narrower sense that a legislature must provide "due process for the enforcement of law"; and it was in accordance with this limited appraisal of the clause that the Court disposed of early cases arising thereunder.
Thus, in the Slaughter-House Cases,[61] in which the clause was timidly invoked by a group of butchers challenging on several grounds the validity of a Louisiana statute which conferred upon one corporation the exclusive privilege of butchering cattle in New Orleans, the Court declared that the prohibition against a deprivation of property "has been in the Constitution since the adoption of the Fifth Amendment, as a restraint upon the Federal power. It is also to be found in some form of expression in the constitutions of nearly all the States, as a restraint upon the power of the States. * * * We are not without judicial interpretation, therefore, both State and National, of the meaning of this clause. And it is sufficient to say that under no construction of that provision that we have ever seen, or any that we deem admissible, can the restraint imposed by the State of Louisiana upon the exercise of their trade by the butchers of New Orleans be held to be a deprivation of property within the meaning of that provision."[62] Four years later, in Munn v. Illinois,[63] the Court again refused to interpret the due process clause as invalidating State legislation regulating the rates charged for the transportation and warehousing of grain. Overruling contentions that such legislation effected an unconstitutional deprivation of property by preventing the owner from earning a reasonable compensation for its use and by transferring to the public an interest in a private enterprise, Chief Justice Waite emphasized that "the great office of statutes is to remedy defects in the common law as they are developed, * * * We know that this power [of rate regulation] may be abused; but that is no argument against its existence. For protection against abuses by legislatures the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts."[64]
Deploring such attempts, nullified consistently in the preceding cases, to convert the due process clause into a substantive restraint on the powers of the States, Justice Miller in Davidson v. New Orleans[65] obliquely counseled against a departure from the conventional application of the clause, albeit he acknowledged the difficulty of arriving at a precise, all inclusive, definition thereof. "It is not a little remarkable," he observed, "that while this provision has been in the Constitution of the United States, as a restraint upon the authority of the Federal Government, for nearly a century, and while, during all that time, the manner in which the powers of that government have been exercised has been watched with jealousy, and subjected to the most rigid criticism in all its branches, this special limitation upon its powers has rarely been invoked in the judicial forum or the more enlarged theatre of public discussion. But while it has been part of the Constitution, as a restraint upon the power of the States, only a very few years, the docket of this court is crowded with cases in which we are asked to hold that State courts and State legislatures have deprived their own citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. There is here abundant evidence that there exists some strange misconception of the scope of this provision as found in the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, it would seem, from the character of many of the cases before us, and the arguments made in them, that the clause under consideration is looked upon as a means of bringing to the test of the decision of this court the abstract opinions of every unsuccessful litigant in a State court of the justice of the decision against him, and of the merits of the legislation on which such a decision may be founded. If, therefore, it were possible to define what it is for a State to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, in terms which would cover every exercise of power thus forbidden to the State, and exclude those which are not, no more useful construction could be furnished by this or any other court to any part of the fundamental law. But, apart from the imminent risk of a failure to give any definition which would be at once perspicuous, comprehensive, and satisfactory, there is wisdom, * * *, in the ascertaining of the intent and application of such an important phrase in the Federal Constitution, by the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion, as the cases presented for decision shall require, * * *"[66]
In thus persisting in its refusal to review, on other than procedural grounds, the constitutionality of State action, the Court was rejecting additional business; but a bare half-dozen years later, in again reaching a result in harmony with past precedents, the Justices gave fair warning of the imminence of a modification of their views. Thus, after noting that the due process clause, by reason of its operation upon "all the powers of government, legislative as well as executive and judicial," could not be appraised solely in terms of the "sanction of settled usage," Justice Mathews, speaking for the Court in Hurtado v. California,[67] declared that, "arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its subjects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude. And the limitations imposed by our constitutional law upon the action of the governments, both State and national, are essential to the preservation of public and private rights, notwithstanding the representative character of our political institutions. The enforcement of these limitations by judicial process is the device of self-governing communities to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the government."[68] Thus were the States put on notice that every species of State legislation, whether dealing with procedural or substantive rights, was subject to the scrutiny of the Court when the question of its essential justice is raised.
Police Power: Liberty: Property
What induced the Court to dismiss its fears of upsetting the balance in the distribution of powers under the Federal System and to enlarge its own supervisory powers over state legislation were the appeals more and more addressed to it for adequate protection of property rights against the remedial social legislation which the States were increasingly enacting in the wake of industrial expansion. At the same time the added emphasis on the due process clause which satisfaction of these requests entailed afforded the Court an opportunity to compensate for its earlier virtual nullification of the privileges and immunities clause of the amendment. So far as such modification of its position needed to be justified in legal terms, theories concerning the relation of government to private rights were available to demonstrate the impropriety of leaving to the state legislatures the same ample range of police power they had enjoyed prior to the Civil War. Preliminary, however, to this consummation the Slaughter-House Cases and Munn v. Illinois had to be overruled in part, at least, and the views of the dissenting Justices in those cases converted into majority doctrine.
About twenty years were required to complete this process, in the course of which the restricted view of the police power advanced by Justice Field in his dissent in Munn v. Illinois,[69] namely, that it is solely a power to prevent injury, was in effect ratified by the Court itself. This occurred in 1887, in Mugler v. Kansas,[70] where the power was defined as embracing no more than the power to promote public health, morals, and safety. During the same interval, ideas embodying the social compact and natural rights, which had been espoused by Justice Bradley in his dissent in the Slaughter-House Cases,[71] had been transformed tentatively into constitutionally enforceable limitations upon government,[72] with the consequence that the States, in exercising their police power, could foster only those purposes of health, morals, and safety which the Court had enumerated and could employ only such means as would not unreasonably interfere with the fundamental natural rights of liberty and property, which Justice Bradley had equated with freedom to pursue a lawful calling and to make contracts for that purpose.[73]
So having narrowed the scope of the State's police power in deference to the natural rights of liberty and property, the Court next proceeded to read into the latter currently accepted theories of laissez faire economics, reinforced by the doctrine of evolution as elaborated by Herbert Spencer, to the end that "liberty", in particular, became synonymous with governmental hands-off in the field of private economic relations. In Budd v. New York,[74] decided in 1892, Justice Brewer in a dictum declared: "The paternal theory of government is to me odious. The utmost possible liberty to the individual, and the fullest possible protection to him and his property, is both the limitation and duty of government." And to implement this point of view the Court next undertook to water down the accepted maxim that a State statute must be presumed to be valid until clearly shown to be otherwise.[75] The first step was taken with the opposite intention. This occurred in Munn v. Illinois,[76] where the Court, in sustaining the legislation before it, declared: "For our purposes we must assume that, if a state of facts could exist that would justify such legislation, it actually did exist when the statute now under consideration was passed."[77] Ten years later, in Mugler v. Kansas[78] this procedure was improved upon, and a State-wide anti-liquor law was sustained on the basis of the proposition that deleterious social effects of the excessive use of alcoholic liquors were sufficiently notorious for the Court to be able to take notice of them; that is to say, for the Court to review and appraise the considerations which had induced the legislature to enact the statute in the first place.[79] However, in Powell v. Pennsylvania,[80] decided the following year, the Court, being confronted with a similar act involving oleomargarine, concerning which it was unable to claim a like measure of common knowledge, fell back upon the doctrine of presumed validity, and declaring that "it does not appear upon the face of the statute, or from any of the facts of which the Court must take judicial cognizance, that it infringes rights secured by the fundamental law, * * *"[81] sustained the measure.
In contrast to the presumed validity rule under which the Court ordinarily is not obliged to go beyond the record of evidence submitted by the litigants in determining the validity of a statute, the judicial notice principle, as developed in Mugler v. Kansas, carried the inference that unless the Court, independently of the record, is able to ascertain the existence of justifying facts accessible to it by the rules governing judicial notice, it will be obliged to invalidate a police power regulation as bearing no reasonable or adequate relation to the purposes to be subserved by the latter; namely, health, morals, or safety. For appraising State legislation affecting neither liberty nor property, the Court found the rule of presumed validity quite serviceable; but for invalidating legislation constituting governmental interference in the field of economic relations, and, more particularly, labor-management relations, the Court found the principle of judicial notice more advantageous. This advantage was enhanced by the disposition of the Court, in litigation embracing the latter type of legislation, to shift the burden of proof from the litigant charging unconstitutionality to the State seeking enforcement. To the latter was transferred the task of demonstrating that a statute interfering with the natural right of liberty or property was in fact "authorized" by the Constitution and not merely that the latter did not expressly prohibit enactment of the same.
Liberty of Contract—Labor Relations
Although occasionally acknowledging in abstract terms that freedom of contract is not absolute but is subject to restraint by the State in the exercise of its police powers, the Court, in conformity with the aforementioned theories of economics and evolution, was in fact committed to the principle that freedom of contract is the general rule and that legislative authority to abridge the same could be justified only by exceptional circumstances. To maintain such abridgments at a minimum, the Court intermittently employed the rule of judicial notice in a manner best exemplified by a comparison of the early cases of Holden v. Hardy[82] and Lochner v. New York,[83] decisions which bear the same relation to each other as Powell v. Pennsylvania[84] and Mugler v. Kansas.[85]
In Holden v. Hardy, decided in 1898, the Court, in reliance upon the principle of presumed validity, allowed the burden of proof to remain with those attacking the validity of a statute and upheld a Utah act limiting the period of labor in mines to eight hours per day. Taking cognizance of the fact that labor below the surface of the earth was attended by risk to person and to health and for these reasons had long been the subject of State intervention, the Court registered its willingness to sustain a limitation on freedom of contract which a State legislature had adjudged "necessary for the preservation of health of employees," and for which there were "reasonable grounds for believing that * * * [it was] supported by the facts."[86]
Seven years later, however, a radically altered court was predisposed in favor of the doctrine of judicial notice, through application of which it arrived at the conclusion, in Lochner v. New York, that a law restricting employment in bakeries to ten hours per day and 60 hours per week was an unconstitutional interference with the right of adult laborers, sui juris, to contract with respect to their means of livelihood. Denying that in so holding that the Court was in effect substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature, Justice Peckham, nevertheless, maintained that whether the act was within the police power of the State was a "question that must be answered by the Court"; and then, in disregard of the accumulated medical evidence proffered in support of the act, uttered the following observation: "In looking through statistics regarding all trades and occupations, it may be true that the trade of a baker does not appear to be as healthy as some trades, and is also vastly more healthy than still others. To the common understanding the trade of a baker has never been regarded as an unhealthy one. * * * It might be safely affirmed that almost all occupations more or less affect the health. * * * But are we all, on that account, at the mercy of the legislative majorities?"[87]
Of two dissenting opinions filed in the case, one, prepared by Justice Harlan, stressed the abundance of medical testimony tending to show that the life expectancy of bakers was below average, that their capacity to resist diseases was low, and that they were peculiarly prone to suffer irritations of the eyes, lungs, and bronchial passages; and concluded that the very existence of such evidence left the reasonableness of the measure under review open to discussion and that the the latter fact, of itself, put the statute within legislative discretion. "'Responsibility,' according to Justice Harlan, 'therefore, rests upon the legislators, not upon the courts. No evils arising from such legislation could be more far reaching than those that might come to our system of government if the judiciary, abandoning the sphere assigned to it by the fundamental law, should enter the domain of legislation, and upon grounds merely of justice or reason or wisdom annul statutes that had received the sanction of the people's representatives. * * * The public interest imperatively demand—that legislative enactments should be recognized and enforced by the courts as embodying the will of the people, unless they are plainly and palpably beyond all question in violation of the fundamental law of the Constitution.'"[88]
The second dissenting opinion written by Justice Holmes has received the greater measure of attention, however, for the views expressed therein were a forecast of the line of reasoning to be followed by the Court some decades later. According to Justice Holmes: "This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain. If it were a question whether I agreed with that theory, I should desire to study it further and long before making up my mind. But I do not conceive that to be my duty, because I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law. It is settled by various decisions of this Court that State constitutions and State laws may regulate life in many ways which we as legislators might think as injudicious or if you like as tyrannical as this, and which equally with this interfere with the liberty to contract. * * * The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics. * * * But a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution * * * I think that the word 'liberty,' in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law."[89]
In part, Justice Holmes's criticism of his colleagues was unfair, for his "rational and fair man" could not function in a vacuum, and, in appraising the constitutionality of State legislation, could no more avoid being guided by his preferences or "economic predilections" than were the Justices constituting the majority. Insofar as he was resigned to accept the broader conception of due process of law in preference to the historical concept thereof as pertaining to the enforcement rather than the making of law and did not affirmatively advocate a return to the maxim that the possibility of abuse is no argument against possession of a power, Justice Holmes, whether consciously or not, was thus prepared to observe, along with his opponents in the majority, the very practices which were deemed to have rendered inevitable the assumption by the Court of a "perpetual censorship" over State legislation. The basic distinction, therefore, between the positions taken by Justice Peckham for the majority and Justice Holmes, for what was then the minority, was the espousal of the conflicting doctrines of judicial notice by the former and of presumed validity by the latter.
Although the Holmes dissent bore fruit in time in the form of the Bunting v. Oregon[90] and Muller v. Oregon[91] decisions overruling the Lochner Case, the doctrinal approach employed in the earlier of these by Justice Brewer continued to prevail until the depression in the 1930's. In view of the shift in the burden of proof which application of the principle of judicial notice entailed, counsel defending the constitutionality of social legislation developed the practice of submitting voluminous factual briefs replete with medical or other scientific data intended to establish beyond question a substantial relationship between the challenged statute and public health, safety, or morals. Whenever the Court was disposed to uphold measures pertaining to industrial relations, such as laws limiting hours[92] of work, it generally intimated that the facts thus submitted by way of justification had been authenticated sufficiently for it to take judicial cognizance thereof; but whenever it chose to invalidate comparable legislation, such as enactments establishing minimum wages for women and children,[93] it brushed aside such supporting data, proclaimed its inability to perceive any reasonable connection between the statute and the legitimate objectives of health or safety, and condemned the former as an arbitrary interference with freedom of contract.
During the great Depression, however, the laissez faire tenet of self-help was supplanted by the belief that it is peculiarly the duty of government to help those who are unable to help themselves; and to sustain remedial legislation enacted in conformity with the latter philosophy, the Court had to revise extensively its previously formulated concepts of "liberty" under the due process clause. Not only did the Court take judicial notice of the demands for relief arising from the depression when it overturned prior holdings and sustained minimum wage legislation,[94] but in upholding State legislation designed to protect workers in their efforts to organize and bargain collectively, the Court virtually had to exclude from consideration the employer's contention that such legislation interfered with his liberty of contract in contravention of the due process clause and to exalt as a fundamental right the correlative liberty of employees, which right the State legislatures were declared to be competent to protect against interference from private sources. To enable these legislatures to balance the equities, that is, to achieve equality in bargaining power between employer and employees, the Court thus sanctioned a diminution of liberty in the sense of the employer's freedom of contract and a corresponding increase in the measure of liberty enjoyable by the workers. To the extent that it acknowledged that liberty of the individual may be infringed by the coercive conduct of other individuals no less than by the arbitrary action of public officials, the Court in effect transformed the due process clause into a source of encouragement to State legislatures to intervene affirmatively by way of mitigating the effects of such coercion. By such modification of its views, liberty, in the constitutional sense of freedom resulting from restraint upon government, was replaced by the civil liberty which an individual enjoys by virtue of the restraints which government, in his behalf, imposes upon his neighbors.
"Persons" Defined
Notwithstanding the historical controversy that has been waged as to whether the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the word, "person," to mean only natural persons, or whether the word, "person," was substituted for the word, "citizen," with a view to protecting corporations from oppressive state legislation,[95] the Supreme Court, as early as the Granger cases,[96] decided in 1877, upheld on the merits various state laws without raising any question as to the status of railway corporation-plaintiffs to advance due process contentions. There is no doubt that a corporation may not be deprived of its property without due process of law;[97] and although prior decisions have held that the "liberty" guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is the liberty of natural, not artificial, persons,[98] nevertheless a newspaper corporation was sustained, in 1936, in its objection that a state law deprived it of liberty of press.[99] As to the natural persons protected by the due process clause, these include all human beings regardless of race, color, or citizenship.[100]
Ordinarily, the mere interest of an official as such, in contrast to an actual injury sustained by a natural or artificial person through invasion of personal or property rights, has not been deemed adequate to enable him to invoke the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment against State action.[101] Similarly, municipal corporations are viewed as having no standing "to invoke the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment in opposition to the will of their creator," the State.[102] However, State officers are acknowledged to have an interest, despite their not having sustained any "private damage," in resisting an "endeavor to prevent the enforcement of laws in relation to which they have official duties," and, accordingly, may apply to federal courts for the "review of decisions of State courts declaring State statutes which [they] seek to enforce to be repugnant to the" Fourteenth Amendment.[103]
Due Process and the Police Power
Definition.—The police power of a State today embraces regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity as well as those to promote public safety, health, morals, and is not confined to the suppression of what is offensive, disorderly, or unsanitary, but extends to what is for the greatest welfare of the State.[104]
Limitations on the Police Power.—Because the police power of a State is the least limitable of the exercises of government, such limitations as are applicable thereto are not readily definable. Being neither susceptible of circumstantial precision, nor discoverable by any formula, these limitations can be determined only through appropriate regard to the subject matter of the exercise of that power.[105] "It is settled [however] that neither the 'contract' clause nor the 'due process' clause had the effect of overriding the power of the State to establish all regulations that are reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community; that this power can neither be abdicated nor bargained away, and is inalienable even by express grant; and that all contract and property [or other vested] rights are held subject to its fair exercise."[106] Insofar as the police power is utilized by a State, the means employed to effect its exercise can be neither arbitrary nor oppressive, but must bear a real and substantial relation to an end which is public, specifically, the public health, public safety, or public morals, or some other phase of the general welfare.[107]
The general rule is that if a police power regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking of property for which compensation must be paid.[108] Yet where mutual advantage is a sufficient compensation, an ulterior public advantage may justify a comparatively insignificant taking of private property for what in its immediate purpose seems to be a private use.[109] On the other hand, mere "cost and inconvenience (different words, probably, for the same thing) would have to be very great before they could become an element in the consideration of the right of a State to exert its reserved power or its police power."[110] Moreover, it is elementary that enforcement of uncompensated obedience to a regulation passed in the legitimate exertion of the police power is not a taking without due process of law.[111] Similarly, initial compliance with a regulation which is valid when adopted occasions no forfeiture of the right to protest when that regulation subsequently loses its validity by becoming confiscatory in its operation.[112]
"Liberty" in General
Definition.—"While * * * [the] Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."[113]
Personal Liberty: Compulsory Vaccination: Sexual Sterilization.—Personal liberty is not infringed by a compulsory vaccination law[114] enacted by a State or its local subdivisions pursuant to the police power for the purpose of protecting inhabitants against the spread of smallpox. "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is [also] broad enough to cover" a statute providing for sexual sterilization of inmates of State supported institutions who are found to be afflicted with an hereditary form of insanity or imbecility.[115] Equally constitutional is a statute which provides for the commitment, after probate proceedings, of a psychopathic personality, defined by the State court as including those persons who, by habitual course of misconduct in sexual matters, have evidenced utter lack of power to control their sexual impulses and are likely to commit injury.[116] However, a person cannot be deprived of his liberty under a vague statute which subjected to fine or imprisonment, as a "gangster," any one not engaged in any lawful occupation, known to be a member of a gang consisting of two or more persons, and who had been convicted of a crime in any State in the Union.[117]
Liberties Pertaining to Education (of Teachers, Parents, Pupils).—A State law forbidding the teaching in any private denominational, parochial, or public school, of any modern language, other than English, to any child who has not successfully passed the eighth grade was declared, in Meyer v. Nebraska[118] to be an unconstitutional interference with the right of a foreign language teacher to teach and "of parents to engage him so to instruct their children." Although the Court did incorporate into its opinion in this case the general definition of "liberty" set forth above, its holding was substantially a reaffirmation of the liberty, in this instance of the teacher, to pursue a lawful calling free and clear of arbitrary restraints imposed by the State. In Pierce v. Society of the Sisters,[119] the Court elaborated further upon the liberty of parents when it declared that a State law requiring compulsory public school education of children, aged eight to sixteen, "unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control."[120] As to a student, neither his liberty to pursue his happiness nor his property or property rights were infringed when he was denied admission to a State university for refusing to comply with a law requiring renunciation of allegiance to, or affiliation with, a Greek letter fraternity. The right to attend such an institution was labelled, not an absolute, but a conditional right; inasmuch as the school was wholly under the control of the State, the latter was competent to enact measures such as the present one regulating internal discipline thereat.[121] Similarly, "the Fourteenth Amendment as a safeguard of 'liberty' [does not] confer the right to be students in the State university free from obligation to take military training as one of the conditions of attendance."[122]
Liberties Safeguarded by the First Eight Amendments.—In what has amounted to a constitutional revolution, the Court, since the end of World War I, has substantially enlarged the meaning of the term, "liberty," appearing in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a consequence of this altered interpretation, States and their local subdivisions have been restrained in their attempts to interfere with the press, or with the freedom of speech, assembly, or religious precepts of their inhabitants, and prevented from withholding from persons charged with commission of a crime certain privileges deemed essential to the enjoyment of a "fair trial." Cases revealing to what extent there has been incorporated into the "liberty" of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the substance of the First Amendment are set forth in the discussion presented under the latter amendment; whereas the decisions indicating the scope of the absorption into the Fourteenth Amendment of the procedural protection afforded by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are included in the material hereinafter presented under the subtitle, [Criminal Proceedings].
Liberty of Contract (Labor Relations)
In General.—Liberty of contract, a concept originally advanced by Justices Bradley and Field in the Slaughter-House Cases,[123] was elevated to the status of accepted doctrine in 1897 in Allgeyer v. Louisiana.[124] Applied repeatedly in subsequent cases as a restraint on State power, freedom of contract has also been alluded to as a property right, as is evident in the language of the Court in Coppage v. Kansas:[125] "Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property—partaking of the nature of each—is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense."
However, by a process of reasoning that was almost completely discarded during the depression, the Court was nevertheless able, prior thereto, to sustain State ameliorative legislation by acknowledging that freedom of contract was "a qualified and not an absolute right. * * * Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community. * * * In dealing with the relation of the employer and employed, the legislature has necessarily a wide field of discretion in order that there may be suitable protection of health and safety, and that peace and good order may be promoted through regulations designed to insure wholesome conditions of work and freedom from oppression."[126] Through observance of such qualifying statement the Court was induced to uphold the following types of labor legislation.
Laws Regulating Hours of Labor.—The due process clause has been construed as permitting enactment by the States of laws: (1) limiting the hours of labor in mines and smelters to eight hours per day;[127] (2) prescribing eight hours a day or a maximum of 48 hours per week as a limitation of the hours at which women may labor;[128] and (3) providing that no person shall work in any mill, etc., more than ten hours per day (with exceptions) but permitting overtime, not to exceed three hours a day, on condition that it is paid at the rate of one and one-half times the regular wage.[129] Because of the almost plenary powers of the State and its municipal subdivisions to determine the conditions under which work shall go forward on public projects, statutes limiting the hours of labor on public works were also upheld at a relatively early date.[130]
Laws Regulating Labor in Mines.—The regulation of mines being so patently within the police power, States have been upheld in the enactment of laws providing for appointment of mining inspectors and requiring payment of their fees by mine owners,[131] compelling employment of only licensed mine managers and mine examiners, and imposing upon mine owners liability for the wilful failure of their manager and examiner to furnish a reasonably safe place for workmen.[132] Other similar regulations which have been sustained have included laws requiring that entries be of a specified width,[133] that boundary pillars be installed between adjoining coal properties as a protection against flood in case of abandonment,[134] and that washhouses be provided for employees.[135]
Laws Prohibiting Employment of Children in Hazardous Occupations.—To make effective its prohibition against the employment of persons under 16 years of age in dangerous occupations, a State has been held to be competent to require employers at their peril to ascertain whether their employees are in fact below that age.[136]
Laws Regulating Payment of Wages.—No unconstitutional deprivation of liberty of contract was deemed to have been occasioned by a statute requiring redemption in cash of store orders or other evidences of indebtedness issued by employers in payment of wages.[137] Nor was any constitutional defect discernible in laws requiring railroads to pay their employees semimonthly[138] and to pay them on the day of discharge, without abatement or reduction, any funds due them.[139] Similarly, freedom of contract was held not to be infringed by an act requiring that miners, whose compensation was fixed on the basis of weight, be paid according to coal in the mine car rather than at a certain price per ton for coal screened after it has been brought to the surface, and conditioning such payment on the presence of no greater percentage of dirt or impurities than that ascertained as unavoidable by the State Industrial Commission.[140]
Minimum Wage Laws.—The theory that a law prescribing minimum wages for women and children violates due process by impairing freedom of contract was finally discarded in 1937.[141] The current theory of the Court, particularly when labor is the beneficiary of legislation, was recently stated by Justice Douglas for a majority of the Court, in the following terms: "Our recent decisions make plain that we do not sit as a superlegislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation nor to decide whether the policy which it expresses offends the public welfare. The legislative power has limits * * *. But the state legislatures have constitutional authority to experiment with new techniques; they are entitled to their own standard of the public welfare; they may within extremely broad limits control practices in the business-labor field, so long as specific constitutional prohibitions are not violated and so long as conflicts with valid and controlling federal laws are avoided."[142] Proceeding from this basis the Court sustained a Missouri statute giving employees the right to absent themselves four hours on election day, between the opening and closing of the polls, without deduction of wages for their absence. It was admitted that this was a minimum wage law, but, said Justice Douglas, "the protection of the right of suffrage under our scheme of things is basic and fundamental," and hence within the police power. "Of course," the Justice added, "many forms of regulation reduce the net return of the enterprise * * * Most regulations of business necessarily impose financial burdens on the enterprise for which no compensation is paid. Those are part of the costs of our civilization. Extreme cases are conjured up where an employer is required to pay wages for a period that has no relation to the legitimate end. Those cases can await decision as and when they arise. The present law has no such infirmity. It is designed to eliminate any penalty for exercising the right of suffrage and to remove a practical obstacle to getting out the vote. The public welfare is a broad and inclusive concept. The moral, social, economic, and physical well-being of the community is one part of it; the political well-being, another. The police power which is adequate to fix the financial burden for one is adequate for the other. The judgment of the legislature that time out for voting should cost the employee nothing may be a debatable one. It is indeed conceded by the opposition to be such. But if our recent cases mean anything, they leave debatable issues as respects business, economic, and social affairs to legislative decision. We could strike down this law only if we returned to the philosophy of the Lochner, Coppage, and Adkins cases."[143]
Workmen's Compensation Laws.—"This Court repeatedly has upheld the authority of the States to establish by legislation departures from the fellow-servant rule and other common-law rules affecting the employer's liability for personal injuries to the employee.[144] * * * These decisions have established the propositions that the rules of law concerning the employer's responsibility for personal injury or death of an employee arising in the course of employment are not beyond alteration by legislation in the public interest; that no person has a vested right entitling him to have these any more than other rules of law remain unchanged for his benefit; and that, if we exclude arbitrary and unreasonable changes, liability may be imposed upon the employer without fault, and the rules respecting his responsibility to one employee for the negligence of another and respecting contributory negligence and assumption of risk are subject to legislative change."[145]
Accordingly, a State statute which provided an exclusive system to govern the liabilities of employers and the rights of employees and their dependents, in respect of compensation for disabling injuries and death caused by accident in certain hazardous occupations,[146] was held not to work a deprivation of property without due process of law in rendering the employer liable irrespective of the doctrines of negligence, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and negligence of fellow-servants, nor in depriving the employee, or his dependents, of the higher damages which, in some cases, might be rendered under these doctrines.[147] Likewise, an act which allowed an injured employee an election of remedies permitting restricted recovery under a compensation law although guilty of contributory negligence, and full compensatory damages under the Employers' Liability Act did not deprive an employer of his property without due process of law.[148] Similarly, an elective statute has been sustained which provided that, in actions against employers rejecting the system, the inquiry should be presumed to have resulted directly from the employer's negligence and the burden of rebutting said presumption shall rest upon the latter.[149]
Contracts limiting liability for injuries, consummated in advance of the injury received, may be prohibited by the State, which may further stipulate that subsequent acceptance of benefits under such contracts shall not constitute satisfaction of a claim for injuries thereafter sustained.[150] Also, as applied to a nonresident alien employee hired within the State but injured on the outside, an act forbidding any contracts exempting employers from liability for injuries outside the State has been construed as not denying due process to the employer.[151] The fact that a State, after having allowed employers to cover their liability with a private insurer, subsequently withdrew that privilege and required them to contribute to a State Insurance Fund was held to effect no unconstitutional deprivation as applied to an employer who had obtained protection from an insurance company before this change went into effect.[152] Likewise, as long as the right to come under a workmen's compensation statute is optional with an employer, the latter, having chosen to accept benefits thereof, is estopped from attempting to escape its burdens by challenging the constitutionality of a provision thereof which makes the finding of fact of an industrial commission conclusive if supported by any evidence regardless of its preponderance.[153]
When, by the terms of a workmen's compensation statute, the wrongdoer, in case of wrongful death, is obliged to indemnify the employer or the insurance carrier of the employer of the decedent, in the amount which the latter were required under said act to contribute into special compensation funds, no unconstitutional deprivation of the wrongdoer's property was discernible.[154] By the same course of reasoning neither the employer nor the carrier was held to have been denied due process by another provision in an act requiring payments by them, in case an injured employee dies without dependents, into special funds to be used for vocational rehabilitation or disability compensation of injured workers of other establishments.[155] Compensation also need not be based exclusively on loss of earning power, and an award authorized by statute for injuries resulting in disfigurement of the face or head, independent of compensation for inability to work, has been conceded to be neither an arbitrary nor oppressive exercise of the police power.[156]
Collective Bargaining.—During the 1930's, liberty, in the sense of freedom of contract, judicially translated into what one Justice has labelled the Allgeyer-Lochner-Adair-Coppage doctrine,[157] lost its potency as an obstacle to the enforcement of legislation calculated to enhance the bargaining capacity of workers as against that already possessed by their employers. Prior to the manifestation, in Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union,[158] decided in 1937, of a greater willingness to defer to legislative judgment as to the wisdom and need of such enactments, the Court had, on occasion, sustained measures such as one requiring every corporation to furnish, upon request, to any employee, when discharged or leaving its service, a letter, signed by the superintendent or manager, setting forth the nature and duration of his service to the corporation and stating truly the cause of his leaving.[159] Added provisions that such letters shall be on plain paper selected by the employee, signed in ink and sealed, and free from superfluous figures, and words, were also sustained as not amounting to any unconstitutional deprivation of liberty and property.[160] On the ground that the right to strike is not absolute, the Court in a similar manner upheld a statute by the terms of which an officer of a labor union was punished for having ordered a strike for the purpose of enforcing a payment to a former employee of a stale claim for wages.[161]
The significance of the case of Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union[162] as an indicator of the range of the alteration of the Court's views concerning the constitutionality of State labor legislation derives in part from the fact that the statute upheld therein was not appreciably different from that voided in Truax v. Corrigan.[163] Both statutes were alike in that they withheld the remedy of injunction; but by reason of the fact that the invalidated act did not contain the more liberal and also more precise definition of a labor dispute set forth in the later enactment and, above all, did not affirmatively purport to sanction peaceful picketing only, the Court was enabled to maintain that Truax v. Corrigan, insofar as "the statute there in question was * * * applied to legalize conduct which was not simply peaceful picketing," was distinguishable. Specifically, the Court in the Senn Case gave its approval to the application of a Wisconsin statute which authorized the giving of publicity to labor disputes, declared peaceful picketing and patrolling lawful, and prohibited the granting of injunctions against such conduct to a controversy in which the matter at issue was the refusal of a tiling contractor employing nonunion workmen to sign a closed shop agreement unless a provision requiring him to abstain from working in his business as a tile layer or helper should be eliminated. Inasmuch as the enhancement of job opportunities for members of the union was a legitimate objective, the State was held competent to authorize the fostering of that end by peaceful picketing, and the fact that the sustaining of the union in its efforts at peaceful persuasion might have the effect of preventing Senn from continuing in business as an independent entrepreneur was declared to present an issue of public policy exclusively for legislative determination.[164]
The policy of many State legislatures in recent years, however, has been to adopt legislation designed to control the abuse of the enormous economic power which previously enacted protective measures enabled labor unions to amass; and it is the constitutionality of such restrictive measures that has lately concerned the Court. Thus, in Railway Mail Association v. Corsi,[165] section 43 of New York's Civil Rights Law which forbids a labor organization to deny any person membership by reason of race, color, or creed, or to deny any member, on similar grounds, equal treatment in designation for employment, promotion, or dismissal by an employer was sustained, when applied to an organization of railway mail clerks, as not interfering unlawfully with the latter's right to choose its members nor abridging its property rights, or liberty of contract. Inasmuch as it held "itself out to represent the general business needs of employees" and functioned "under the protection of the State," the union was deemed to have forfeited the right to claim exemption from legislation protecting workers against discriminatory exclusion.[166] Similarly approved as constitutional in Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co.[167] and American Federation of Labor v. American Sash Co.[168] were State laws outlawing the closed shop; and when labor unions invoked in their own defense the freedom of contract doctrine that hitherto had been employed to nullify legislation intended for their protection, the Court, speaking through Justice Black announced its refusal "to return, * * * to * * * [a] due process philosophy that has been deliberately discarded. * * * The due process clause," it maintained, does not "forbid a State to pass laws clearly designed to safeguard the opportunity of nonunion workers to get and hold jobs, free from discrimination against them because they are nonunion workers."[169] Also in harmony with the last mentioned pair of cases is Auto Workers v. Wisconsin Board[170] in which was upheld enforcement of the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act which proscribed as an unfair labor practice efforts of a union, after collective bargaining negotiations had become deadlocked, to coerce an employer through a "slow-down" in production achieved by the irregular, but frequent, calling of union meetings during working hours without advance notice to the employer or notice as to whether or when the employees would return, and without informing him of the specific terms sought by such tactics. "No one," declared the Court, can question "the State's power to police coercion by * * * methods" which involve "considerable injury to property and intimidation of other employees by threats."[171] Finally, in Giboney v. Empire Storage Co.,[172] the Court acknowledged that no violation of the Constitution results when a State law forbidding agreements in restraint of trade is construed by State courts as forbidding members of a union of ice peddlers from peacefully picketing a wholesale ice distributor's place of business for the sole purpose of inducing the latter not to sell to nonunion peddlers.
REGULATION OF CHARGES; "BUSINESSES AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST"
History
In endeavoring to measure the impact of the due process clause upon efforts by the States to control the charges exacted by various businesses for their services, the Supreme Court, almost from the inception of the Fourteenth Amendment, has devoted itself to the examination of two questions: (1) whether that clause precluded that kind of regulation of certain types of business, and (2) the nature of the restraint, if any, which this clause imposes on State control of rates in the case of businesses as to which such control exists. For a brief interval following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court appears to have underestimated the significance of this clause as a substantive restraint on the power of States to fix rates chargeable by an industry deemed appropriately subject to such controls. Thus, in Munn v. Illinois,[173] the first of the "Granger" cases, in which maximum charges established by a State legislature for Chicago grain elevator companies were challenged, not as being confiscatory in character, but rather as a regulation beyond the power of any State agency to impose, the Court, in an opinion that was largely an obiter dictum, declared that the due process clause did not operate as a safeguard against oppressive rates, that if regulation was permissible, the severity thereof was within legislative discretion and could be ameliorated only by resort to the polls. Not much time was permitted to elapse, however, before the Court effected a complete withdrawal from this position; and by 1890[174] it had fully converted the due process clause into a positive restriction which the judicial branch is duty bound to enforce whenever State agencies seek to impose rates which, in its estimation, are arbitrary or unreasonable.
In contrast to the speed with which the Court arrived at those above mentioned conclusions, more than fifty years were to elapse before it developed its currently applicable formula for determining the propriety of subjecting specific businesses to State regulation of their prices or charges. Prior to 1934, unless a business were "affected with a public interest," control of its prices, rates, or conditions of service was viewed as an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law. During the period of its application, however, this standard, "business affected with a public interest," never acquired any precise meaning; and as a consequence lawyers were never able to identify all those qualities or attributes which invariably distinguished a business so affected from one not so affected. The best the Court ever offered by way of enlightenment was the following classification of businesses subject to regulation, prepared by Chief Justice Taft.[175] These were said to comprise: "(1) Those [businesses] which are carried on under the authority of a public grant of privileges which either expressly or impliedly imposes the affirmative duty of rendering a public service demanded by any member of the public. Such are the railroads, other common carriers and public utilities. (2) Certain occupations, regarded as exceptional, the public interest attaching to which, recognized from earliest times, has survived the period of arbitrary laws by Parliament or Colonial legislatures for regulating all trades and callings. Such are those of the keepers of inns, cabs and grist mills. * * * (3) Businesses which though not public at their inception may be fairly said to have risen to be such and have become subject in consequence to some government regulation. They have come to hold such a peculiar relation to the public that this is superimposed upon them. In the language of the cases, the owner by devoting his business to the public use, in effect grants the public an interest in that use and subjects himself to public regulation to the extent of that interest although the property continues to belong to its private owner and to be entitled to protection accordingly."
Through application of this now outmoded formula the Court found it possible to sustain State laws regulating charges made by grain elevators,[176] stockyards,[177] and tobacco warehouses,[178] and fire insurance rates[179] and commissions paid to fire insurance agents.[180] Voided, because the businesses sought to be controlled were deemed to be not so affected, were State statutes fixing the price at which gasoline may be sold,[181] or at which ticket brokers may resell tickets purchased from theatres,[182] and limiting competition in the manufacture and sale of ice through the withholding of licenses to engage therein.[183]
Nebbia v. New York
In upholding, by a vote of five-to-four, a depression induced New York statute fixing prices at which fluid milk might be sold, the Court, in 1934, finally shelved the concept of "a business affected with a public interest."[184] Older decisions, insofar as they negatived a power to control prices in businesses found not "to be clothed with a public use" were now reviewed as resting, "finally, upon the basis that the requirements of due process were not met because the laws were found arbitrary in their operation and effect. Price control, like any other form of regulation, is [now] unconstitutional only if arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt, and hence an unnecessary and unwarranted interference with individual liberty." Conceding that "the dairy industry is not, in the accepted sense of the phrase, a public utility"; that is, a "business affected with a public interest," the Court in effect declared that price control henceforth is to be viewed merely as an exercise by the State of its police power, and as such is subject only to the restrictions which due process of law imposes on arbitrary interference with liberty and property. Nor was the Court disturbed by the fact that a "scientific validity" had been claimed for the theories of Adam Smith relating to the "price that will clear the market." However much the minority might stress the unreasonableness of any artificial State regulation interfering with the determination of prices by "natural forces,"[185] the majority was content to note that the "due process clause makes no mention of prices" and that "the courts are both incompetent and unauthorized to deal with the wisdom of the policy adopted or the practicability of the law enacted to forward it."
Having thus concluded that it is no longer the nature of the business which determines the validity of a regulation of its rates or charges but solely the reasonableness of the regulation, the Court had little difficulty in upholding, in Olsen v. Nebraska,[186] a State law prescribing the maximum commission which private employment agencies may charge. Rejecting the contentions of the employment agencies that the need for such protective legislation had not been shown, the Court held that differences of opinion as to the wisdom, need, or appropriateness of the legislation "suggest a choice which should be left to the States"; and that there was "no necessity for the State to demonstrate before us that evils persist despite the competition" between public, charitable, and private employment agencies. The older case of Ribnik v. McBride,[187] which founded the invalidation of similar legislation upon the now obsolete concept of a "business affected with a public interest" was expressly overruled.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PUBLICLY DETERMINED RATES AND CHARGES
Development
In Munn v. Illinois,[188] its initial holding concerning the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment to governmental price fixing,[189] the Court, not only asserted that governmental regulation of rates charged by public utilities and allied businesses was within the States' police power but added that the determination of such rates by a legislature was conclusive and not subject to judicial review or revision. Expanding the range of permissible governmental fixing of prices, the Court, in the Nebbia Case,[190] more recently declared that prices established for business in general would invite judicial condemnation only if "arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt." The latter standard of judicial appraisal, as will be subsequently noted, represents less of a departure from the principle enunciated in the Munn Case than that which the Court evolved, in the years following 1877, to measure the validity of State imposed public utility rates, and this difference in the judicial treatment of prices and rates accordingly warrants an explanation at the outset. Unlike operators of public utilities who, in return for the grant of certain exclusive, virtually monopolistic privileges by the governmental unit enfranchising them, must assume an obligation to provide continuous service, proprietors of other businesses are in receipt of no similar special advantages and accordingly are unrestricted in the exercise of their right to liquidate and close their establishments. At liberty, therefore, as public utilities invariably are not, to escape, by dissolution, the consequences of publicly imposed charges deemed to be oppressive, owners of ordinary business, presumably for that reason, have thus far been unable to convince the courts that they too, no less than public utilities, are in need of that protection which judicial review affords.
Consistently with its initial pronouncement in the Munn Case, that the reasonableness of compensation allowed under permissible rate regulation presented a legislative rather than a judicial question, the Court, in Davidson v. New Orleans,[191] also rejected the contention that, by virtue of the due process clause, businesses, even though subject to control of their prices or charges, were nevertheless entitled to "just compensation." Less than a decade was to elapse, however, before the Court, appalled perhaps by prospective consequences of leaving business "at the mercy of the majority of the legislature," began to reverse itself. Thus, in 1886, Chief Justice Waite, in the Railroad Commission Cases,[192] warned that "this power to regulate is not a power to destroy; [and] the State cannot do that in law which amounts to a taking of property for public use without just compensation or without due process of law"; or, in other words, cannot impose a confiscatory rate. By treating "due process of law" and "just compensation" as equivalents, the Court, contrary to its earlier holding in Davidson v. New Orleans, was in effect asserting that the imposition of a rate so low as to damage or diminish private property ceased to be an exercise of a State's police power and became one of eminent domain. Nevertheless, even the added measure of protection afforded by the doctrine of the Railroad Commission Cases proved inadequate to satisfy public utilities; for through application of the latter the courts were competent to intervene only to prevent legislative imposition of a confiscatory rate, a rate so low as to be productive of a loss and to amount to a taking of property without just compensation. Nothing less than a judicial acknowledgment that when the "reasonableness" of legislative rates is questioned, the courts should finally dispose of the contention was deemed sufficient by such businesses to afford the relief desired; and although as late as 1888[193] the Court doubted that it possessed the requisite power, it finally acceded to the wishes of the utilities in 1890, and, in Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Minnesota[194] ruled as follows: "The question of the reasonableness of a rate * * *, involving as it does the element of reasonableness both as regards the company and as regards the public, is eminently a question for judicial investigation, requiring due process of law for its determination. If the company is deprived of the power of charging rates for the use of its property, and such deprivation takes place in the absence of an investigation by judicial machinery, it is deprived of the lawful use of its property, and thus, in substance and effect, of the property itself, without due process of law * * *"
Despite a last hour attempt, in Budd v. New York,[195] to reconcile Munn v. Illinois with Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Minnesota by confining application of the latter decision to cases wherein rates had been fixed by a commission and denying its pertinence to rates directly imposed by a legislature, the Court, in Reagan v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co.,[196] set at rest all lingering doubts as to the scope of judicial intervention by declaring that, "if a carrier," in the absence of a legislative rate, "attempted to charge a shipper an unreasonable sum," the Court, in accordance with common law principles, will pass on the reasonableness of its rates and has "jurisdiction * * * to award to the shipper any amount exacted * * * in excess of a reasonable rate; * * * The province of the courts is not changed, nor the limit of judicial inquiry altered, because the legislature instead of a carrier prescribes the rates."[197] Reiterating virtually the same principle in Smyth v. Ames,[198] the Court not only obliterated the distinction between confiscatory and unreasonable rates, but also contributed the additional observation that the requirements of due process are not met unless a court reviews not merely the reasonableness of a rate but also determines whether the rate permits the utility to earn a fair return on a fair valuation of its investment.
Limitations on Judicial Review
As to what courts will not do, when reviewing rate orders of a State commission, the following negative statements of the Supreme Court appear to have enduring value. As early as 1894, the Court asserted: "The courts are not authorized to revise or change the body of rates imposed by a legislature or a commission; they do not determine whether one rate is preferable to another, or what under all circumstances would be fair and reasonable as between the carriers and the shippers; they do not engage in any mere administrative work; * * * [however, there can be no doubt] of their power and duty to inquire whether a body of rates * * * is unjust and unreasonable, * * *, and if found so to be, to restrain its operation."[199] And later, in 1910, although it was examining the order of a federal rate-making agency, the Court made a similar observation which appears to be equally applicable to the judicial review of regulations of State agencies. The courts cannot, "under the guise of exerting judicial power, usurp merely administrative functions by setting aside" an order of the commission within the scope of the power delegated to such commission, upon the ground that such power was unwisely or inexpediently exercised.[200]
Also inferable from these early holdings, and effective to restrict the bounds of judicial investigation, is the notion that a distinction can be made between factual questions which give rise only to controversies as to the wisdom or expediency of an order issued by a commission and determinations of fact which bear on a commission's power to act; namely those questions which are inseparable from the constitutional issue of confiscation, and that judicial review does not extend to the former. This distinction is accorded adequate emphasis by the Court in Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Garrett,[201] in which it declared that "the appropriate question for the courts" is simply whether a "commission," in establishing a rate, "acted within the scope of its power" and did not violate "constitutional rights * * * by imposing confiscatory requirements" and that a carrier, contesting the rate thus established, accordingly was not entitled to have a court also pass upon a question of fact regarding the reasonableness of a higher rate charged by it prior to the order of the commission. All that need concern a court, it said, is the fairness of the proceeding whereby the commission determined that the existing rate was excessive; but not the expediency or wisdom of the commission's having superseded that rate with a rate regulation of its own.
Likewise, with a view to diminishing the number of opportunities which courts may enjoy for invalidating rate regulations of State commissions, the Supreme Court has placed various obstacles in the path of the complaining litigant. Thus, not only must a person challenging a rate assume the burden of proof,[202] but he must present a case of "manifest constitutional invalidity";[203] and if, notwithstanding his effort, the question of confiscation remains in doubt, no relief will be granted.[204] Moreover, even though a public utility, which has petitioned a commission for relief from allegedly confiscatory rates, need not await indefinitely a decision by the latter before applying to a court for equitable relief,[205] the latter ought not to interfere in advance of any experience of the practical result of such rates.[206]
In the course of time, however, a distinction emerged between ordinary factual determinations by State commissions and factual determinations which were found to be inseparable from the legal and constitutional issue of confiscation. In two older cases arising from proceedings begun in lower federal courts to enjoin rates, the Court initially adopted the position that it would not disturb such findings of fact insofar as these were supported by substantial evidence. Thus, in San Diego Land and Town Company v. National City,[207] the Court declared that: After a legislative body has fairly and fully investigated and acted, by fixing what it believes to be reasonable rates, the courts cannot step in and say its action shall be set aside because the courts, upon similar investigation, have come to a different conclusion as to the reasonableness of the rates fixed. "Judicial interference should never occur unless the case presents, clearly and beyond all doubt, such a flagrant attack upon the rights of property under the guise of regulation as to compel the court to say that the rates prescribed will necessarily have the effect to deny just compensation for private property taken for the public use." And in a similar later case[208] the Court expressed even more clearly its reluctance to reexamine factual determinations of the kind just described. The Court is not bound "to reexamine and weigh all the evidence, * * *, or to proceed according to * * * [its] independent opinion as to what are proper rates. It is enough if * * * [the Court] cannot say that it was impossible for a fair-minded board to come to the result which was reached."
Moreover, in reviewing orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Court, at least in earlier years,[209] chose to be guided by approximately the same standards of appraisal as it had originally formulated for examining regulations of State commissions; and inasmuch as the following excerpt from its holding in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific R. Co.[210] represents an adequate summation of the law as it stood prior to 1920, it is set forth below: "* * * questions of fact may be involved in the determination of questions of law, so that an order, regular on its face, may be set aside if it appears that the rate is so low as to be confiscatory * * *; or if the Commission acted so arbitrarily and unjustly as to fix rates contrary to evidence, or without evidence to support it; or if the authority therein involved has been exercised in such an unreasonable manner as to cause it to be within the elementary rule that the substance, and not the shadow, determines the validity of the exercise of the power. * * * In determining these mixed questions of law and fact, the Court confines itself to the ultimate question as to whether the Commission acted within its power. It will not consider the expediency or wisdom of the order, or whether, on like testimony, it would have made a similar ruling. * * * [The Commission's] conclusion, of course, is subject to review, but when supported by evidence is accepted as final; not that its decision, * * *, can be supported by a mere scintilla of proof—but the courts will not examine the facts further than to determine whether there was substantial evidence to sustain the order."
The Ben Avon Case
These standards of review were abruptly rejected by the Court in Ohio Valley Water Company v. Ben Avon Borough,[211] decided in 1920, as being no longer sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. Unlike previous litigation involving allegedly confiscatory rate orders of State commissions, which had developed from rulings of lower federal courts in injunctive proceedings, this case reached the Supreme Court by way of appeal from a State appellate tribunal;[212] and although the latter did in fact review the evidence and ascertained that the State commission's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, it also construed the statute providing for review as denying to State courts "the power to pass upon the weight of such evidence." Largely on the strength of this interpretation of the applicable State statute, the Supreme Court held that when the order of a legislature, or of a commission, prescribing a schedule of maximum future rates is challenged as confiscatory, "the State must provide a fair opportunity for submitting that issue to a judicial tribunal for determination upon its own independent judgment as to both law and facts; otherwise the order is void because in conflict with the due process clause, Fourteenth Amendment."
Without departing from the ruling, previously enunciated in Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Garrett,[213] that the failure of a State to grant a statutory right of judicial appeal from a commission's regulation is not violative of due process as long as relief is obtainable by a bill in equity for injunction, the Court also held that the alternative remedy of injunction expressly provided by State law did not afford an adequate opportunity for testing judicially a confiscatory rate order. It conceded the principle stressed by the dissenting Justices that "where a State offers a litigant the choice of two methods of judicial review, of which one is both appropriate and unrestricted, the mere fact that the other which the litigant elects is limited, does not amount to a denial of the constitutional right to a judicial review."[214]
History of the Valuation Question
For almost fifty years the Court was to wander through a maze of conflicting formulas for valuing public service corporation property only to emerge therefrom in 1944 at a point not very far removed from Munn v. Illinois.[215] By holding, in 1942, in Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co.,[216] that the "Constitution does not bind rate-making bodies to the service of any single formula or combination of formulas," and in 1944, in Federal Power Commission v. Hope Gas Co.,[217] that "it is the result reached not the method employed which is controlling, * * * [that] it is not the theory but the impact of the rate order which counts, [and that] if the total effect of the rate order cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable, judicial inquiry under the Act is at an end," the Court, in effect, abdicated from the position assumed in the Ben Avon Case.[218] Without surrendering the judicial power to declare rates unconstitutional on grounds of a substantive[219] deprivation of due process, the Court announced that it would not overturn a result deemed by it to be just simply because "the method employed [by a commission] to reach that result may contain infirmities. * * * [A] Commission's order does not become suspect by reason of the fact that it is challenged. It is the product of expert judgment which carries a presumption of validity. And he who would upset the rate order * * * carries the heavy burden of making a convincing showing that it is invalid because it is unjust and unreasonable in its consequences."[220]
In dispensing with the necessity of observing any of the formulas for rate computation which previously had currency, the Court did not undertake to devise, by way of substitution, any discernible guide to aid it in ascertaining whether a so-called end result is unreasonable. It did intimate that rate-making "involves a balancing of the investor and consumer interests," which does not, however, "'insure that the business shall produce net revenues,' * * * From the investor or company point of view it is important that there be enough revenue not only for operating expenses but also for the capital costs of the business. These include service on the debt and dividends on the stock. * * * By that standard the return to the equity owner should be commensurate with returns on investments in other enterprises having corresponding risks. That return, moreover, should be sufficient to assure confidence in the financial integrity of the enterprise, so as to maintain its credit and to attract capital."[221] Nevertheless, in the light of the court's concentration on the reasonableness of the final result rather than on the correctness of the methods employed to reach that result, it is conceivable that methods or formulas, now discredited in whole or in part, might continue to be observed by State commissions in drafting rate orders that will prove to be justiciably sustainable.[222]
REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES (OTHER THAN RATES)
In General
By virtue of the nature of the business they carry on and the public's interest in it, public utilities are subject, as to their local business, to State regulation exerted either directly by legislature or by duly authorized administrative bodies.[223] But inasmuch as their property remains under the full protection of the Constitution, it follows that whenever this power of regulation is exerted in what the Court considers to be an "arbitrary" or "unreasonable" way and to be in effect an infringement upon the right of ownership, such exertion of power is void as repugnant to the due process clause.[224] Thus, a city cannot take possession of the equipment of a street railway company, the franchise of which has expired,[225] although it may subject said company to the alternative of accepting an inadequate price for its property or of ceasing operations and removing its property from the streets.[226] Likewise, a city, which is desirous of establishing a lighting system of its own, may not remove, without compensation, the fixtures of a lighting company already occupying the streets under a franchise;[227] but in erecting its own waterworks in competition with that of a company which has no exclusive charter, a municipality inflicts no unconstitutional deprivation.[228] Nor is the property of a telegraph company illegally taken by a municipal ordinance which demands, as a condition of the establishment of poles and conduits in the city streets, that positions be reserved for the city's wires, which shall be carried free of charge, and which provides for the moving of the conduits, when necessary, at company expense.[229] And, the fact that a State, by mere legislative or administrative fiat, cannot convert a private carrier into a common carrier will not protect a foreign corporation which has elected to enter a State, the Constitution and laws of which require that it operate its local private pipe line as a common carrier. Such foreign corporation is viewed as having waived its constitutional right to be secure against imposition of conditions which amount to a taking of property without due process of law.[230]
Compulsory Expenditures
The enforcement of uncompensated obedience to a regulation for the public health and safety is not an unconstitutional taking of property without due process of law.[231] Thus, where the applicable rule so required at the time of the granting of its charter, a water company may be compelled to furnish connections at its own expense to one residing on an ungraded street in which it voluntarily laid its lines.[232] However, if pipe and telephone lines are located on a right of way owned by a pipe line company, the latter cannot, without a denial of due process, be required to relocate such equipment at its own expense;[233] but if its pipes are laid under city streets, a gas company validly may be obligated to assume the cost of moving them to accommodate a municipal drainage system.[234]
To require a turnpike company, as a condition of its taking tolls, to keep its road in repair and to suspend collection thereof, conformably to a State statute, until the road is put in good order, does not take property without due process of law, notwithstanding the fact that present patronage does not yield revenue sufficient to maintain the road in proper condition.[235] Nor is a railroad bridge company unconstitutionally deprived of its property when, in the absence of proof that the addition will not yield a reasonable return, it is ordered to widen its bridge by inclusion of a pathway for pedestrians and a roadway for vehicles.[236]
Grade Crossings and Other Expenditures by Railroads.—When railroads are required to repair a viaduct under which they operate,[237] or to reconstruct a bridge or provide means for passing water for drainage through their embankment,[238] or to sprinkle that part of the street occupied by them,[239] their property is not taken without due process of law. But if an underground cattle-pass is to be constructed, not as a safety measure but as a means of sparing the farmer the inconvenience attendant upon the use of an existing and adequate grade crossing, collection of any part of the cost thereof from a railroad is a prohibited taking for private use.[240] As to grade crossing elimination, the rule is well established that the State may exact from railroads the whole, or such part, of the cost thereof as it deems appropriate, even though commercial highway users, who make no contribution whatsoever, benefit from such improvements. But, the power of the State in this respect is not unlimited. If its imposition is "arbitrary" and "unreasonable" it may be set aside; but to reach that conclusion, it may become necessary to consider certain relevant facts; e.g., whether a new highway on which an underpass is to be constructed is essential to the transportation needs of a community already well served by a crossing equipped with devices which are adequate for safety and convenience of a local traffic; whether the underpass is prescribed as part of a national system of federal aid highways for the furtherance of motor vehicle traffic, much of which is in direct competition with the railroad; whether the increase in such traffic will greatly decrease rail traffic and hence the revenue of the railroad; whether the amount of taxes paid by the railroads of the State, part of which is devoted to the upkeep of public highways used by motor carriers, is disproportionately higher than the amount paid by motor carriers.[241]
Compellable Services
The primary duty of a public utility being to serve on reasonable terms all those who desire the service it renders, it follows that a company cannot pick and choose and elect to serve only those portions of its territory which it finds most profitable, leaving the remainder to get along without the service which it alone is in a position to give. Compelling a gas company to continue serving specified cities as long as it continues to do business in other parts of the State entails therefore no unconstitutional deprivation.[242] Likewise a railway may be compelled to continue the service of a branch or part of a line although the operation involves a loss.[243] But even though a utility, as a condition of enjoyment of powers and privileges granted by the State, is under a continuing obligation to provide reasonably adequate service, and even though that obligation cannot be avoided merely because performance occasions financial loss, yet if a company is at liberty to surrender its franchise and discontinue operations, it cannot be compelled to continue at a loss.[244]
Pursuant to the principle that the State may require railroads to provide adequate facilities suitable for the convenience of the communities served by them,[245] such carriers have been obligated to establish stations at proper places for the convenience of patrons,[246] to stop all their intrastate trains at county seats,[247] to run a regular passenger train instead of a mixed passenger and freight train,[248] to furnish passenger service on a branch line previously devoted exclusively to carrying freight,[249] to restore a siding used principally by a particular plant but available generally as a public track, and to continue, even though not profitable by itself, a sidetrack[250] as well as the upkeep of a switch-track leading from its main line to industrial plants.[251] However, a statute requiring a railroad without indemnification to install switches on the application of owners of grain elevators erected on its right of way was held void.[252] Whether a State order requiring transportation service is to be viewed as reasonable may necessitate consideration of such facts as the likelihood that pecuniary loss will result to the carrier, the nature, extent and productiveness of the carrier's intrastate business, the character of the service required, the public need for it, and its effect upon service already being rendered.[253] If the service required has no substantial relation to transportation, it will be deemed arbitrary and void, as in the case of an order requiring railroads to maintain cattle scales to facilitate trading in cattle,[254] and of a prohibition against letting down an unengaged upper berth while the lower berth was occupied.[255]
Intercompany Railway Service.—"Since the decision in Wisconsin M. & P.R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U.S. 287 (1900), there can be no doubt of the power of a State, acting through an administrative body, to require railroad companies to make track connections. But manifestly that does not mean that a Commission may compel them to build branch lines, so as to connect roads lying at a distance from each other; nor does it mean that they may be required to make connections at every point where their tracks come close together in city, town and country, regardless of the amount of business to be done, or the number of persons who may utilize the connection if built. The question in each case must be determined in the light of all the facts, and with a just regard to the advantage to be derived by the public and the expense to be incurred by the carrier. * * * If the order involves the use of property needed in the discharge of those duties which the carrier is bound to perform, then, upon proof of the necessity, the order will be granted, even though 'the furnishing of such necessary facilities may occasion an incidental pecuniary loss.' * * * Where, however, the proceeding is brought to compel a carrier to furnish a facility not included within its absolute duties, the question of expense is of more controlling importance. In determining the reasonableness of such an order the Court must consider all the facts—the places and persons interested, the volume of business to be affected, the saving in time and expense to the shipper, as against the cost and loss to the carrier."[256]
Although a carrier is under a duty to accept goods tendered at its station, it cannot be required, upon payment simply for the service of carriage, to accept cars offered at an arbitrary connection point near its terminus by a competing road seeking to reach and use the former's terminal facilities. Nor may a carrier be required to deliver its cars to connecting carriers without adequate protection from loss or undue detention or compensation for their use.[257] But a carrier may be compelled to interchange its freight cars with other carriers under reasonable terms,[258] and to accept, for reshipment over its lines to points within the State, cars already loaded and in suitable condition.[259]
Intercompany Discriminatory Railroad Service Charges.—Due process is not denied when two carriers, who wholly own and dominate a small connecting railroad, are prohibited from exacting higher charges from shippers accepting delivery over said connecting road than are collected from shippers taking delivery at the terminals of said carriers.[260] Nor is it "unreasonable" or "arbitrary" to require a railroad to desist from demanding freight in advance on merchandise received from one carrier while it accepts merchandise of the same character at the same point from another carrier without such prepayment.[261]
Safety Regulations Applicable to Railroads
The following regulations with reference to railroads have been upheld: a prohibition against operation on certain streets,[262] restrictions on speed, operations, etc., in business sections,[263] requirement of construction of a sidewalk across a right of way,[264] or removal of a track crossing a thoroughfare,[265] compelling the presence of a flagman at a crossing notwithstanding that automatic device might be cheaper and better,[266] compulsory examination of employees for color blindness,[267] full crews on certain trains,[268] specification of a type of locomotive headlight,[269] safety appliance regulations,[270] and a prohibition on the heating of passenger cars from stoves or furnaces inside or suspended from the cars.[271]
Liabilities and Penalties
A statute making the initial carrier[272] or the connecting or delivering carrier,[273] liable to the shipper for the nondelivery of goods is not unconstitutional; nor is a law which provides that a railroad shall be responsible in damages to the owner of property injured by fire communicated by its locomotive engines and which grants the railroad an insurable interest in such property along its route and authority to procure insurance against such liability.[274] Equally consistent with the requirements of due process are the following two enactments; the first, imposing on all common carriers a penalty for failure to settle within a reasonable specified period claims for freight lost or damaged in shipment and conditioning payment of that penalty upon recovery by the claimant in subsequent suit of more than the amount tendered,[275] and the second, levying double damages and an attorney's fee upon a railroad for failure to pay within a reasonable time after demand the amount claimed by an owner for stock injured or killed. However, only in the event that the application of the latter statute is limited to cases where the plaintiff has not demanded more than he recovered in court will its constitutionality be upheld;[276] but when the penalty allowed thereunder is exacted in a case in which the plaintiff demanded more than he sued for and recovered, a defendant railroad is arbitrarily deprived of its property without due process.[277] The requirements of fair play are similarly violated by a statute which, by imposing double liability for failure to pay the full amount of damages within 60 days after notice, unless the claimant recovers less than the amount offered in settlement, in effect penalizes a carrier for guessing incorrectly what a jury would award.[278]
To penalize a carrier which has collected transportation charges in excess of established maximum rates by permitting a person wronged to sue for and collect as liquidated damages $500 plus a reasonable attorney's fee is to subject the carrier to a requirement so unreasonable as to be repugnant to the due process clause; for such liability is not only disproportionate to actual damages, but is being exacted under conditions which do not afford the carrier an adequate opportunity for safely testing the validity of the rates before any liability for the penalty attaches.[279] Where it appears, however, that the carrier had an opportunity to test the reasonableness of the rate, and that its deviation therefrom, by collection of an overcharge, did not proceed from any belief that the rate was invalid, the validity of the penalty imposed is not to be tested by comparison with the amount of the overcharge. Inasmuch as it is imposed as punishment for violation of a law, the legislature may adjust its amount to the public wrong rather than the private injury, and the only limitation which the Fourteenth Amendment imposes is that the penalty prescribed shall not be "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable." In accordance with the latter standard, a statute granting an aggrieved passenger (who recovered $100 for an overcharge of 60 cents) the right to recover in a civil suit not less than $50 nor more than $300 plus costs and a reasonable attorney's fee is constitutional.[280]
For like reasons, a statute requiring railroads to erect and maintain fences and cattle guards, and making them liable in double amount of damages for their failure to so maintain them is not unconstitutional.[281] Nor is a Nebraska law which establishes a minimum rate of speed for delivery of livestock and which requires every carrier violating the same to pay the owner of such livestock the sum of $10 per car per hour.[282] On the other hand, when a telephone company, in accordance with its established and uncontested regulations, suspends the service of a patron in arrears, infliction upon it of penalties aggregating $3,600, levied pursuant to a statute imposing fines of $100 per day for alleged discrimination, is so plainly arbitrary and oppressive as to take property without due process.[283]
REGULATION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS, AND TRADES
Domestic Corporations
Although a corporation is the creation of a State which reserves the power to amend or repeal corporate charters, the retention of such power will not support the taking of the corporate property without due process of law. To terminate the life of a corporation by annulling its charter is not to confiscate its property but to turn it over to the stockholders after liquidation.[284] Conversely, unreasonable regulation, as by the imposition of confiscatory rates, although it ostensibly falls short of termination of the corporate existence, entails an invalid deprivation.[285]
Foreign Corporations
Foreign corporations also enjoy the protection which the due process clause affords; but such protection does not entitle them to enter another State or, once having been permitted to enter, to continue to do business therein.[286] The power of a State to exclude or to expel a foreign corporation being almost plenary as long as interstate commerce is not directly affected, it follows that a State may subject such entry or continued operation to conditions. Thus, a State law which requires the filing of articles with a local official as a condition prerequisite to the validity of conveyances of local realty to such corporations is not violative of due process.[287] Neither is a State statute which requires a foreign insurance company, as part of the price of entry, to maintain reserves computed by a specific percentage of premiums, including membership fees, received in all States.[288] Similarly a statute requiring corporations to dispose of farm land not necessary to the conduct of their business is not invalid as applied to a foreign hospital corporation, even though the latter, because of changed economic conditions, is unable to recoup its original investment from the sale which it is thus compelled to make.[289]
"The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases. Certain kinds of business may be prohibited; and the right to conduct a business, or to pursue a calling, may be conditioned. * * * Statutes prescribing the terms upon which those conducting certain businesses may contract, or imposing terms if they do enter into agreements, are within the State's competency."[290]
Laws Prohibiting Trusts, Discrimination, Restraint of Trade.—A State act prohibiting trusts, etc., is not in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment as to a person combining with others to pool and fix prices, divide net earnings, and prevent competition in the purchase and sale of grain.[291] Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment preclude a State from adopting a policy against all combinations of competing corporations and enforcing it even against combinations which may have been induced by good intentions and from which benefit and not injury may have resulted.[292] Nor is freedom of contract unconstitutionally abridged by a statute which prohibits retail lumber dealers from uniting in an agreement not to purchase materials from wholesalers selling directly to consumers in the retailers' localities,[293] nor by a law punishing combinations for "maliciously" injuring a rival in his business profession or trade.[294] Similarly, a prohibition of unfair discrimination by any one engaged in the manufacture or distribution of a commodity in general use for the purpose of intentionally destroying competition of any regular dealer in such commodity by making sales thereof at a lower rate in one section of the State than in another, after equalization for distance, effects no invalid deprivation of property or interference with freedom of contract.[295] Liberty of contract is infringed, however, by a law punishing dealers in cream who pay higher prices in one locality than in another. Although high bidding by strong buyers tends toward monopoly, the statute has no reasonable relation to such bidding, but infringes private rights whose exercise is not shown to produce evil consequences.[296] A law sanctioning contracts requiring that commodities identified by trade mark will not be sold by the vendee or subsequent vendees except at prices stipulated by the original vendor does not violate the due process clause.[297]
Statutes Preventing Fraud in Sale of Goods.—Laws and ordinances tending to prevent frauds and requiring honest weights and measures in the sale of articles of general consumption have long been considered lawful exertions of the police power.[298] Thus, a prohibition on the issuance by other than an authorized weigher of any weight certificate for grain weighed at any warehouse or elevator where State weighers are stationed, or to charge for such weighing, is not unconstitutional.[299] Nor is a municipal ordinance requiring that commodities sold in load lots by weight be weighed by a public weigh-master within the city invalid as applied to one delivering coal from State-tested scales at a mine outside the city.[300] A statute requiring merchants to record sales in bulk not made in the regular course of business is also within the police power.[301]
Similarly, the power of a State to prescribe standard containers to protect buyers from deception as well as to facilitate trading and to preserve the condition of the merchandise is not open to question. Accordingly, an administrative order issued pursuant to an authorizing statute and prescribing the dimensions, form, and capacity of containers for strawberries and raspberries is not arbitrary inasmuch as the form and dimensions bore a reasonable relation to the protection of the buyers and the preservation in transit of the fruit.[302] Similarly, an ordinance fixing standard sizes of bread loaves and prohibiting the sale of other sizes is not unconstitutional.[303] However, by a case decided in 1924, a "tolerance" of only two ounces in excess of the minimum weight of a loaf of bread is unreasonable when it is impossible to manufacture good bread without frequently exceeding the prescribed tolerance and is consequently unconstitutional;[304] but by one decided ten years later, regulations issued in furtherance of a statutory authorization which impose a rate of tolerance not to exceed three ounces to a pound of bread and requiring that the bread maintain the statutory minimum weight for not less than 12 hours after cooling are constitutional.[305] Likewise a law requiring that lard not sold in bulk should be put upon in containers holding one, three, or five pounds weight, or some whole multiple of these numbers, does not deprive sellers of their property without the process of law.[306]
The right of a manufacturer to maintain secrecy as to his compounds and processes must be held subject to the right of the State, in the exercise of the police power and in the promotion of fair dealing, to require that the nature of the product be fairly set forth.[307] Nor does a statute providing that the purchaser of harvesting or threshing machinery for his own use shall have a reasonable time after delivery for inspecting and testing it, and permitting recission of the contract if the machinery does not prove reasonably adequate, and further declaring any agreement contrary to its provisions to be against public policy and void, does not violate the due process clause.[308]
Blue Sky Laws; Laws Regulating Boards of Trade, Etc.—In the exercise of its power to prevent fraud and imposition, a State may regulate trading in securities within its borders, require a license of those engaging in such dealing, make issuance of a license dependent on a public officer's being satisfied of the good repute of the applicants, and permit him, subject to judicial review of his findings, to revoke the same.[309] A State may forbid the giving of options to sell or buy at a future time any grain or other commodity.[310] It may also forbid sales on margin for future delivery;[311] and may prohibit the keeping of places where stocks, grain, etc., are sold but not paid for at the time, unless a record of the same be made and a stamp tax paid.[312] Making criminal any deduction by the purchaser from the actual weight of grain, hay, seed, or coal under a claim of right by reason of any custom or rule of a board of trade is a valid exercise of the police power and does not deprive the purchaser of his property without due process of law, nor interfere with his liberty of contract.[313]
Trading Stamps.—A prohibitive license fee upon the use of trading stamps is not unconstitutional.[314]
The Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to States the power to forbid a business simply because it was permitted at common law; and therefore, where public interests so demand, a State may place the banking business under legislative control and prohibit it except under prescribed conditions. Accordingly, a statute subjecting State banks to assessments for a depositors' guaranty fund is within the police power of the States and does not deprive the banks of property without due process of law.[315] Also, a law requiring savings banks to turn over to the State deposits inactive for thirty years (when the depositor cannot be found), with provision for payment to the depositor or his heirs on establishment of the right, does not effect an invalid taking of the property of said banks; nor does a Kentucky statute requiring banks to turn over to the protective custody of that State deposits that have been inactive ten or twenty-five years (depending on the nature of the deposit).[316]
The constitutional rights of creditors in an insolvent bank in the hands of liquidators are not violated by a later statute permitting reopening under a reorganization plan approved by the Court, the liquidating officer, and by three-fourths of the creditors.[317] Similarly, a Federal Reserve bank is not unlawfully deprived of business rights of liberty of contract by a law which allows State banks to pay checks in exchange when presented by or through a Federal Reserve bank, post office, or express company and when not made payable otherwise by a maker.[318]
Loans, Interest, Assignments
In fixing maximum rates of interest on money loaned within its borders, a State is acting clearly within its police power; and the details are within legislative discretion if not unreasonably or arbitrarily exercised.[319] Equally valid as an exercise of a State's police power is a requirement that assignments of future wages as security for debts of less than $200, to be valid, must be accepted in writing by the employer, consented to by the assignors, and filed in a public office. Such a requirement deprives neither the borrower nor the lender of his property without due process of law.[320]
Insurance
The relations generally of those engaged in the insurance business[321] as well as the business itself have been peculiarly subject to supervision and control.[322] The State may fix insurance rates and regulate the compensation of insurance agents.[323] It may impose a fine on "any person 'who shall act in any manner in the negotiation or transaction of unlawful insurance * * * with a foreign insurance company not admitted to do business [within said State].'"[324] It may forbid life insurance companies and their agents to engage in the undertaking business and undertakers to serve as life insurance agents.[325] Nor does a Virginia law which forbids the making of contracts of casualty or surety insurance, by companies authorized to do business therein, except through registered agents, which requires that such contracts applicable to persons or property in the State be countersigned by a registered local agent, and which prohibits such agents from sharing more than 50% of a commission with a nonresident broker, deprive authorized foreign casualty and surety insurers of due process.[326] And just as all banks may be required to contribute to a depositors' guaranty fund, so may all automobile liability insurers be required to submit to the equitable apportionment among them of applicants who are in good faith entitled to, but are financially unable to, procure such insurance through ordinary methods.[327]
However, a statute which prohibits the assured from contracting directly with a marine insurance company outside the State for coverage of property within the State is invalid as a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.[328] For the same reason, a State may not prevent a citizen from concluding with a foreign life insurance company at its home office a policy loan agreement whereby the policy of his life is pledged as collateral security for a cash loan to become due upon default in payment of premiums, in which case the entire policy reserve might be applied to discharge the indebtedness. Authority to subject such an agreement to the conflicting provisions of domestic law is not deducible from the power of a State to license a foreign insurance company as a condition of its doing business therein.[329]
A stipulation that policies of hail insurance shall take effect and become binding twenty-four hours after the hour in which an application is taken and further requiring notice by telegram of rejection of an application is not invalid.[330] Nor is any arbitrary restraint upon their liberty of contract imposed upon surety companies by a statute providing that any bond executed after its enactment for the faithful performance of a building contract shall inure to the benefit of materialmen and laborers, notwithstanding any provision of the bond to the contrary.[331] Likewise constitutional is a law requiring that a policy, indemnifying a motor vehicle owner against liability to persons injured through negligent operation, shall provide that bankruptcy of the insured shall not release the insurer from liability to an injured person.[332]
If fire insurance companies, in case of total loss, are compelled to pay the amount for which the property was insured, less depreciation between the time of issuing the policy and the time of the loss, such insurers are not deprived of their property without due process of law.[333] Moreover, even though it has its attorney-in-fact located in Illinois, signs all its contracts there, and forwards therefrom all checks in payment of losses, a reciprocal insurance association, if it covers real property located in New York, may be compelled to comply with New York regulations which require maintenance of an office in that State and the countersigning of policies by an agent resident therein.[334] Also, to discourage monopolies and to encourage competition in the matter of rates, a State constitutionally may impose on all fire insurance companies connected with a tariff association fixing rates a liability or penalty to be collected by the insured of 25% in excess of actual loss or damage, stipulations in the insurance contract to the contrary notwithstanding.[335]
A State statute by which a life insurance company, if it fails to pay upon demand the amount due under a policy after death of the insured, is made liable in addition for fixed damages, reasonable in amount, and for a reasonable attorney's fee is not unconstitutional even though payment is resisted in good faith and upon reasonable grounds.[336] It is also proper by law to cut off a defense by a life insurance company based on false and fraudulent statements in the application, unless the matter misrepresented actually contributed to the death of the insured.[337] A provision that suicide, unless contemplated when the application for a policy was made, shall be no defense is equally valid.[338] When a cooperative life insurance association is reorganized so as to permit it to do a life insurance business of every kind, policyholders are not deprived of their property without due process of law.[339] Similarly, when the method of liquidation provided by a plan of rehabilitation of a mutual life insurance company is as favorable to dissenting policyholders as would have been the sale of assets and pro rata distribution to all creditors, the dissenters are unable to show any taking without due process. Dissenters have no constitutional right to a particular form of remedy.[340]
Professions, Trades, Occupations
Employment Agencies.—An act imposing license fees for operating such agencies and prohibiting them from sending applicants to an employer who has not applied for labor does not deny due process of law.[341]
Pharmacies.—A Pennsylvania law forbidding a corporation to own therein any drug store, excepting those owned and operated at the time of the enactment, unless all its stockholders are licensed pharmacists, violates the due process clause as applied to a foreign corporation, all of whose stockholders are not pharmacists, which sought to extend its business in Pennsylvania by acquiring and operating therein two additional stores.[342]
Miscellaneous Business, Professions, Trades, and Occupations.—The practice of medicine, using this word in its most general sense, has long been the subject of regulation;[343] and in pursuance of its power a State may exclude osteopathic physicians from hospitals maintained by it or its municipalities;[344] and may regulate the practice of dentistry by prescribing qualifications that are reasonably necessary, requiring licenses, establishing a supervisory administrative board, and by prohibiting certain advertising regardless of its truthfulness.[345] But while statutes requiring pilots to be licensed[346] and railroad engineers to pass color blindness tests[347] have been sustained, an act making it a misdemeanor for a person to act as a railway passenger conductor without having had two years' experience as a freight conductor or brakeman is invalid.[348]
Legislation has been upheld which regulated or required licenses for admissions to places of amusement,[349] grain elevators,[350] detective agencies,[351] sale of cigarettes,[352] or cosmetics,[353] and the resale of theatre tickets;[354] or which absolutely forbade the advertising of cigarettes,[355] or the use of a representation of the United States flag on an advertising medium,[356] the solicitation by a layman of business of collecting and adjusting claims,[357] the keeping of private markets within six squares of a public market,[358] the keeping of billiard halls except in hotels,[359] or the purchase by junk dealers of wire, copper, etc., without ascertaining the sellers' right to sell.[360]
PROTECTION OF RESOURCES OF THE STATE
Oil and Gas
To prevent waste production may be prorated; the prohibition of wasteful conduct, whether primarily in behalf of the owners of gas in a common reservoir or because of the public interests involved is consistent with the Constitution.[361] Thus a statute which defines waste as including, in addition to its ordinary meaning, economic waste, surface waste, and waste incident to production in excess of transportation or marketing facilities or reasonable market demands, and which provides that whenever full production from a common source of supply can be obtained only under conditions constituting waste, a producer may take only such proportion of all that may be produced from such common source without waste, as the production of his wells bears to the total production of such common source, is not repugnant to the due process clause.[362] But whether a system of proration based on hourly potential is as fair as one based upon estimated recoverable reserves or some other combination of factors is a question for administrative and not judicial judgment. In a domain of knowledge still shifting and growing, and in a field where judgment is necessarily beset by the necessity of inferences bordering on the conjecture even for those learned in the art, it has been held to be presumptuous for courts, on the basis of conflicting expert testimony, to nullify an oil proration order, promulgated by an administrative commission in execution of a regulatory scheme intended to conserve a State's oil resources, as violative of due process.[363] On the other hand, where the evidence showed that an order, purporting to limit daily total production of a gas field and to prorate the allowed production among several wells, had for its real purpose, not the prevention of waste nor the undue drainage from the reserves of other well owners, but rather the compelling of pipe line owners to furnish a market to those who had no pipe line connections, the order was held void as a taking of private property for private benefit.[364] As authorized by statute the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, finding that existing low field prices for gas were resulting in economic and physical waste, issued orders fixing a minimum price for natural gas and requiring the Cities Service Company to take gas ratably from another producer in the same field at the dictated price. The orders were sustained by the Court as conservation measures.[365]
Even though carbon black is more valuable than the gas from which it is extracted, and notwithstanding a resulting loss of investment in a plant for the manufacture of carbon black, a State, in the exercise of its police power, may forbid the use of natural gas for products, such as carbon black, in the production of which such gas is burned without fully utilizing for other manufacturing or domestic purposes the heat therein contained.[366] Likewise, for the purpose of regulating and adjusting coexisting rights of surface owners to underlying oil and gas, it is within the power of a State to prohibit the operators of wells from allowing natural gas, not conveniently necessary for other purposes, to come to the surface without its lifting power having been utilized to produce the greatest quantity of oil in proportion.[367]
Protection of Property Damaged by Mining or Drilling of Wells
An ordinance conditioning the right to drill for oil and gas within the city limits upon the filing of a bond in the sum of $200,000 for each well, to secure payment of damages from injuries to any persons or property resulting from the drilling operation, or maintenance of any well or structures appurtenant thereto, is consistent with due process of law, and is not rendered unreasonable by the requirement that the bond be executed, not by personal sureties, but by a bonding company authorized to do business in the State.[368] On the other hand, a Pennsylvania statute, which forbade the mining of coal under private dwellings or streets or cities by a grantor that had reserved the right to mine, was viewed as restricting the use of private property too much, and hence as a "taking" without due process of law.[369]
Water
A statute making it unlawful for a riparian owner to divert water into another State does not deprive him of property without due process of law. "The constitutional power of the State to insist that its natural advantages shall remain unimpaired by its citizens is not dependent upon any nice estimate of the extent of present use or speculation as to future needs. * * * What it has it may keep and give no one a reason for its will."[370]
Apple and Citrus Fruit Industries
A statute requiring the destruction of cedar trees to avoid the infecting with cedar rust of apple orchards within the vicinity of two miles is not unreasonable, notwithstanding the absence of provision for compensation for the trees thus removed or the decrease in the market value of realty caused by their destruction. Apple growing being one of the principal agricultural pursuits in Virginia and the value of cedar trees throughout that State being small as compared with that of apple orchards, the State was constitutionally competent to decide upon the destruction of one class of property in order to save another which, in the judgment of its legislature, is of greater value to the public.[371] With a similar object in view; namely, to protect the reputation of one of its major industries, Florida was held to possess constitutional authority to penalize the delivery for shipment in interstate commerce of citrus fruits so immature as to be unfit for consumption.[372]
Fish and Game
Over fish found within its waters, and over wild game, the State has supreme control.[373] It may regulate or prohibit fishing and hunting within its limits;[374] and for the effective enforcement of such restrictions, it may forbid the possession within its borders of special instruments of violations, such as nets, traps, and seines, regardless of the time of acquisition or the protestations of lawful intentions on the part of a particular possessor.[375] To conserve for food fish found within its waters, a State constitutionally may provide that a reduction plant, processing fish for commercial purposes, may not accept more fish than can be used without deterioration, waste, or spoilage; and, as a shield against the covert depletion of its local supply, may render such restriction applicable to fish brought into the State from the outside.[376] Likewise, it is within the power of a State to forbid the transportation outside the State of game killed therein;[377] and to make illegal possession during the closed season even of game imported from abroad.[378]
LIMITATIONS ON OWNERSHIP
Zoning, Building Lines, Etc.
By virtue of their possession of the police power, States and their municipal subdivisions may declare that in particular circumstances and in particular localities specific businesses, which are not nuisances per se are to be deemed nuisances in fact and in law.[379] Consequently when, by an ordinance enacted in good faith, a municipality prohibited brickmaking in a designated area, the land of a brickmaker in said area was not taken without due process of law, although such land contained valuable clay deposits which could not profitably be removed for processing elsewhere, was far more valuable for brickmaking than for any other purpose, and had been acquired by him before it was annexed to the municipality, and had long been used as a brickyard.[380] On the same basis laws have been upheld which restricted the location of dairy or cow stables,[381] of livery stables,[382] of the grazing of sheep near habitations.[383] Also a State may declare the emission of dense smoke in cities or populous neighborhoods a nuisance and restrain it; and regulations to that effect are not invalid even though they affect the use of property or subject the owner to the expense of complying with their terms.[384]
Not only may the height of buildings be regulated;[385] but it also is permissible to create a residential district in a village and to exclude therefrom apartment houses, retail stores, and billboards. Before holding unconstitutional an ordinance establishing such a district, it must be shown to be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and to have no substantial relation to the public health, safety, or general welfare.[386] On the other hand, erection of a home for the aged within a residential district cannot be made to depend upon the consent of owners of two-thirds of the property within 400 feet of the site thereof;[387] nor may the interests of nonassenting property owners be ignored by an ordinance which requires municipal officers to establish building lines in a block on request of owners of two-thirds of the property therein.[388] But ordinances requiring lot owners, when constructing new buildings, to set them back a certain distance from the street lines is constitutional unless clearly arbitrary or unreasonable.[389] However, colored persons cannot be forbidden to occupy houses in blocks where the greater number of houses are occupied by white persons, and vice versa. Such a prohibition, the practical effect of which is to prevent the sale of lots in such blocks to colored persons, violates the constitutional prohibitions against interference with property rights except by due process of laws; and cannot be sustained on the ground that it will promote public peace by preventing race conflicts.[390]
As a legitimate exercise of the police power calculated to promote public safety and diminish fire hazards, municipal ordinances have been sustained which prohibit the storage of gasoline within 300 feet of any dwelling,[391] or require that all tanks with a capacity of more than ten gallons, used for the storage of gasoline, be buried at least three feet under ground,[392] or which prohibit washing and ironing in public laundries and wash houses, within defined territorial limits, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.[393] Equally sanctioned by the Fourteenth Amendment is the demolition and removal by cities of wooden buildings erected within defined fire limits contrary to regulations in force at the time.[394] Nor does construction of property in full compliance with existing laws confer upon the owner an immunity against exercise of the police power. Thus, a 1944 amendment to a Multiple Dwelling Law, requiring installation of automatic sprinklers in lodginghouses of nonfireproof construction erected prior to said enactment, does not, as applied to a lodginghouse constructed in 1940 in conformity with all laws then applicable, deprive the owner thereof of due process, even though compliance entails an expenditure of $7,500 on a property worth only $25,000.[395]
THE POLICE POWER
General
According to settled principles, the police power of a State must be held to embrace the authority not only to enact directly quarantine[396] and health laws of every description but also to vest in municipal subdivisions a capacity to safeguard by appropriate means public health, safety and morals. The manner in which this objective is to be accomplished is within the discretion of the State and its localities, subject only to the condition that no regulation adopted by either shall contravene the Constitution or infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument.[397]
Protection of Water Supply.—A State may require the removal of timber refuse from the vicinity of a watershed for a municipal water supply to prevent the spread of fire and consequent damage to such watershed.[398]
Garbage.—An ordinance for cremation of garbage and refuse at a designated place as a means for the protection of the public health is not a taking of private property without just compensation even though such garbage and refuse may have some elements of value for certain purposes.[399]
Sewers.—Compelling property owners to connect with a publicly maintained system of sewers and enforcing that duty by criminal penalties does not violate the due process clause.[400]
Food and Drugs, Etc.—"The power of the State to * * * prevent the production within its borders of impure foods, unfit for use, and such articles as would spread disease and pestilence, is well established";[401] and statutes forbidding or regulating the manufacture of oleomargarine have been upheld as a valid exercise of such power.[402] For the same reasons, statutes ordering the destruction of unsafe and unwholesome food[403], prohibiting the sale and authorizing confiscation of impure milk[404] have been sustained, notwithstanding that such articles had a value for purposes other than food. There also can be no question of the authority of the State, in the interest of public health and welfare, to forbid the sale of drugs by itinerant vendors,[405] or the sale of spectacles by an establishment not in charge of a physician or optometrist.[406] Nor is it any longer possible to doubt the validity of State regulations pertaining to the administration, sale, prescription, and use of dangerous and habit-forming drugs.[407]
Milk.—Equally valid as police power regulations are laws forbidding the sale of ice cream not containing a reasonable proportion of butter fat,[408] or of condensed milk made from skimmed milk rather than whole milk,[409] or of food preservatives containing boric acid.[410] Similarly, a statute which prohibits the sale of milk to which has been added any fat or oil other than milk fat, and which has, as one of its purposes, the prevention of fraud and deception in the sale of milk products, does not, when applied to "filled milk" having the taste, consistency, and appearance of whole milk products, violate the due process clause. Filled milk is inferior to whole milk in its nutritional content; and cannot be served to children as a substitute for whole milk without producing a dietary deficiency.[411] However, a statute forbidding the use of shoddy, even when sterilized, was held to be arbitrary and therefore invalid.[412]
Protection of the Public Morals
Gambling and Lotteries.—Unless effecting a clear, unmistakable infringement of rights securely by fundamental law, legislation suppressing gambling will be upheld by the Court as concededly within the police power of a State.[413] Accordingly, a State may validly make a judgment against those winning money a lien upon the property in which gambling is conducted with the owner's knowledge and consent.[414] For the same reason, lotteries, including those operated under a legislative grant, may be forbidden, irrespective of any particular equities.[415]
Red Light Districts.—An ordinance prescribing limits in a city outside of which no woman of lewd character shall dwell does not deprive persons owning or occupying property in or adjacent to said limits of any rights protected by the Constitution.[416]
Sunday Blue Laws.—The Supreme Court has uniformly recognized State laws relating to the observance of Sunday as representing a legitimate exercise of the police power. Thus, a law forbidding the keeping open of barber shops on Sunday is constitutional.[417]
Intoxicating Liquor.—"* * * on account of their well-known noxious qualities and the extraordinary evils shown by experience to be consequent upon their use, a State * * * [is competent] to prohibit [absolutely the] manufacture, gift, purchase, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within its borders * * *."[418] And to implement such prohibition, a State has the power to declare that places where liquor is manufactured or kept shall be deemed common nuisances;[419] and even to subject an innocent owner to the forfeiture of his property for the acts of a wrongdoer.[420]
Regulation of Motor Vehicles and Carriers
The highways of a State are public property, the primary and preferred use of which is for private purposes; their uses for purposes of gain may generally be prohibited by the legislature or conditioned as it sees fit.[421] In limiting the use of its highways for intrastate transportation for hire, a State reasonably may provide that carriers who have furnished adequate, responsible, and continuous service over a given route from a specified date in the past shall be entitled to licenses as a matter of right, but that the licensing of those whose service over the route began later than the date specified shall depend upon public convenience and necessity.[422] To require private contract carriers for hire to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity, which is not granted if the service of common carriers is impaired thereby, and to fix minimum rates applicable thereto which are not less than those prescribed for common carriers is valid as a means of conserving highways;[423] but any attempt to convert private carriers into common carriers,[424] or to subject them to the burdens and regulations of common carriers, without expressly declaring them to be common carriers, is violative of due process.[425] In the absence of legislation by Congress a State may, in protection of the public safety, deny an interstate motor carrier the use of an already congested highway.[426]
In exercising its authority over its highways, on the other hand, a State is limited not merely to the raising of revenue for maintenance and reconstruction, or to regulations as to the manner in which vehicles shall be operated, but may also prevent the wear and hazards due to excessive size of vehicles and weight of load. Accordingly, a statute limiting to 7,000 pounds the net load permissible for trucks is not unreasonable.[427] No less constitutional is a municipal traffic regulation which forbids the operation in the streets of any advertising vehicle, excepting vehicles displaying business notices or advertisements of the products of the owner and not used mainly for advertising; and such regulation may be validly enforced to prevent an express company from selling advertising space on the outside of its trucks. Inasmuch as it is the judgment of local authorities that such advertising affects public safety by distracting drivers and pedestrians, courts are unable to hold otherwise in the absence of evidence refuting that conclusion.[428]
Any appropriate means adopted to insure compliance and care on the part of licensees and to protect other highway users being consonant with due process, a State may also provide that one, against whom a judgment is rendered for negligent operation and who fails to pay it within a designated time, shall have his license and registration suspended for three years, unless, in the meantime, the judgment is satisfied or discharged.[429] By the same token a nonresident owner who loaned his automobile in another State, by the law of which he was immune from liability for the borrower's negligence, and who was not in the State at the time of an accident, is not subjected to any unconstitutional deprivation by a law thereof, imposing liability on the owner for the negligence of one driving the car with the owner's permission.[430] Compulsory automobile insurance is so plainly valid as to present no federal question.[431]
Succession to Property
When a New York Decedent Estate Law, effective after 1930, grants for the first time to a surviving spouse a right of election to take as in intestacy, and the husband, by executing in 1934 a codicil to his will drafted in 1929, made this provision operative, his widow, notwithstanding her waiver in 1922 of any right in her husband's estate, may avail herself of such right of election. The deceased husband's heirs cannot contend that the impairment of the widow's waiver by subsequent legislation deprived his estate of property without due process of law. Rights of succession to property are of statutory creation. Accordingly, New York could have conditioned any further exercise of testamentary power upon the giving of right of election to the surviving spouse regardless of any waiver however formally executed.[432]
Administration of Estates.—Even after the creation of testamentary trust, a State retains the power to devise new and reasonable directions to the trustee to meet new conditions arising during its administration, especially such as the depression presented to trusts containing mortgages. Accordingly, no constitutional right is violated by the retroactive application to an estate on which administration had already begun of a statute which had the effect of taking away a remainderman's right to judicial examination of the trustee's computation of income. Judicial rules, promulgated prior to such statute and which were more favorable to the interests of remaindermen, can be relied upon by the latter only insofar as said rules were intended to operate retroactively; for the decedent, in whose estate the remaindermen had an interest, died even before such court rules were established. If a property right in a particular rule of income allotment in salvage proceedings vested at all, it would seem to have done so at the death of the decedent or testator.[433]
Abandoned Property.—As applied to insurance policies on the lives of New York residents issued by foreign corporations for delivery in New York, where the insured persons continued to be residents and the beneficiaries were resident at the maturity date of the policies, a New York Abandoned Property Law requiring payment to the State of money owing by life insurers and remaining unclaimed for seven years does not deprive such foreign companies of property without due process. The relationship between New York and its residents who abandon claims against foreign insurance companies, and between New York and foreign insurance companies doing business therein is sufficiently close to give New York jurisdiction.[434] In Standard Oil Co. v. New Jersey,[435] a sharply divided Court held recently that due process is not violated by a statute escheating to the State shares of stock in a domestic corporation and unpaid dividends declared thereon, even though the last-known owners were nonresidents and the stock was issued and the dividends were held in another State. The State's power over the debtor corporation gives it power to seize the debts or demands represented by the stock and dividends.
Vested Rights, Remedial Rights, Political Candidacy
Inasmuch as the right to become a candidate for State office is a privilege only of State citizenship, an unlawful denial of such right is not a denial of a right of "property."[436] However, an existing right of action to recover damages for an injury is property, which a legislature has no power to destroy.[437] Thus, the retroactive repeal of a provision which made directors liable for moneys embezzled by corporate officers, by preventing enforcement of a liability which already had arisen, deprived certain creditors of their property without due process of law.[438] But while a vested cause of action is property, a person has no property, in the constitutional sense, in any particular form of remedy; and is guaranteed only the preservation of a substantial right to redress by any effective procedure.[439] Accordingly, a statute creating an additional remedy for enforcing stockholders' liability is not, as applied to stockholders then holding stock, violative of due process.[440] Nor is a law which lifts a statute of limitations and make possible a suit, theretofore barred, for the value of certain securities. "The Fourteenth Amendment does not make an act of State legislation void merely because it has some retrospective operation. * * * Some rules of law probably could not be changed retroactively without hardship and oppression, * * *, certainly it cannot be said that lifting the bar of a statute of limitation so as to restore a remedy lost through mere lapse of time is per se an offense against the Fourteenth Amendment."[441]
Man's Best Friend
A statute providing that no dog shall be entitled to the protection of the law unless placed upon the assessment rolls, and that in a civil action for killing a dog the owner cannot recover beyond the value fixed by himself in the last assessment preceding the killing is within the police power of the State.[442]
Control of Local Units of Government
The Fourteenth Amendment does not deprive a State of the power to determine what duties may be performed by local officers, nor whether they shall be appointed or popularly elected.[443] Its power over the rights and property of cities held and used for governmental purposes was unaltered by the ratification thereof.[444] Thus, notwithstanding that it imposes liability irrespective of the power of a city to have prevented the violence, a statute requiring cities to indemnify owners of property damaged by mobs or during riots effects no unconstitutional deprivation of the property of such municipalities.[445] Likewise, a person obtaining a judgment against a municipality for damages resulting from a riot is not deprived of property without due process of law by an act which so limits the municipality's taxing power as to prevent collection of funds adequate to pay it. As long as the judgment continues as an existing liability unconstitutional deprivation is experienced.[446]
Local units of government obliged to surrender property to other units newly created out of the territory of the former cannot successfully invoke the due process clause,[447] nor may taxpayers allege any unconstitutional deprivation as the result of changes in their tax burden attendant upon the consolidation of contiguous municipalities.[448] Nor is a statute requiring counties to reimburse cities of the first class but not other classes for rebates allowed for prompt payment of taxes in conflict with the due process clause.[449]
TAXATION
In General
It was not contemplated that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment would restrain or cripple the taxing power of the States.[450] Rather, the purpose of the amendment was to extend to the residents of the States the same protection against arbitrary State legislation affecting life, liberty, and property as was afforded against Congress by the Fifth Amendment.[451]
Public Purpose
Inasmuch as public moneys cannot be expended for other than public purposes, it follows that an exercise of the taxing power for merely private purposes is beyond the authority of the States.[452] Whether a use is public or private is ultimately a judicial question, however, and in the determination thereof the Court will be influenced by local conditions and by the judgments of State tribunals as to what are to be deemed public uses in any State.[453] Taxes levied for each of the following listed purposes have been held to be for a public use: city coal and fuel yard,[454] State bank, warehouse, elevator, flour-mill system, and homebuilding projects,[455] society for preventing cruelty to animals (dog license tax),[456] railroad tunnel,[457] books for school children attending private as well as public schools,[458] and relief of unemployment.[459]
Other Considerations Affecting Validity: Excessive Burden; Ratio of Amount to Benefit Received
When the power to tax exists, the extent of the burden is a matter for the discretion of the lawmakers;[460] and the Court will refrain from condemning a tax solely on the ground that it is excessive.[461] Nor can the constitutionality of the power to levy taxes be made to depend upon the taxpayer's enjoyment of any special benefit from use of the funds raised by taxation.[462]
Estate, Gift, and Inheritance Taxes
The power of testamentary disposition and the privilege of inheritance being legitimate subjects of taxation, a State may apply its inheritance tax to either the transmission, or the exercise of the legal power of transmission, of property by will or descent, or to the legal privilege of taking property by devise or descent.[463] Accordingly, an inheritance tax law, enacted after the death of a testator, but before the distribution of his estate, constitutionally may be imposed on the shares of legatees, notwithstanding that under the law of the State in effect on the date of such enactment, ownership of the property passed to the legatees upon the testator's death.[464] Equally consistent with due process is a tax on an inter vivos transfer of property by deed intended to take effect upon the death of the grantor.[465]
The due process clause places no restriction on a State as to the time at which an inheritance tax shall be levied or the property valued for purposes of such a tax; and for that reason a graduated tax on the transfer of contingent remainders, undiminished by the value of an intervening life estate but not payable until after the death of the life tenant, is valid.[466] Also, when a power of appointment has been granted by deed, transfer tax upon the exercise of the power by will is not a taking of property without due process of law, even though the instrument creating the power was executed prior to enactment of the taxing statute.[467] Likewise when a transfer tax law did not become effective until after a deed creating certain remainders had been executed, but the State court applied the tax on the theory that the vesting actually occurred after the tax law became operative, no denial of due process resulted. "* * *, the statute unquestionably might have made the tax applicable to this transfer, * * * [and the Court need] * * * not inquire * * * into the reasoning by which * * *" the State held the statute operative.[468]
On the other hand, when remainders indisputably vest at the time of the creation of a trust and a succession tax is enacted thereafter, the imposition of said tax on the transfer of such remainder is unconstitutional.[469] But where the remaindermen's interests are contingent and do not vest until the donor's death subsequent to the adoption of the statute, the tax is valid.[470] Another example of valid retroactive taxation is to be found in a New York statute amending a 1930 estate tax law. The amendment required inclusion in the decedent's gross estate, for tax computation purposes, of property in respect of which the decedent exercised after 1930, by will, a nongeneral power of appointment created prior to that year. The amendment reached such transfers under powers of appointment as under the previous statute escaped taxation. In sustaining application of the amendment, the Court held that the inclusion in the gross estate of property never owned by the decedent, but appointed by her will under a limited power which could not be exercised in favor of the decedent, her creditors, or her estate, did not deny due process to those who inherited the decedent's property, even though, because the tax rate was progressive, the net amount they inherited was less than it would have been if the appointed property had not been included in the gross estate.[471] In summation, the Court has noted that insofar as retroactive taxation of vested gifts has been voided, the justification therefor has been that "the nature or amount of the tax could not reasonably have been anticipated by the taxpayer at the time of the particular voluntary act which the [retroactive] statute later made the taxable event * * * Taxation, * * *, of a gift which * * * [the donor] might well have refrained from making had he anticipated the tax, * * * [is] thought to be so arbitrary * * * as to be a denial of due process."[472]
Other Types of Taxes
Income Taxes.—Any attempt by a State to measure a tax on one person's income by reference to the income of another is contrary to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus a husband cannot be taxed on the combined total of his and his wife's incomes as shown by separate returns, where her income is her separate property and where, by reason of the tax being graduated, its amount exceeded the sum of the taxes which would have been due had their separate incomes been separately assessed.[473] Moreover, a tax on income, unlike a gift tax, is not necessarily unconstitutional, because retroactive. Taxpayers cannot complain of arbitrary action or assert surprise in the retroactive apportionment of tax burdens to income when that is done by the legislature at the first opportunity after knowledge of the nature and amount of the income is available.[474]
Franchise Taxes.—A city ordinance imposing annual license taxes on light and power companies is not violative of the due process clause merely because the city has entered the power business in competition with such companies.[475] Nor does a municipal charter authorizing the imposition upon a local telegraph company of a tax upon the lines of the company within its limits at the rate at which other property is taxed, but upon an arbitrary valuation per mile, deprive the company of its property without due process of law, inasmuch as the tax is a mere franchise or privilege tax.[476]
Severance Taxes.—A State excise on the production of oil which extends to the royalty interest of the lessor in the oil produced under an oil lease as well as to the interest of the lessee engaged in the active work of production, the tax being apportioned between these parties according to their respective interest in the common venture, is not arbitrary as regards the lessor, but consistent with due process.[477]
Real Property Taxes (Assessment).—The maintenance of a high assessment in the face of declining value is merely another way of achieving an increase in the rate of property tax. Hence, an over-assessment constitutes no deprivation of property without due process of law.[478] Likewise, land subject to mortgage may be taxed for its full value without deduction of the mortgage debt from the valuation.[479]
Real Property Taxes: Special Assessments.—A State may defray the entire expense of creating, developing, and improving a political subdivision either from funds raised by general taxation, or by apportioning the burden among the municipalities in which the improvements are made, or by creating, or authorizing the creation of, tax districts to meet sanctioned outlays.[480] Where a State statute authorizes municipal authorities to define the district to be benefited by a street improvement and to assess the cost of the improvement upon the property within the district in proportion to benefits, their action in establishing the district and in fixing the assessments on included property, after due hearing of the owners as required by the statute cannot, when not arbitrary or fraudulent, be reviewed under the Fourteenth Amendment upon the ground that other property benefited by the improvement was not included.[481]
It is also proper to impose a special assessment for the preliminary expenses of an abandoned road improvement, even though the assessment exceeds the amount of the benefit which the assessors estimated the property would receive from the completed work.[482] Likewise a levy upon all lands within a drainage district of a tax of twenty-five cents per acre to defray preliminary expenses does not unconstitutionally take the property of landowners within that district who may not be benefited by the completed drainage plans.[483] On the other hand, when the benefit to be derived by a railroad from the construction of a highway will be largely offset by the loss of local freight and passenger traffic, an assessment upon such railroad is violative of due process,[484] whereas any gains from increased traffic reasonably expected to result from a road improvement will suffice to sustain an assessment thereon.[485] Also the fact that the only use made of a lot abutting on a street improvement is for a railway right of way does not make invalid, for lack of benefits, an assessment thereon for grading, curbing, and paving.[486] However, when a high and dry island was included within the boundaries of a drainage district from which it could not be benefited directly or indirectly, a tax on such island was held to be a deprivation of property without due process of law.[487] Finally, a State may levy an assessment for special benefits resulting from an improvement already made[488] and may validate an assessment previously held void for want of authority.[489]
Land
Prior even to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was settled principle that a State could not tax land situated beyond its limits; and subsequently elaborating upon that principle the Court has said that "* * *, we know of no case where a legislature has assumed to impose a tax upon land within the jurisdiction of another State, much less where such action has been defended by a court."[490] Insofar as a tax payment may be viewed as an exaction for the maintenance of government in consideration of protection afforded, the logic sustaining this rule is self-evident.
Tangible Personalty
As long as tangible personal property has a situs within its borders, a State validly may tax the same, whether directly through an ad valorem tax or indirectly through death taxes, irrespective of the residence of the owner.[491] By the same token, if tangible personal property makes only occasional incursions into other States, its permanent situs remains in the State of origin, and is taxable only by the latter.[492] The ancient maxim, mobilia sequuntur personam, which had its origin when personal property consisted in the main of articles appertaining to the person of the owner, yielded in modern times to the "law of the place where the property is kept and used." In recent years, the tendency has been to treat tangible personal property as "having a situs of its own for the purpose of taxation, and correlatively to * * * exempt [it] at the domicile of its owner."[493]The benefit-protection theory of taxation, upon which the Court has in fact relied to sustain taxation exclusively by the situs State, logically would seem to permit taxation by the domiciliary State as well as by the nondomiciliary State in which the tangibles are situate, especially when the former levies the tax on the owner in terms of the value of the tangibles. Thus far, however, the Court has taken the position that when the tangibles have a situs elsewhere, the domiciliary State can neither control such property nor extend to it or to its owner such measure of protection as would be adequate to meet the jurisdictional requirements of due process.
Intangible Personalty
General.—To determine whether a State, or States, may tax intangible personal property, the Court has applied the fiction, mobilia sequuntur personam and has also recognized that such property may acquire, for tax purposes, a business or commercial situs where permanently located; but it has never clearly disposed of the issue as to whether multiple personal property taxation of intangibles is consistent with due process. In the case of corporate stock, however, the Court has obliquely acknowledged that the owner thereof may be taxed at his own domicile, at the commercial situs of the issuing corporation, and at the latter's domicile; but, as of the present date, constitutional lawyers are speculating whether the Court would sustain a tax by all three jurisdictions, or by only two of them, and, if the latter, which two, the State of the commercial situs and of the issuing corporation's domicile, or the State of the owner's domicile and that of the commercial situs.[494]
Taxes on Intangibles Sustained.—Thus far, the Court has sustained the following personal property taxes on intangibles:
(1) A debt held by a resident against a nonresidence, evidenced by a bond of the debtor and secured by a mortgage on real estate in the State of the debtor's residence.[495]
(2) A mortgage owned and kept outside the State by a nonresident but on land within the State.[496]
(3) Investments, in the form of loans to residents, made by a resident agent of a nonresident creditor, are taxable to the nonresident creditor.[497]
(4) Deposits of a resident in a bank in another State, where he carries on a business and from which these deposits are derived, but belonging absolutely to him and not used in the business, are subject to a personal property tax in the city of his residence, whether or not they are subject to tax in the State where the business is carried on. The tax is imposed for the general advantage of living within the jurisdiction [benefit-protection theory], and may be measured by reference to the riches of the person taxed.[498]
(5) Membership owned by a nonresident in a domestic exchange, known as a chamber of commerce.[499]
(6) Membership by a resident in a stock exchange located in another State. "Double taxation" the Court observed "by one and the same State is not" prohibited "by the Fourteenth Amendment; much less is taxation by two States upon identical or closely related property interests falling within the jurisdiction of both, forbidden."[500]
(7) A resident owner may be taxed on stock held in a foreign corporation that does no business and has no property within the taxing State. The Court also added that "undoubtedly the State in which a corporation is organized may * * *, [tax] of all its shares whether owned by residents or nonresidents."[501]
(8) Stock in a foreign corporation owned by another foreign corporation transacting its business within the taxing State. The Court attached no importance to the fact that the shares were already taxed by the State in which the issuing corporation was domiciled and might also be taxed by the State in which the issuing corporation was domiciled and might also be taxed by the State in which the stock owner was domiciled; or at any rate did not find it necessary to pass upon the validity of the latter two taxes. The present levy was deemed to be tenable on the basis of the benefit-protection theory; namely, "the economic advantages realized through the protection, at the place * * *, [of business situs] of the ownership of rights in intangibles * * *"[502]
(9) Shares owned by nonresident shareholders in a domestic corporation, the tax being assessed on the basis of corporate assets and payable by the corporation either out of its general fund or by collection from the shareholder. The shares represent an aliquot portion of the whole corporate assets, and the property right so represented arises where the corporation has its home, and is therefore within the taxing jurisdiction of the State, notwithstanding that ownership of the stock may also be a taxable subject in another State.[503]
(10) A tax on the dividends of a corporation may be distributed ratably among stockholders regardless of their residence outside the State, the stockholders being the ultimate beneficiaries of the corporation's activities within the taxing State and protected by the latter and subject to its jurisdiction.[504] This tax, though collected by the corporation, is on the transfer to a stockholder of his share of corporate dividends within the taxing State, and is deducted from said dividend payments.[505]
(11) Stamp taxes on the transfer within the taxing State by one nonresident to another of stock certificates issued by a foreign corporation;[506] and upon promissory notes executed by a domestic corporation, although payable to banks in other States.[507] These taxes, however, were deemed to have been laid, not on the property, but upon an event, the transfer in one instance, and execution, in the latter, which took place in the taxing State.
Taxes on Intangibles Invalidated.—The following personal property taxes on intangibles have not been upheld:
(1) Debts evidenced by notes in safekeeping within the taxing State, but made and payable and secured by property in a second State and owned by a resident of a third State.[508]
(2) A property tax sought to be collected from a life beneficiary on the corpus of a trust composed of property located in another State and as to which said beneficiary had neither control nor possession, apart from the receipt of income therefrom.[509] However, a personal property tax may be collected on one-half of the value of the corpus of a trust from a resident who is one of the two trustees thereof, notwithstanding that the trust was created by the will of a resident of another State in respect of intangible property located in the latter State, at least where it does not appear that the trustee is exposed to the danger of other ad valorem taxes in another State.[510] The first case, Brooke v. Norfolk,[511] is distinguishable by virtue of the fact that the property tax therein voided was levied upon a resident beneficiary rather than upon a resident trustee in control of nonresident intangibles. Different too is Safe Deposit and Trust Co. v. Virginia,[512] where a property tax was unsuccessfully demanded of a nonresident trustee with respect to nonresident intangibles under its control.
(3) A tax, measured by income, levied on trust certificates held by a resident, representing interests in various parcels of land (some inside the State and some outside), the holder of the certificates, though without a voice in the management of the property, being entitled to a share in the net income and, upon sale of the property, to the proceeds of the sale.[513]
Transfer Taxes (Inheritance, Estate, Gift Taxes).—Being competent to regulate exercise of the power of testamentary disposition and the privilege of inheritance, a State may base its succession taxes upon either the transmission, or an exercise of the legal power of transmission, of property by will or by descent, or the enjoyment of the legal privilege of taking property by devise or descent.[514] But whatever may be the justification of their power to levy such taxes, States have consistently found themselves restricted by the rule, established as to property taxes in 1905 in Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky,[515] and subsequently reiterated in Frick v. Pennsylvania[516] in 1925, which precludes imposition of transfer taxes upon tangible personal property by any State other than the one in which such tangibles are permanently located or have an actual situs. In the case of intangibles, however, the States have been harassed by the indecision of the Supreme Court; for to an even greater extent than is discernible in its treatment of property taxes on intangibles, it has oscillated in upholding, then rejecting, and again currently sustaining the levy by more than one State of death taxes upon intangibles comprising the estate of a decedent.
Until 1930, transfer taxes upon intangibles levied by both the domiciliary as well as nondomiciliary, or situs State, were with rare exceptions approved. Thus, in Bullen v. Wisconsin,[517] the domiciliary State of the creator of a trust was held competent to levy an inheritance tax, upon the death of the settlor, on his trust fund consisting of stocks, bonds, and notes kept and administered in another State and as to which the settlor reserved the right to control disposition and to direct payment of income for life, such reserved powers being equivalent to a fee. Cognizance was taken of the fact that the State in which these intangibles had their situs had also taxed the trust. Levy of an inheritance tax by a nondomiciliary State was sustained on similar grounds in Wheeler v. Sohmer, wherein it was held that the presence of a negotiable instrument was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the State seeking to tax its transfer.[518] On the other hand, the mere ownership by a foreign corporation of property in a nondomiciliary State was held insufficient to support a tax by that State on the succession to shares of stock in that corporation owned by a nonresident decedent.[519] Also against the trend was Blodgett v. Silberman[520] wherein the Court defeated collection of a transfer tax by the domiciliary State by treating coins and bank notes deposited by a decedent in a safe deposit box in another State as tangible property, albeit it conceded that the domiciliary State could tax the transfer of books and certificates of indebtedness found in that safe deposit box as well as the decedent's interest in a foreign partnership.
In the course of about two years following the recent Depression, the Court handed down a group of four decisions which, for the time being at any rate, placed the stamp of disapproval upon multiple transfer and—by inference—other multiple taxation of intangibles. Asserting, as it did in one of these cases, that "practical considerations of wisdom, convenience and justice alike dictate the desirability of a uniform general rule confining the jurisdiction to impose death transfer taxes as to intangibles to the State of the [owner's] domicile; * * *"[521] the Court, through consistent application of the maxim, mobilia sequuntur personam, proceeded to deny the right of nondomiciliary States to tax and to reject as inadequate jurisdictional claims of the latter founded upon such bases as control, benefit, and protection or situs. During this interval, 1930-1932, multiple transfer taxation of intangibles came to be viewed, not merely as undesirable, but as so arbitrary and unreasonable as to be prohibited by the due process clause.
Beginning, in 1930, with Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. v. Minnesota,[522] the Court reversed its former ruling in Blackstone v. Miller,[523] in which it had held that the State in which a debtor was domiciled or a bank located could levy an inheritance tax on the transfer of the debt or the deposit, notwithstanding that the creditor had his domicile in a different State. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. v. Minnesota, strictly appraised, was authority simply for the proposition that jurisdiction over a debtor, in this instance a State which had issued bonds held by a nonresident creditor, was inadequate to sustain a tax by that debtor State on the transfer of such securities. The securities in question, which had never been used by the creditor in any business in the issuing State, were located in the State in which the creditor had his domicile, and were deemed to be taxable only in the latter. In Baldwin v. Missouri,[524] a nondomiciliary State was prevented from applying its inheritance tax to bonds, bank deposits, and promissory notes, all physically present within its limits and some of them secured by lands therein, when the owner thereof was domiciled in another State. A like result, although on this occasion on grounds of lack of evidence of any "business situs," was reached in Beidler v. South Carolina Tax Commission,[525] in which the Court ruled that a State, upon the death of a nonresident creditor, may not apply its inheritance tax to a debt [open account] owned by one of its domestic corporations. Finally, in First National Bank v. Maine,[526] which has since been overruled in State Tax Commission v. Aldrich,[527] the Court declared that only the State in which the owner of corporate stock died domiciled was empowered to tax the succession to the shares by will or inheritance and that the State in which the issuing corporation was domiciled could not do so.
Without expressly overruling more than one of these four cases condemning multiple succession taxation of intangibles, the Court, beginning with Curry v. McCanless[528] in 1939, announced a departure from the "doctrine, of recent origin, that the Fourteenth Amendment precludes the taxation of any interest in the same intangible in more than one State * * *." Taking cognizance of the fact that this doctrine had never been extended to the field of income taxation or consistently applied in the field of property taxation, where the concepts of business situs as well as of domiciliary situs had been utilized to sustain double taxation, especially in connection with shares of corporate stock, the Court declared that a correct interpretation of constitutional requirements would dictate the following conclusions: "From the beginning of our constitutional system control over the person at the place of his domicile and his duty there, common to all citizens, to contribute to the support of government have been deemed to afford an adequate constitutional basis for imposing on him a tax on the use and enjoyment of rights in intangibles measured by their value. * * * But when the taxpayer extends his activities with respect to his intangibles, so as to avail himself of the protection and benefit of the laws of another State, in such a way as to bring his person or * * * [his intangibles] within the reach of the tax gatherer there, the reason for a single place of taxation no longer obtains, * * * [However], the State of domicile is not deprived, by the taxpayer's activities elsewhere, of its constitutional jurisdiction to tax." In accordance with this line of reasoning, Tennessee, where a decedent died domiciled, and Alabama, where a trustee, by conveyance from said decedent, held securities on specific trusts, were both deemed competent to impose a tax on the transfer of these securities passing under the will of the decedent. "In effecting her purposes," the testatrix was viewed as having "brought some of the legal interests which she created within the control of one State by selecting a trustee there, and others within the control of the other State, by making her domicile there." She had found it necessary to invoke "the aid of the law of both States, and her legatees" were subject to the same necessity.
These statements represented a belated adoption of the views advanced by Chief Justice Stone in dissenting or concurring opinions which he filed in three of the four decisions rendered during 1930-1932. By the line of reasoning taken in these opinions, if protection or control was extended to, or exercised over, intangibles or the person of their owner, then as many States as afforded such protection or were capable of exerting such dominion should be privileged to tax the transfer of such property. On this basis, the domiciliary State would invariably qualify as a State competent to tax and a nondomiciliary State, so far as it could legitimately exercise control or could be shown to have afforded a measure of protection that was not trivial or insubstantial.
On the authority of Curry v. McCanless, the Court, in Pearson v. McGraw,[529] also sustained the application of an Oregon transfer tax to intangibles handled by an Illinois trust company and never physically present in Oregon, jurisdiction to tax being viewed as dependent, not on the location of the property in the State, but on control over the owner who was a resident of Oregon. In Graves v. Elliott,[530] decided in the same year, the Court upheld the power of New York, in computing its estate tax, to include in the gross estate of a domiciled decedent the value of a trust of bonds managed in Colorado by a Colorado trust company and already taxed on its transfer by Colorado, which trust the decedent had established while in Colorado and concerning which he had never exercised any of his reserved powers of revocation or change of beneficiaries. It was observed that "the power of disposition of property is the equivalent of ownership, * * * and its exercise in the case of intangibles is * * * [an] appropriate subject of taxation at the place of the domicile of the owner of the power. Relinquishment at death, in consequence of the non-exercise in life, of a power to revoke a trust created by a decedent is likewise an appropriate subject of taxation."[531] Consistent application of the principle enunciated in Curry v. McCanless is also discernible in two later cases in which the Court sustained the right of a domiciliary State to tax the transfer of intangibles kept outside its boundaries, notwithstanding that "in some instances they may be subject to taxation in other jurisdictions, to whose control they are subject and whose legal protection they enjoyed." In Graves v. Schmidlapp[532] an estate tax was levied upon the value of the subject of a general testamentary power of appointment effectively exercised by a resident donee over intangibles held by trustees under the will of a nonresident donor of the power. Viewing the transfer of interest in said intangibles by exercise of the power of appointment as the equivalent of ownership, the Court quoted from McCulloch v. Maryland[533] to the effect that the power to tax "'is an incident of sovereignty, and is coextensive with that to which it is an incident.'" Again, in Central Hanover Bank & T. Co. v. Kelly,[534] the Court approved a New Jersey transfer tax imposed on the occasion of the death of a New Jersey grantor of an irrevocable trust executed, and consisting of securities located, in New York, and providing for the disposition of the corpus to two nonresident sons.
The costliness of multiple taxation of estates comprising intangibles is appreciably aggravated when each of several States founds its tax not upon different events or property rights but upon an identical basis; namely that, the decedent died domiciled within its borders. Not only is an estate then threatened with excessive contraction but the contesting States may discover that the assets of the estate are insufficient to satisfy their claims. Thus, in Texas v. Florida,[535] the State of Texas filed an original petition in the Supreme Court, in which it asserted that its claim, together with those of three other States, exceeded the value of the estate, that the portion of the estate within Texas alone would not suffice to discharge its own tax, and that its efforts to collect its tax might be defeated by adjudications of domicile by the other States. The Supreme Court disposed of this controversy by sustaining a finding that the decedent had been domiciled in Massachusetts, but intimated that thereafter it would take jurisdiction in like situations only in the event that an estate did not exceed in value the total of the conflicting demands of several States and that the latter were confronted with a prospective inability to collect.
Corporation Taxes
(1) Intangible Personal Property.—A State in which a foreign corporation has acquired a commercial domicile and in which it maintains its general business offices may tax the latter's bank deposits and accounts receivable even though the deposits are outside the State and the accounts receivable arise from manufacturing activities in another State.[536] Similarly, a nondomiciliary State in which a foreign corporation did business can tax the "corporate excess" arising from property employed and business done in the taxing State.[537] On the other hand, when the foreign corporation transacts only interstate commerce within a State, any excise tax on such excess is void, irrespective of the amount of the tax.[538] A domiciliary State, however, may tax the excess of market value of outstanding capital stock over the value of real and personal property and certain indebtedness of a domestic corporation even though this "corporate excess" arose from property located and business done in another State and was there taxable. Moreover, this result follows whether the tax is considered as one on property or on the franchise.[539] Also a domiciliary State, which imposes no franchise tax on a stock fire insurance corporation, validly may assess a tax on the full amount of its paid-in capital stock and surplus, less deductions for liabilities, notwithstanding that such domestic corporation concentrates its executive, accounting, and other business offices in New York, and maintains in the domiciliary State only a required registered office at which local claims are handled. Despite "the vicissitudes which the so-called 'jurisdiction-to-tax' doctrine has encountered * * *," the presumption persists that intangible property is taxable by the State of origin.[540] But a property tax on the capital stock of a domestic company which includes in the appraisement thereof the value of coal mined in the taxing State but located in another State awaiting sale deprives the corporation of its property without due process of law.[541] Also void for the same reason is a State tax on the franchise of a domestic ferry company which includes in the valuation thereof the worth of a franchise granted to the said company by another State.[542]
(2) Privilege Taxes Measured by Corporate Stock.—Since the tax is levied not on property but on the privilege of doing business in corporate form, a domestic corporation may be subjected to a privilege tax graduated according to paid up capital stock, even though the latter represents capital not subject to the taxing power of the State.[543] By the same token, the validity of a franchise tax, imposed on a domestic corporation engaged in foreign maritime commerce and assessed upon a proportion of the total franchise value equal to the ratio of local business done to total business, is not impaired by the fact that the total value of the franchise was enhanced by property and operations carried on beyond the limits of the State.[544] However, a State, under the guise of taxing the privilege of doing an intrastate business, cannot levy on property beyond its borders; and, therefore, as applied to foreign corporations, a license tax based on authorized capital stock is void,[545] even though there be a maximum to the fee,[546] unless apportioned according to some method, as, for example, a franchise tax based on such proportion of outstanding capital stock as is represented by property owned and used in business transacted in the taxing State.[547] An entrance fee, on the other hand, collected only once as the price of admission to do an intrastate business, is distinguishable from a tax and accordingly may be levied on a foreign corporation on the basis of a sum fixed in relation to the amount of authorized capital stock (in this instance, a $5,000 fee on an authorized capital of $100,000,000).[548]
(3) Privilege Taxes Measured by Gross Receipts.—A municipal license tax imposed as a percentage of the receipts of a foreign corporation derived from the sales within and without the State of goods manufactured in the city is not a tax on business transactions or property outside the city and therefore does not violate the due process clause.[549] But a State is wanting in jurisdiction to extend its privilege tax to the gross receipts of a foreign contracting corporation for work done outside the taxing State in fabricating equipment later installed in the taxing State. Unless the activities which are the subject of the tax are carried on within its territorial limits, a State is not competent to impose such a privilege tax.[550]
(4) Taxes on Tangible Personal Property.—When rolling stock is permanently located and employed in the prosecution of a business outside the boundaries of a domiciliary State, the latter has no jurisdiction to tax the same.[551] Vessels, however, inasmuch as they merely touch briefly at numerous ports, never acquire a taxable situs at any one of them, and are taxable by the domicile of their owners or not at all;[552] unless, of course, the ships operate wholly on the waters within one State, in which event they are taxable there and not at the domicile of the owners.[553] Only recently airplanes have been treated in a similar manner for tax purposes. Noting that the entire fleet of airplanes of an interstate carrier were "never continuously without the [domiciliary] State during the whole tax year," that such airplanes also had their "home port" in the domiciliary State, and that the company maintained its principal office therein, the Court sustained a personal property tax applied by the domiciliary State to all the airplanes owned by the taxpayer. No other State was deemed able to accord the same protection and benefits as the taxing State in which the taxpayer had both its domicile and its business situs; and the doctrines of Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky,[554] as to the taxability of permanently located tangibles, and that of apportionment, for instrumentalities engaged in interstate commerce[555] were held to be inapplicable.[556]
Conversely, a nondomiciliary State, although it may not tax property belonging to a foreign corporation which has never come within its borders, may levy on movables which are regularly and habitually used and employed therein. Thus, while the fact that cars are loaded and reloaded at a refinery in a State outside the owner's domicile does not fix the situs of the entire fleet in such State, the latter may nevertheless tax the number of cars which on the average are found to be present within its borders.[557] Moreover, in assessing that part of a railroad within its limits, a State need not treat it as an independent line, disconnected from the part without, and place upon the property within the State only a value which could be given to it if operated separately from the balance of the road. The State may ascertain the value of the whole line as a single property and then determine the value of the part within on a mileage basis, unless there be special circumstances which distinguish between conditions in the several States.[558] But no property of an interstate carrier can be taken into account unless it can be seen in some plain and fairly intelligible way that it adds to the value of the road and the rights exercised in the State.[559] Also, a State property tax on railroads, which is measured by gross earnings apportioned to mileage, is not unconstitutional in the absence of proof that it exceeds what would be legitimate as an ordinary tax on the property valued as part of a going concern or that it is relatively higher than taxes on other kinds of property.[560] The tax reaches only revenues derived from local operations, and the fact that the apportionment formula does not result in mathematical exactitude is not a constitutional defect.[561]
Income and Other Taxes
Individual Incomes.—Consistently with due process of law, a State annually may tax the entire net income of resident individuals from whatever source received,[562] and that portion of a nonresident's net income derived from property owned, and from any business, trade, or profession carried on, by him within its borders.[563] Jurisdiction, in the case of residents, is founded upon the rights and privileges incident to domicile; that is, the protection afforded the recipient of income in his person, in his right to receive the income, and in his enjoyment of it when received, and, in the case of nonresidents, upon dominion over either the receiver of the income or the property or activity from which it is derived, and upon the obligation to contribute to the support of a government which renders secure the collection of such income. Accordingly, a State may tax residents on income from rents of land located outside the State and from interest on bonds physically without the State and secured by mortgage upon lands similarly situated;[564] and the income received by a resident beneficiary from securities held by a trustee in a trust created and administered in another State, and not directly taxable to the trustee.[565] Nor does the fact that another State has lawfully taxed identical income in the hands of trustees operating therein necessarily destroy a domiciliary State's right to tax the receipt of said income by a resident beneficiary. "The taxing power of a State is restricted to her confines and may not be exercised in respect of subjects beyond them."[566] Likewise, even though a nonresident does no business within a State, the latter may tax the profits realized by the nonresident upon his sale of a right appurtenant to membership in a stock exchange within its borders.[567]
Incomes of Foreign Corporations.—A tax based on the income of a foreign corporation may be determined by allocating to the State a proportion of the total income which the tangible property in the State bears to the total.[568] However, such a basis may work an unconstitutional result if the income thus attributed to the State is out of all appropriate proportion to the business there transacted by the corporation. Evidence may always be submitted which tends to show that a State has applied a method which, albeit fair on its face, operates so as to reach profits which are in no sense attributable to transactions within its jurisdiction.[569] Nevertheless, a foreign corporation is in error when it contends that due process is denied by a franchise tax measured by income, which is levied, not upon net income from intrastate business alone, but on net income justly attributable to all classes of business done within the State, interstate and foreign, as well as intrastate business.[570] Inasmuch as the privilege granted by a State to a foreign corporation of carrying on local business supports a tax by that State on the income derived from that business, it follows that the Wisconsin privilege dividend tax, consistently with the due process clause, may be applied to a Delaware corporation, having its principal offices in New York, holding its meetings and voting its dividends in New York, and drawing its dividend checks on New York bank accounts. The tax is imposed on the "privilege of declaring and receiving dividends" out of income derived from property located and business transacted in the State, equal to a specified percentage of such dividends, the corporation being required to deduct the tax from dividends payable to resident and nonresident shareholders and pay it over to the State.[571]
Chain Store Taxes.—A tax on chain stores, at a rate per store determined by the number of stores both within and without the State, is not unconstitutional as a tax in part upon things beyond the jurisdiction of the State.[572]
Insurance Company Taxes.—A privilege tax on the gross premiums received by a foreign life insurance company at its home office for business written in the State does not deprive the company of property without due process;[573] but a tax is bad when the company has withdrawn all its agents from the State and has ceased to do business, merely continuing to be bound to policyholders resident therein and receiving at its home office the renewal premiums.[574] Distinguishable therefrom is the following tax which was construed as having been levied, not upon annual premiums nor upon the privilege merely of doing business during the period that the company actually was within the State, but upon the privilege of entering and engaging in business, the percentage "on the annual premiums to be paid throughout the life of the policies issued." By reason of this difference a State may continue to collect such tax even after the company's withdrawal from the State.[575]
A State which taxes the insuring of property within its limits may lawfully extend its tax to a foreign insurance company which contracts with an automobile sales corporation in a third State to insure its customers against loss of cars purchased through it, so far as the cars go into possession of purchasers within the taxing State.[576] On the other hand, a foreign corporation admitted to do a local business, which insures its property with insurers in other States who are not authorized to do business in the taxing State, cannot constitutionally be subjected to a 5% tax on the amount of premiums paid for such coverage.[577] Likewise a Connecticut life insurance corporation, licensed to do business in California, which negotiated reinsurance contracts in Connecticut, received payment of premiums thereon in Connecticut, and was there liable for payment of losses claimed thereunder, cannot be subjected by California to a privilege tax measured by gross premiums derived from such contracts, notwithstanding that the contracts reinsured other insurers authorized to do business in California and protected policies effected in California on the lives of residents therein. The tax cannot be sustained whether as laid on property, business done, or transactions carried on, within California, or as a tax on a privilege granted by that State.[578]
When policy loans to residents are made by a local agent of a foreign insurance company, in the servicing of which notes are signed, security taken, interest collected, and debts are paid within the State, such credits are taxable to the company, notwithstanding that the promissory notes evidencing such credits are kept at the home office of the insurer.[579] But when a resident policyholder's loan is merely charged against the reserve value of his policy, under an arrangement for extinguishing the debt and interest thereon by deduction from any claim under the policy, such credit is not taxable to the foreign insurance company.[580] Premiums due from residents on which an extension has been granted by foreign companies also are credits on which the latter may be taxed by the State of the debtor's domicile;[581] and the mere fact that the insurers charge these premiums to local agents and give no credit directly to policyholders does not enable them to escape this tax.[582]
PROCEDURE IN TAXATION
In General
Exactly what due process requires in the assessment and collection of general taxes has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While it was held that "notice to the owner at some stage of the proceedings, as well as an opportunity to defend, is essential" for imposition of special taxes, it has also ruled that laws for assessment and collection of general taxes stand upon a different footing and are to be construed with the utmost liberality, even to the extent of acknowledging that no notice whatever is necessary.[583] Due process of law as applied to taxation does not mean judicial process;[584] neither does it require the same kind of notice as is required in a suit at law, or even in proceedings for taking private property under the power of eminent domain.[585] If a taxpayer is given an opportunity to test the validity of a tax at any time before it is final, whether the proceedings for review take place before a board having a quasi-judicial character, or before a tribunal provided by the State for the purpose of determining such questions, due process of law is not denied.[586]
Notice and Hearing in Relation to General Taxes
"Of the different kinds of taxes which the State may impose, there is a vast number of which, from their nature, no notice can be given to the taxpayer, nor would notice be of any possible advantage to him, such as poll taxes, license taxes (not dependent upon the extent of his business), and generally, specific taxes on things, or persons, or occupations. In such cases the legislature, in authorizing the tax, fixes its amount, and that is the end of the matter. If the tax be not paid, the property of the delinquent may be sold, and he be thus deprived of his property. Yet there can be no question, that the proceeding is due process of law, as there is no inquiry into the weight of evidence, or other element of a judicial nature, and nothing could be changed by hearing the taxpayer. No right of his is, therefore, invaded. Thus, if the tax on animals be a fixed sum per head, or on articles a fixed sum per yard, or bushel, or gallon, there is nothing the owner can do which can affect the amount to be collected from him. So, if a person wishes a license to do business of a particular kind, or at a particular place, such as keeping a hotel or a restaurant, or selling liquors, or cigars, or clothes, he has only to pay the amount required by law and go into the business. There is no need in such cases for notice or hearing. So, also, if taxes are imposed in the shape of licenses for privileges, such as those on foreign corporations for doing business in the State, or on domestic corporations for franchises, if the parties desire the privilege, they have only to pay the amount required. In such cases there is no necessity for notice or hearing. The amount of the tax would not be changed by it."[587]
Notice and Hearing in Relation to Assessments
"But where a tax is levied on property not specifically, but according to its value, to be ascertained by assessors appointed for that purpose upon such evidence as they may obtain, a different principle comes in. The officers in estimating the value act judicially; and in most of the States provision is made for the correction of errors committed by them, through boards of revision or equalization, sitting at designated periods provided by law to hear complaints respecting the justice of the assessments. The law in prescribing the time when such complaints will be heard, gives all the notice required, and the proceeding by which the valuation is determined, though it may be followed, if the tax be not paid, by a sale of the delinquent's property, is due process of law."[588]
Nevertheless, it has never been considered necessary to the validity of a tax that the party charged shall have been present, or had an opportunity to be present, in some tribunal when he was assessed.[589] Where a tax board has its time of sitting fixed by law and where its sessions are not secret, no obstacle prevents the appearance of any one before it to assert a right or redress a wrong; and in the business of assessing taxes, this is all that can be reasonably asked.[590] Nor is there any constitutional command that notice of an assessment as well as an opportunity to contest it be given in advance of the assessment. It is enough that all available defenses may be presented to a competent tribunal during a suit to collect the tax and before the demand of the State for remittance becomes final.[591] A hearing before judgment, with full opportunity to submit evidence and arguments being all that can be adjudged vital, it follows that rehearings and new trials are not essential to due process of law.[592] One hearing is sufficient to constitute due process;[593] and the requirements of due process are also met if a taxpayer, who had no notice of a hearing, does receive notice of the decision reached thereat, and is privileged to appeal the same and, on appeal, to present evidence and be heard on the valuation of his property.[594]
Notice and Hearing in Relation to Special Assessments
However, when assessments are made by a political subdivision, a taxing board or court, according to special benefits, the property owner is entitled to be heard as to the amount of his assessments and upon all questions properly entering into that determination.[595] The hearing need not amount to a judicial inquiry,[596] but a mere opportunity to submit objections in writing, without the right of personal appearance, is not sufficient.[597] If an assessment for a local improvement is made in accordance with a fixed rule prescribed by legislative act, the property owner is not entitled to be heard in advance on the question of benefits.[598] On the other hand, if the area of the assessment district was not determined by the legislature, a landowner does have the right to be heard respecting benefits to his property before it can be included in the improvement district and assessed; but due process is not denied if, in the absence of actual fraud or bad faith, the decision of the agency vested with the initial determination of benefits is made final.[599] The owner has no constitutional right to be heard in opposition to the launching of a project which may end in assessment; and once his land has been duly included within a benefit district, the only privilege which he thereafter enjoys is to a hearing upon the apportionment; that is, the amount of the tax which he has to pay.[600] Nor can he rightfully complain because the statute renders conclusive, after said hearing, the determination as to apportionment by the same body which levied the assessment.[601]
More specifically, where the mode of assessment resolves itself into a mere mathematical calculation, there is no necessity for a hearing.[602] Statutes and ordinances providing for the paving and grading of streets, the cost thereof to be assessed on the front foot rule, do not, by their failure to provide for a hearing or review of assessments, generally deprive a complaining owner of property without due process of law.[603] In contrast, when an attempt is made to cast upon particular property a certain proportion of the construction cost of a sewer not calculated by any mathematical formula, the taxpayer has a right to be heard.[604]
Sufficiency and Manner of Giving Notice
Notice, insofar as it is required, may be either personal, or by publication, or by statute fixing the time and place of hearing.[605] A State statute, consistently with due process, may designate a corporation as the agent of a nonresident stockholder to receive notice and to represent him in proceedings for correcting assessments.[606] Also "where the State * * * [desires] to sell land for taxes upon proceedings to enforce a lien for the payment thereof, it may proceed directly against the land within the jurisdiction of the Court, and a notice which permits all interested, who are 'so minded,' to ascertain that it is to be subjected to sale to answer for taxes, and to appear and be heard, whether to be found within the jurisdiction or not, is due process of law within the Fourteenth Amendment * * *."[607] A description, even though it not be technically correct, which identifies the land will sustain an assessment for taxes and a notice of sale therefor when delinquent. If the owner knows that the property so described is his, he is not, by reason of the insufficient description, deprived of his property without due process. Where tax proceedings are in rem, owners are bound to take notice thereof, and to pay taxes on their property, even if assessed to unknown or other persons; and if an owner stands by and sees his property sold for delinquent taxes, he is not thereby wrongfully deprived of his property.[608]
Sufficiency of Remedy
When no other remedy is available, due process is denied by a judgment of a State court withholding a decree in equity to enjoin collection of a discriminatory tax.[609] Requirements of due process are similarly violated by a statute which limits a taxpayer's right to challenge an assessment to cases of fraud or corruption,[610] and by a State tribunal which prevents a recovery of taxes imposed in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States by invoking a State law limiting suits to recover taxes alleged to have been assessed illegally to taxes paid at the time and in the manner provided by said law.[611]
Persons failing to avail themselves of an opportunity to object and be heard, cannot thereafter complain of assessments as arbitrary and unconstitutional.[612] Likewise a car company, which failed to report its gross receipts as required by statute, has no further right to contest the State comptroller's estimate of those receipts and his adding thereto the 10% penalty permitted by law.[613]
Collection of Taxes
To reach property which has escaped taxation, a State may tax the estates of decedents for a period anterior to death and grant proportionate deductions for all prior taxes which the personal representative can prove to have been paid.[614] Collection of an inheritance tax also may be expedited by a statute requiring the sealing of safe deposit boxes for at least ten days after the death of the renter and obliging the lessor to retain assets found therein sufficient to pay the tax that may be due the State.[615] Moreover, with a view to achieving a like result in the case of gasoline taxes, a State may compel retailers to collect such taxes from consumers and, under penalty of a fine for delinquency, to remit monthly the amounts thus collected.[616] Likewise, a tax on the tangible personal property of a nonresident owner may be collected from the custodian or possessor of such property, and the latter, as an assurance of reimbursement, may be granted a lien on such property.[617] In collecting personal income taxes, however, most States require employers to deduct and withhold the tax from the wages of only nonresident employees; but the duty thereby imposed on the employer has never been viewed as depriving him of property without due process of law, nor has the adjustment of his system of accounting and paying salaries which withholding entails been viewed as an unreasonable regulation of the conduct of his business.[618]
As a State may provide in advance that taxes shall bear interest from the time they become due, it may with equal validity stipulate that taxes which have become delinquent shall bear interest from the time the delinquency commenced. Likewise, a State may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes and apply these remedies to taxes already delinquent.[619] After liability of a taxpayer has been fixed by appropriate procedure, collection of a tax by distress and seizure of his person does not deprive him of liberty without due process of law.[620] Nor is a foreign insurance company denied due process of law when its personal property is distrained to satisfy unpaid taxes.[621]
The requirements of due process are fulfilled by a statute which, in conjunction with affording an opportunity to be heard, provides for the forfeiture of titles to land for failure to list and pay taxes thereon for certain specified years.[622] No less constitutional, as a means of facilitating collection, is an in rem proceeding, to which the land alone is made a party, whereby tax liens on land are foreclosed and all pre-existing rights or liens are eliminated by a sale under a decree in said proceeding.[623] On the other hand, while the conversion of an unpaid special assessment into both a personal judgment therefor against the owner as well as a charge on the land is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment,[624] a judgment imposing personal liability against a nonresident taxpayer over whom the State court acquired no jurisdiction is void.[625] Apart from such restraints, however, a State is free to adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes and even to apply new remedies to taxes already delinquent.[626]
EMINENT DOMAIN
Historical Development
"Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment," the power of eminent domain, which is deemed to inhere in every State and to be essential to the performance of its functions,[627] "was unrestrained by any federal authority."[628] An express prohibition against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation was contained in the Fifth Amendment; but an effort to extend the application thereof to the States had been defeated by the decision, in 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore.[629] The most nearly comparable provision included in the Fourteenth Amendment, was the prohibition against a State depriving a person of property without due process of law. The Court was accordingly confronted with the task of determining whether this restraint on State action, minus the explicit provision for just compensation found in the Fifth Amendment, afforded property owners the same measure of protection as did the latter in its operation as a limitation on the Federal Government. The Court's initial answer to this question, as set forth in Davidson v. New Orleans,[630] decided in 1878, was in the negative; and on the ground of the omission of the clause found in the Fifth Amendment from the terms of the Fourteenth, it refused to equate the just compensation with due process. Within less than a decade thereafter, however, the Court modified its position, and in Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago,[631] seven Justices unequivocally rejected the contention, obviously based on the Davidson Case that "the question as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the railroad company was one of local law merely, and [insofar as] that question was determined in the mode prescribed by the Constitution and [State] law, the [property owner] appearing and having full opportunity to be heard, the requirement of due process of law was observed." On the contrary, the seven Justices maintained that although a State "legislature may prescribe a form of procedure to be observed in the taking of private property for public use, * * * it is not due process of law if provision be not made for compensation * * * The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, * * *, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."
Public Use
While acknowledging that agreement was virtually nonexistent as to "what are public uses for which the right of compulsory taking may be employed," the Court, until 1946, continued to reiterate "the nature of the uses, whether public or private, is ultimately a judicial question."[632] But because of proclaimed willingness to defer to local authorities, especially "the highest court of the State" in resolving such an issue,[633] the Court, as early as 1908, was obliged to admit that, notwithstanding its retention of the power of judicial review, "no case is recalled where this Court has condemned as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment a taking upheld by the State court as a taking for public uses * * *"[634] In 1946, however, without endeavoring to ascertain whether "the scope of the judicial power to determine what is a 'public use' in Fourteenth Amendment controversies, * * *" is the same as under the Fifth Amendment, a majority of the Justices, in a decision involving the Federal Government, declared that "it is the function of * * * [the legislative branch] to decide what type of taking is for a public use * * *"[635]
Necessity for a Taking
"Once it is admitted or judicially determined that a proposed condemnation is for a public purpose and within the statutory authority, a political or judicially nonreviewable question may emerge, to wit, the necessity or expediency of the condemnation of the particular property."[636] The necessity and expediency of the taking are legislative questions to be determined by such agency and in such mode as the State may designate.[637]
What Constitutes a Taking For a Public Use
To constitute a public use within the law of eminent domain, it is not essential that an entire community should directly participate in or enjoy an improvement, and, in ascertaining whether a use is public, not only present demands of the public but those which may be fairly anticipated in the future may be considered.[638] Moreover, it is also not necessary that property should be absolutely taken, in the narrowest sense of the word, to bring the case within the protection of this constitutional provision, but there may be such serious interruption to the common and necessary use of property as will be equivalent to a taking. "It would be * * * [an] unsatisfactory result, if * * *, it shall be held that if the government refrains from the absolute conversion of real property to the uses of the public, it can destroy its value entirely, can inflict irreparable and permanent injury to any extent, can in effect, subject it to total destruction without making any compensation, because, in the narrowest sense of that word, it [has] not [been] taken for the public use."[639]
Takings for a purpose that is public hitherto have been held to comprise the following: a privately owned water supply system formerly operated under contract with the municipality effecting the taking;[640] a right of way across a neighbor's land for the enlargement of an irrigation ditch therein to enable the taker to obtain water for irrigating land that would otherwise remain valueless;[641] a right of way across a placer mining claim for the aerial bucket line of a mining corporation;[642] land, water, and water rights for the production of electric power by a public utility;[643] water rights by an interurban railway company for the production of power in excess of current needs;[644] places of historical interest;[645] land taken for the purpose of exchange with a railroad company for a portion of its right of way, required for widening a highway;[646] land by a railway for a spur track;[647] establishment by a municipality of a public hack stand upon the driveway maintained by a railroad upon its own terminal grounds to afford ingress and egress to its patrons.[648] Likewise, damages for which compensation must be paid are sustained by an upper riparian proprietor by reason of the erection of a dam by a lower mill owner under authority of a "mill act."[649] On the other hand, even when compensation is tendered, an owner of property cannot be compelled to assent to its taking by the State for the private use of another. Such a taking is prohibited, by the due process clause. Thus, a State, by law, could not require a railroad corporation, which had permitted the erection of two grain elevators by private citizens on its right of way, to grant upon like terms, a location to another group of farmers desirous of erecting a third grain elevator for their own benefit.[650]
"When * * * [the] power [of eminent domain] is exercised it can only be done by giving the party whose property is taken or whose use and enjoyment of such property is interfered with, full and adequate compensation, not excessive or exorbitant, but just compensation."[651] However, "there must be something more than an ordinary honest mistake of law in the proceedings for compensation before a party can make out that the State has deprived him of his property unconstitutionally."[652] Unless, by its rulings of law, the State court prevented a complainant from obtaining substantially any compensation, its findings as to the amount of damages will not be overturned on appeal, even though as a consequence of error therein the property owner received less than he ought.[653] Accordingly, when a State court, expressly recognizing a right of recovery for any substantial damage, found that none had been shown by the proof, its award of only $1 as nominal damages was held to present no question for review.[654] "All that is essential is that in some appropriate way, before some properly constituted tribunal, inquiry shall be made as to the amount of compensation, and when this has been provided there is that due process of law which is required by the Federal Constitution."[655]
"The general rule is that compensation 'is to be estimated by reference to the uses for which the property is suitable, having regard to the existing business and wants of the community, or such as may be reasonably expected in the immediate future,' * * * [but] 'mere possible or imaginary uses, or the speculative schemes of its proprietor, are to be excluded.'"[656] Damages are measured by the loss to the owner, not by the gain to the taker;[657] and attorneys' fees and expenses are not embraced therein.[658] "When the public faith and credit are pledged to a reasonably prompt ascertainment and payment, and there is adequate provision for enforcing the pledge, * * * the requirement of just compensation is satisfied."[659]
"It is well settled that 'neither a natural person nor a corporation can claim damages on account of being compelled to render obedience to a police regulation designed to secure the common welfare.' * * * Uncompensated obedience to a regulation enacted for the public safety under the police power of the State is not a taking or damaging without just compensation of private property, * * *"[660] Thus, the flooding of lands consequent upon private construction of a dam under authority of legislation enacted to subserve the drainage of lowlands was not a taking which required compensation to be made, especially since such flooding could have been prevented by raising the height of dikes around the lands. "The rule to be gathered from these cases is that where there is a practical destruction, or material impairment of the value of plaintiff's lands, there is a taking, which demands compensation, but otherwise where, as in this case, plaintiff is merely put to some extra expense in warding off the consequences of the overflow."[661] Similarly, when a city, by condemnation proceedings, sought to open a street across the tracks of a railroad, it was not obligated to pay the expenses that the railroad would incur in planking the crossing, constructing gates, and posting gatemen at the crossing. The railway was presumed to have "laid its tracks subject to the condition necessarily implied that their use could be so regulated by competent authority as to insure the public safety."[662] Also, one who leased oyster beds in Hampton Roads from Virginia for $1 per acre under guaranty of an "absolute right" to use and occupy them was held to have acquired such rights subject to the superior power of Virginia to authorize Newport News to discharge its sewage into the sea; and, hence could not successfully contend that the resulting pollution of his oysters constituted an uncompensated taking without due process of law.[663]
Consequential Damages
"Acts done in the proper exercise of governmental powers, and not directly encroaching upon private property, though their consequences may impair its use, are universally held not to be a taking within the meaning of the due process clause."[664] Accordingly, consequential damages to abutting property caused by an obstruction in a street resulting from the authorization of a railroad to erect tracks, sheds, and fences over a portion thereof have been held to effect no unconstitutional deprivation of property.[665] Likewise, the erection over a street of an elevated viaduct, intended for general public travel and not devoted to the exclusive use of a private transportation corporation, has been declared to be a legitimate street improvement equivalent to a change in grade; and, as in the case of a change of grade, the owner of land abutting on the street has been refused damages for impairment of access to his land and the lessening of the circulation of light and air over it.[666]
Limits to the Above Rule.—There are limits however, to the amount of destruction or impairment of the enjoyment or value of private property which public authorities or citizens acting in their behalf may occasion without the necessity of paying compensation therefor. Thus, in upholding zoning regulations limiting the height of buildings which may be constructed in a designated zone, the Court has warned that similar regulations, if unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory, may be held to deprive an owner of the profitable use of his property and hence to amount to a taking sufficient to require compensation to be paid for such invasion of property rights.[667] Similarly, in voiding a statute forbidding mining of coal under private dwellings or streets or cities in places where such right to mine has been reserved in a conveyance, Justice Holmes, speaking for his associates, declared if a regulation restricting the use of private property goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking for which compensation must be made. "Some values are enjoyed under an implied limitation, and must yield to the police power. But obviously the implied limitation must have its limits, * * * One fact for consideration in determining such limits is the extent of the diminution. * * * The damage [here] is not common or public. * * * The extent of the taking is great. It purports to abolish what is recognized in Pennsylvania as an estate in land."[668]
(1) Notice.—If the owner of property sought to be condemned is a nonresident, personal notice is not requisite and service may be effected by publication.[669] In fact, "it has been uniformly held that statutes providing for * * * condemnation of land may adopt a procedure summary in character, and that notice of such proceedings may be indirect, provided only that the period of notice of the initiation of proceedings and the method of giving it are reasonably adapted to the nature of the proceedings and their subject matter." Insofar as reasonable notice is deemed to be essential, that requirement was declared to have been satisfied by a statute providing that notice of initiation of proceedings for establishment of a county road be published on three successive weeks in three successive issues of a paper published in the county, and that all meetings of the county condemning agency be public and published in a county newspaper.[670]
(2) Hearing.—The necessity and expediency of a taking being legislative questions irrespective of who may be charged with their decision, a hearing thereon need not be afforded;[671] but the mode of determining the compensation payable to an owner must be such as to furnish him with an opportunity to be heard. Among several admissible modes is that of causing the amount to be assessed by viewers, or by a jury, generally without a hearing, but subject to the right of the owner to appeal for a judicial review thereof at which a trial on the evidence may be had. Through such an appeal the owner obtains the hearing to which he is entitled;[672] and the fact that after having been adequately notified of the determination by the condemning authorities, the former must exercise his right of appeal within a limited period thereafter, such as 30 days, has been held not so arbitrary as to deprive him of property without due process of law.[673] Nor is there any "denial of due process in making the findings of fact by the triers of fact, whether commissioners or a jury, final as to such facts [that is, conclusive as to the mere value of the property], and leaving open to the courts simply the inquiry as to whether there was any erroneous basis adopted by the triers in their appraisal, * * *"[674]
(3) Occupation in Advance of Condemnation.—Due process does require that condemnation precede occupation by the condemning authority so long as the opportunity for a hearing as to the value of the land is guaranteed during the condemnation proceedings. Where the statute contains an adequate provision for assured payment of compensation without unreasonable delay, the taking may precede compensation.[675]
DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
Some General Criteria
What is due process of law depends on the circumstances.[676] It varies with the subject matter and the necessities of the situation. By due process of law is meant one which, following the forms of law, is appropriate to the case, and just to the parties affected. It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by law; it must be adapted to the end to be attained; and whenever necessary to the protection of the parties, it must give them an opportunity to be heard respecting the justice of the judgment sought. Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age or custom or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law.[677]
Ancient Usage and Uniformity.—What is due process of law may be ascertained in part by an examination of those settled usages and modes of proceedings existing in the common and statute law of England before the emigration of our ancestors, and shown not to have been unsuited to their civil and political condition by having been acted on by them after the settlement of this country. If it can show the sanction of settled usage both in England and in this country, a process of law which is not otherwise forbidden may be taken to be due process of law. In other words, the antiquity of a procedure is a fact of weight in its behalf. However, it does not follow that a procedure settled in English law at the time of the emigration and brought to this country and practiced by our ancestors is, or remains, an essential element of due process of law. If that were so, the procedure of the first half of the seventeenth century would be fastened upon American jurisprudence like a strait jacket, only to be unloosed by constitutional amendment. Fortunately, the States are not tied down by any provision of the Constitution to the practice and procedure which existed at the common law, but may avail themselves of the wisdom gathered by the experience of the country to make changes deemed to be necessary.[678]
Equality.—If due process is to be secured, the laws must operate alike upon all, and not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power unrestrained by established principles of private rights and distributive justice. Where a litigant has the benefit of a full and fair trial in the State courts, and his rights are measured, not by laws made to affect him individually, but by general provisions of law applicable to all those in like condition, he is not deprived of property without due process of law, even if he can be regarded as deprived of his property by an adverse result.[679]
Due Process and Judicial Process.—Due process of law does not always mean a proceeding in court.[680] Proceedings to raise revenue by levying and collecting taxes are not necessarily judicial, neither are administrative and executive proceedings, yet their validity is not thereby impaired.[681] Moreover, the due process clause has been interpreted as not requiring that the judgment of an expert commission be supplanted by the independent view of judges based on the conflicting testimony, prophecies, and impressions of expert witnesses when judicially reviewing a formula of a State regulatory commission for limiting daily production in an oil field and for proration among the several well owners.[682]
Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a State from conferring upon nonjudicial bodies certain functions that may be called judicial, or from delegating to a court powers that are legislative in nature. For example, State statutes vesting in a parole board certain judicial functions,[683] or conferring discretionary power upon administrative boards to grant or withhold permission to carry on a trade,[684] or vesting in a probate court authority to appoint park commissioners and establish park districts[685] are not in conflict with the due process clause and present no federal question. Whether legislative, executive, and judicial powers of a State shall be kept altogether distinct and separate, or whether they should in some particulars be merged is for the determination of the State.[686]
In General.—Jurisdiction may be defined as the power to create legal interests; but if a State attempts to exercise such power with respect to persons or things beyond its borders, its action is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment and is void within as well as without its territorial limits. The foundation of jurisdiction is therefore physical power capable of being exerted over persons through in personam actions and over things, generally through actions in rem.[687] In proceedings in personam to determine liability of a defendant, no property having been subjected by such litigation to the control of the Court, jurisdiction over the defendant's person is a condition prerequisite to the rendering of any effective decree.[688] That condition is fulfilled; that is, a State is deemed capable of exerting jurisdiction over an individual if he is physically present within the territory of the State, if he is domiciled in the State although temporarily absent therefrom, or if he has consented to the exercise of jurisdiction over him. In actions in rem, however, a State validly may proceed to settle controversies with regard to rights or claims against property within its borders, notwithstanding that control of the defendant is never obtained. Accordingly, by reason of its inherent authority over titles to land within its territorial confines, a State may proceed through its courts to judgment respecting the ownership of such property, even though it lacks the constitutional competence to reach claimants of title who reside beyond its borders.[689] By the same token, probate[690] and garnishment or foreign attachment[691] proceedings, being in the nature of in rem actions for the disposition of property, may be prosecuted to conclusion without requirement of the presence of all parties in interest.[692]
How Perfected: By Voluntary Appearance or Service of Process.—It is not enough, however, that a State be potentially capable of exercising control over persons and property. Before a State legitimately can exercise such power to alter private interests, its jurisdiction must be perfected by the employment of an appropriate mode of serving process deemed effective to acquaint all parties of the institution of proceedings calculated to affect their rights; for the interest of no one constitutionally may be impaired by a decree resulting from litigation concerning which he was afforded neither notice nor an opportunity to participate.[693] Voluntary appearance, on the other hand, may enable a State not only to obtain jurisdiction over a person who was otherwise beyond the reach of its process; but also, as in the case of a person who was within the scope of its jurisdiction, to dispense with the necessity of personal service. When a party voluntarily appears in a cause and actively conducts his defense, he cannot thereafter claim that he was denied due process merely because he was not served with process when the original action was commenced.[694]
Service of Process in Actions in Personam: Individuals, Resident and Nonresident.—The proposition being well established that no person can be deprived of property rights by a decree in a case in which he neither appeared, nor was served or effectively made a party, it follows, by way of illustration that to subject property of individual citizens of a municipality, by a summary proceeding in equity, to the payment of an unsatisfied judgment against the municipality would be a denial of due process of law.[695] Similarly, in a suit against a local partnership, in which the resident partner was duly served with process and the nonresident partner was served only with notice, a judgment thus obtained is binding upon the firm and the resident partner, but is not a personal judgment against the nonresident and cannot be enforced by execution against his individual property.[696] That the nonresident partner should have been so protected is attributable to the fact the process of a court of one State cannot run into another and summon a party there domiciled to respond to proceedings against him, when neither his person nor his property is within the jurisdiction of the Court rendering the judgment.[697] In the case of a resident, however, absence alone will not defeat the processes of courts in the State of his domicile; for domicile is deemed to be sufficient to keep him within reach of the State courts for purposes of a personal judgment, whether obtained by means of appropriate, substituted service, or by actual personal service on the resident at a point outside the State. Amenability to such suit even during sojourns outside is viewed as an "incident of domicile."[698] However, if the defendant, although technically domiciled therein, has left the State with no intention to return, service by publication; that is, by advertisement in a local newspaper, as compared to a summons left at his last and usual place of abode where his family continued to reside, is inadequate inasmuch as it is not reasonably calculated to give him actual notice of the proceedings and opportunity to be heard.[699]
In the case of nonresident individuals who are domiciled elsewhere, jurisdiction in certain instances may be perfected by requiring such persons, as a condition to entering the State, to designate local agents to accept service of process. Although a State does not have the power to exclude individuals until such formal appointment of an agent has been made,[700] it may, for example, declare that the use of its highways by a nonresident is the equivalent of the appointment of the State Registrar as agent for receipt of process in suits growing out of motor vehicle accidents. However, a statute designating a State official as the proper person to receive service of process in such litigation must, to be valid, contain a provision making it reasonably probable that a notice of such service will be communicated to the person sued. If the statute imposed "either on the plaintiff himself, or upon the official" designated to accept process "or some other, the duty of communicating by mail or otherwise with the defendant" this requirement is met; but if the act exacts no more than service of process on the local agent, it is unconstitutional, notwithstanding that the defendant may have been personally served in his own State. Not having been directed by the statute, such personal service cannot supply constitutional validity to the act or to service under it.[701]
Suits in Personam.—Restating the constitutional principles currently applicable for determining whether individuals, resident and nonresident, are suable in in personam actions, the Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington,[702] recently declared that: "Historically the jurisdiction of courts to render judgments in personam is grounded on their de facto power over the defendant's person. Hence his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding him. * * * But now * * *, due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"
Suability of Foreign Corporations.—Until the enunciation in 1945 in International Shoe Co. v. Washington[703] of a "fair play and substantial justice" doctrine, the exact scope of which cannot yet be ascertained, the suability of foreign corporations had been determined by utilization of the "presence" doctrine. Defined in terms no less abstract than its alleged successor and capable therefore of acquiring meaning only in cases of specific application, the "presence" doctrine was stated by Justice Brandeis as follows: "In the absence of consent, a foreign corporation is amenable to process to enforce a personal liability only if it is doing business within the State in such manner and to such extent as to warrant the inference that it is present there".[704] In a variety of cases the Court has considered the measure of "presence" sufficient to confer jurisdiction and a representative sample of the classes thereof is set forth below.
With rare exceptions,[705] even continuous activity of some sort by a foreign corporation within a State did not in the past suffice to render it amenable to suits therein unrelated to that activity. Without the protection of such a rule, it was maintained, foreign corporations would be exposed to the manifest hardship and inconvenience of defending in any State in which they happen to be carrying on business suits for torts wherever committed and claims on contracts wherever made. Thus, an Indiana insurance corporation, engaging, without formal admission, in the business of selling life insurance in Pennsylvania, was held not to be subject in the latter State to a suit filed by a Pennsylvania resident upon an insurance policy executed and delivered in Indiana.[706] Similarly, a Virginia railway corporation, doing business in New Orleans, was declared not to be within the jurisdiction of Louisiana for the purposes of a negligence action instituted against it by a Louisiana citizen and based upon injuries suffered in Alabama.[707] Also, an Iowa railway company soliciting freight and passenger business in Philadelphia through a local agent was viewed as exempt therein from suit brought by a Pennsylvania resident to recover damages for personal injuries sustained on one of the carrier's trains in Colorado.[708] On the other hand, when a Missouri statute, accepted by a foreign insurance company and requiring it to designate the State superintendent of insurance as its agent for service of process, was construed by Missouri courts to apply to suits on contracts executed outside Missouri, with the result that the company had to defend in Missouri a suit on a policy issued in Colorado and covering property therein, the Court was unable to discern any denial of due process. The company was deemed to have consented to such interpretation when it complied with the statute.[709] Moreover, even when the cause of action arose in the forum State and suit was instituted by a corporation chartered therein, a foreign company retailing clothing in Oklahoma was held immune from service of process on its president when the latter visited New York on one of his periodic trips there for the purchase of merchandise. Notwithstanding that such business trips were made at regular intervals, the Oklahoma corporation was considered not to be doing business in New York "in such manner and to such extent as to warrant the inference that it was present there," especially in view of its having never applied for a license to do business in New York or consented to suit being brought against it there, or established therein an office or appointed a resident agent.[710]
Nor would the mere presence within its territorial limits of an agent, officer, or stockholder, upon whom service might readily be had, be effective without more to enable a State to acquire jurisdiction over a foreign corporation. Consequently, service of process on the president of a foreign corporation in a State where he was temporarily and casually present and where the corporation did no business and had no property was fruitless.[711] Likewise, service on a New York director of a Virginia corporation was not sufficient to bring the corporation into the New York courts when, at the time of service, the corporation was not doing business in New York, and the director was not there officially representing the corporation in its business.[712] On occasion, an officer of a corporation may temporarily be in a State or even temporarily reside therein; but if he is not there for the purpose of transacting business for the corporation, or vested with authority by the corporation to transact business in such State, his presence affords no basis for the exercise of jurisdiction over such nonresident employer, and any decree resulting from service upon such officer is violative of due process.[713] However, a foreign insurance corporation which had ceased to sell insurance in Tennessee but which had sent a special agent there to adjust a loss under a policy previously issued in that State could not, it was held, constitutionally object when a judgment on that claim was obtained by service on that agent.[714]
Inasmuch as a State need not permit a foreign corporation to do domestic business within its borders, it may condition entry upon acceptance by the corporation of service of process upon its agents or upon a person to be designated by the corporation or, failing such designation, upon a State officer designated by law.[715] Service on a State officer, however, is no more effective than service upon an agent in the employ of a foreign corporation when, as has already been noted, such corporation is not subject to the jurisdiction of the State; that is, has not engaged in activities sufficient to render it "present" within the State, or is subjected to a cause of action unrelated to such activities and originating beyond the forum State. Thus, a foreign insurance company which, after revocation of its entry license, continued to collect premiums on policies formerly issued to citizens of the forum State was in fact continuing to do business in that State sufficiently to render service on it through the insurance commissioner adequate to bind it as defendant in a suit by a citizen of said State on a policy therein issued to him.[716] Furthermore, a foreign corporation which, after leaving a State and subsequently dissolving, failed to obey a statutory requirement of that State that it maintain therein a resident agent until the period of limitations shall have run, or, in default thereof, that it consent to service on it through the Secretary of State, could not complain of any denial of due process because that statute did not oblige the Secretary of State to notify it of the pendency of an action. The burden was on the corporation to make such arrangement for notice as was thought desirable.[717]
To what extent these aforementioned holdings have been undermined by the recent opinion in International Shoe Co. v. Washington[718] cannot yet be determined. In the latter case, a foreign corporation, which had not been issued a license to do business in Washington, but which systematically and continuously employed a force of salesmen, residents thereof, to canvass for orders therein, was held suable in Washington for unpaid unemployment compensation contributions in respect to such salesmen. Service of the notice of assessment personally upon one of its local sales solicitors plus the forwarding of a copy thereof by registered mail to the corporation's principal office in Missouri was deemed sufficient to apprize the corporation of the proceeding.
To reach this conclusion the Court not only overturned prior holdings to the effect that mere solicitation of patronage does not constitute doing of business in a State sufficient to subject a foreign corporation to the jurisdiction thereof,[719] but also rejected the "presence" test as begging "the question to be decided. * * * The terms 'present' or 'presence,'" according to Chief Justice Stone, "are used merely to symbolize those activities of the corporation's agent within the State which courts will deem to be sufficient to satisfy the demands of due process. * * * Those demands may be met by such contacts of the corporation with the State of the forum as make it reasonable, in the context of our federal system * * *, to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there; [and] * * * that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notices of fair play and substantial justice' * * * An 'estimate of the inconveniences' which would result to the corporation from a trial away from its 'home' or principal place of business is relevant in this connection."[720] As to the scope of application to be accorded this "fair play and substantial justice" doctrine, the Court, at least verbally, conceded that "* * * so far as * * * [corporate] obligations arise out of or are connected with activities within the State, a procedure which requires the corporation to respond to a suit brought to enforce them can, in most instances, hardly be said to be undue."[721] Read literally, these statements coupled with the terms of the new doctrine may conceivably lead to a reversal of former decisions which: (1) nullified the exercise of jurisdiction by the forum State over actions arising outside said State and brought by a resident plaintiff against a foreign corporation doing business therein without having been legally admitted and without having consented to service of process on a resident agent; and (2) exempted a foreign corporation, which has been licensed by the forum State to do business therein and has consented to the appointment of a local agent to accept process, from suit on an action not arising in the forum State and not related to activities pursued therein.
By an extended application of the logic of the last mentioned case, a majority of the Court, in Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia[722] ruled that, notwithstanding that it solicited business in Virginia solely through recommendations of existing members and was represented therein by no agents whatsoever, a foreign mail order insurance company had through its policies developed such contacts and ties with Virginia residents that the State, by forwarding notice to the company by registered mail only, could institute enforcement proceedings under its Blue Sky Law leading to a decree ordering cessation of business pending compliance with that act. The due process clause was declared not to "forbid a State to protect its citizens from such injustice" of having to file suits on their claims at a far distant home office of such company, especially in view of the fact that such suits could be more conveniently tried in Virginia where claims of loss could be investigated.[723]
Actions in Rem—Proceedings Against Land.—For the purpose of determining the extent of a nonresident's title to real estate within its limits, a State may provide any reasonable means of imparting notice.[724] Precluded from going beyond its boundaries and serving nonresident owners personally, States in such cases of necessity have had recourse to constructive notice or service by publications. This they have been able to do because of their inherent authority over titles to lands within their borders. Owners, nonresident as well as resident, are charged with knowledge of laws affecting demands of the State pertinent to property and of the manner in which such demands may be enforced.[725] Accordingly, only so long as the property affected has been brought under control of the Court, will a judgment obtained thereto without personal notice to a nonresident defendant be effective. Insofar as jurisdiction is thus required over a nonresident, it does not extend beyond the property involved.[726] Consistently with such principles, San Francisco, after the earthquake of 1906, had destroyed nearly all records, permitted titles to be reestablished by parties in possession by posting summons on the property, serving them on known claimants, and publishing them against unknown claimants in newspapers for two weeks.[727]
Actions in Rem—Attachment Proceedings.—In fulfillment of the protection which a State owes to its citizens, it may exercise its jurisdiction over real and personal property situated within its borders belonging to a nonresident and permit an appropriation of the same in attachment proceedings to satisfy a debt owed by the nonresident to one of its citizens or to settle a claim for damages founded upon a wrong inflicted on the citizen by the nonresident. Being neither present within the State nor domiciled therein, the nonresident defendant cannot be served personally; and consequently any judgment in money obtained against him would be void and could not thereafter be satisfied either by execution on the nonresident's property subsequently found within the State or by suit and execution thereon in another State. In such instances, the citizen-plaintiff may recover, if at all, only by an in rem proceeding involving a levy of a writ of attachment on the local property of the defendant, of which proceeding the nonresident need be notified merely by publication of a notice within the forum State. However, any judgment rendered in such proceedings can have no consequence beyond the property attached. If the attached property be insufficient to pay the claim, the plaintiff cannot thereafter sue on such judgment to collect an unpaid balance; and if property owned by the defendant cannot be found within the State, the attachment proceedings are, of course, summarily concluded.[728]
Actions in Rem—Corporations, Estates, Trusts, Etc.—Probate administration, being in the nature of a proceeding in rem, is one to which all the world is charged with notice.[729] Thus, in a proceeding against an estate involving a suit against an administratrix to foreclose a mortgage executed by the decedent, the heir, notwithstanding that the suit presents an adverse claim the disposition of which may be destructive of his title to land deriving from the decedent, may properly be represented by the administratrix and is not entitled to personal notification or summons.[730] For like reasons, a statutory proceeding whereunder a special administrator, having charge of an estate pending a contest as to the validity of the will, is empowered to have a final settlement of his accounts without notice to the distributees, is not violative of due process. The executor, or administrator c.t.a., has an opportunity to contest the final settlement of the special administrator before giving the latter an acquittance; and since the former represents all claiming under the will, it cannot be said the absence of notice to the distributees of the settlement deprives them of their rights without due process of law.[731]
In litigation to determine succession to property by proceedings in escheat, due process is afforded by personal service of summons upon all known claimants and constructive notice by publication to all claimants who are unknown.[732] Whether a proceeding by the State to compel a bank to turn over to it unclaimed deposits in quasi in rem or strictly in rem, the essentials of jurisdiction over the deposit are that there be a seizure of the res at the commencement of the suit and reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. These requirements are met by personal service on the bank and publication of summons to depositors and of notice to all other claimants. The fact that no affidavit of impracticability of personal service on claimants is required before publication of such notices does not render the latter unreasonable inasmuch as they are used only in cases where the depositor is not known to the bank officers to be alive.[733] Similarly, a Kentucky statute requiring banks to turn over to the State deposits long inactive is not violative of due process where, although the deposits are taken over upon published notice only, without any judicial decree of actual abandonment, they are to be held by the State for the depositor until such determination and for five years thereafter.[734] However, a procedure is at least partly defective whereby a bank managing a common trust fund in favor of nonresident as well as resident beneficiaries may, by a petition, the only notice of which is by publication in a local paper, obtain a judicial settlement of accounts which is conclusive on all having an interest in the common fund or in any participating trust. Such notice by publication is sufficient as to beneficiaries whose interests or addresses are unknown to the bank, since there are no other more practicable means of giving them notice; but is inadequate as a basis for adjudication depriving of substantial rights persons whose whereabouts are known, inasmuch as it is feasible to make serious efforts to notify them at least by mail to their addresses on record with said bank.[735] On the other hand, failure to make any provision for notice to majority stockholders of a suit by dissenting shareholders, under a statute which provided that, on a sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of corporate assets, a dissenting shareholder shall have the right, after six months, to be paid the amount demanded, if the corporation makes no counter offer or does not abandon the sale, does not deny due process; for the majority stockholders are sufficiently represented by the corporation.[736]
Actions in Rem—Divorce Proceedings.—The jurisdictional requirements for rendering a valid decree in divorce proceedings are considered under the full faith and credit clause. See pp. [662-670].
Misnomer of Defendant—False Return, Etc.—An unattainable standard of accuracy is not imposed by the due process clause. If a defendant within the jurisdiction is served personally with process in which his name is misspelled, he cannot safely ignore it on account of the misnomer. If he fails to appear and plead the misnomer in abatement, the judgment binds him. In a published notice intended to reach absent or nonresident defendants, where the name is a principal means of identifying the person concerned, somewhat different considerations obtain. The general rule, in case of constructive service of process by publication, tends to strictness. However, published notice to "Albert Guilfuss, Assignee," in a suit to partition land, was adequate to render a judgment binding on "Albert B. Geilfuss, Assignee," the latter not having appeared.[737]
Foreclosure of a mortgage made upon process duly issued but which the sheriff falsely returned as having been duly served, and of which the owner had no notice, does not deprive said owner of property without due process of law. A purchaser of the land at the sheriff's sale has a right to rely on such return; otherwise judicial proceedings could never be relied upon. The mortgagor must seek his remedy against the sheriff upon his bond.[738]
Legislative Proceedings.—While due notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard to present one's claim or defense have been declared to be two fundamental conditions almost universally prescribed in all systems of law established by civilized countries,[739] there are certain proceedings appropriate for the determination of various rights in which the enjoyment of these two privileges has not been deemed to be constitutionally necessary. Thus the Constitution does not require legislative assemblies to discharge their functions in town meeting style; and it would be manifestly impracticable to accord every one affected by a proposed rule of conduct a voice in its adoption. Advanced notice of legislation accordingly is not essential to due process of law; nor need legislative bodies preface their enactment of legislation by first holding committee hearings thereon. It follows therefore that persons adversely affected by a specific law can never challenge its validity on the ground that they were never heard on the wisdom or justice of its provisions.[740]
Administrative Proceedings.—To what extent notice and hearing are deemed essential to due process in administrative proceedings, encompassing as they do the formulation and issuance of general regulations, the determination of the existence of conditions which have the effect of bringing such regulations into operation, and the issuance of orders of specific, limited application, entails a balancing of considerations as to the desirability of speed in law enforcement and protection of individual interests. When an administrative agency engages in a legislative function, as, for example, when, in pursuance of statutory authorization, it drafts regulations of general application affecting an unknown number of people, it need not, any more than does a legislative assembly, afford a hearing prior to promulgation. On the other hand, if a regulation, sometimes described as an order or action of an administrative body, is of limited application; that is, affects the property or interests of specific, named individuals, or a relatively small number of people readily identifiable by their relation to the property or interests affected, the question whether notice and hearing is prerequisite and, if so, whether it must precede such action, becomes a matter of greater urgency.
But while a distinction readily may be made, for example, between a regulation establishing a schedule of rates for all carriers in a State, and one designed to control the charges of only one or two specifically named carriers, the cases do not consistently sustain the withholding of advance notice and hearing in the first class of regulations and insist upon its provision in the latter. In fact, the observation has been made that the judicial disposition to exact the protection of notice and hearing rises in direct proportion to the extent to which a regulation affects the finances of business establishments covered thereunder. Accordingly, if a regulation bears only indirectly upon income and expenses, as for example, a regulation altering insurance policy forms, less concern for such procedural protection is likely to be expressed than in the case of the formulation of a minimum wage schedule, even though the regulations involved in both illustrations are general and not limited in operation. Moreover, if regulations, which are general in their application, may be readily subjected to judicial challenge after their promulgation, or if the parties to which they apply are affected only when they endeavor to comply in the future, advance notice and hearing is less likely to be viewed as essential to due process.[741]
As to that portion of administrative activity pertaining to the making of determinations or the issuance of orders of limited or individual application, the obligation to afford notice and hearing is reasonably clear; but controversy has been protracted on the question whether this procedural safeguard, in every instance, must be granted in advance of such activity. The most frequently litigated types of administrative action embracing the latter issue have been determinations to withhold issuance of, or to revoke, an occupational license, or to impound or destroy property believed to be dangerous to public health, morals, or safety. Apparently in recognition of the fact that few occupations today can be pursued without a license, the trend of decisions is toward sustaining a requirement of a hearing before refusal to issue a license and away from the view that inasmuch as no one is entitled as of right to engage in a specific profession, the issue of a practitioner's license applicable thereto is in the nature of a gift as to the granting or withholding of which procedural protection is unnecessary. Revocation, or refusal to renew a license, however, has been distinguished from issuance of a license; and where a license is construed to confer something in the nature of a property right rather than a mere privilege terminable at will, such property right, the Courts have maintained, ought not to be destroyed summarily by revocation without prior notice and hearing. Whether an occupational license is to be treated as a privilege revocable without a hearing, or as conferring a property right deserving of greater protection, depends very largely on prevailing estimates of the social desirability of a calling. Thus, if a business is susceptible of being viewed as injurious to public health, morals, safety, and convenience, as, for example, saloons, pool rooms, and dance halls, the licensee is deemed to have entered upon such line of endeavor with advance knowledge of the State's right to withdraw his license therefor summarily. Prompt protection of the public in such instances is said to outweigh the advantages of a slower procedure, retarded by previous notice and hearing, and to require that the person adversely affected seek his remedy from the Court via a petition to review or to enjoin the decision of the licensing authorities.[742]
For like reasons, the owner of property about to be impounded or destroyed by officers acting in furtherance of the police power may justifiably be relegated to post mortem remedies in the form of a suit for damages against the officer effecting the seizure or destruction, or, if time permits, a bill in equity for an injunction. Thus, due process of law is not denied the custodian of food in cold storage by enforcement of a city ordinance under which such food, when unfit for human consumption, may summarily be seized, condemned, and destroyed without a preliminary hearing. "If a party cannot get his hearing in advance of the seizure and destruction he has the right to have it afterward, * * * in an action brought for the destruction of his property, and in that action those who destroyed it can only successfully defend if the jury shall find the fact of unwholesomeness as claimed by them."[743] Similarly, if the owner of liquor, possession of which has been made unlawful, can secure a hearing by instituting injunction proceedings, he is not denied due process by the failure to grant him a hearing before seizure and destruction of his property.[744] Indeed, even when no emergency exists, such as is provided by a conflagration or threatened epidemic, and the property in question is not intrinsically harmful, mere use in violation of a valid police power regulation has been held to justify summary destruction. Thus, in the much criticized case of Lawton v. Steele,[745] the destruction, without prior notice and hearing, of fishing nets set in violation of a conservation law defining them to be a nuisance was sustained on the ground that the property was not "of great value." Conceding that "it is not easy to draw the line between cases where property illegally used may be destroyed summarily and where judicial proceedings are necessary for its condemnation," the Court acknowledged that "if the property were of great value, as, for instance, if it were a vessel employed for smuggling or other illegal purposes, it would be * * * dangerous * * * to permit * * * [an officer] to sell or destroy it as a public nuisance, * * * But where the property is of trifling value, * * * we think it is within the power of the legislature to order its summary abatement."[746]
Statutory Proceedings.—"It is not an indispensable requirement of due process that every procedure affecting the ownership or disposition of property be exclusively by judicial proceeding. Statutory proceedings affecting property rights, which, by later resort to the courts, secure to adverse parties an opportunity to be heard, suitable to the occasion, do not deny due process."[747] Thus, a procedure under which a State banking superintendent, after having taken over a closed bank and issued notices to stockholders of their assessment, may issue execution for the amounts due, subject to the right of each stockholder, by affidavit of illegality, to contest his liability for such an assessment, does not in effect authorize an execution and creation of a lien before and without any judicial proceeding. The fact that the execution is issued in the first instance by an agent of the State and not from a court, followed by personal notice and a right to take the case into court, is open to no objection. The statute authorizing this procedure is itself notice to stockholders that on becoming such they assumed the liability on which they are to be held.[748]
Judicial Proceedings.—Consistently with the due process clause, a State may not enforce a judgment against a party named in the proceedings without an opportunity to be heard at sometime before final judgment is entered.[749] As to the presentation of every available defense, however, the requirements of due process do not entail affording an opportunity to do so before entry of judgment. A hearing by an appeal may suffice. Accordingly, a surety company, objecting to the entry of a judgment against it on a supersedeas bond, without notice and an opportunity of a hearing on the issue of liability thereon, was not denied due process where the State practice provided the opportunity for such hearing by an appeal from the judgment so entered. Nor could the company found its claim of denial upon the fact that it lost this opportunity for a hearing by inadvertently pursuing the wrong procedure in the State courts.[750] On the other hand, where a State Supreme Court reversed a trial court and entered a final judgment for the defendant, a plaintiff who had never had an opportunity to introduce evidence in rebuttal to certain testimony which the trial court deemed immaterial but which the appellate court considered material, was held to have been deprived of his rights without due process of law.[751]
Sufficiency of Notice and Hearing.—Although the Supreme Court has wavered on the question whether the granting of notice in administrative proceedings, in cases in which the authorizing statute does not expressly provide therefor, will satisfy the requirements of due process,[752] in judicial proceedings it has almost consistently declared that notice must be provided as an essential part of the statutory provision and not as a mere matter of favor or grace.[753] Also, the notice afforded must be adequate for the purpose. Thus, a Texas statute providing for service of process by giving five days' notice was held to be an insufficient notice to a Virginian who would (at that time) have required four days' traveling to reach the place where the court was held. Nor would this insufficiency of notice on a nonresident be cured by the fact that under local practice there would be several additional days before the case would be called for trial or that the court would probably set aside a default judgment and permit a defense when the nonresident arrived.[754] On the other hand, a statute affording ten days' notice of the time for settlement of the account of a personal representative in probate proceedings is not wanting in due process of law as to a nonresident.[755] Adequacy, moreover, is no less an essential attribute of a hearing than it is of notice; and, as the preceding discussion has shown, unless a person involved in administrative as well as judicial proceedings has received a hearing that is both sufficient and fair and has been subjected to rulings amply supported by the evidence introduced thereat, he will not be considered to have been accorded due process.[756]
POWER OF STATES TO REGULATE PROCEDURE
Generally
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not control mere forms of procedure in State courts or regulate practice therein.[757] A State "is free to regulate the procedure of its courts in accordance with its own conception of policy and fairness unless in so doing it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."[758] Pursuant to such plenary power, States have regulated the manner in which rights may be enforced and wrongs remedied,[759] and, in connection therewith, have created courts and endowed them with such jurisdiction as, in the judgment of their legislatures, seemed appropriate.[760] Whether legislative action in such matters is deemed to be wise or proves efficient, whether it works a particular hardship on a particular litigant, or perpetuates or supplants ancient forms of procedure are issues which can give rise to no conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment; for the latter's function is negative rather than affirmative and in no way obligates the States to adopt specific measures of reform.[761]
Pleading and Practice
Commencement Of Actions.—A State may impose certain conditions on the right to institute litigation. Thus, access to the courts may be denied to persons instituting stockholders' derivative actions unless reasonable security for the costs, and fees incurred by the corporation is first tendered. Nor is the retroactive application of this statutory requirement to actions pending at the time of its adoption violative of due process as long as no new liability for expenses incurred before enactment is imposed thereby, and the only effect thereof is to stay such proceedings until the security is furnished.[762] Moreover, when a nonresident files suit in a local court, the State, as the price of opening its tribunals to such plaintiff, may exact the condition that the former stand ready to answer all cross-actions filed and accept any in personam judgments obtained by a resident defendant through service of process or appropriate pleading upon the plaintiff's attorney of record.[763] For similar reasons, the requirements, without excluding other evidence, of a chemical analysis as a condition precedent to a suit to recover damages resulting to crops from allegedly deficient fertilizers is not deemed to be arbitrary or unreasonable.[764]
Pleas in Abatement.—State legislation which forbids a defendant to come into court and challenge the validity of service upon him in a personal action without thereby surrendering himself to the jurisdiction of the Court, but which does not restrain him from protecting his substantive rights against enforcement of a judgment rendered without service of process, is constitutional and does not deprive him of property without due process of law. Such a defendant, if he please, may ignore the proceedings as wholly ineffective, and set up the invalidity of the judgment if and when an attempt is made to take his property thereunder. However, if he desires to contest the validity of the proceedings in the court in which it is instituted, so as to avoid even semblance of a judgment against him, it is within the power of a State to declare that he shall do this subject to the risk of being obliged to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the merits, if the objection raised by him as to its jurisdiction over his person shall be overruled.[765]
Defenses.—Just as the State may condition the right to institute litigation, so may it establish its terms for the interposition of certain defenses. Thus, by statute a State validly may provide that one sued in a possessory action cannot bring an action to try title until after judgment shall have been rendered in the possessory action, and until he shall have paid the judgment, if the decision shall have so awarded.[766] Likewise, a nonresident defendant in a suit begun by foreign attachment, even though he has no resources or credit other than the property attached, cannot successfully challenge the validity of a statute which requires him to give bail or security for the discharge of the seized property before permitting him an opportunity to appear and defend. "The condition imposed has a reasonable relation to the conversion of a proceeding quasi in rem into an action in personam; [and] ordinarily * * * is not difficult to comply with—* * *"[767]
Amendments and Continuances.—Amendment of pleadings is largely within the discretion of the trial court, and unless a gross abuse of discretion is shown, there is no ground for reversal; accordingly, where the defense sought to be interposed is without merit, a claim that due process would be denied by rendition of a foreclosure decree without leave to file a supplementary answer is utterly without foundation.[768]
Costs, Damages, and Penalties.—What costs are allowed by law is for the court to determine; and an erroneous judgment of what the law allows does not deprive a party of his property without due process of law.[769] Nor does a statute providing for the recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in actions on small claims subject unsuccessful defendants to any unconstitutional deprivation.[770] Equally consistent with the requirements of due process is a statutory procedure whereby a prosecutor of a case is adjudged liable for costs, and committed to jail in default of payment thereof, whenever the court or jury, after according him an opportunity to present evidence of good faith, finds that he instituted the prosecution without probable cause and from malicious motives.[771] Also, as a reasonable incentive for prompt settlement without suit of just demands of a class admitting of special legislative treatment, such as common carriers and insurance companies together with their patrons, a State through the exercise of its police power may permit harassed litigants to recover penalties in the form of attorney's fees or damages.[772] Similarly, to deter careless destruction of human life, a State by law may allow punitive damages to be assessed in actions against employers for deaths caused by the negligence of their employees.[773] Likewise, by virtue of its plenary power to prescribe the character of the sentence which shall be awarded against those found guilty of crime, a State may provide that a public officer embezzling public money shall, notwithstanding that he has made restitution, suffer not only imprisonment but also pay a fine equal to double the amount embezzled, which shall operate as a judgment for the use of persons whose money was embezzled. Whatever this fine be called, whether it be a penalty, or punishment, or civil judgment, it comes to the convict as the result of his crime.[774]
Statutes of Limitation
A statute of limitations does not deprive one of property without due process of law, unless, in its application to an existing right of action, it unreasonably limits the opportunity to enforce that right by suit. By the same token, a State may shorten an existing period of limitation, provided a reasonable time is allowed for bringing an action after the passage of the statute and before the bar takes effect. What is a reasonable period, however, is dependent on the nature of the right and particular circumstances.[775]
Thus, an interval of only one year is not so unreasonable as to be wanting in due process when applied to bar actions relative to the property of an absentee in instances when the receiver for such property has not been appointed until 13 years after the former's disappearance.[776] Likewise, when a State, by law, suddenly prohibits, unless brought within six months after its passage, all actions to contest tax deeds which have been of record for two years, no unconstitutional deprivation is effected.[777] No less valid is a statute, applicable to wild lands, which provides that when a person has been in possession under a recorded deed continuously for 20 years, and had paid taxes thereon during the same, the former owner in that interval paying nothing, no action to recover such land shall be entertained unless commenced within 20 years, or before the expiration of five years following enactment of said provision.[778] Similarly, an amendment to a workmen's compensation act, limiting to three years the time within which a case may be reopened for readjustment of compensation on account of aggravation of a disability, does not deny due process to one who sustained his injury at a time when the statute contained no limitation. A limitation is deemed to affect the remedy only, and the period of its operation in this instance was viewed as neither arbitrary nor oppressive.[779]
Moreover, as long as no agreement of the parties is violated, a State may extend as well as shorten the time in which suits may be brought in its courts and may even entirely remove a statutory bar to the commencement of litigation. As applied to actions for personal debts, a repeal or extension of a statute of limitations effects no unconstitutional deprivation of property of a debtor-defendant in whose favor such statute had already become a defense. "A right to defeat a just debt by the statute of limitation * * * [not being] a vested right," such as is protected by the Constitution, accordingly no offense against the Fourteenth Amendment is committed by revival, through an extension or repeal, of an action on an implied obligation to pay a child for the use of her property,[780] or a suit to recover the purchase price of securities sold in violation of a Blue Sky Law,[781] or a right of an employee to seek, on account of the aggravation of a former injury, an additional award out of a State administered fund.[782] However, as respects suits to recover real and personal property, when the right of action has been barred by a statute of limitations and title as well as real ownership have become vested in the defendant, any later act removing or repealing the bar would be void as attempting an arbitrary transfer of title.[783] Also unconstitutional is the application of a local statute of limitation declaring invalid any contractual limitation of the right to sue to a period shorter than two years to an insurance contract made and to be performed outside the forum State and containing a stipulation that suit thereon must be brought within one year from the date of loss. "When the parties to a contract have expressly agreed upon a time limit on their obligation, a statute which invalidates * * * [said] agreement and directs enforcement of the contract after * * * [the agreed] time has expired * * *" unconstitutionally imposes a burden in excess of that contracted.[784]
Evidence and Presumptions
The establishment of presumptions and rules respecting the burden of proof is clearly within the domain of State governments.[785] As long as a presumption is not unreasonable and is not conclusive of the rights of the person against whom raised, it does not violate the due process clause. Legislative fiat may not take the place of fact, however, in the determination of issues involving life, liberty, or property, and a statute creating a presumption which is entirely arbitrary and which operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it or to present facts pertinent to one's defense is void. On the other hand, if there is a rational connection between what is proved and what is to be inferred, legislation declaring that the proof of one fact or group of facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of a main or ultimate fact will be sustained.[786]
On the ground that the connection between the fact proven and that presumed was not sufficient and that reasoning did not lead from one to the other, the following statutory presumptions have been voided. Thus, a statute which treated a breach of a contract to labor as prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud an employer of money paid by him in advance was found to be constitutionally defective because the trial court was permitted to disregard evidence rationally bearing upon fraud and to decide upon evidence pertaining to an unrelated breach of contract, with the consequence that an adequate hearing upon fraud was not afforded.[787] Also, since "inference of crime and guilt may not reasonably be drawn from mere inability [of a bank] to pay demand deposits and other debts as they mature," a statute making proof of insolvency prima facie evidence of fraud on the part of bank directors was deemed wholly arbitrary.[788] Similarly, negligence by one or all the participants in a grade crossing collision not being inferable from the latter occurrence, the Court voided a Georgia statute which declared that a railroad shall be liable in damages to person or property by the running of trains unless the company shall make it appear that its agents exercised ordinary diligence, the presumption in all cases being against the company, and which was construed by State courts as permitting said presumption of evidence to be weighed against opposing testimony and to prevail unless such testimony is found by a jury to be preponderant.[789] On the other hand, a South Carolina statute which raised a presumption of negligence against a railroad upon proof of failure to give prescribed warning signals was sustained because the presumption therein established gave rise merely to a temporary inference which might be rebutted by contrary evidence and which is thereafter to be excluded in determining proximate cause.[790]
Presumptions sustained as constitutionally tenable include those set out in statutes providing that when distillery apparatus is found upon the premises of an individual, such discovery shall be prima facie evidence of actual knowledge of the presence of the same;[791] that the flowing, release, or escape of natural gas into the air shall constitute prima facie evidence of prohibited waste,[792] and that prior conviction of a felony shall be conclusive evidence of bad character justifying refusal to issue a license to practice medicine.[793] Upheld, consistently with the former, were two sections of the California alien land law; one, which specified that the taking of title in the name of a person eligible to hold land, where the consideration is furnished by one ineligible to acquire agricultural land, shall raise a prima facie presumption that the conveyance is made to evade the law;[794] and a second, which cast upon a Japanese defendant the burden of proving citizenship by birth after the State endeavored to prove that he belonged to a race ineligible for naturalization.[795] In contrast with the latter result, however, is a subsequent decision of the Court holding unconstitutional another section of the same California law providing that when an indictment alleges alienage and ineligibility to United States citizenship of a defendant, the burden of proving citizenship or eligibility thereto shall devolve upon the defendant.[796] As a basis for distinguishing these last two decisions the Court observed that while "the decisions are manifold that within [the] limits" of fairness[797] and reason the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant even in criminal prosecutions, nevertheless, to be justified, "the evidence held to be inculpatory * * * [must have had] at least a sinister significance * * *, or if this at times be lacking, there must be in any event a manifest disparity in convenience of proof and opportunity for knowledge, * * *" Whereas, accordingly, under the terms of the section previously upheld, the defendant could prove his citizenship without trouble, and the State, if forced to disprove his claim, could be relatively helpless, the background of the accused party being known probably only to himself and close relatives, the alleged Japanese defendant, in the last mentioned case, would have suffered hardship and injustice if compelled to prove non-Japanese origin, especially since ineligibility renders criminal conduct otherwise lacking in "sinister significance" (occupation of land under lease from an American codefendant).[798] On the other hand, it was held in a recent case, that Oregon was entitled to require that one pleading insanity as a defense against a criminal charge should prove same beyond a reasonable doubt, and to make "morbid propensity" no defense.[799]
Jury Trials: Dispensing With Jury Trials
Trial by jury has not been considered essential to due process, and since the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees no particular form or method of procedure, States have been free to retain or abolish juries.[800] Conformably to the Constitution, States, in devising their own procedures, eliminated juries in proceedings to enforce liens,[801] inquiries for contempt,[802] mandamus[803] and quo warranto actions,[804] and in eminent domain[805] and equity proceedings.[806] States are equally free to adopt innovations respecting the selection and number of jurors. Verdicts rendered by ten out of twelve jurors may be substituted for the requirement of a unanimous verdict,[807] and petit juries containing eight rather than the conventional twelve members may be established.[808]
DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
General
In the following pages the requirements of the due process clause of Amendment XIV in criminal cases will be dealt with in approximately the order in which questions regarding them arise in the course of a prosecution.
Indefinite Statutes: Right of Accused to Knowledge of Offense
"A statute so vague and indefinite, in form and as interpreted, * * * [as to fail] to give fair notice of what acts will be punished, * * *, violates an accused's rights under procedural due process * * * [A penal statute must set up] ascertainable standards of guilt. [So that] men of common intelligence * * * [are not] required to guess at * * * [its] meaning," either as to persons within the scope of the act or as to applicable tests to ascertain guilt.[809]
Defective by these tests and therefore violative of due process is a statute providing that any person not engaged in any lawful occupation, known to be a member of any gang consisting of two or more persons, who has been convicted at least three times of being a disorderly person, or who has been convicted of any crime in this or any other State, is a gangster and subject to fine or imprisonment. Pointing to specific shortcomings of this act, the Supreme Court observed that "* * * neither [at] common law, * * * nor anywhere in the language of the law is there [to be found any] definition of the word, * * * 'gang'." The State courts, in adopting dictionary definitions of that term, were not to be viewed as having intended to give "gangster" a meaning broad enough to include anyone who had not been convicted of a specified crime or of disorderly conduct as set out in the statute, or to limit its meaning to the field covered by the words that they found in a dictionary ("roughs, thieves, criminals"). Application of the latter interpretation would include some obviously not within the statute and would exclude some plainly covered by it. Moreover, the expression, "known to be a member," is ambiguous; and not only permits a doubt as to whether actual or putative association is meant, but also fails to indicate what constitutes membership or how one may join a gang. In conclusion, the Supreme Court declared that if on its face a challenged statute is repugnant to the due process clause, specification of details of the offense intended to be charged would not serve to validate it; for it is the statute, not the accusation under it, that prescribes the rule to govern conduct and warns against transgression.[810] In contrast, the Court sustained as neither too vague nor indefinite a State law which provided for commitment of a psychopathic personality by probate action akin to a lunacy proceeding, and which was construed by the State court as including those persons who, by habitual course of misconduct in sexual matters, have evidenced utter lack of power to control their sexual impulses and are likely to inflict injury. The underlying conditions, i.e., habitual course of misconduct in sex matters and lack of power to control impulses, and likelihood of attack on others, were viewed as calling for evidence of past conduct pointing to probable consequences and as being as susceptible of proof as many of the criteria constantly applied in criminal prosecutions.[811]
Abolition of the Grand Jury
An indictment or presentment by a grand jury, as known to the common law of England, is not essential to due process of law even when applied to prosecutions for felonies. Substitution for a presentment or indictment by a grand jury of the proceeding by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, certifying to the probable guilt of the defendant, with the right on his part to the aid of counsel, and to the cross-examination of the witnesses produced for the prosecution is due process of law.[812] Furthermore, due process does not require that the information filed by the prosecuting attorney should have been preceded by the arrest or preliminary examination of the accused.[813] Even when an information is filed pending an investigation by the coroner, due process has not been violated.[814] But when the grand jury is retained it must be fairly constituted. Thus, in the leading case, an indictment by a grand jury in a county of Alabama in which no member of a considerable Negro population had ever been called for jury service, was held void, although the Alabama statute governing the matter did not discriminate between the two races.[815]
The Right to Counsel
Whatever previously may have been recognized as constituting the elements of procedural due process in criminal cases, it was not until 1932[816] that the Supreme Court acknowledged that the right "to have the assistance of counsel for * * * [one's] defense," guaranteed as against the National Government by the Sixth Amendment, was of such fundamental character as to be embodied in the concept of due process of law as set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment. Later in 1937, it effected this incorporation by way of expansion of the term, "liberty," rather than, "due process," and conceded that the right to counsel was "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."[817]
For want of adequate enjoyment of the right to counsel, the Court, in Powell v. Alabama,[818] overturned the conviction of Negroes who had received sentences of death for rape, and asserted that, at least in capital cases, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him as a necessary requisite of due process of Law. The duty is not discharged by an assignment at such time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in preparation and trial of the case. Under certain circumstances (e.g., ignorance and illiteracy of defendants, their youth, public hostility, imprisonment and close surveillance by military forces, fact that friends and families are in other States, and that they stand in deadly peril of their lives), the necessity of counsel is so vital and imperative that the failure of a trial court to make an effective appointment of counsel is a denial of due process of law.[819]
By its explicit refusal in Powell v. Alabama to consider whether denial of counsel in criminal prosecutions for less than capital offenses or under other circumstances[820] was equally violative of the due process clause, the Court left undefined the measure of the protection available to defendants; and its first two pertinent decisions rendered thereafter, contributed virtually nothing to correct that deficiency. In Avery v. Alabama,[821] a State trial court was sustained in its refusal to continue a murder case upon request of defense counsel appointed by said court only three days before the trial, who contended that they had not had sufficient time to prepare a defense, and in its subsequent rejection of a motion for a new trial which was grounded in part on the contention that the denial of the continuance was a deprivation of the prisoner's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Apart from an admission that "where denial of the constitutional right to assistance of counsel is asserted, its peculiar sacredness demands that we scrupulously review the record," a unanimous Court proffered only the following vague appraisal of the application of the Fourteenth Amendment: "In determining whether petitioner has been denied his constitutional right * * *, we must remember that the Fourteenth Amendment does not limit the power of the States to try and deal with crimes committed within their borders, and was not intended to bring to the test of a decision of this Court every ruling made in the course of a State trial. Consistently with the preservation of constitutional balance between State and federal sovereignty, this Court must respect and is reluctant to interfere with the States' determination of local social policy."[822] One year later, the Court made another inconclusive observation in Smith v. O'Grady,[823] in which it stated that if true, allegations in a petition for habeas corpus showing that the petitioner, although an uneducated man and without prior experience in court, was tricked into pleading guilty to a serious crime of burglary, and was tried without the requested aid of counsel would void the judgment under which he was imprisoned.
Conceding that the above mentioned opinions "lend color to the argument," though they did not actually so rule, that "in every case, whatever the circumstances, one charged with crime, who is unable to obtain counsel, must be furnished counsel by the State," the Court, in Betts v. Brady,[824] decided in 1942, not only narrowed the scope of the right of the accused to the "assistance of counsel," but also set at rest any question as to the constitutional source from which the right was derived. Offering State courts the following vague guide for determining when provision of counsel is constitutionally required, the Court declared that "the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the conviction and incarceration of one whose trial is offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right, and while want of counsel in a particular case may result in a conviction lacking in such fundamental fairness, we cannot say that the amendment embodies an inexorable command that no trial for any offense, or in any court, can be fairly conducted and justice accorded a defendant who is not represented by counsel * * * Asserted denial of due process is to be tested by an appraisal of the totality of facts in a given case. That which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other considerations, fall short of such denial."[825] Accordingly, an indigent farm laborer was deemed not to have been denied due process of law when he was convicted of robbery by a Maryland county court, sitting without a jury, which was not required by statute[826] to honor his request for counsel and whose "practice," in fact was to afford counsel only in murder and rape cases. Finally, the Court emphatically rejected the notion, suggested, however faintly by the older decisions, that the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates the specific guarantees found in the Sixth Amendment, although it recognized that a denial of the rights stipulated in the latter Amendment may in a given case amount to a deprivation of due process."[827]
Having thus construed the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as not inclusive of the Sixth Amendment and as requiring no more than a fair trial which, on occasion, may necessitate the protection of counsel, the Court, in succeeding decisions rendered during the interval, 1942-1946, proceeded to subject Betts v. Brady to the "silent treatment." In Williams v. Kaiser[828] and Tomkins v. Missouri[829] two defendants pleaded guilty without counsel to the commission in Missouri of capital offenses, one, to robbery with a deadly weapon, and the second, to murder. Defendant, Williams contended that, notwithstanding his request, the trial court did not appoint counsel, whereas defendant, Tomkins alleged that he was ignorant of his right to demand counsel under the Missouri statute. In ruling that the defendants' petitions for habeas corpus should not have been rejected by Missouri courts without a hearing, the Supreme Court relied almost entirely upon the quotations from Powell v. Alabama[830] previously set forth herein; and reiterated that the right to counsel in felony cases being protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the failure of a State court to appoint counsel is a denial of due process. "A layman," the Court added, "is usually no match for the skilled prosecutor whom he confronts in the court room. He needs the aid of counsel lest he be the victim of overzealous prosecutors, of the law's complexity, or of his own ignorance or bewilderment."[831]
Nor was Betts v. Brady mentioned in the following pertinent decisions. In House v. Mayo,[832] the Supreme Court held that the action of a trial court in compelling a defendant to plead to an information charging burglary without opportunity to consult with his counsel is a denial of the constitutional right to counsel; and in Hawk v. Olson[833] the Court repeated this assertion, in connection with the denial to a defendant accused of a murder of the same opportunity during the critical period between his arraignment and the impaneling of the jury. Both these opinions cited with approval the two previously discussed Williams and Tomkins Cases; and in House v. Mayo the Court declared without any explanation: "Compare Betts v. Brady with Williams v. Kaiser and Tomkins v. Missouri."[834] A similar performance by the Court is also discernible in Rice v. Olson,[835] in which it ruled that a defendant, who pleads guilty to a charge of burglary, is incapable adequately of making his own defense, and does not understandingly waive counsel; he is entitled to the benefit of legal aid, and a request therefor is not necessary. Also, on the basis of unchallenged facts contradicting a prisoner's allegation that he had been denied counsel; namely, that after his arraignment and plea of guilty to a charge of robbery, counsel had noted an appearance for him two days before the date of sentencing and had actively intervened in his behalf on the latter date, a majority of the Court, in Canizio v. New York,[836] ruled that the right to counsel had not been withheld.
Without mentioning Betts v. Brady by name, the Court, in 1946, returned to the fair trial principle enunciated therein when it held that no deprivation of the constitutional right to the aid of counsel was disclosed by the record in Carter v. Illinois.[837] That record included only the indictment, the judgment on the plea of guilty to a charge of murder, the minute entry bearing on the sentence, and the sentence, together with a lengthy recital in the judgment to the effect that when the defendant expressed a desire to plead guilty the Court explained to him the consequence of such plea, his rights in the premises, especially, his rights to have a lawyer appointed to defend him and to be tried before a jury, and the degree of proof required for an acquittal under a not guilty plea, but that the defendant persisted in his plea of guilty. Emphasizing that this record was entirely wanting in facts bearing upon the maturity or capacity of comprehension of the prisoner, or upon the circumstances under which the plea of guilty was tendered and accepted, the Supreme Court concluded that no inference of lack of understanding, or ability to make an intelligent waiver of counsel, could be drawn from the fact that the trial court did assign counsel when it came to sentencing.[838] Applying the same doctrine, and on this occasion at least citing Betts v. Brady, the Court, in De Meerleer v. Michigan,[839] unanimously declared that the arraignment, trial, conviction of murder, and sentence to life imprisonment, all on the same day, of a seventeen-year old boy who was without legal assistance, and was never advised of his right to counsel, who received from the trial court no explanation of the consequences of his plea of guilty, and who never subjected the State's witnesses to cross-examination, effected a denial of constitutional "rights essential to a fair hearing."
Even more conclusive evidence of the revival of the fair trial doctrine of Betts v. Brady is to be found in the majority opinions contained in Foster v. Illinois[840] and Gayes v. New York.[841] In the former the Court ruled that where it appears that the trial court, before accepting pleas of guilty to charges of burglary and larceny by defendants, aged 34 and 58 respectively, advised each of his rights of trial and of the consequences of such a plea, the fact that the record reveals no express offer of counsel would not suffice to show that the accused were deprived of rights essential to the fair hearing required by the due process clause. Reiterating that the absolute right to counsel accorded by the Sixth Amendment does not apply in prosecutions in State courts, five of the Justices declared that all the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "exacts from the States is a conception of fundamental justice" which is neither "satisfied by merely formal procedural correctness, nor * * * confined by any absolute rule such as that which the Sixth Amendment contains in securing to an accused [in the federal courts] 'the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.'"[842] On the same day, four Justices, with Justice Burton concurring only in the result, held in Gayes v. New York,[843] that one sentenced in 1941 as a second offender under a charge of burglary was not entitled to vacation of a judgment rendered against him in 1938, when charged with the first offense, on the ground that when answering in the negative the trial court's inquiry as to whether he desired the aid of counsel, he did not understand his constitutional rights. On his subsequent conviction in 1941, which took into account his earlier sentence of 1938, the defendant was deemed to have had full opportunity to contest the constitutionality of his earlier sentence. Consistently with these two cases, the Court in Marino v. Ragen,[844] decided later in the same year, held that the absence of counsel, in conjunction with the following set of facts, operated to deprive a defendant of due process. In this latter decision, the accused, an 18-year-old Italian immigrant, unable to understand the English language, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on a plea of guilty when, notwithstanding a recital in the record that he was arraigned in open court and advised through interpreters, one of whom was the arresting officer, of the meaning and effect of a "guilty" plea, and that he signed a statement waiving a jury trial and pleading guilty, the waiver was not in fact signed by him and no plea of guilty actually had been entered.
In disposing of more recent cases embracing right to counsel as an issue, the Court, either with or without citation of Betts v. Brady, has consistently applied the fair trial doctrine. Thus, the absence of counsel competent to advise a 15-year-old Negro boy of his rights was one of several factors operating in Haley v. Ohio[845] to negative the propriety of admitting in evidence a confession to murder and contributing to the conclusion that the boy's conviction had resulted from proceedings that were unfair. Dividing again on the same issues in which they were in disagreement in Foster v. Illinois;[846] namely, the applicability of Amendment Six to State criminal prosecutions and the merits of the fair trial doctrine as expounded in Betts v. Brady, five Justices in Bute v. Illinois[847] ruled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a State court to tender assistance of counsel, before accepting a plea of guilty to a charge of indecent liberties with female children, the maximum penalty for which is 20 years, from a 57-year-old man who was not a lawyer and who received from the Court an explanation of the consequences and penalties resulting from such plea. Unanimity was subsequently regained in Wade v. Mayo[848] in which the Justices had before them the plight of an 18-year-old boy, convicted on the charge of breaking and entering, who was described by a federal district court as not a stranger in court, having been convicted of prior offenses, but as still unfamiliar with court procedure and not capable of representing himself adequately. On the strength of these and other findings, the Supreme Court held that where one charged with crime is by reason of age, ignorance, or mental incapacity incapable of defending himself, even in a prosecution of a relatively simple nature, the refusal of a State trial court to appoint counsel at his request is a denial of due process, even though the law of the State does not require such appointment.
Dissents were again registered in the following brace of decision which a minority of the Justices declared their inability to reconcile. In the first, Gryger v. Burke,[849] the Court held that when one, sentenced to life imprisonment as a fourth offender under a State habitual criminal act, had been arrested eight times for crimes of violence, followed by pleas of guilty or conviction, and in two of such former trials had been represented by counsel, the State's failure to offer or to provide counsel for him on his plea to a charge of being a fourth offender does not render his conviction and sentence as such invalid, even though the Court may have misconstrued the statute as making a life sentence mandatory rather than discretionary. Emphasizing that there were "no exceptional circumstances * * * present," the majority asserted that "it rather overstrains our credulity to believe that [such a defendant would be ignorant] of his right [to request and] to engage counsel." In the second, Townsend v. Burke,[850] the Supreme Court declared that although failure of a State court to offer or to assign counsel to one charged with the noncapital offenses of burglary and robbery, or to advise him of his right to counsel before accepting a plea of guilty may not render his conviction invalid for lack of due process, the requirement is violated when, while disadvantaged by lack of counsel who might have corrected the court's errors, defendant is sentenced on the basis of materially untrue assumptions concerning his criminal record.[851]
Concordant as to the results reached, if not always as to the reasoning supporting them, are the Court's latest rulings. In Uveges v. Pennsylvania,[852] it was held that inasmuch as the record showed that a State court did not attempt to make a 17-year-old youth understand the consequences of his plea of guilty to four separate indictments charging burglary, for which he could be given sentences aggregating 80 years, and that the youth was neither advised of his right to counsel nor offered counsel at any time between arrest and conviction, due process was denied him. Likewise, in Gibbs v. Burke[853] was overturned, as contrary to due process, the conviction for larceny of a man in his thirties who conducted his own defense, having neither requested, nor having been offered counsel. On the authority of the Uveges Case, accused's failure to request counsel, since it could be attributed to ignorance of his right thereto, was held not to constitute a waiver. Moreover, had the accused been granted the protection of counsel, the latter might have been able to prevent certain prejudicial rulings; namely, the introduction without objection of considerable hearsay testimony, the error of the trial judge in converting a prosecution witness into a defense witness, and finally, the injection of biased statements into the judge's comments to the jury. And of the same general pattern is the holding in Palmer v. Ashe,[854] another Pennsylvania case, involving a petitioner who alleged that, as a youth and former inmate at a mental institution, he was railroaded into prison for armed robbery without benefit of counsel, on the representation that he was charged only with breaking and entering. Reversing the State court's denial of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court remanded the case, asserting that if petitioner's allegations were proven, he was entitled to counsel. On the other hand, it was held in Quicksall v. Michigan,[855] a State in which capital punishment does not exist, that a defendant who had received a life sentence on a plea of guilty entered without benefit of counsel, had "failed to sustain the burden of proving such disregard of fundamental fairness * * * as alone would * * * invalidate his sentence," not having convinced the State court that he was ignorant of his right to counsel, or that he had requested same, or that the consequences of his plea had been misrepresented to him. Also, in Gallegos v. Nebraska,[856] in which the petitioner had been convicted of manslaughter on a homicide charge, a similar conclusion was reached in the face of the petitioner's claim that the confession on the strength of which he was convicted had been obtained from him by mistreatment, prior to the assignment of counsel to him. Said the Court: "The Federal Constitution does not command a State to furnish defendants counsel as a matter of course. * * * Lack of counsel at State noncapital trials denies federal constitutional protection only when the absence results in a denial to accused of the essentials of justice."[857]
By way of summation, the Court in Uveges v. Pennsylvania[858] offered the following comment on the conflicting views advanced by its members on this issue of right to counsel. "Some members [minority] of the Court think that where serious offenses are charged, failure of a court to offer counsel in State criminal trials deprives an accused of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. They are convinced that the services of counsel to protect the accused are guaranteed by the Constitution in every such instance. See Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, dissent, 677-679. Only when the accused refuses counsel with an understanding of his rights can the Court dispense with counsel.[859] Others of us [majority] think that when a crime subject to capital punishment is not involved, each case depends on its own facts. See Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 462. Where the gravity of the crime and other factors—such as the age and education of the defendant,[860] the conduct of the court or the prosecuting officials,[861] and the complicated nature of the offense charged and the possible defenses thereto[862]—render criminal proceedings without counsel so apt to result in injustice as to be fundamentally unfair, the latter group [majority] holds that the accused must have legal assistance under the amendment whether he pleads guilty or elects to stand trial, whether he requests counsel or not. Only a waiver of counsel, understandingly made, justifies trial without counsel. The philosophy behind both of these views is that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment * * * requires counsel for all persons charged with serious crimes, when necessary for their adequate defense, in order that such persons may be advised how to conduct their trials. The application of the rule varies * * *" It would appear nevertheless that the statement quoted in the previous paragraph from the Gallegos Case weakens this doctrine somewhat. Nor is the Court's reply to the contention that such variation in application "leaves the State prosecuting authorities uncertain as to whether to offer counsel to all accused who are without adequate funds and under serious charges," very reassuring: "We cannot offer a panacea for the difficulty. * * * The due process clause is not susceptible of reduction to a mathematical formula."[863]
The contention that a right to trial by a common law jury of twelve men in criminal cases was guaranteed by Amendment XIV was first rejected in Maxwell v. Dow[864] on the basis of Hurtado v. California,[865] where it was denied that the due process clause itself incorporated all the rules of procedural protection having their origin in English legal history. Accordingly, so long as all persons are made liable to be proceeded against in the same manner, a state statute dispensing with unanimity,[866] or providing for a jury of eight instead of twelve, in noncapital criminal cases[867] is not unconstitutional; nor is one eliminating employment of a jury when the defendant pleads guilty to no less than a capital offense;[868] or permitting a defendant generally to waive trial by jury.[869] In short, jury trials are no longer viewed as essential to due process, even in criminal cases, and may be abolished altogether.[870]
Inasmuch as "the purpose of criminal procedure is not to enable the defendant to select jurors, but to secure an impartial jury," a trial of a murder charge by a "struck" jury, chosen in conformity with a statute providing that the court may select from the persons qualified to serve as jurors 96 names, from which the prosecutor and defendant may each strike 24, and that the remainder of which shall be put in the jury box, out of which the trial jury shall be drawn in the usual way, is not violative of due process. Such a method "is certainly a fair and reasonable way of securing an impartial jury," which is all that the defendant constitutionally may demand.[871] Likewise, the right to challenge being the right to reject, not to select, a juror, a defendant who is subjected at a single trial to two indictments, each charging murder, cannot complain when the State limits the number of his peremptory challenges to ten on each indictment instead of the twenty customarily allowed at a trial founded upon a single indictment.[872] Also, a defendant who has been convicted by a special, or "blue ribbon," jury cannot validly contend that he was thereby denied due process of law.[873] In ruling that the defendant had failed to sustain his contention that such a jury was defective as to its composition, the Court conceded that "a system of exclusions could be so manipulated as to call a jury before which defendants would have so little chance of a decision on the evidence that it would constitute a denial of due process" and would result in a trial which was a "sham or pretense." A defendant is deemed entitled, however, to no more than "a neutral jury" and "has no constitutional right to friends on the jury."[874] In fact, the due process clause does not prohibit a State from excluding from the jury certain occupational groups such as lawyers, preachers, doctors, dentists, and enginemen and firemen of railroad trains. Such exclusions may be justified on the ground that the continued attention to duty by members of such occupations is beneficial to the community.[875]
Self-Incrimination—Forced Confessions
In 1908, in Twining v. New Jersey,[876] the Court ruled that neither the historical meaning nor the current definition of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment included protection against self-incrimination, which was viewed as unworthy of being rated "an immutable principle of justice" or as a "fundamental right." The Fifth Amendment embodying this privilege was held to operate to restrain only the Federal Government; whereas the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was deemed to permit a State even to go so far as to substitute the criminal procedure of the Civil Law, in which the privilege against self-incrimination is unknown, for that of the Common Law. Accordingly, New Jersey was within her rights in permitting a trial judge, in a criminal proceeding, to instruct a jury that they might draw an unfavorable inference from the failure of a defendant to comment on the prosecutor's evidence.
Apart from a recent ineffectual effort of a minority of the Justices to challenge the interpretation thus placed upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court has yet to register any departure from its ruling in Twining v. New Jersey.[877] In two subsequent opinions the Court reasserted obiter that "the privilege against self-incrimination may be withdrawn and the accused put upon the stand as a witness for the State." No "principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental"[878] is violated by abolition of such privilege; nor is its complete destruction likely to outrage students of our penal system, many of whom "look upon * * * [this] immunity as a mischief rather than a benefit, * * *"[879]
In subsequently disposing of similarly challenged State criminal proceedings, the Court has applied almost exclusively the Fair Trial doctrine. With only casual consideration of the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, or of the rejected proposition that the due process clause thereof had imposed upon the States all the restraints which the Bill of Rights had imposed upon the Federal Government, the Court has simply endeavored to ascertain whether the accused enjoyed all the privileges essential to a fair trial. Thus, without even admitting that the privilege against self-incrimination was involved, all the Justices agreed, in Brown v. Mississippi,[880] that the use of a confession extorted by brutality and violence (undenied strangulation and whipping by the sheriff aided by a mob) was a denial of due process, even though coercion was not established until after the confession had been admitted in evidence and defense counsel did not thereafter move for its exclusion. Although compulsory processes of justice may be used to call the accused as a witness and to require him to testify, "compulsion by torture to extort a confession is a different matter. * * * The rack and torture chamber may not be substituted for the witness stand."[881] Again, in Chambers v. Florida[882] the Court, with no mention of the privilege against self-incrimination, proclaimed that due process is denied when convictions of murder are obtained in State courts by the use of confessions extorted under the following conditions: dragnet methods of arrest on suspicion without warrant and protracted questioning (on the last day, from noon until sunset) in a fourth floor jail where the prisoners were without friends or counselors, and under circumstances calculated to break the strongest nerves and stoutest resistance. Affirming that the Supreme Court is not concluded by the finding of a jury in a State court that a confession in a murder trial was voluntary, but determines that question for itself from the evidence, the Justices unanimously declared that the Constitution proscribes lawless means irrespective of the end, and rejected the argument that the thumbscrew, the wheel, solitary confinement, protracted questioning, and other ingenious means of entrapment are necessary to uphold our laws.[883] Procuring a conviction for a capital crime by use of a confession extracted by protracted interrogation conducted in a similar manner was, on the authority of Chambers v. Florida, condemned in White v. Texas;[884] and in Lisenba v. California,[885] a case rendered inconclusive by conflicting testimony, the Court remarked, by way of dictum, that "the concept of due process would void a trial in which, by threats or promises in the presence of court and jury, a defendant was induced to testify against himself," or in which a confession is used which is "procured * * * by fraud, collusion, trickery and subornation or perjury."
In conformity with these rulings, the Court, in Ward v. Texas,[886] set aside a conviction based upon a confession obtained, by methods of coercion and duress, from a defendant who had been arrested illegally, without warrant, by the sheriff of another county, and removed to a county more than a hundred miles away, and who for three days, while being driven from county to county, was questioned continuously by various officers and falsely informed by them of threats of mob violence. Similarly, in Ashcraft v. Tennessee,[887] the use in a State court of a confession obtained near the end of a 36-hour period of practically continuous questioning, under powerful electric lights, by relays of officers, experienced investigators, and highly trained lawyers was held to be violative of constitutional right by reason of the inherently coercive character of such interrogation. Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Roberts, dissented on the ground that the accused not only denied that the protracted questioning "had the effect of forcing an involuntary confession from him" but that he had ever confessed at all, a contention which reputable witnesses contradicted. Referring to Justice Holmes's warning against "the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down * * * the constitutional rights of the States."[888] Justice Jackson protested that "interrogation per se is not, * * *, an outlaw"; and that inasmuch as all questioning is "'inherently coercive' * * *, the ultimate question * * * [must be] whether the confessor was in possession of his own will and self-control at the time of [his] confession."[889]
This dissent was not without effect. In June 1944, in Lyons v. Oklahoma,[890] the Court finally handed down a ruling calculated definitely to arrest the suspicion that had been developing that the use of any confession made after arrest would render a trial constitutionally defective. Here, six Justices refused to overturn a holding of the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals which labelled as voluntary and usable a second confession obtained by other than coercive means within twelve hours after the defendant had made a confession admittedly under duress. The vice of coerced confessions, these Justices asserted, was that they offended "basic standards of justice, not because the victim had a legal grievance against the police, but because declarations procured by torture are not premises from which a civilized forum will infer guilt."[891] In Malinski v. New York,[892] however, although in the opinion of four Justices there was conflicting evidence as to the involuntary character of the confessions used, the Court nevertheless overturned a conviction sustained by New York tribunals.[893] Without finding it necessary to determine whether succeeding oral and written confessions were the product of the coercion "admittedly" applied in extracting an initial oral confession,[894] the Court held that, even though other evidence might have sufficed to convict the accused and notwithstanding the fact that the initial oral confession was never put in evidence, the repeated indirect reference to its content at the trial plus the failure to warn the jury not to consider it as evidence[895] invalidated the proceeding giving rise to the verdict.[896]
Of the remaining cases involving the issue of self-incrimination, Adamson v. California[897] is especially significant because it represents the high water mark of dissent in support of the contention that the Bill of Rights, originally operative only against the Federal Government, became limitations on State action by virtue of their inclusion within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here, the Court, speaking through Justice Reed, declared that the California law which provides that if an accused elects to take the witness stand and testify, he must then be prepared to undergo impeachment of his testimony, through disclosure of his previous convictions, and which also permits him to avoid such disclosure by remaining silent, subject to comment on his failure to testify by the Court and prosecuting counsel, does not involve such a denial of due process as to invalidate a conviction in a State court. Inasmuch as California law "does not involve any presumption, rebuttable or irrebuttable, either of guilt or of the truth of any fact," and does not alter the burden of proof, which rests upon the State, nor the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, it does not prevent the accused from enjoying a fair trial, which is all that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees. Relying upon Twining v. New Jersey[898] and Palko v. Connecticut,[899] the Court reiterated that the "due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, does not draw all the rights of the federal Bill of Rights under its protection."[900]
In a concurring opinion concerning the scope of the protection afforded by this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Frankfurter contended that further argument thereon is foreclosed by Twining v. New Jersey, a precedent, on which he commented as follows: "Decisions of this Court do not have equal intrinsic authority. The Twining Case shows the judicial process at its best—comprehensive briefs and powerful arguments on both sides, followed by long deliberation, resulting in an opinion by Mr. Justice Moody which at once gained and has ever since retained recognition as one of the outstanding opinions in the history of the Court. After enjoying unquestioned prestige for forty years, the Twining Case should not now be diluted, even unwittingly, either in its judicial philosophy or in its particulars. As the surest way of keeping the Twining Case intact, I would affirm this case on its authority."
In dismissing as historically untenable the position adopted by Justice Black, Justice Frankfurter further declared that: "The notion that the Fourteenth Amendment was a covert way of imposing upon the States all the rules which it seemed important to Eighteenth Century statesmen to write into the Federal Amendments, was rejected by judges who were themselves witnesses of the process by which the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution. Arguments that may now be adduced to prove that the first eight Amendments were concealed within the historic phrasing of the Fourteenth Amendment were not unknown at the time of its adoption. A surer estimate of their bearing was possible for judges at the time than distorting distance is likely to vouchsafe. Any evidence of design or purpose not contemporaneously known could hardly have influenced those who ratified the Amendment. Remarks of a particular proponent of the Amendment, no matter how influential, are not to be deemed part of the Amendment. What was submitted for ratification was his proposal, not his speech. * * * The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has an independent potency, precisely as does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in relation to the Federal Government. It ought not to require argument to reject the notion that due process of law meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth. The Fifth Amendment specifically prohibits prosecution of an 'infamous crime' except upon indictment; it forbids double jeopardy; it bars compelling a person to be a witness against himself in any criminal case; it precludes deprivation of 'life, liberty, or property, without due process of law * * *' Are Madison and his contemporaries in the framing of the Bill of Rights to be charged with writing into it a meaningless clause? To consider 'due process of law' as merely a shorthand statement of other specific clauses in the same amendment is to attribute to the authors and proponents of this Amendment ignorance of, or indifference to, a historic conception which was one of the great instruments in the arsenal of constitutional freedom which the Bill of Rights was to protect and strengthen." Warning that "a construction which * * * makes of" the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "a summary of specific provisions of the Bill of Rights would, * * *, tear up by the roots much of the fabric of the law in the several States," Justice Frankfurter, in conclusion, offers his own appraisal of this clause. To him, the due process clause "expresses a demand for civilized standards of law, [and] it is thus not a stagnant formulation of what has been achieved in the past but a standard for judgment in the progressive evolution of the institutions of a free society." Accordingly "judicial judgment in applying the Due Process Clause must move within the limits of accepted notions of justice and * * * [should] not be based upon the idiosyncrasies of a merely personal judgment. * * * An important safeguard against such merely individual judgment is an alert deference to the judgment of the State court under review."[901]
In dissenting Justice Black, who was supported by Justice Douglas, attached to his opinion "an appendix which contains * * * [his] resume, * * *, of the Amendment's history." It is his judgment "that history conclusively demonstrates that the language of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, taken as a whole, was thought by those responsible for its submission to the people, and by those who opposed its submission, sufficiently explicit to guarantee that thereafter no State could deprive its citizens of the privileges and protections of the Bill of Rights." A majority of the Court, he acknowledges resignedly, has declined, however, "to appraise the relevant historical evidence of the intended scope of the first section of the Amendment." In the instant case, the majority opinion, according to Justice Black, "reasserts a constitutional theory spelled out in Twining v. New Jersey, * * * that this Court is endowed by the Constitution with boundless power under 'natural law' periodically to expand and contract constitutional standards to conform to the Court's conception of what at a particular time constitutes 'civilized decency' and 'fundamental liberty and justice.' * * * [This] 'natural law' formula, [he further contends] * * * should be abandoned as an incongruous excrescence on our Constitution. * * * [The] formula [is] itself a violation of our Constitution, in that it subtly conveys to courts, at the expense of legislatures, ultimate power over public policies in fields where no specific provision of the Constitution limits legislative power." In conclusion, Justice Black expresses his fears as to "the consequences of the Court's practice of substituting its own concepts of decency and fundamental justice for the language of the Bill of Rights * * *"[902]
In all but one of the remaining cases, the Court sided with the accused and supported his contention that the confession on which his conviction was based had been procured by methods contrary to the requirements of due process. The conviction of murder of a Negro boy of fifteen was reversed by five Justices in Haley v. Ohio[903] on the ground that his confession, which contributed to the verdict, was involuntary, having been obtained by the police after several hours of questioning immediately after the boy was arrested, during which interval the youth was without friends or legal counsel. After having had his confession reduced to writing, the boy continued to be held incommunicado for three days before being arraigned. "The age of petitioner, the [midnight] hours when he was grilled, the duration of his quizzing, the fact that he had no friend or counsel to advise him, the callous attitude of the police towards his rights combine to convince us," the Court declared, "that this was a confession wrung from a child by means which the law should not sanction."[904] The application of duress being indisputed, a unanimous Court, in Lee v. Mississippi,[905] citing as authority all the preceding cases beginning with Brown v. Mississippi, held that "a conviction resulting from such use of a coerced confession, however, is no less void because the accused testified at some point in the proceeding that he had never in fact confessed, voluntarily or involuntarily. * * *, inconsistent testimony as to the confession * * * cannot preclude the accused from raising * * * the issue * * * [that] the Fourteenth Amendment * * * [voids a] conviction grounded * * * upon a confession which is the product of other than reasoned and voluntary choice." In Taylor v. Alabama,[906] however, a majority of the Justices sustained the denial by a State appellate court, in which a conviction had been affirmed, of leave to file in a trial court a petition for a writ of error coram nobis grounded upon the contention that confessions and admissions introduced into evidence at the trial had been obtained by coercion.[907] Five Justices declared that such denial was not such arbitrary action as in itself to amount to a deprivation of due process of law where the circumstances tended to show that the petitioner's allegations of mistreatment, none of which were submitted during the trial or the appeal,[908] were highly improbable.[909]
Finally, in three decisions rendered on June 27, 1949, the Court reversed three convictions of murder on the ground that they had been founded entirely upon coerced confessions. The defendant in the first case, Watts v. Indiana,[910] was held without arraignment, without the aid of counsel or friends, and without advice as to his constitutional rights from Wednesday until the following Friday, when he confessed. During this interval, he was held much of the time in solitary confinement in a cell with no place to sit or sleep except the floor, and was subjected to interrogation daily, Sunday excepted, by relays of police officers for periods ranging in duration from three to nine and one-half hours. His incarceration without a prompt preliminary hearing also was a violation of Indiana law. Similarly in conflict with State law was the arrest without warrant and detention without arraignment for five days of the accused in Turner v. Pennsylvania,[911] the second case. During this period, Turner was not permitted to see friends, relatives, or counsel, was never informed of his right to remain silent, and was interrogated daily, though for briefer intervals than in the preceding case. At his trial, the prosecuting attorney "admitted that a hearing was withheld until interrogation had produced a confession." In the third and last case of this group, Harris v. South Carolina,[912] the defendant, an illiterate Negro, was apprehended in Tennessee on a Friday on a warrant alleging no more than a theft of a pistol, and taken to South Carolina on a Sunday. Without being informed of the contents of the warrant or of the charge of murder on which he was being held, without arraignment or advice as to his rights and without access to family or counsel, the defendant was questioned daily by officers for periods as long as 12 hours. In addition, he was warned that his mother also might be arrested for handling stolen property.
In each of these cases there was dissent, and in none was the majority able to record its views in a single opinion. Justice Murphy and Justice Rutledge joined Justice Frankfurter, who filed a separate opinion in all three cases, in declaring that "a confession by which life becomes forfeit must be the expression of free choice. * * * When a suspect speaks because he is overborne, it is immaterial whether he has been subjected to a physical or a mental ordeal. * * * if * * * [his confession] is the product of sustained pressure by the police it does not issue from a free choice."[913] On the authority of Chambers v. Florida[914] and Ashcraft v. Tennessee,[915] Justice Black supported the judgments reached in all three cases; but Justice Douglas, in concurring, advocated the disposition of these cases in conformity with a broader rule; namely that, "any confession obtained during * * * [a] period of * * * unlawful detention"; that is during a period of custody between arrest and arraignment, should be outlawed.[916] Justice Jackson, who wrote an opinion applicable to all three cases, concurred in the result in Watts v. Indiana, presumably on the basis of that part of Justice Frankfurter's opinion therein which was founded "on the State's admissions as to the treatment of Watts."[917] Emphasizing the merit of deferring to the findings of trial court and jury on the issue of the "voluntariness" of confessions on the ground that they have "the great advantage of hearing and seeing the confessor and also the officers whose conduct and bearing toward him is in question," Justice Jackson dissented in Turner v. Pennsylvania[918] and Harris v. South Carolina.[919] "If the right of interrogation be admitted," he declared, "then * * * we must leave it to trial judges and juries and State appellate courts to decide individual cases, unless they show some want of proper standards of decision."[920] Without explanatory opinion, Chief Justice Vinson and Justices Burton and Reed dissented in all three cases.
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
In National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead,[921] decided in 1914, the Court unequivocally declared that an unreasonable search and seizure committed by State and local officers presented no federal question, inasmuch as the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the States. Prior to that date, the Court has passed upon this question obliquely in only a few decisions,[922] in one of which it conceded for the sake of argument, but without so deciding, that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces in its generic terms a prohibition against unreasonable searches. In two of these earlier cases the Court sustained as consistent with due process the power of a State, in investigating the conduct of corporations doing business within its limits, to demand the production of corporate books and papers. The call for such papers was deemed not to have been rendered unreasonable because, at the time of the demand therefor, the corporation affected either temporarily or permanently kept such documents in another jurisdiction. Nor was the validity of the order to produce such materials viewed as having been impaired by the fact that it sought to elicit proof not only as to the liability of the corporation but also, evidence in its possession relevant to its defense.
In its most recent opportunity to review the question whether the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment precludes admission in a State court of relevant evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure,[923] the Court apparently ruled in the negative; but Justice Frankfurter, speaking for the majority, did not limit himself to a repetition of the conclusions stated by him in Adamson v. California;[924] namely, that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the first eight Amendments of the Constitution, and, conformably to Palko v. Connecticut,[925] exacts no more from a State than is "implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty.'" He also proclaimed that: "The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police—which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment—is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable against the States through the due process clause."[926] Such language appears to effect the very absorption into the Fourteenth Amendment which Justice Frankfurter rejects in the Adamson case; but he concluded by adding that as long as "a State [does not] affirmatively * * * sanction * * * [arbitrary] police incursion into privacy"; that is, as long as its police are deterred from making searches without authority of law by virtue of such internal discipline as an alert public opinion may induce and by reason of the statutory or common law remedies which the victims of such illegal searches may invoke, a State, without running counter to the due process clause, may employ at a trial incriminating evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure. The fact that most of the English-speaking world, including 30 States and the British Commonwealth of Nations, does not regard the exclusion of evidence thus obtained, as vital to the protection of the right of privacy is interpreted by the Justice as lending abundant support to the merit of his position.[927]
Without departing from his previously adopted position which he restated in his dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California;[928] namely, that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, Justice Black concurred in the result on the ground that the exclusionary rule, whereby evidence procured in an illegal search and seizure is not admissible in a federal court, is "not a command of the Fourth Amendment but is a judicially created rule of evidence which Congress might negate."[929] Justices Douglas, Murphy, and Rutledge, in separate dissenting opinions, all declared that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the States and that "evidence obtained in violation of it must be excluded in State prosecutions as well as in federal prosecutions, * * *."[930] Attacking Justice Frankfurter's method of approach, Justice Murphy declared that the Court should not "decide due process questions by simply taking a poll of the rules in various jurisdictions, * * *" and agreed with Justice Rutledge that unless illegally obtained evidence is excluded, no effective sanction "exists to deter violations of the search and seizure clause."
In two recent cases, both argued the same day, a nearly unanimous Court reached opposite results.[931] In the first the outcome of the Wolf case was repeated. The Court, speaking by Justice Frankfurter, refused to enjoin the use, in State criminal proceedings against them in New Jersey of evidences claimed to have been obtained by unlawful search by State police. Said Justice Frankfurter, "If we were to sanction this intervention, we would expose every State criminal prosecution to insupportable disruption. Every question of procedural due process of law—with its far flung and undefined range—would invite a flanking movement against the system of State courts by resort to the federal forum * * *"[932] The facts in the second case were as follows: state officers, on the basis of "some information" that petitioner was selling narcotics, entered his home and forced their way into his wife's bedroom. When asked about two capsules lying on a bedroom table, petitioner put them into his mouth and swallowed them. He was then taken to a hospital, where an emetic was forced into his stomach with the result that he vomited them up. Later they were offered in evidence against him. Again Justice Frankfurter spoke for the Court, while reiterating his preachments regarding the tolerance claimable by the States under the Fourteenth Amendment[933] he held that methods offensive to human dignity were ruled out by the due process clause.[934] Justices Black and Douglas concurred in opinions in which they seized the opportunity to reiterate once more their position in Adamson v. California.[935]
Conviction Based on Perjured Testimony
When a conviction is obtained by the presentation of testimony known to the prosecuting authorities to have been perjured, the constitutional requirement of due process is not satisfied. That requirement "cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a State has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance * * * is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation."[936] This principle, as originally announced, was no more than a dictum uttered by the Court in disposing of Tom Mooney's application for a writ of habeas corpus, filed almost eighteen years after his conviction, and founded upon the contention that the verdict of his guilt was made possible solely by perjured testimony knowingly employed by the prosecutor who "deliberately suppressed evidence which would have impeached and refuted the testimony thus given against him."[937]
On the authority of the preceding case, and without qualification, the Court subsequently applied this principle in Hysler v. Florida,[938] Pyle v. Kansas[939] and White v. Ragen.[940] In the first case, the Supreme Court concurred in the judgment of the Florida appellate court denying a petition for leave to apply to a trial court for a writ of coram nobis. Supporting the petition filed by Hysler, the accused, were affidavits signed by one of two codefendants on the eve of his execution for participation in the same crime and stating that the two codefendants had testified falsely against Hysler because they had been "'coerced, intimidated, beaten, threatened with violence and otherwise abused and mistreated' by the police and were 'promised immunity from the electric chair' by the district attorney." Having made "an independent examination of the affidavits upon which * * * [Hysler's] claim was based," a majority of the Justices concluded that the Florida appellate court's finding that Hysler's proof was insubstantial and did not make out a prima facie case was justified. "That in the course of * * * years witnesses die or disappear, that memories fade, that a sense of responsibility may become attenuated, that [recantation] * * * on the eve of execution * * * [is] not unfamiliar as a means of relieving others or as an irrational hope for self * * * are relevant" to the determination by the Florida court that "such a belated disclosure" did not spring "from the impulse for truth-telling" and was "the product of self-delusion * * * [and] artifice prompted by the instinct of self-preservation."[941]
Relying largely on the failure of the State to answer allegations in a prisoner's application for a write of habeas corpus, which application recited that persons named in supporting affidavits and documents were coerced to testify falsely, and that testimony of certain other persons material to the prisoner's defense was suppressed under threat and coercion by the State, the Court, in Pyle v. Kansas[942] reversed the Kansas court's refusal to issue the writ. Inasmuch as the record of the prisoner's conviction did "not controvert the charges that perjured evidence was used, and that favorable evidence was suppressed with the knowledge" of the authorities, the case was remanded in order that the prisoner might enjoy that to which he was entitled; namely, a determination of the verity of his allegations. Similarly, in White v. Ragen,[943] the Court declared that since a prisoner's petition to a State court for release on habeas corpus had been dismissed without requiring the State to answer allegations supporting the petition; namely, that the conviction was obtained by the use of false testimony procured by bribery of two witnesses by the prosecutor, must be assumed to be true. Accordingly, the petitioner's contentions were deemed sufficient to make out a prima facie case of violation of constitutional rights and adequate to entitle him to invoke corrective process in a State court.
Confrontation; Presence of the Accused; Public Trial
On the issue whether the privileges of presence, confrontation and cross-examination face to face, assured to a defendant in a federal trial by the Sixth Amendment, are also guaranteed in State criminal proceedings, the Court thus far has been unable to formulate an enduring and unequivocal answer. At times it has intimated, as in the following utterance, that the enjoyment of all these privileges is essential to due process. "The personal presence of the accused, from the beginning to the end of a trial for felony, involving life or liberty, as well as at the time final judgment is rendered against him, may be, and must be assumed to be, vital to the proper conduct of his defence, and cannot be dispensed with."[944] Notwithstanding this early assumption, the Supreme Court, fourteen years later, sustained a Kentucky court which approved the questioning, in the absence of the accused and his counsel, of a juror whose discharge before he was sworn had been demanded.[945] Inasmuch as no injury to substantial rights of the defendant was deemed to have been inflicted by his occasional absence during a trial, no denial of due process was declared to have resulted from the acceptance by the State court of the defendant's waiver of his right to be present. In harmony with the latter case is Felts v. Murphy,[946] which contains additional evidence of an increasing inclination on the part of the Court to treat as not fundamental the rights of presence, confrontation, and cross-examination face to face. The defendant in Felts v. Murphy proved to be so deaf that he was unable to hear any of the testimony of witnesses, and had never had the evidence repeated to him. While regretting that the trial court has not had the testimony read or repeated to the accused, the Supreme Court held that a deaf person is not deprived of due process of law because he had not heard a word of the evidence. It also did not overlook the fact the defendant "made no objection, asked for nothing, and permitted his counsel to take his own course."
That the presence of the accused may be dispensed with at various stages of criminal proceedings was further conceded by the Court in Frank v. Mangum,[947] wherein it held that the presence of the defendant when the verdict is rendered is not essential, and, accordingly, that a rule of practice allowing the accused to waive it and which bound him by that waiver did not effect any unconstitutional deprivation. Enumerating many departures from common law procedure respecting jury trials, including provisions waiving the presence of an accused during portions of a trial, the Court emphasized that none of these changes had been construed as conflicting with the Fourteenth Amendment. More recently, the Court, sustained, by only a five-to-four vote, however, a conviction for murder where the trial court rejected the defendant's request that he be present at a view of the scene of the murder to which the jury had been taken.[948] Acknowledging that it had never squarely held, though it now assumed, that "the privilege to confront one's accusers and cross-examine them face to face" in State court prosecutions "is reinforced by the Fourteenth Amendment," the majority devised the following standard for disposing of similar cases in the future. "In a prosecution for a felony," five Justices declared, "the defendant has the privilege under the Fourteenth Amendment to be present in his own person whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge. * * * The Fourteenth Amendment does not assume to a defendant the privilege to be present [when] * * * presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow. * * * The presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only." Employing this standard of appraisal, the majority therefore concluded that no harm or damage had been done to the accused by reason of his failure to be present when the jury viewed the site of the murder.[949]
To what extent, consistently with due process, States may authorize the conduct, after conviction and sentence, of nonadversary proceedings from which the accused has been excluded and denied the privilege of confrontation and cross-examination, has been examined by the Court in two recent cases. In Williams v. New York,[950] the Supreme Court rejected the contention that the due process clause requires that a person convicted of murder be permitted to cross-examine probation officers as to his prior criminal record when the trial judge, in the exercise of discretion vested in him by law, considers such information, obtained outside the courtroom, in determining whether to abide by a jury's recommendation of life imprisonment or to impose a death sentence. Emphasizing the distinction between evidentiary rules applicable to the conduct of criminal trials, which are confined to the narrow issue of guilt, and sentencing procedures which pertain to the determination of the type and extent of punishment after the issue of guilt has been decided, the Court disposed of the petitioner's appeal by declaring that, "modern concepts individualizing punishment have made it all the more necessary that a sentencing judge not be denied an opportunity to obtain pertinent information by a requirement of rigid adherence to restrictive rules of evidence properly applicable to the trial."[951] By a similar process of reasoning, in Solesbee v. Balkcom,[952] the Court sustained a Georgia statutory procedure granting the governor discretionary authority, with the aid of physicians appointed by himself, to determine, without opportunity for an adversary hearing or for judicial review, whether a condemned convict has become insane and, if so, whether he should be committed to an insane asylum. Likening the function thus vested in the governor to the power of executive clemency, the Supreme Court reiterated that "trial procedure safeguards are not applicable to the process of sentencing," and concluded with the observation that the Georgia procedure is amply supported by "the universal common-law principle that upon a suggestion of insanity after sentence, the tribunal charged with responsibility must be vested with broad discretion in deciding whether evidence shall be heard. * * * The heart of the common-law doctrine has been that a suggestion of insanity after sentence is an appeal to the conscience and sound wisdom of the particular tribunal which is asked to postpone sentence."[953]
When employed in the conduct of the trial, however, summary procedures such as those examined in the preceding two decisions invariably elicit judicial condemnation. Thus, when a Michigan judge proceeding as a one-man grand jury concluded that a witness had given false and evasive testimony, not on the basis of anything inherent in the testimony itself, but at least in part upon its inconsistency with other testimony given by a preceding witness, and immediately thereupon suspended his investigation, and committed the witness to jail for contempt, such summary commitment, in the absence of a showing that it was necessary to prevent demoralization of the judge's authority, was held to constitute a denial of due process. The guaranty of that clause forbids the sentencing of an accused person to prison without a public trial; that is, without a day in court, reasonable notice of the charges, and an opportunity to be heard in one's defense by cross-examining other witnesses, or by summoning witnesses to refute the charges against him.[954]
On the other hand, when the alleged contempt is committed, not within the confines of a secret grand jury proceeding, but in open court, is readily observable by the presiding judge, and constitutes an open and immediate threat to orderly judicial procedure and to the court's authority, the offended tribunal is constitutionally empowered summarily to punish without notice, testimony, or hearing. Thus in Fisher v. Pace,[955] albeit with the concurrence of only five Justices, the Court sustained a Texas court's conviction for contempt, with progressive increase of penalty from a $25 to $50 to $100 fine plus three days in jail, of a trial attorney who, despite judicial admonition, persisted in conveying to the jury, in a workmen's compensation case, information not for their consideration. Conceding that "there must be adequate facts to support an order for contempt," the majority declared that the Texas appellate court's finding in the affirmative, after evaluation of the facts, should not be overturned inasmuch as the Supreme Court, in examining the transcript of the record, could not derive therefrom an adequate picture of the courtroom scene nor discern therein "such elements of misbehavior as expression, manner of speaking, bearing, and attitude of * * * [the attorney]." The fact that the bench was guilty of "mildly provocative language" was deemed insufficient to excuse the conduct of the attorney.[956]
Inasmuch as due process implies a tribunal both impartial and mentally competent to afford a hearing, it follows that the subjection of a defendant's liberty or property to the decision of a court, the judge of which has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in rendering a verdict against him, is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.[957] Compensating an inferior judge for his services only when he convicts a defendant may have been a practice of long-standing, but such a system of remuneration, the Court declared, never became "so embedded by custom in the general practice either at common law or in this country that it can be regarded as due process of law. * * *"[958] However, a conviction before a mayor's court does not become constitutionally defective by reason of the fact that the fixed salary of the mayor is paid out of the fund to which the fines imposed by him contribute.[959]
Obviously, the attribute of impartiality is lacking whenever the judge and jury are dominated by a mob. "If the jury is intimidated and the trial judge yields, and so that there is an actual interference with the course of justice, there is, in that court, a departure from due process of law. * * *"[960] But "if * * * the whole proceeding is a mask—* * * [if the] counsel, jury and judge * * * [are] swept to the fatal end by an irresistible wave of public passion, and * * * [if] the State Courts failed to correct the wrong, neither perfection in the machinery for correction nor the possibility that the trial court and counsel saw no other way of avoiding an immediate outbreak of the mob can prevent" intervention by the Supreme Court to secure the constitutional rights of the defendant.[961]
Insofar as a criminal trial proceeds with a jury, it is part of the American tradition to contemplate not only an impartial jury but one drawn from a cross-section of the community. This has been construed as requiring that prospective jurors be selected by court officials without systematic and intentional exclusion of any group, even though it is not necessary that every jury contain representatives of all the economic, social, religious, racial, political, and geographical groups of the community.[962]
Other Attributes of a Fair Trial
"Due process of law," the Supreme Court has observed, "requires that the proceedings shall be fair, but fairness is a relative, not an absolute concept. * * * What is fair in one set of circumstances may be an act of tyranny in others."[963] Conversely, "as applied to a criminal trial, denial of due process is the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice. In order to declare a denial of it * * * [the Court] must find that the absence of that fairness fatally infected the trial; the acts complained of must be of such quality as necessarily prevents a fair trial."[964] And on another occasion the Court remarked that "the due process clause," as applied in criminal trials "requires that action by a State through any of its agencies must be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions, [and] which not infrequently are designated as 'the law of the land.'"[965]
Basic to the very idea of free government and among the immutable principles of justice which no State of the Union may disregard is the necessity of due "notice of the charge and an adequate opportunity to be heard in defense of it."[966] Consequently, when a State appellate court affirms a conviction on the ground that the information charged, and the evidence showed a violation of Sec. 1 of a penal law of the State, notwithstanding that the language of the information and the construction placed upon it at the trial clearly show that an offense under Sec. 2 of such law was charged, that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were based on Sec. 2, and that on the whole case it was clear that the trial and conviction in the lower court were for the violation of Sec. 2, not Sec. 1, such appellate court in effect is convicting the accused of a charge on which he was never tried, which is as much a violation of due process as a conviction upon a charge that was never made.[967] On the other hand, a prisoner who, after having been indicted on a charge of receiving stolen goods, abides by the prosecutor's suggestion and pleads guilty to the lesser offense of attempted second degree grand larceny, cannot later contend that a judgment of guilty of the latter offense was lacking in due process in that it amounted to a conviction of a crime for which he had never been indicted. In view of the "close kinship between the offense of larceny and that of receiving stolen property * * *, when related to the same stolen goods, the two crimes may fairly be said 'to be connected with the same transaction.'" It would be therefore, the Court concluded, "an exaltation of technical precision to an unwarranted degree to say that the indictment here did not inform the petitioner that he was charged with the substantial elements of the crime of larceny." Under these circumstances he must be deemed to have been given "reasonable notice and information of the specific charge against him and a fair hearing in open court."[968]
Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Sentence
The commitment to prison of a person convicted of crime, without giving him an opportunity pending an appeal, to furnish bail, does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[969] Likewise, a State, notwithstanding the limitations of that clause, retains a wide discretion in prescribing penalties for violation of its laws. Accordingly, a sentence of fourteen years' imprisonment for the crime of perjury has not been viewed as excessive nor as effecting any unconstitutional deprivation of the defendant's liberty;[970] nor has the imposition of successively heavier penalties upon "repeaters" been considered as partaking of a "cruel and unusual punishment."[971]
In an older decision, Ex parte Kemmler,[972] rendered in 1890, the Supreme Court rejected the suggestion that the substance of the Eighth Amendment had been incorporated into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but did intimate that the latter clause would invalidate punishments which would involve "torture or a lingering death," such "as burning at the stake, crucifixion, breaking on the wheel, and the like." Holding that the infliction of the death penalty by electrocution was comparable to none of the latter, the Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the State legislature that such a method of executing the judgment of a court was humane. More recently, in Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber,[973] five members of the Court reached a similar conclusion as to the restraining effect of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when, assuming, "but without so deciding" that violations of the Eighth Amendment as to cruel and unusual punishments would also be violative of that clause, they upheld a subsequent proceeding to execute a sentence of death by electrocution after an accidental failure of equipment had rendered an initial attempt unsuccessful.[974]
In none of the pertinent cases considered prior to 1937 was the Supreme Court able to discern the existence of any factual situation amounting to double jeopardy, and accordingly it was never confronted with the necessity of determining whether the guarantee that no person be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb, expressed in the Fifth Amendment as a limitation against the Federal Government, had been absorbed in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in Dreyer v. Illinois,[975] after declaring that a retrial after discharge of a hung jury did not subject a defendant to double jeopardy, the Court concluded as follows: If "* * * what was said in United States v. Perez [(9 Wheat. 579 (1824)) embracing a similar set of facts], * * * is adverse to the contention of the accused that he was put twice in jeopardy," then "we need not now express an opinion" as to whether the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the guarantee against double jeopardy. Similarly, in Murphy v. Massachusetts[976] and Shoener v. Pennsylvania[977] the Court held that where the original conviction of the prisoner was, on appeal, construed by the State tribunal to be legally defective and therefore a nullity, a subsequent trial, conviction, and sentence of the accused deprived him of no constitutional right, notwithstanding the fact that under the invalidated original conviction, the defendant had spent time in prison. In both instances the Court found it unnecessary to discuss "any question of a federal nature." With like dispatch, "the propriety of inflicting severer punishment upon old offenders" was sustained on the ground that they were not being "punished * * * [a] second time for the earlier offense, but [that] the repetition of criminal conduct aggravates their guilt and justifies heavier penalties when they are again convicted."[978]
In Palko v. Connecticut,[979] however, the Court appeared to have been presented with issues, the disposition of which would preclude further avoidance of a decision as to whether the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment had become operable as a restraint upon the States by reason of its incorporation into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the terms of the Connecticut statute at issue, the State was privileged to appeal any question of law arising out of a criminal prosecution, and did appeal a conviction of second degree murder and sentence to life imprisonment of one Palko, who had been charged with first degree murder. Obtaining a reversal, the State prosecuted Palko a second time and won a conviction of first degree murder and sentence to death. In response to the petitioner's contentions that a retrial under one indictment would subject him to double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment, if the prosecution were one on behalf of the United States and "that whatever is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment is forbidden by the Fourteenth also,"[980] eight Justices[981] replied that the State statute did not subject him to double jeopardy "so acute and shocking that our polity will not endure it"; nor did "it violate those 'fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political' institutions.'" Consistently with past behavior, the Court thus refused to assert that the defendant had been subjected to treatment of the type prohibited by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment; nor did it, on the other hand, repudiate the possibility of situations in which the Fourteenth Amendment would prevent the States from inflicting double jeopardy. Whether a State is prohibited by the latter amendment, after a trial free from error, from trying the accused over again or from wearing out the accused "by a multitude of cases with accumulated trials" were questions which the Court reserved for future disposition. Subsequently, in Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber,[982] a majority of the Court assumed, "but without so deciding, that violation of the principles of the Fifth Amendment * * *, as to double jeopardy * * *, would be violative of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," and then concluded that the Palko case was decisive, there being "no difference from a constitutional point of view between a new trial for error of law at the instance of the State that results in a death sentence instead of imprisonment for life and an execution" by electrocution that follows after "an accidental failure in equipment had rendered a previous attempt at execution ineffectual."
Access to the Courts.—A State prison regulation requiring that all legal papers sought to be filed in court by inmates must first be submitted to the institution for approval and which was applied so as to obstruct efforts of a prisoner to petition a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus is void. Whether a petition for such writ is properly drawn and what allegations it must contain are questions which a federal court alone determines.[983] Equally subject to condemnation is the practice of the warden of a State penitentiary who denied prisoners access to the courts unless they procured counsel to represent them.[984]
Appeals; Corrective Process.—Rehearing, new trials, and appeals are not considered to be essential to due process; and a State is forbidden by no provision of the Constitution from vesting in one tribunal the final determination of legal questions. Consequently, a review by an appellate court of a final judgment in a criminal case, irrespective of the gravity of the offense, is wholly within the discretion of the State to allow or not to allow;[985] and, if granted, may be accorded by the State upon such terms as in its wisdom may be deemed proper.[986] "Wide discretion must be left to the States for the manner of adjudicating a claim that a conviction is unconstitutional; * * * and so long as the rights under the * * * Constitution may be pursued, it is for a State and not for * * * [the Supreme] Court [of the United States] to define the mode by which they may be vindicated. * * * A State may decide whether to have direct appeals * * *, and if so under what circumstances * * * may provide that the protection of [constitutional] rights * * * be sought through the writ of habeas corpus or coram nobis, [or] * * * may afford remedy by a simple motion brought either in the Court of original conviction or at the place of detention."[987]
However, if the tribunal of first instance fails to accord due process such as occurs when the Court in which a conviction is obtained is dominated by a mob, the State must supply corrective process. Moreover, when such process is made available, the corrective proceedings in the reviewing or appellate tribunal being no less a part of the process of law under which a defendant is held in custody, become subject to scrutiny on the occasion of any determination of an alleged unconstitutional deprivation of life or liberty.[988] Such examination may lead unavoidably to substantial federal intervention in State judicial proceedings, and sensitive, no doubt, to the propriety thereof,[989] the Supreme Court, almost until Brown v. Mississippi,[990] decided in 1936, manifested an unusual reluctance to indulge in an adverse appraisal of the adequacy of a State's corrective process.
Prior to the latter date, the Court was content to assume as it did in Frank v. Mangum,[991] decided in 1915, that inasmuch as the proceedings in the State appellate court formally appeared to be sufficient to correct errors committed by a trial court alleged to have been intimidated by a mob, the conclusion by that appellate court that the trial court's sentence of execution should be affirmed was ample assurance that life would not be forfeited without due process of law. Apparently in observance of a principle of comity, whereunder a State appellate court's holding, though acknowledged as not binding, was deemed entitled to utmost respect, the Court persisted in its refusal to make an independent examination of allegations of a denial of due process. Eight years later, in Moore v. Dempsey,[992] a case involving similar allegations of mob domination, the Court, on this occasion speaking through Justice Holmes who had dissented in the preceding decision, ordered the federal district court, in which the defendants had petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and which had sustained the State of Arkansas's demurrer thereto, to make an independent investigation of the facts, notwithstanding that the Arkansas appellate court had ruled that, in view of the legally sufficient evidence on which the verdict was based and the competent counsel defending the accused, the allegations of mob domination did not suffice to void the trial.
Indubitably, Moore v. Dempsey marked the abandonment of the Supreme Court's deference, founded upon considerations of comity, to decisions of State appellate tribunals on issues of constitutionality and the proclamation of its intention no longer to treat as virtually conclusive pronouncements by the latter that proceedings in a trial court were fair. However, the enduring character of this precedent was depreciated by the Court's insistence that Moore v. Dempsey was decided consistently[993] with Frank v. Mangum; and it was not until the later holding in Brown v. Mississippi in 1936 and the numerous decisions rendered conformably thereto in the decade following that all uncertainty was dispelled as to the Supreme Court's willingness to engage in its own independent examination of the constitutional adequacy of trial court proceedings.
DUE PROCESS: MISCELLANEOUS
Appeals
In every case a point is reached where litigation must cease; and what that point is can best be determined by the State legislature. The power to render a final judgment must be lodged somewhere; and there is no provision in the Federal Constitution which forbids a State from granting to a tribunal, whether called a court or an administrative board, the final determination of a legal question. Neither in administrative nor judicial proceedings does the due process clause require that the participants be entitled as of right to rehearings, new trials, or appeals.[994]
Federal Review of State Procedure
The Fourteenth Amendment does not impair the authority of the States to determine finally, according to their settled usages and established modes of procedure, issues which do not involve any right secured by the Constitution, an act of Congress, or a treaty. As long as a local tribunal acts in consonance with the Constitution, laws and procedure of its own State and as long as said Constitution and laws are so interpreted as not to violate due process, it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Supreme Court would feel justified in intervening. Neither by intention nor by result has the Fourteenth Amendment transformed the Supreme Court into a court of general review to which questions of general justice or equitable consideration arising out of the taking of property may be brought for final determination.[995]
Insofar as mere irregularities or errors in matters of practice under State procedure do not affect constitutional right,[996] they are matters solely for consideration by the appropriate State tribunal.[997] The Constitution does not guarantee that the decisions of State courts shall be free from error;[998] nor does the due process clause give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review mere mistakes of law concerning nonfederal matters alleged to have been committed by a State court.[999] Accordingly, when statutes authorizing the form of the indictment used are not obviously violative of fundamental constitutional principles, any question as to the sufficiency of the indictment employed is for a State court to determine.[1000] Likewise, the failure of a State to establish a county appellate court as required by the State constitution cannot support any appeal founded upon a denial of due process.[1001] Moreover, if a State court errs in deciding what the common law is, without, however, denying any constitutional right, the litigant adversely affected is not deprived of any liberty or property without due process of law.[1002] Also, whenever a wrong judgment is rendered, property is taken when it should not have been; yet whatever the ground may be, if the mistake is not so gross as to be impossible in a rational administration of justice, it is no more than the imperfection of man, not a denial of constitutional rights.[1003] In conclusion, the decision of a State court upon a question of local law, however wrong, is not an infraction of the Fourteenth Amendment merely because it is wrong. It is not for the Supreme Court to determine whether there has been an erroneous construction of a State statute or the common law; nor does the Constitution impose any impediment to the correction or modification by a State court of erroneous or older constructions of local law embraced in previous decisions.[1004]
Equal Protection of the Laws
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
What Constitutes State Action
The inhibition against denial of equal protection of the laws has exclusive reference to State action. It means that no agency of the State, legislative, executive or judicial,[1005] no instrumentality of the State, and no person, officer or agent exerting the power of the State shall deny equal protection to any person within the jurisdiction of the State. The clause prohibits "discriminating and partial legislation * * * in favor of particular persons as against others in like condition."[1006] But it also has reference to the way the law is administered. "Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution."[1007] This was said in a case where a Chinese subject had been convicted of operating a laundry in violation of a municipal ordinance which made it unlawful to engage in such business (except in a building constructed of brick or stone) without the consent of the board of supervisors. Permission had been withheld from petitioner and 200 other Chinese subjects but had been granted to 80 others to carry on the same business under similar conditions. This discrimination solely on the basis of nationality was held illegal. For an unlawful administration of a valid statute to constitute a violation of constitutional rights, purposeful discrimination must be shown. An erroneous performance of a statutory duty, although a violation of the statute, is not without more a denial of equal protection of the laws.[1008] This clause is also violated by the withholding of equal access to the courts,[1009] or by inequality of treatment in the courts.[1010] In Shelley v. Kraemer[1011] the use of judicial power to enforce private agreements of a discriminatory character was held unconstitutional. Holding that restrictive covenants prohibiting the sale of homes to Negroes could not be enforced in the courts, Chief Justice Vinson said: "These are not cases, as has been suggested, in which the States have merely abstained from action, leaving private individuals free to impose such discriminations as they see fit. Rather, these are cases in which the States have made available to such individuals the full coercive power of government to deny to petitioners, on the grounds of race or color, the enjoyment of property rights in premises which petitioners are willing and financially able to acquire and which the grantors are willing to sell. The difference between judicial enforcement and nonenforcement of the restrictive covenants is the difference to petitioners between being denied rights of property available to other members of the community and being accorded full enjoyment of those rights on an equal footing."[1012] The action of the curators of a state university in refusing admission to an applicant on account of race is regarded as State action.[1013] A State cannot avoid the impact of the clause by the delegation of responsibility to a private body. After a period of vacillation, the Supreme Court has determined that the action of a political party in excluding Negroes from membership is unlawful when such membership is an essential qualification for voting in a primary conducted pursuant to State law.[1014]
"Persons"
In the case in which it was first called upon to interpret this clause the Court expressed doubt whether "any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the Negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision."[1015] That view was soon abandoned. In 1877 it took jurisdiction of a series of cases, popularly known as the Granger cases, in which railroad corporations sought protection under the due process and equal protection clauses.[1016] Although every case was decided against the corporations on its merits, there was no expression of any doubt that the corporations were entitled to invoke the protection of the amendment. Nine years later the issue was settled definitely by an announcement from the bench by Chief Justice Waite that the Court would not hear argument on the question whether the equal protection clause applies to corporations, adding: "We are all of opinion that it does."[1017] At the same term the Court gave the broadest possible meaning to the word "person"; it held that: "These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; * * *"[1018] The only qualification of the meaning of "person" is that introduced by subsequent decisions holding that a municipal corporation cannot invoke the amendment against its State.[1019]
"Within Its Jurisdiction"
It is persons "within its jurisdiction" that are entitled to equal protection from a State. Largely because article IV, section 2, has from the beginning entitled "Citizens of each State" to the "Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," the Court has never construed the phrase, "within its jurisdiction," in relation to natural persons.[1020] The cases interpretive of this expression consequently all concern corporations. In 1898, the Court laid down the rule that a foreign corporation not doing business in a State under conditions that subjected it to process issuing from the courts of the State at the instance of suitors was not "within the jurisdiction," and could not complain of the preference granted resident creditors in the distribution of the assets of an insolvent corporation.[1021] That principle was subsequently qualified, over the dissent of Justices Brandeis and Holmes, by a holding that a foreign corporation which sued in a court of a State in which it was not licensed to do business to recover possession of property wrongfully taken from it in another State was "within the jurisdiction" and could not be subjected to unequal burdens in the maintenance of the suit.[1022] The test of amenability to service of process within the State was ignored in a recent case dealing with discriminatory assessment of property belonging to a nonresident individual. In holding that a federal court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for a declaratory judgment to invalidate the tax, the Supreme Court specifically mentioned the equal protection clause as the source of the federal right, but took no account of the plaintiff's status as a nonresident, beyond a passing reference to the existence of diversity of citizenship.[1023] When a State has admitted a foreign corporation to do business within its borders, that corporation is entitled to equal protection of the laws, but not necessarily to identical treatment with domestic corporations.[1024] A foreign corporation licensed to do business within a State upon payment of an annual license tax is subject to the power of the State to change at any time the conditions of admission for the future. If it fails to pay an increased license tax as a prerequisite to doing business, it is not "within the jurisdiction" and unequal burdens may be laid upon it as compared with other foreign corporations.[1025]
"Equal Protection of the Laws"
Equal protection of the laws means the protection of equal laws.[1026] It forbids all invidious discrimination but does not require identical treatment for all persons without recognition of differences in relevant circumstances. It requires "that equal protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights; that all persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness and acquire and enjoy property; that they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts; that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of anyone except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; that no greater burdens should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition, and that in the administration of criminal justice no different or higher punishment should be imposed upon one than such as is prescribed to all for like offenses."[1027] The Amendment was not "designed to interfere with the power of the State, sometimes termed its 'police power,' to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the State, develop its resources, and add to its wealth and prosperity * * * Regulations for these purposes may press with more or less weight upon one than upon another, but they are designed, not to impose unequal or unnecessary restrictions upon anyone, but to promote, with as little individual inconvenience as possible, the general good. Though, in many respects, necessarily special in their character they do not furnish just ground of complaint if they operate alike upon all persons and property under the same circumstances and conditions."[1028] The due process and equal protection clauses overlap but the spheres of protection they offer are not coterminous. The due process clause "tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for everyone's right of life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or the legislature may not withhold. * * * The guaranty [of equal protection] was aimed at undue favor and individual or class privilege, on the other hand, and at hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality, on the other."[1029]
Legislative Classifications
Although the equal protection clause requires laws of like application to all similarly situated, the legislature is allowed wide discretion in the selection of classes.[1030] Classification will not render a State police statute unconstitutional so long as it has a reasonable basis;[1031] its validity does not depend on scientific or marked differences in things or persons or in their relations. It suffices if it is practical.[1032] While a State legislature may not arbitrarily select certain individuals for the operation of its statutes, a selection is obnoxious to the equal protection clause only if it is clearly and actually arbitrary and not merely possibly so.[1033] A substantial difference, in point of harmful results, between two methods of operation, justifies a classification and the burden is on the attacking party to prove it unreasonable.[1034] There is a strong presumption that discriminations in State legislation are based on adequate grounds.[1035] Every state of facts sufficient to sustain a classification which can reasonably be conceived of as having existed when the law was adopted will be assumed.[1036]
There is no doctrinaire requirement that legislation should be couched in all-embracing terms.[1037] A police statute may be confined to the occasion for its existence.[1038] The equal protection clause does not mean that all occupations that are called by the same name must be treated in the same way.[1039] The legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm; a law which hits the evil where it is most felt will not be overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been applied.[1040] The State may do what it can to prevent what is deemed an evil and stop short of those cases in which the harm to the few concerned is thought less important than the harm to the public that would ensue if the rules laid down were made mathematically exact.[1041] Exceptions of specified classes will not render the law unconstitutional unless there is no fair reason for the law that would not equally require its extension to the excepted classes.[1042] Incidental individual inequality does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.[1043] One who is not discriminated against cannot attack a statute because it does not go further; and if what it commands of one it commands of all others in the same class, that person cannot complain of matter which the statute does not cover.[1044]
TAXATION
At the outset, the Court did not regard the equal protection clause as having any bearing on taxation.[1045] Before long, however, it took jurisdiction of cases assailing specific tax laws under this provision.[1046] In 1890 it conceded cautiously that "clear and hostile discriminations against particular persons and classes, especially such as are of an unusual character, unknown to the practice of our governments, might be obnoxious to the constitutional prohibition."[1047] In succeeding years the clause has been invoked but sparingly to invalidate State levies. In the field of property taxation, inequality has been condemned only in two classes of cases: (1) intentional discrimination in assessments; and (2) discrimination against foreign corporations. In addition, there are a handful of cases invalidating, because of inequality, State laws imposing income, gross receipts, sales and license taxes.
Classifications for the Purpose of Taxation
The power of the State to classify for purposes of taxation is "of wide range and flexibility."[1048] The Constitution does not prevent it "from adjusting its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways. It may, if it chooses, exempt certain classes of property from any taxation at all, such as churches, libraries, and the property of charitable institutions. It may impose different specific taxes upon different trades and professions, and may vary the rates of excise upon various products; it may tax real estate and personal property in a different manner; it may tax visible property only, and not tax securities for payment of money; it may allow deductions for indebtedness, or not allow them. All such regulations, and those of like character, so long as they proceed within reasonable limits and general usage, are within the discretion of the State Legislature, * * *"[1049] A State may adjust its taxing system in such a way as to favor certain industries or forms of industry,[1050] and may tax different types of taxpayers differently, despite the fact that they compete.[1051] It does not follow that because "some degree of inequality from the nature of things must be permitted, gross inequality must also be allowed."[1052] Classification may not be arbitrary; it must be based on a real and substantial difference,[1053] but the difference need not be great or conspicuous;[1054] but there must be no discrimination in favor of one as against another of the same class.[1055] Also, discriminations of an unusual character are scrutinized with especial care.[1056] A gross sales tax graduated at increasing rates with the volume of sales,[1057] a heavier license tax on each unit in a chain of stores where the owner has stores located in more than one county,[1058] and a gross receipts tax levied on corporations operating taxicabs, but not on individuals,[1059] have been held to be repugnant to the equal protection clause. But it is not the function of the Court to consider the propriety or justness of the tax, to seek for the motives and criticize the public policy which prompted the adoption of the statute.[1060] If the evident intent and general operation of the tax legislation is to adjust the burden with a fair and reasonable degree of equality, the constitutional requirement is satisfied.[1061] One not within the class claimed to be discriminated against cannot raise the question of constitutionality of a statute on the ground that it denies equal protection of the law.[1062] If a tax applies to a class which may be separately taxed, those within the class may not complain because the class might have been more aptly defined, nor because others, not of the class, are taxed improperly.[1063]
The equal protection clause does not require identical taxes upon all foreign and domestic corporations in every case.[1064] In 1886, a Pennsylvania corporation previously licensed to do business in New York challenged an increased annual license tax imposed by that State in retaliation for a like tax levied by Pennsylvania against New York corporations. This tax was held valid on the ground that the State, having power to exclude entirely, could change the conditions of admission for the future, and could demand the payment of a new or further tax, as a license fee.[1065] Later cases whittled down this rule considerably. The Court decided that "after its admission, the foreign corporation stands equal and is to be classified with domestic corporations of the same kind,"[1066] and that where it has acquired property of a fixed and permanent nature in a State, it cannot be subjected to a more onerous tax for the privilege of doing business than domestic corporations.[1067] A State statute taxing foreign corporations writing fire, marine, inland navigation and casualty insurance on net receipts, including receipts from casualty business was held invalid under the equal protection clause where foreign companies writing only casualty insurance were not subject to a similar tax.[1068] Recently, the doctrine of Fire Asso. of Philadelphia v. New York was revived to sustain an increased tax on gross premiums which was exacted as an annual license fee from foreign but not from domestic corporations.[1069] Even though the right of a foreign corporation to do business in a State rests on a license, yet the equal protection clause is held to insure it equality of treatment, at least so far as ad valorem taxation is concerned.[1070]
Income Taxes
A State law which taxes the entire income, including that derived without the State, of domestic corporations which do business in the State, while exempting entirely the income received outside the State by domestic corporations which do no local business, is arbitrary and invalid.[1071] In taxing the income of a nonresident, there is no denial of equal protection in limiting the deduction of losses to those sustained within the State, although residents are permitted to deduct all losses, wherever incurred.[1072] A retroactive statute imposing a graduated tax at rates different from those in the general income tax law, on dividends received in a prior year which were deductible from gross income under the law in effect when they were received, is not obnoxious to the equal protection clause.[1073]
Inheritance Taxes
In inheritance taxation, there is no denial of equal protection in prescribing different treatment for lineal relations, collateral kindred and strangers of the blood, or in increasing the proportionate burden of the tax progressively as the amount of the benefit increases.[1074] A tax on life estates where the remainder passes to lineal heirs is valid despite the exemption of life estates where the remainder passes to collateral heirs;[1075] there is no arbitrary classification in taxing the transmission of property to a brother or sister, while exempting that to a son-in-law or a daughter-in-law.[1076] Vested and contingent remainders may be treated differently.[1077] The exemption of property bequeathed to charitable or educational institutions may be limited to those within the State.[1078] In computing the tax collectible from a nonresident decedent's property within the State, a State may apply the pertinent rates to the whole estate wherever located, and take that proportion thereof which the property within the State bears to the total; the fact that a greater tax may result than would be assessed on an equal amount of property if owned by a resident,[1079] does not invalidate the result.
Motor Vehicle Taxes
In demanding compensation for the use of highways, a State may exempt certain types of vehicles, according to the purpose for which they are used, from a mileage tax on carriers.[1080] A State maintenance tax act, which taxes vehicle property carriers for hire at greater rates than similar vehicles carrying property not for hire is reasonable, since the use of roads by one hauling not for hire generally is limited to transportation of his own property as an incident to his occupation and is substantially less than that of one engaged in business as a common carrier.[1081] A property tax on motor vehicles used in operating a stage line that makes constant and unusual use of the highways may be measured by gross receipts and be assessed at a higher rate than taxes on property not so employed.[1082] Common motor carriers of freight operating over regular routes between fixed termini may be taxed at higher rates than other carriers, common and private.[1083] A fee for the privilege of transporting motor vehicles on their own wheels over the highways of the State for purpose of sale, does not violate the equal protection clause as applied to cars moving in caravans.[1084] The exemption from a tax for a permit to bring cars into the State in caravans of cars moved for sale between zones in the State is not an unconstitutional discrimination where it appears that the traffic subject to the tax places a much more serious burden on the highways than that which is exempt.[1085] The exemption of small vehicles from graduated registration fees on carriers for hire,[1086] and of persons whose vehicles haul passengers and farm products between points not having railroad facilities or hauling farm and dairy products for a producer from a vehicle license tax on private motor carriers, has been upheld.[1087]
A poll tax statute exempting women, the aged and minors, does not make an arbitrary classification[1088].
Property Taxes
The State's latitude of discretion is notably wide in the classification of property for purposes of taxation and the granting of partial or total exemption on the grounds of policy,[1089] whether the exemption results from the terms of the statute or the conduct of a State official under it.[1090] A provision for the forfeiture of land for nonpayment of taxes is not invalid because the conditions to which it applies exist only in a part of the State.[1091] Intentional and systematic undervaluation by State officials of other taxable property in the same class contravenes the constitutional right of one taxed upon the full value of his property;[1092] but mere errors in judgment resulting in unequal overvaluation or undervaluation, not intentional or systematic, will not support a claim of discrimination.[1093] Differences in the basis of assessment are not invalid where the person or property affected might properly be placed in a separate class for purposes of taxation.[1094] An owner aggrieved by discrimination is entitled to have his assessment reduced to the common level.[1095] Equal protection is denied if a State does not itself remove the discrimination; it cannot impose upon the person against whom the discrimination is directed the burden of seeking an upward revision of the assessment of other members of the class.[1096] A corporation whose valuations were accepted by the assessing commission cannot complain that it was taxed disproportionately, as compared with others, if the commission did not act fraudulently.[1097]
Special Assessment
A special assessment is not discriminatory because apportioned on an ad valorem basis, nor does its validity depend upon the receipt of some special benefit as distinguished from the general benefit to the community.[1098] Railroad property may not be burdened for local improvements upon a basis so wholly different from that used for ascertaining the contribution demanded of individual owners as necessarily to produce manifest inequality.[1099] A special highway assessment against railroads based on real property, rolling stock and other personal property is unjustly discriminatory when other assessments for the same improvement are based on real property alone.[1100] A law requiring the franchise of a railroad to be considered in valuing its property for apportionment of a special assessment, is not invalid where the franchises were not added as a separate personal property value to the assessment of the real property.[1101] In taxing railroads within a levee district on a mileage basis, it is not necessarily arbitrary to fix a lower rate per mile for those having less than 25 miles of main line within the district than for those having more.[1102]
POLICE POWER
Classification
Justice Holmes once called the equal protection clause the "usual last refuge of constitutional arguments."[1103] When State action is attacked under the due process clause, the assailant usually charges also that he is denied the equal protection of the laws. Except where discrimination on the basis of race or nationality is shown, few police regulations have been found unconstitutional on this ground.[1104] The Court has condemned a statute which forbade stock insurance companies to act through agents who were their salaried employees, but permitted mutual companies to operate in this manner.[1105] A law which required private motor vehicle carriers to obtain certificates of convenience and necessity and to furnish security for the protection of the public was held invalid by reason of the exemption of carriers of fish, farm and dairy products.[1106] Discrimination among milk dealers without well advertised trade names, giving those who entered business before a specified date the benefit of a price differential denied to those who commenced operations thereafter, is arbitrary and unlawful.[1107] A statute providing for the sterilization of defectives in State institutions was sustained;[1108] but a similar act applicable to triple offenders was held void.[1109]
A municipal ordinance which vests in supervisory authorities a naked and arbitrary power to grant or withhold consent to the operation of laundries in wooden buildings, without consideration of the circumstances of individual cases, constitutes a denial of equal protection of the law when consent is withheld from certain persons solely on the basis of nationality.[1110] But a city council may reserve to itself the power to make exceptions from a ban on the operation of a dairy within the city,[1111] or from building line restrictions.[1112] Written permission of the mayor or president of the city council may be required before any person shall move a building on a street.[1113] The Mayor may be empowered to determine whether an applicant has a good character and reputation and is a suitable person to receive a license for the sale of cigarettes.[1114] In a recent case[1115] the Court held that the unfettered discretion of officer river pilots to select their apprentices, which was almost invariably exercised in favor of their relatives and friends, was not a denial of equal protection to persons not selected despite the fact that such apprenticeship was requisite for appointment as a pilot.
Alien Laws
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits purely arbitrary discrimination against aliens.[1116] Where alien race and allegiance bear a reasonable relation to a legitimate object of legislation, it may be made the basis of classification. Thus, legislation has been upheld under which aliens were forbidden to conduct pool rooms[1117] or to take game or possess shotguns.[1118] A discrimination between citizens and aliens in the matter of employment on public works is not unconstitutional.[1119] A State cannot, however, deny to aliens the right to earn a living in ordinary occupations. Consequently, a statute requiring that employers of more than five workers employ not less than eighty percent qualified electors or natural born citizens denies equal protection of the law.[1120] Likewise a State law forbidding the issuance of commercial fishing licenses to aliens ineligible for citizenship has been held void.[1121] State laws forbidding aliens to own real estate, have been upheld in the past.[1122] A less sympathetic attitude toward such legislation was indicated in Oyama v. California, in 1948.[1123] There the State of California sought to escheat land owned by an American-born son of a Japanese father under a provision of its Alien Land Law which made payment by an alien of the consideration for a transfer of land to a third person prima facie evidence of intent to evade the statute. The Court held that the burden of proof imposed upon the son, an American citizen, by reason of his parent's country of origin, was an unlawful discrimination, but it did not pass upon the constitutionality of the Alien Land Law itself. In concurring opinions four Justices took the position that the law was incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment.[1124]
Labor Relations
Objections to labor legislation on the ground that the limitation of particular regulations to specified industries was obnoxious to the equal protection clause, have been consistently overruled. Statutes limiting hours of labor for employees in mines, smelters,[1125] mills, factories,[1126] or on public works[1127] have been sustained. So also was a statute forbidding persons engaged in mining and manufacturing to issue orders for payment of labor unless redeemable at face value in cash.[1128] The exemption of mines employing less than ten persons from a law pertaining to measurement of coal to determine a miner's wages is not unreasonable.[1129] All corporations,[1130] or public service corporations,[1131] may be required to issue to employees who leave their service letters stating the nature of the service and the cause of leaving even though other employers are not.
Industries may be classified in a workmen's compensation act according to the respective hazards of each;[1132] the exemption of farm laborers and domestic servants does not render such an act invalid.[1133] A statute providing that no person shall be denied opportunity for employment because he is not a member of a union does not offend the equal protection clause.[1134]
Women, or particular classes of women, may be singled out for special treatment, in the exercise of the State's protective power, without violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Classification may be based on differences either in their physical characteristics or in the social conditions which surround their employment. Restrictions on conditions of employment in particular occupations are not invalid because the law might have been made broader.[1135] One of the earliest pieces of social legislation to be sustained was a ten-hour law for women employed in laundries.[1136] A law limiting hours of labor for women in hotels is not rendered unconstitutional by reason of the exemption of certain railroad restaurants.[1137] Night work by women in restaurants may be prohibited.[1138] Reversing earlier decisions, the Supreme Court upheld a minimum wage law for women in 1937, saying that their unequal bargaining position justified a law applicable only to them.[1139]
Women may be forbidden to engage in an occupation where their employment may create special moral and social problems. A State statute forbidding women to act as bartenders, but making an exception in favor of wives and daughters of the male owners of liquor establishments was sustained over the objection, which three Justices found persuasive, that the act denied the equal protection of the law to female owners of such establishments.[1140] Said Justice Frankfurter for the majority: "The fact that women may now have achieved the virtues that men have long claimed as their prerogatives and now indulge in vices that men have long practiced, does not preclude the States from drawing a sharp line between the sexes, certainly in such matters as the regulation of the liquor traffic. * * * The Constitution does not require legislatures to reflect sociological insight, or shifting social standards, any more than it requires them to keep abreast of the latest scientific standards."[1141]
On the principle that the law may hit the evil where it is most felt, State Antitrust Laws applicable to corporations but not to individuals,[1142] or to vendors of commodities but not to vendors of labor,[1143] have been upheld. Contrary to its earlier view, the Court now holds that an Antitrust Act which exempts agricultural products in the hands of the producer is valid.[1144] Diversity with respect to penalties also has been sustained. Corporations violating the law may be proceeded against by bill in equity, while individuals are indicted and tried.[1145] A provision, superimposed upon the general Antitrust Law, for revocation of the licenses of fire insurance companies which enter into illegal combinations, does not violate the equal protection clause.[1146] A grant of monopoly privileges, if otherwise an appropriate exercise of the police power, is immune to attack under that clause.[1147]
Punishment for Crime
Equality of protection under the law implies that in the administration of criminal justice no person shall be subject to any greater or different punishment than another in similar circumstances.[1148] Comparative gravity of criminal offenses is a matter for the State to determine, and the fact that some offenses are punished with less severity than others does not deny equal protection.[1149] Heavier penalties may be imposed upon habitual criminals for like offenses,[1150] even after a pardon for an earlier offense,[1151] and such persons may be made ineligible for parole.[1152] A State law doubling the sentence on prisoners attempting to escape does not deny equal protection in subjecting prisoners who attempt to escape together to different sentences depending on their original sentences.[1153] Infliction of the death penalty for assaults with intent to kill by life term convicts is not unconstitutional because not applicable to convicts serving lesser terms.[1154] The Fourteenth Amendment does not preclude the commitment of persons who, by an habitual course of misconduct, have evidenced utter lack of power to control sexual impulses, and are likely to inflict injury.[1155] A statute prohibiting a white person and a Negro from living together in adultery or fornication is not invalid because it prescribes penalties more severe than those to which the parties would be subject were they both of the same race.[1156] The equal protection clause does not prevent the execution of a prisoner after the accidental failure of the first attempt.[1157] It does, however, render invalid a statute requiring sterilization of persons convicted of various offenses, including larceny by fraud, but exempting embezzlers.[1158]
Segregation
Laws designed to segregate persons of different races in the location of their homes, in the public schools and on public conveyances have been a prolific source of litigation under the equal protection clause. An ordinance intended to segregate the homes of white and colored races is invalid.[1159] Private covenants forbidding the transfer of real property to persons of a certain race or color have been held lawful,[1160] but the enforcement of such agreements by a State through its courts would constitute a denial of equal protection of the laws.[1161] A statute providing for separate but equal accommodations on railroads for white and colored persons has been held not to deny equal protection of the law,[1162] but a separate coach law which permits carriers to provide sleeping and dining cars only for white persons, is invalid notwithstanding recognition by the legislature that there would be little demand for them by colored persons.[1163] Fifty years ago the action of a local board of education in suspending temporarily for economic reasons a high school for colored children was held not to be a sufficient reason for restraining the board from maintaining an existing high school for white children, when the evidence did not indicate that the board had proceeded in bad faith or had acted in hostility to the colored race.[1164] A child of Chinese ancestry, who is a citizen of the United States, is not denied equal protection of law by being assigned to a public school provided for colored children, when equal facilities for education are offered to both races.[1165]
Although the principle that separate but equal facilities satisfy constitutional requirements has not been reversed, the Court in recent years has been inclined to review more critically the facts of cases brought before it to ascertain whether equality has, in fact, been offered. In Missouri v. Canada[1166] it held that the State was denying equal protection of the law in failing to provide a legal education within the State for Negroes comparable to that afforded white students. Pursuant to a policy of segregating Negro and white students, the State had established a law school at the State university for white applicants. In lieu of setting up one at its Negro university, it authorized the curators thereof to establish such a school whenever in their opinion it should be necessary and practicable to do so, and pending such development, to arrange and pay for the legal education of the State's Negroes at schools in other States. This was found insufficient; the obligation of the State to afford the protection of equal law can be performed only where its laws operate, that is to say, within its own jurisdiction. It is there that equality of rights must be maintained. In a later case the Court held that the State of Oklahoma was obliged to provide legal education for a qualified Negro applicant as soon as it did for applicants of any other group.[1167] To comply with this mandate a State court entered an order requiring in the alternative the admission of a Negro to the state-maintained law school or non-enrollment of any other applicant until a separate school with equal educational facilities should be provided for Negroes. Over the objection of two Justices the Supreme Court held this order did not depart from its mandate.[1168] After a close examination of the facts, the Court concluded, in Sweatt v. Painter,[1169] that the legal education offered in a separate law school for Negroes was inferior to that afforded by the University of Texas Law School and hence that the equal protection clause required that a qualified applicant be admitted to the latter. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents[1170] the Court held that enforced segregation of a Negro student admitted to a State university was invalid because it handicapped him in the pursuit of effective graduate instruction.
In conjunction with the Fifteenth Amendment the equal protection clause has played an important role in cases involving various expedients devised to deprive Negro citizens of the right of suffrage. Attempts have also been made, but thus far without success, to invoke this clause against other forms of political inequality. The principal devices employed to prevent voting by Negroes have been grandfather clauses, educational qualifications, registration requirements and restrictions on membership in a political party. Grandfather clauses exempting persons qualified as electors before 1866 and their descendants from requirements applicable to other voters, were held to violate the Fifteenth Amendment.[1171] Educational qualifications which did not on their face discriminate between white and Negro voters were sustained in the absence of a showing that their actual administration was evil.[1172] In 1903 in a suit charging that the registration procedure prescribed by statute was fraudulently designed to prevent Negroes from voting, the Court, in an opinion written by Justice Holmes, refused to order the registration of an allegedly qualified Negro, on the whimsical ground that to do so would make the Court a party to the fraudulent plan.[1173] The opinion was careful to state that "we are not prepared to say that an action at law could not be maintained on the facts alleged in the bill." Such an action was brought some years later in Oklahoma under a registration law enacted after its "grandfather" statute had been held unconstitutional. Registration was not necessary for persons who had voted at the previous election under the invalid statute. Other persons were required to register during a twelve day period or be forever disfranchised. A colored citizen who was refused the right to vote in 1934 because of failure to register during the prescribed period in 1916, was held to have a cause of action for damages against the election officials under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. In the opinion of the Court reversing a judgment for the defendants, Justice Frankfurter said:[1174] "The Amendment 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."
As the selection of candidates by primary elections became general, the denial of the right to vote in the primary assumed dominant importance. For many years the Court hesitated to hold that party primaries were elections within the purview of the Constitution. During that period the equal protection clause was relied upon to invalidate discrimination against Negroes. Under the clause, it is necessary to find that inequality is perpetrated by the State.[1175] The Court had no difficulty in holding that a State statute which forbade voting by Negroes in a party primary was obnoxious to the Fourteenth Amendment.[1176] The same conclusion was reached with respect to exclusion by action of a party executive committee pursuant to authority conferred by statute.[1177] But at first it refused to extend this rule to a restriction on membership imposed without statutory authority by the State convention of a party.[1178] The latter case was soon overruled; having, in the meanwhile, decided that a primary is an integral part of the electoral machinery,[1179] the Court ruled in Smith v. Allwright,[1180] that a restriction on party membership imposed by a State convention was invalid under the Fifteenth Amendment, where such membership was a prerequisite for voting in the primary.
Failure has attended the few attempts which have been made to strike down other alleged discriminations in election laws or in their administration. Nearly fifty years ago the Court rejected a claim that an act forbidding the registration of a voter until one year after his intent to become a legal voter shall have been recorded was a denial of equal protection.[1181] In Snowden v. Hughes,[1182] it held that an alleged erroneous refusal of a State Primary Canvassing Board to certify a person as a successful candidate in a party primary was not, in the absence of a showing of purposeful discrimination, a denial of a constitutional right which would justify a suit for damages against members of the Board. Three recent attacks on inequalities in the effective voting power of persons residing in different geographical areas were likewise unsuccessful. The Court refused, in Colegrove v. Green,[1183] to interfere to prevent the election of Representatives in Congress by districts in Illinois, because of unequal apportionment. Two years later, in MacDougall v. Green[1184] it held that a State law requiring candidates of a new political party to obtain a minimum number of signatures on their nominating petitions in each of 50 counties did not withhold equal justice from the overwhelming majority of the voters who resided in the 49 most populous counties. Over the dissent of Justices Black and Douglas it affirmed the action of a federal district court in dismissing a complaint challenging the validity of Georgia's county unit election system, under which the votes of residents of the most populous county have on the average but one-tenth the weight of those in other counties.[1185]
PROCEDURE
General Doctrine
The equal protection clause does not exact uniformity of procedure. State legislatures may classify litigation and adopt one type of procedure for one class and a different type for another. The procedure followed in condemnation suits brought by a State need not be the same as in a suit started by a private corporation.[1186] Procedural rules may vary in different geographic subdivisions of the State; the State may be given a larger number of peremptory challenges to jurors in capital cases in cities having more than 100,000 inhabitants than in other areas.[1187] A State may require that disputes on the amount of loss under fire insurance policies be submitted to arbitration.[1188] It may prescribe the evidence which shall be received and the effect which shall be given it; proof of one fact, or of several facts taken collectively, may be made prima facie evidence of another fact, so long as it is not a mere arbitrary mandate and does not discriminate invidiously between different persons in substantially the same situations.[1189] A plaintiff in a stockholder's derivative suit may be required to give security if he does not own a specified amount of stock; the size of his financial interest may reasonably be considered as some measure of his good faith and responsibility in bringing the suit.[1190]
Access to Courts
The legislature may provide for diversity in the jurisdiction of its several courts, both as to subject matter and finality of decision, if all persons within the territorial limits of the respective jurisdiction have an equal right in like cases to resort to them for redress.[1191] There is no denial of equal protection of the law by reason of the fact that in one district the State is allowed an appeal and in another district it is not.[1192] The legislative discretion to grant or withhold equitable relief in any class of cases must, under the equal protection clause, be so exercised as not to grant equitable relief to one, and to deny it to another under like circumstances and in the same territorial jurisdiction. A State law forbidding injunctions in labor disputes is invalid where injunctive relief is available in other similar controversies.[1193] The action of prison officials in suppressing a prisoner's appeal documents during the statutory period for appeal constitutes a denial of equal protection by refusing him privileges of appeal that were available to others.[1194]
Corporations
A statute permitting suits against domestic corporations to be brought in any county in which the cause of action arose, is not void as denying equal protection.[1195] Neither is a statute applicable only to corporations requiring the production of books and papers upon notice, with punishment for contempt upon neglect or refusal to comply.[1196] Where, however, actions against domestic corporations may be brought only in counties where they may have places of business or where a chief officer resides, a statute authorizing action against a foreign corporation in any county is discriminatory and invalid.[1197] So also is a statute, applicable only to foreign corporations, which requires the corporation, as a condition precedent to maintenance of an action, to send its officer into the State, with papers and books bearing on the matter in controversy, for examination before trial, where nonresident individuals, as well as individuals and corporations within the State, were subject to less onerous requirements.[1198]
Expenses of Litigation
A statute which directs that life and health insurance companies who default in payments of their policies shall pay 12 per cent damages, together with reasonable attorney's fees, does not deny the equal protection of the law in failing to impose the same conditions on fire, marine, and inland insurance companies, and on mutual benefit and relief associations.[1199] Costs may be allowed to a person who has been subjected to malicious prosecution, with provision for commitment of the prosecutor until paid.[1200] Statutes providing for recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in action on small claims against all classes of defendants, individual and corporate,[1201] in mandamus proceedings,[1202] or in actions against railroads for damages caused by fires[1203] have been upheld. But a statute, applicable only to railway corporations, providing for recovery of attorney's fees and costs in actions for certain small claims was found to be repugnant to the equal protection clause.[1204]
Exercising the authority conferred by section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has expressly forbidden the exclusion of any citizen from service as a grand or petit juror in any federal or State court, on the ground of race or color.[1205] Jury commissioners are under the duty "not to pursue a course of conduct in the administration of their office which would operate to discriminate in the selection of jurors on racial grounds."[1206] An accused does not, however, have a legal right to a jury composed in whole or in part of members of his own race.[1207] Mere inequality in the numbers of persons selected from different races is not conclusive; discrimination is unlawful only if it is purposeful and systematic.[1208] But where it appeared that no Negro had served on a grand or petit jury for thirty years in a county in which 35 per cent of the adult population was colored, the inference of systematic exclusion was not repelled by a showing that few Negroes fulfilled the requirement that a juror must be a qualified elector.[1209]
To what extent, if at all, the equal protection clause prevents the exclusion from jury service of any class of persons on any basis other than race or color is a still unsettled problem of constitutional interpretation. The selection of jurors may be confined to males, to citizens, to qualified electors, to persons within certain ages, or to persons having prescribed educational qualifications.[1210] Certain occupational groups, such as lawyers, preachers, ministers, doctors, dentists, and engineers and firemen of railroad trains may be excluded from jury service.[1211] An issue of even greater consequence is raised by differentiation in the qualifications of persons selected to try different kinds of cases. This was the question on which the Supreme Court divided five to four in Fay v. New York[1212] where it upheld a conviction by a "blue ribbon" jury. In that case defendants, officials of certain labor unions, were convicted of extortion, by collecting large sums from contractors for assisting them in avoiding labor troubles. From a "blue ribbon" jury certain categories of persons qualified for ordinary jury duty are excluded; and on this ground defendants claimed that in being tried by such a jury they had been denied "equal protection of the law" and deprived of "due process of law," but especially the former, alleging that such juries had a higher record of conviction than ordinary juries and that their sympathies were "conservative." The Court, speaking by Justice Jackson, answered that "a state is not required to try all offenses to the same forum," but conceded that "a discretion, even if vested in the court, to shunt a defendant before a jury so chosen as greatly to lessen his chances while others accused of a like offense are tried by a jury so drawn as to be more favorable to them, would hardly be 'equal protection of the laws.'"[1213] However, he asserted that the New York statute authorizing "blue ribbon" juries "does not exclude, or authorize the clerk to exclude, any person or class because of race, creed, color or occupation. It imposes no qualification of an economic nature beyond that imposed by the concededly valid general panel statute. Each of the grounds of elimination is reasonably and closely related to the juror's suitability for the kind of service the special panel requires or to his fitness to judge the kind of cases for which it is most frequently utilized. Not all of the grounds of elimination would appear relevant to the issues of the present case. But we know of no right of defendants to have a specially constituted panel which would include all persons who might be fitted to hear their particular and unique case."[1214] He held further that defendants had failed to shoulder the necessary burden of proof in support of their allegations of discrimination, and added: "At most, the proof shows lack of proportional representation and there is an utter deficiency of proof that this was the result of a purpose to discriminate against this group as such. The uncontradicted evidence is that no person was excluded because of his occupation or economic status. All were subjected to the same tests of intelligence, citizenship and understanding of English. The state's right to apply these tests is not open to doubt even though they disqualify, especially in the conditions that prevail in New York, a disproportionate number of manual workers. A fair application of literacy, intelligence and other tests would hardly act with proportional equality on all levels of life. The most that the evidence does is to raise, rather than answer, the question whether there was an unlawful disproportionate representation of lower income groups on the special jury."[1215] Then, as to the due process clause, he pointed out that the jury had had a long and varied history in the course of which it has assumed many forms, and that for that matter the Court "* * * has construed it to be inherent in the independent concept of due process that condemnation shall be rendered only after a trial, in which the hearing is a real one, not a sham or pretense. * * * Trial must be held before a tribunal not biased by interest in the event. * * * Undoubtedly a system of exclusions could be so manipulated as to call a jury before which defendants would have so little chance of a decision on the evidence that it would constitute a denial of due process. A verdict on the evidence, however, is all an accused can claim; he is not entitled to a set-up that will give a chance of escape after he is properly proven guilty. Society also has a right to a fair trial. The defendant's right is a neutral jury. He has no constitutional right to friends on the jury."[1216]
APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
In General
The effect of this section in relation to Negroes was indicated in Elk v. Wilkins.[1217] "Slavery having been abolished, and the persons formerly held as slaves made citizens, this clause fixing the apportionment of representatives has abrogated so much of * * * [Article I, § 2, cl. 3] of the * * * original Constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons."
"Indians Not Taxed"
Although one authority on the legal status of the American Indian observed that this "* * * phrase [was] never * * * more explicitly defined, but probably * * * [meant] * * * Indians resident on reservations, that is, on land not taxed by the States,"[1218] the United States Attorney General, in 1940, commented as follows upon the difficulty of arriving at any satisfactory construction of these words: "Whether the phrase 'Indians not taxed' refers (1) to Indians not actually paying taxes or only to those who are not subject to taxation and (2) to Indians not taxed or subject to taxation by any taxing authority or only to those not taxed or subject to taxation by the States in which they reside * * * [presents] questions * * * [which have] been discussed in a number of court decisions but the issue has never been squarely raised in any of the decided cases. Some of the cases and some statements appearing in the debates in the Constitutional Convention lend support to the view that since all Indians are now subject to the Federal income-tax laws [Superintendent v. Commissioner, 295 U.S. 418 (1935)] there are no longer any Indians not taxed within the meaning of the constitutional phrase. On the other hand, other decided cases and other statements appearing in the debates in the Convention equally support the contrary view. * * *, the answer to * * * [these questions] is not free from doubt."[1219]
As to the latest construction which Congress has given to this phrase in apportioning seats in the House of Representatives, it is pertinent to note that the Apportionment Act of 1929, at last amended in 1941,[1220] excludes "Indians not taxed" from the computation of the total population of each State. However, in reliance on the above-mentioned decision that all Indians are now subject to federal income taxation, the Director of the Census included all Indians in the 1940 tabulation of total population in each State, and Congress took no action to alter the effects which such inclusion had upon the number of seats distributed to the several States.[1221]
Right to Vote
The right to vote intended to be protected refers to the right to vote as established by the laws and constitution of the State; subject, however, to the limitation that the Constitution, in article I, section 2, adopts as qualifications for voting for members of Congress those qualifications established by the States for voting for the most numerous branch of their legislatures.
To the latter extent the right to vote for members of Congress has been declared to be fundamentally based upon the Constitution and as never having been intended to be left within the exclusive control of the States.[1222]
Reduction of State's Representation
"Questions relating to the apportionment of representatives among the several States are political in their nature and reside exclusively within the determination of Congress * * *" Consequently, a United States District Court was obliged to dismiss an action for damages against the Virginia Secretary of State for the latter's refusal to certify the plaintiff as candidate for the office of Congressman at large, inasmuch as the plaintiff's case rested on the theory that the apportionment act of Congress and the Redistricting Act of Virginia, by failing to take into account the disenfranchisement of 60% of the voters occasioned by the poll tax, were both invalid, and that Virginia accordingly was entitled to only four instead of nine Congressmen, which four were to be elected at large.[1223] "It is well known that the elective franchise has been limited or denied to citizens in various States of the union in past years, but no serious attempt has been made by Congress to enforce the mandate of the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it is noteworthy that there are no instances in which the courts have attempted to revise the apportionment of Representatives by Congress."[1224]
DISQUALIFICATION OF OFFICERS
Section 3. No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
In General
The right to remove disabilities imposed by this section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals—notably by act of December 14, 1869 (16 Stat. 607). In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons "except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States" (17 Stat. 142). Twenty-six years later, on June 6, 1898 (30 Stat. 432), Congress enacted briefly that "the disability imposed by section 3 * * * incurred heretofore [prior to June 6, 1898], is hereby removed."[1225]
PUBLIC DEBT, ETC.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Although section four "was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the Government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. * * * 'the validity of the public debt' * * * [embraces] whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations," and applies to government bonds issued after as well as before adoption of the Amendment.[1226]
ENFORCEMENT
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Scope of the Provision
"* * * until some State law has been passed, or some State action through its officers or agents has been taken, adverse to the rights of citizens sought to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, no legislation of the United States under said amendment, nor any proceeding under such legislation, can be called into activity: * * * The legislation which Congress is authorized to adopt in this behalf is not general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation, that is, such as may be necessary and proper for counteracting such laws as the States may adopt or enforce, and which, by the amendment, they are prohibited from making or enforcing, or such acts and proceedings as the States may commit or take, and which, by the amendment, they are prohibited from committing or taking."[1227]
Conversely, Congress may enforce the provisions of the amendment whenever they are disregarded by either the legislative, the executive, or the judicial department of the State. The mode of the enforcement is left to its discretion. It may secure the right, that is, enforce its recognition, by removing the case from a State court, in which it is denied, into a federal court where it will be acknowledged.[1228] Similarly, Congress may provide that "no citizen, possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and any officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors who shall exclude or fail to summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, * * *"[1229] However, the Supreme Court declined to sustain Congress when, under the guise of enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment by appropriate legislation, it enacted a statute which was not limited to take effect only in case a State should abridge the privileges of United States citizens, but applied no matter how well the State might have performed its duty, and would subject to punishment private individuals who conspired to deprive anyone of the equal protection of the laws.[1230]
Whether its powers of enforcement enable Congress constitutionally to punish State officers who abuse their authority and act in violation of their State's laws is a question on which the Justices only recently have divided. Five Justices ruled in Screws v. United States[1231] that section 20 of the Criminal Code[1232] which provides "whoever, under the color of any law, statute, ordinance, * * *, willfully subjects, * * *, any inhabitant of any State, * * * to the deprivation of any rights, * * * protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, * * *" could be the basis of a prosecution of Screws, a Georgia sheriff, and others, on charges of having, in the course of arresting a Negro, brutally beaten him to death and deprive him of "the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law."[1233] Holding that, "abuse of State power" does not create "immunity to federal power" these five Justices concluded that Ex parte Virginia[1234] and United States v. Classic[1235] had rejected for all time the defense that action by state officers in excess of their powers did not constitute state action "under color of law" and therefore was punishable, if at all, only as a crime against the State.[1236] The conviction of Screws was, however, reversed on the ground that the jury should have been instructed to say whether the accused had had the "specific intent" to deprive their victim of his constitutional rights, since in the absence of such a finding § 20 failed for indefiniteness.[1237] But this construction of the word "willfully" appears subsequently to have been abandoned, or at least considerably watered down. In Williams v. United States,[1238] decided in April 1951, the Court ruled, by a bare majority, that a conviction under § 20 was not subject to objection on the ground of the vagueness of the statute where the indictment made it clear that the constitutional right violated by the defendant was immunity from the use of force and violence to obtain a confession, and this meaning was also made clear by the trial judge's charge to the jury.[1239] To the same effect is the later case of Koehler v. United States[1240] in which the Court denied certiorari in a case closely resembling that of Screws, although the trial judge, while charging the jury that it must find specific intent, nevertheless went on to say:"'The color of the act determines the complexion of the intent. The intent to injure or defraud is presumed when the unlawful act, which results in loss or injury, is proved to have been knowingly committed. It is a well settled rule, which the law applies to both criminal and civil cases, that the intent is presumed and inferred from the result of the action.'"[1241]
Notes
[1] As to the other categories, see Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, Naturalization (see pp. [254-256]).
[2] Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1897).
[3] Ibid. 404-406, 417-418, 419-420.
[4] By the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27), enacted two years prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; * * *"
[5] 169 U.S. 649 (1898).—Thus, a person who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here did not lose her citizenship and was therefore not subject to deportation because of her removal to Sweden during her minority, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country, but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to retain and maintain her citizenship.—Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
[6] 169 U.S. 682.
[7] In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (1884).
[8] Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F. (2d) 316 (1928).
[9] United States v. Gordon, Fed. Cas. No. 15,231 (1861). The term, United States, is defined in the recently enacted Immigration and Nationality Act as follows: "The term, 'United States', except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States." 66 Stat. 165, § 101 (38). Whether the expression is used in the same sense in Amendment XIV may be questionable.
[10] Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 74 (1873).
[11] Arver v. United States (Selective Draft Law Cases), 245 U.S. 366, 377, 388-389 (1918).
[12] Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, Fed. Cas. No. 7,052 (1870).—Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable "to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment or impairment by the law of a State."—Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 561 (1899). This conclusion was in harmony with the earlier holding in Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168 (1869) to the effect that corporations were not within the scope of the privileges and immunities clause of state citizenship set out in article 4, section 2. See also Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 (1912); Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908); Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Marketing Asso., 276 U.S. 71, 89 (1928); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936).
[13] 16 Wall. 36, 71, 77-79 (1873).
[14] Ibid. 78-79.
[15] Ibid. 79, citing Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 (1868). Decided before ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[16] 211 U.S. 78, 97.
[17] Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 (1868). This case has been cited as supporting the claim that "the right to pass freely from State to State" is "among the rights and privileges of National citizenship" (Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97 (1908)); but it was pointed out in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 299 (1920), that the statute involved in the Crandall Case was held to burden directly the performance by the United States of its governmental functions. In Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 (1900), a law taxing the business of hiring persons to labor outside the State was upheld on the ground that it affected freedom of egress from the State "only incidentally and remotely."
[18] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
[19] Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58 (1900).
[20] United States v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76 (1884).
[21] Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263 (1892).
[22] Re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532 (1895).
[23] Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47, 57 (1891).
[24] 307 U.S. 496.
[25] Concurring in the result, Justice Stone contended that the case should have been disposed of by reliance upon the due process, rather than the privileges and immunities, clause, inasmuch as the record disclosed that the complainants had not invoked the latter clause and the evidence failed to indicate that any of the complainants were in fact citizens or that any relation between citizens and the Federal Government was involved.—Ibid. 525-527.
[26] 314 U.S. 160, 177-183 (1941).
[27] Justices Douglas, Black, Murphy and Jackson.
[28] 6 Wall. 35 (1868).
[29] 279 U.S. 245, 251 (1929).
[30] 296 U.S. 404.
[31] See Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, 93.
[32] 296 U.S. 404, 444, 445-446.
[33] 332 U.S. 633, 645, 640.
[34] Ibid. 640.
[35] Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 380 (1898).
[36] Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 (1900).
[37] Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 205 U.S. 60, 74 (1907).
[38] Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175 (1915); Crane v. New York, 239 U.S. 195 (1915).
[39] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Castle, 224 U.S. 541 (1912).
[40] Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Commercial Milling Co., 218 U.S. 406 (1910).
[41] Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130, 139 (1873); Re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894).
[42] Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 499 (1879).
[43] Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129 (1874); Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887); Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 91 (1890); Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657 (1893).
[44] Ex parte Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890).
[45] Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1875).
[46] Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 (1904).
[47] Ferry v. Spokane, P. & S.R. Co., 258 U.S. 314 (1922).
[48] Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1876).
[49] Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 267 (1886).
[50] Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 596, 597-598 (1900).
[51] Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 91-98 (1908). Reaffirmed in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 51-53 (1947).
[52] New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63, 71 (1928).
[53] Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
[54] Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937).
[55] Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, 92-93 (1940); overruling Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 430 (1935).
[56] Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944).
[57] MacDougall v. Green, 335 U.S. 281 (1948)
[58] Hibben v. Smith, 191 U.S. 310, 325 (1903).
[59] Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 199 U.S. 401, 410 (1905). See also French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U.S. 324, 328 (1901).
[60] Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 450 (1857), is the exception. See pp. [963-964].
[61] 16 Wall. 36 (1873).
[62] Ibid. 80-81.
[63] 94 U.S. 113 (1877).
[64] Ibid. 134.
[65] 96 U.S. 97 (1878).
[66] Ibid. 103-104.
[67] 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
[68] Ibid. 528, 532, 536.
[69] 94 U.S. 113, 141-148 (1877).
[70] 123 U.S. 623, 661.
[71] 16 Wall. 36, 113-114, 116, 122 (1873).
[72] Savings & Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, 663 (1875).—"There are * * * rights in every free government beyond the control of the State. * * * There are limitations on [governmental power] which grow out of the essential nature of all free governments. Implied reservations of individual rights, without which the social compact could not exist, * * *"
[73] "Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are equivalent to the rights of life, liberty, and property. These are the fundamental rights which can only be taken away by due process of law, and which can only be interfered with, or the enjoyment of which can only be modified, by lawful regulations necessary or proper for the mutual good of all; * * * This right to choose one's calling is an essential part of that liberty which it is the object of government to protect; and a calling, when chosen, is a man's property and right. * * * A law which prohibits a large class of citizens from adopting a lawful employment, or from following a lawful employment previously adopted, does deprive them of liberty as well as property, without due process of law."—Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 116, 122 (Justice Bradley).
[74] 143 U.S. 517, 551.
[75] See Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cr. 87, 128 (1810).
[76] 94 U.S. 113, 123, 132 (1877).
[77] Ibid. 132.
[78] 123 U.S. 623 (1887).
[79] Ibid. 662.—"We cannot shut out of view the fact, within the knowledge of all, that the public health, the public morals, and the public safety, may be endangered by the general use of intoxicating drinks; nor the fact, * * *, that * * * pauperism, and crime * * * are, in some degree, at least, traceable to this evil."
[80] 127 U.S. 678 (1888).
[81] Ibid. 685.
[82] 169 U.S. 366 (1898).
[83] 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
[84] 127 U.S. 678 (1888).
[85] 123 U.S. 623 (1887).
[86] 169 U.S. 366, 398.
[87] 198 U.S. 45, 58-59 (1905).
[88] 198 U.S. 45, 71-74.
[89] 198 U.S. 45, 75-76.
[90] 243 U.S. 426 (1917.)
[91] 208 U.S. 412 (1908).
[92] Ibid.
[93] Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923); Stettler v. O'Hara, 243 U.S. 629 (1917); Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587 (1936); overruled by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
[94] West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). Thus the National Labor Relations Act was declared not to "interfere with the normal exercise of the right of the employer to select its employees or to discharge them." However, restraint of the employer for the purpose of preventing an unjust interference with the correlative right of his employees to organize was declared not to be arbitrary.—National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin, 301 U.S. 1, 44, 45-46 (1937).
[95] See especially Howard Jay Graham, "The 'Conspiracy Theory' of the Fourteenth Amendment", Selected Essays on Constitutional Law, I, 236-267 (1938).
[96] 94 U.S. 113.—In a case arising under the Fifth Amendment, decided almost at the same time, the Court explicitly declared the United States "equally with the States * * * are prohibited from depriving persons or corporations of property without due process of law." Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 718-719 (1878).
[97] Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 522, 526 (1898); Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount Auto Exch. Corp., 262 U.S. 544, 550 (1923); Liggett (Louis K.) Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928).
[98] Northwestern Nat. L. Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U.S. 243, 255 (1906); Western Turf Assoc. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359, 363 (1907); Pierce v. Society of the Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925). Earlier, in 1904, in Northern Securities Co. v. United States, (193 U.S. 197, 362), a case interpreting the federal antitrust law, Justice Brewer, in a concurring opinion, had declared that "a corporation, * * *, is not endowed with the inalienable rights of a natural person."
[99] Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936).
[100] Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 216 (1923).
[101] Columbus & G.R. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96 (1931); Pennie v. Reis, 132 U.S. 464 (1889); Taylor v. Beckham (No. 1), 178 U.S. 548 (1900); Straus v. Foxworth, 231 U.S. 162 (1913); Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 410 (1900).
[102] Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil Co., 250 U.S. 394 (1919); Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182 (1923); Williams v. Baltimore, 289 U.S. 36 (1933).
[103] Boynton v. Hutchinson Gas Co., 291 U.S. 656 (1934); South Carolina Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177 (1938).
The converse is not true, however; and "the interest of a State official in vindicating the Constitution * * * gives him no legal standing to attack the constitutionality of a State statute in order to avoid compliance with it.—Smith v. Indiana, 191 U.S. 138 (1903); Braxton County Ct. v. West Virginia, 208 U.S. 192 (1908); Marshall v. Dye, 231 U.S. 250 (1913); Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U.S. 14 (1915). See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 437-446 (1939)."
[104] Bacon v. Walker, 204 U.S. 311 (1907); Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Illinois ex rel. Grimwood, 200 U.S. 561, 592 (1906); California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, 199 U.S. 306, 318 (1905); Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912); Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U.S. 578 (1913); Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1915); Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934); Nashville C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Walters, 294 U.S. 405 (1935).
[105] Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 (1915); Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539 (1917); Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1915); Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 142 (1912); Erie R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U.S. 685, 699 (1914); Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway Commission, 294 U.S. 613, 622 (1935); Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908).
[106] Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U.S. 548, 558 (1914).
[107] Treigle v. Acme Homestead Asso., 297 U.S. 189, 197 (1933); Liggett (Louis K.) Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111-112 (1928).
[108] Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922). See also Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91, 107 (1909).
[109] Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 110 (1911).
[110] Erie R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U.S. 685, 700 (1914).
[111] New Orleans Public Service Co. v. New Orleans, 281 U.S. 682, 687 (1930).
[112] Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U.S. 765, 770 (1931).
[113] Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 300, 399 (1923).
[114] Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922).
[115] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
[116] Minnesota v. Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270 (1940).
[117] Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939).
[118] 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
[119] 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
[120] Ibid. 534. Even this statement was a dictum. Inasmuch as only corporations and no parents were party litigants, the Court in fact disposed of the case on the ground that the corporations were being deprived of their "property" without due process of law.
[121] Waugh v. Mississippi University, 237 U.S. 589, 596-597 (1915).
[122] Hamilton v. University of California, 293 U.S. 245, 262 (1934). See also p. [768].
[123] 16 Wall. 36 (1873).
[124] 165 U.S. 578, 589.—Herein liberty of contract was defined as follows: "The liberty mentioned in that [Fourteenth] Amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned."
[125] 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1915).
[126] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 567, 570 (1911); Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 262 U.S. 522, 534 (1923).
[127] Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898).
[128] Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373 (1915); Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U.S. 385 (1915). See also Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908); Riley v. Massachusetts, 232 U.S. 671 (1914); Hawley v. Walker, 232 U.S. 718 (1914).
[129] Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917).
[130] Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U.S. 207 (1903).
[131] Consolidated Coal Co. v. Illinois, 185 U.S. 203 (1902).
[132] Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 205 U.S. 60 (1907).
[133] Barrett v. Indiana, 299 U.S. 26 (1913).
[134] Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 531 (1914).
[135] Booth v. Indiana, 237 U.S. 391 (1915).
[136] Sturges & B. Mfg. Co. v. Beauchamp, 231 U.S. 320 (1914).
[137] Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U.S. 13 (1901); Dayton Coal & I. Co. v. Barton, 183 U.S. 23 (1901); Keokee Consol. Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U.S. 224 (1914).
[138] Erie R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U.S. 685 (1914).
[139] St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Paul, 173 U.S. 404 (1899).
[140] Rail & River Coal Co. v. Yaple, 236 U.S. 338 (1915). See also McClean v. Arkansas, 211 U.S. 539 (1909).
[141] West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937), overruling Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 255 (1923) (a Fifth Amendment case); Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587 (1936).
[142] Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 423 (1952).
[143] Ibid., 424-425.
[144] New York C.R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 200 (1917).
[145] Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer (Arizona Employers' Liability Cases), 250 U.S. 400, 419-420 (1919).
[146] In determining what occupations may be brought under the designation of "hazardous," the legislature may carry the idea to the "vanishing point."—Ward & Gow v. Krinsky, 259 U.S. 503, 520 (1922).
[147] New York C.R. v. White, 243 U.S. 188 (1917); Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U.S. 219 (1917).
[148] Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer (Arizona Employers' Liability Cases), 250 U.S. 400, 419-420 (1919).
[149] Hawkins v. Bleakly, 243 U.S. 210 (1917).
[150] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549 (1911).
[151] Alaska Packers Asso. v. Industrial Commission, 294 U.S. 532 (1935).
[152] Thornton v. Duffy, 254 U.S. 361 (1920).
[153] Booth Fisheries Co. v. Industrial Commission, 271 U.S. 208 (1920).
[154] Staten Island R.T.R. Co. v. Phoenix Indemnity Co., 281 U.S. 98 (1930).
[155] Sheehan Co. v. Shuler, 265 U.S. 371 (1924); New York State R. Co. v. Shuler, 265 U.S. 379 (1924).
[156] New York C.R. Co. v. Bianc, 250 U.S. 596 (1919).—Attorneys are not deprived of property or their liberty of contract by restriction imposed by the State on the fees which they may charge in cases arising under the workmen's compensation law.—Yeiser v. Dysart, 267 U.S. 540 (1925).
[157] Justice Black in Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U.S. 525, 535 (1949). See also pp. [141], [977-979], [985].
In his concurring opinion, contained in the companion case of American Federation of Labor v. American Sash Co., 335 U.S. 538, 543-544 (1949), Justice Frankfurter summarized as follows the now obsolete doctrines employed by the Court to strike down State laws fostering unionization. "* * * unionization encountered the shibboleths of a premachine age and these were reflected in juridical assumptions that survived the facts on which they were based. Adam Smith was treated as though his generalizations had been imparted to him on Sinai and not as a thinker who addressed himself to the elimination of restrictions which had become fetters upon initiative and enterprise in his day. Basic human rights expressed by the constitutional conception of 'liberty' were equated with theories of laissez faire. The result was that economic views of confined validity were treated by lawyers and judges as though the Framers had enshrined them in the Constitution. * * * The attitude which regarded any legislative encroachment upon the existing economic order as infected with unconstitutionality led to disrespect for legislative attempts to strengthen the wage-earners' bargaining power. With that attitude as a premise, Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908), and Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915), followed logically enough; not even Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921), could be considered unexpected."
On grounds of unconstitutional impairment of freedom of contract, or more particularly, of the unrestricted right of the employer to hire and fire, a federal and a State statute attempting to outlaw "yellow dog" contracts whereby, as a condition of obtaining employment, a worker had to agree not to join or to remain a member of a union, were voided in Adair v. United States and Coppage v. Kansas, respectively. In Truax v. Corrigan, a majority of the Court held that an Arizona statute which operated, in effect, to make remediless [by forbidding the use of injunction] injury to an employer's business by striking employees and others, through concerted action in picketing, displaying banners advertising the strike, denouncing the employer as unfair to union labor, appealing to customers to withdraw their patronage, and circulating handbills containing abusive and libelous charges against employers, employees, and patrons, and intimidations of injury to future patrons, deprives the owner of the business and the premises of his property without due process of law.
In Wolff Packing Co. v. Industrial Court, 262 U.S. 522 (1923); 267 U.S. 552 (1925) and in Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 (1924), the Court had also ruled that a statute compelling employers and employees to submit their controversies over wages and hours of labor to State arbitration was unconstitutional as part of a system compelling employers and employees to continue in business on terms not of their own making.
[158] 301 U.S. 468 (1937).
[159] Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530 (1922). In conjunction with its approval of this statute, the Court also sanctioned judicial enforcement by a State court of a local rule of policy which rendered illegal an agreement of several insurance companies having a monopoly of a line of business in a city that none would employ within two years any man who had been discharged from, or left, the service of any of the others.
[160] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Perry, 259 U.S. 548 (1922).
[161] Dorchy v. Kansas, 272 U.S. 306 (1926).
[162] 301 U.S. 468, 479 (1937).
[164] Cases disposing of the contention that restraints on picketing amount to a denial of freedom of speech and constitute therefore a deprivation of liberty without due process of law have been set forth under Amendment I.
[165] 326 U.S. 88 (1945).
[166] Ibid. 94. Justice Frankfurter, concurring, declared that "the insistence by individuals on their private prejudices * * *, in relations like those now before us, ought not to have a higher constitutional sanction than the determination of a State to extend the area of nondiscrimination beyond that which the Constitution itself exacts." Ibid. 98.
[167] 335 U.S. 525 (1949).
[168] 335 U.S. 538 (1949).
[169] 335 U.S. 525, 534, 537. In a lengthy opinion, in which he registered his concurrence with both decisions, Justice Frankfurter set forth extensive statistical data calculated to prove that labor unions not only were possessed of considerable economic power but by virtue of such power were no longer dependent on the closed shop for survival. He would therefore leave to the legislatures the determination "whether it is preferable in the public interest that trade unions should be subjected to State intervention or left to the free play of social forces, whether experience has disclosed 'union unfair labor practices,' and, if so, whether legislative correction is more appropriate than self-discipline and pressure of public opinion—* * *." 335 U.S. 538, 549-550.
[170] 336 U.S. 245 (1949).
[171] Ibid. 253.
[172] 336 U.S. 490 (1949). Other recent cases regulating picketing are treated under Amendment I, see p. [781].
[173] 94 U.S. 113 (1877).
[174] Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418 (1890).
[175] Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 262 U.S. 522, 535-536 (1923).
[176] Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877); Budd v. New York, 143 U.S. 517, 546 (1802); Brass v. North Dakota ex rel. Stoeser, 153 U.S. 391 (1894).
[177] Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901).
[178] Townsend v. Yeomans, 301 U.S. 441 (1937).
[179] German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U.S. 389 (1914); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 275 U.S. 440 (1928).
[180] O'Gorman & Young v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 282 U.S. 251 (1931).
[181] Williams v. Standard Oil Co., 278 U.S. 235 (1929).
[182] Tyson & Bros.—United Theatre Ticket Offices v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927).
[183] New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).
[184] Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 531-532, 535-537, 539 (1934). In reaching this conclusion the Court might be said to have elevated to the status of prevailing doctrine the views advanced in previous decisions by dissenting Justices. Thus, Justice Stone, dissenting in Ribnik v. McBride, 277 U.S. 350, 350-360 (1928) had declared: "Price regulation is within the State's power whenever any combination of circumstances seriously curtails the regulative force of competition so that buyers or sellers are placed at such a disadvantage in the bargaining struggle that a legislature might reasonably anticipate serious consequences to the community as a whole." In his dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 202, 302-303 (1932), Justice Brandeis had also observed that: "The notion of a distinct category of business 'affected with a public interest' employing property 'devoted to a public use' rests upon historical error. In my opinion the true principle is that the State's power extends to every regulation of any business reasonably required and appropriate for the public protection. I find in the due process clause no other limitation upon the character or the scope of regulation permissible."
[185] Justice McReynolds, speaking for the dissenting Justices, labelled the controls imposed by the challenged statute as a "fanciful scheme to protect the farmer against undue exactions by prescribing the price at which milk disposed of by him at will may be resold." Intimating that the New York statute was as efficacious as a safety regulation which required "householders to pour oil on their roofs as a means of curbing the spread of a neighborhood fire," Justice McReynolds insisted that "this Court must have regard to the wisdom of the enactment," and must determine "whether the means proposed have reasonable relation to something within legislative power."—291 U.S. 502, 556, 558 (1934).
[186] 313 U.S. 236, 246 (1941).
[187] 277 U.S. 350 (1928).
[188] 94 U.S. 113 (1877). See also Peik v. Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 94 U.S. 164 (1877).
[189] Rate-making is deemed to be one species of price fixing. Power Comm'n v. Pipeline Co., 315 U.S. 575, 603 (1942).
[190] Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934).
[191] 96 U.S. 97 (1878). See also Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).
[192] 116 U.S. 307 (1886).
[193] Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U.S. 680 (1888).
[194] 134 U.S. 418, 458 (1890).
[195] 143 U.S. 517 (1892).
[196] 154 U.S. 362, 397 (1894).
[197] Ibid 397. Insofar as judicial intervention resulting in the invalidation of legislatively imposed rates has involved carriers, it should be noted that the successful complainant invariably has been the carrier, not the shipper.
[198] 169 U.S. 466 (1898).—Of course the validity of rates prescribed by a State for services wholly within its limits, must be determined wholly without reference to the interstate business done by a public utility. Domestic business should not be made to bear the losses on interstate business, and vice versa. Thus a State has no power to require the hauling of logs at a loss or at rates that are unreasonable, even if a railroad receives adequate revenues from the intrastate long haul and the interstate lumber haul taken together. On the other hand, in determining whether intrastate passenger railway rates are confiscatory, all parts of the system within the State (including sleeping, parlor, and dining cars) should be embraced in the computation; and the unremunerative parts should not be excluded because built primarily for interstate traffic or not required to supply local transportation needs.—See: Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard), 230 U.S. 352, 434-435 (1913); Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 274 U.S. 344 (1927); Groesbeck v. Duluth, S.S. & A.R. Co., 250 U.S. 607 (1919). The maxim that a legislature cannot delegate legislative power is qualified to permit creation of administrative boards to apply to the myriad details of rate schedules the regulatory police power of the State. To prevent the conferring upon an administrative agency of authority to fix rates for public service from being a mere delegation of legislative power, and therefore void, the legislature must enjoin upon it a certain course of procedure and certain rules of decision in the performance of its functions, with which the agency must substantially comply to validate its action. Wichita Railroad & L. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 260 U.S. 48 (1922).
[199] Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 154 U.S. 362, 397 (1894).
[200] Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois C.R. Co., 215 U.S. 452, 470 (1910).
[201] 231 U.S. 298, 310-313 (1913).
[202] Des Moines Gas Co. v. Des Moines, 238 U.S. 153 (1915).
[203] Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard), 230 U.S. 352, 452 (1913).
[204] Knoxville v. Water Company, 212 U.S. 1 (1909).
[205] Smith v. Illinois Bell Teleph. Co., 270 U.S. 587 (1926).
[206] Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U.S. 19 (1909).
[207] 174 U.S. 739, 750, 754 (1899). See also Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard), 230 U.S. 352, 433 (1913).
[208] San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U.S. 439, 441, 442 (1903). See also Van Dyke v. Geary, 244 U.S. 39 (1917); Georgia Ry. v. R.R. Comm., 262 U.S. 625, 634 (1923).
[209] For its current position, see Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932).
[210] 222 U.S. 541, 547-548 (1912). See also Interstate Comm. Comm. v. Illinois C.R., 215 U.S. 452, 470 (1910).
[211] 253 U.S. 287, 293-294 (1920).
[212] Ibid. 289. In injunctive proceedings, evidence is freshly introduced whereas in the cases received on appeal from State courts, the evidence is found within the record.
[213] 231 U.S. 298 (1913).
[214] 253 U.S. 287, 291, 295 (1920).
[215] 94 U.S. 113 (1877).
[216] 315 U.S. 575, 586.
[217] 320 U.S. 591, 602.—Although this and the previously cited decision arose out of controversies involving the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 821), the principles laid down therein are believed to be applicable to the review of rate orders of State commissions, except insofar as the latter operate in obedience to laws containing unique standards or procedures.
[218] 253 U.S. 287 (1920).
[219] In Federal Power Commission v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U.S. 575, 599, Justices Black, Douglas, and Murphy, in a concurring opinion, proposed to travel the road all the way back to Munn v. Illinois, and deprive courts of the power to void rates simply because they deem the latter to be unreasonable. In a concurring opinion, written earlier in 1939 in Driscoll v. Edison Co., 307 U.S. 104, 122, Justice Frankfurter temporarily adopted a similar position; for therein he declared that "the only relevant function of law * * * [in rate controversies] is to secure observance of those procedural safeguards in the exercise of legislative powers, which are the historic foundations of due process." However, in his dissent in the Hope Gas Case (320 U.S. 591, 625), he disassociated himself from this proposal, and asserted that "it was decided [more than fifty years ago] that the final say under the Constitution lies with the judiciary."
[220] Federal Power Commission v. Hope Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 602 (1944).
[221] Federal Power Comm. v. Hope Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 603 (1944), citing Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 345-346 (1892); Missouri ex rel. Southwestern Bell Teleph. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 276, 291 (1923).
[222] For this reason there is presented below a survey of the formulas, utilization of which was hitherto deemed essential if due process requirements were to be satisfied.
(1) Fair Value.—On the premise that a utility is entitled to demand a rate schedule that will yield a "fair return upon the value" of the property which it employs for public convenience, the Court in 1898, in Smyth v. Ames (169 U.S. 466, 546-547), held that determination of such value necessitated consideration of at least such factors as "the original cost of construction, the amount expended in permanent improvements, the amount and market value of * * * [the utility's] bonds and stock, the present as compared with the original cost of construction, [replacement cost], the probable earning capacity of the property under particular rates prescribed by statute, and the sum required to meet operating expenses."
(2) Reproduction Cost.—Prior to the demise in 1944 of the Smyth v. Ames fair value formula, two of the components thereof were accorded special emphasis, with the second quickly surpassing the first in terms of the measure of importance attributed to it. These were: (1) the actual cost of the property ("the original cost of construction together with the amount expended in permanent improvements") and (2) reproduction cost ("the present as compared with the original cost of construction"). If prices did not fluctuate through the years, the controversy which arose over the application of reproduction cost in preference to original cost would have been reduced to a war of words; for results obtained by reliance upon either would have been identical. The instability in the price structure, however, presented the courts with a dilemma. If rate-making is attempted at a time of declining prices, valuation on the basis of present or reproduction cost will advantage the consumer or user, and disadvantage the utility. On the other hand, if the original cost of construction is employed, the benefits are redistributed, with the consumer becoming the loser. Similarly, when rates are fixed at a time of rising prices, reliance upon reproduction cost to the exclusion of original cost will produce results satisfactory to the utility and undesirable to the public, and vice versa.
Notwithstanding the admonition of Smyth v. Ames that original cost, no less than reproduction cost, was to be considered in determining value, the Court, in the years which intervened between 1898 and 1944, wavered only slightly in its preference for the reproduction cost formula, and moderated its application thereof only in part whenever periods of rising or sustained high prices appeared to require such deviation in behalf of consumer interests. As examples of the varied application by the Court of the reproduction cost formula, the following cases are significant: San Diego Land and Town Co. v. National City, 174 U.S. 739, 757 (1899); San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U.S. 439, 443 (1903); Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U.S. 19, 52 (1909); Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352 (1913); Galveston Electric Co. v. Galveston, 258 U.S. 388, 392 (1922); Missouri ex rel. Southwestern Bell Teleph. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 276 (1923); Bluefield Waterworks & Improv. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 262 U.S. 679 (1923); Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Railroad Comm., 262 U.S. 625, 630 (1923); McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Co., 272 U.S. 400 (1926); St. Louis & O'Fallon Ry. v. United States, 279 U.S. 461 (1929).
(3) Prudent Investment (versus Reproduction Cost).—This method of valuation, which was championed by Justice Brandeis in a separate opinion filed in Southwestern Bell Teleph. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm. (262 U.S. 276, 291-292, 302, 306-307 (1923)), was defined by him as follows: "The compensation which the Constitution guarantees an opportunity to earn is the reasonable cost of conducting the business. Cost includes not only operating expenses, but also capital charges. Capital charges cover the allowance, by way of interest, for the use of the capital, * * *; the allowance for the risk incurred; and enough more to attract capital. * * * Where the financing has been proper, the cost to the utility of the capital, required to construct, equip and operate its plant, should measure the rate of return which the Constitution guarantees opportunity to earn." Advantages to be derived from "adoption of the amount prudently invested as the rate base and the amount of the capital charge as the measure of the rate of return" would, according to Justice Brandeis, be nothing less than the attainment of a "basis for decision which is certain and stable. The rate base would be ascertained as a fact, not determined as a matter of opinion. It would not fluctuate with the market price of labor, or materials, or money. * * *"
As a method of valuation, the prudent investment theory was not accorded any acceptance until the depression of the 1930's. The sharp decline in prices which occurred during this period doubtless contributed to the loss of affection for reproduction cost; and in Los Angeles Gas Co. v. R.R. Comm'n., 289 U.S. 287 (1933) and R.R. Comm'n. v. Pacific Gas Co., 302 U.S. 388, 399, 405 (1938) the Court upheld respectively a valuation from which reproduction cost had been excluded and another in which historical cost served as the rate base. Later, in 1942, when in Power Comm'n. v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U.S. 575, the Court further emphasized its abandonment of the reproduction cost factor, there developed momentarily the prospect that prudent investment might be substituted. This possibility was quickly negatived, however, by the Hope Gas Case (320 U.S. 591 (1944)) which dispensed with the necessity of relying upon any formula for the purpose of fixing valid rates.
(4) Depreciation.—No less indispensable to the determination of the fair value mentioned in Smyth v. Ames was the amount of depreciation to be allowed as a deduction from the measure of cost employed, whether the latter be actual cost, reproduction cost, or any other form of cost determination. Although not mentioned in Smyth v. Ames, the Court gave this item consideration in Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 212 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1909); but notwithstanding its early recognition as an allowable item of deduction in determining value, depreciation continued to be the subject of controversy arising out of the difficulty of ascertaining it and of computing annual allowances to cover the same. Indicative of such controversy has been the disagreement as to whether annual allowances granted shall be in such amount as will permit the replacement of equipment at current costs; i.e., present value, or at original cost. In the Hope Gas Case, 320 U.S. 591, 606 (1944), the Court reversed United R. & Electric Co. v. West, 280 U.S. 234, 253-254 (1930), insofar as the latter holding rejected original cost as the basis of annual depreciation allowances.
(5) Going Concern Value and Good Will.—Whether or not intangibles were to be included in valuation was not passed upon in Smyth v. Ames; but shortly thereafter, in Des Moines Gas Co. v. Des Moines, 238 U.S. 153, 165 (1915), the Court declared it to be self-evident "that there is an element of value in an assembled and established plant, doing business and earning money, over one not thus advanced, * * * [and that] this element of value is a property right, and should be considered in determining the value of the property, upon which the owner has a right to make a fair return * * *." Generally described as going concern value, this element has never been precisely defined by the Court, and the latter has accordingly been plagued by the difficulty of determining its worth. In its latest pronouncement on the subject, uttered in Power Comm'n. v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U.S. 575, 589 (1942), the Court denied that there is any "constitutional requirement that going concern value, even when it is an appropriate element to be included in a rate base, must be separately stated and appraised as such * * * valuations for rate purposes of a business assembled as a whole * * * [have often been] sustained without separate appraisal of the going concern element. * * * When that has been done, the burden rests on the regulated company to show that this item has neither been adequately covered in the rate base nor recouped from prior earnings of the business." Franchise value and good will, on the other hand, have been consistently excluded from valuation; the latter presumably because a utility invariably enjoys a monopoly and consumers have no choice in the matter of patronizing it. The latter proposition has been developed in the following cases: Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U.S. 19 (1909); Des Moines Gas Co. v. Des Moines, 238 U.S. 153, 163-164 (1915); Galveston Electric Co. v. Galveston, 258 U.S. 388 (1922); Los Angeles Gas & E. Corp. v. Railroad Commission, 289 U.S. 287, 313 (1933).
(6) Salvage Value.—It is not constitutional error to disregard theoretical reproduction cost for a plant which "no responsible person would think of reproducing." Accordingly, where, due to adverse conditions, a street-surface railroad has lost all value except for scrap or salvage, it was permissible for a commission, as the Court held in Market St. R. Co. v. Comm'n., 324 U.S. 548, 562, 564 (1945), to use as a rate base the price at which the utility offered to sell its property to a citizen. Moreover, the Commission's order was not invalid even though under the prescribed rate the utility would operate at a loss; for the due process cannot be invoked to protect a public utility against business hazards, such as the loss of, or failure to obtain, patronage. On the other hand, in the case of a water company whose franchise has expired (Denver v. Denver Union Water Co., 246 U.S. 178 (1918)), but where there is no other source of supply, its plant should be valued as actually in use rather than at what the property would bring for some other use in case the city should build its own plant.
(7) Past Losses And Gains.—"The Constitution [does not] require that the losses of * * * [a] business in one year shall be restored from future earnings by the device of capitalizing the losses and adding them to the rate base on which a fair return and depreciation allowance is to be earned." Power Comm'n. v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U.S. 575, 590 (1942). Nor can past losses be used to enhance the value of the property to support a claim that rates for the future are confiscatory (Galveston Electric Co. v. Galveston, 258 U.S. 388 (1922)), any more than profits of the past can be used to sustain confiscatory rates for the future (Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 258 U.S. 165, 175 (1922); Public Utility Commissioners v. New York Teleg. Co., 271 U.S. 23, 31-32 (1926)).
[223] Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 206 U.S. 1, 19 (1907), citing Chicago, B.& Q.R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U.S. 155 (1877). See also Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 (1908); Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Denver, 250 U.S. 241 (1919).
[224] Chicago & G.T.R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 344 (1892); Mississippi R. Commission v. Mobile & O.R. Co., 244 U.S. 388, 391 (1917). See also Missouri P.R. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U.S. 196 (1910); Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Walters, 294 U.S. 405, 415 (1935).
[225] Cleveland Electric Ry. Co. v. Cleveland, 204 U.S. 116 (1907).
[226] Detroit United Railway Co. v. Detroit, 255 U.S. 171 (1921). See also Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U.S. 123 (1913).
[227] Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp., 251 U.S. 32 (1919).
[228] Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561 (1904). See also Skaneateles Waterworks Co. v. Skaneateles, 184 U.S. 354 (1902); Helena Waterworks Co. v. Helena, 195 U.S. 383 (1904); Madera Waterworks v. Madera, 228 U.S. 454 (1913).
[229] Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Richmond, 224 U.S. 160 (1912).
[230] Pierce Oil Corp. v. Phoenix Ref Co., 259 U.S. 125 (1922).
[231] Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U.S. 548, 558 (1914). See also Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 255 (1897); Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Illinois ex rel. Grimwood, 200 U.S. 561, 591-592 (1906); New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. New Orleans, 281 U.S. 682 (1930).
[232] Consumers' Co. v. Hatch, 224 U.S. 148 (1912).
[233] Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway Commission, 294 U.S. 613 (1935).
[234] New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Drainage Commission, 197 U.S. 453 (1905).
[235] Norfolk & S. Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U.S. 264 (1912).
[236] International Bridge Co. v. New York, 254 U.S. 126 (1920).
[237] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U.S. 57 (1898).
[238] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Illinois ex rel. Grimwood, 200 U.S. 561 (1906); Chicago & A.R. Co. v. Tranbarger, 238 U.S. 67 (1915); Lake Shore & M.S.R. Co. v. Clough, 242 U.S. 375 (1917).
[239] Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Police Ct., 251 U.S. 22 (1919).
[240] Chicago, St. P., M. & O.R. Co. v. Holmberg, 282 U.S. 162 (1930).
[241] Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Walters, 294 U.S. 405 (1935). See also Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Public Utility Comrs., 278 U.S. 24 (1928).
[242] United Fuel Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission, 278 U.S. 300, 308-309 (1929). See also New York ex rel. Woodhaven Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Commission, 269 U.S. 244 (1925); New York ex rel. New York & O. Gas Co. v. McCall, 245 U.S. 345 (1917).
[243] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Taylor, 216 U.S. 262 (1910); Chesapeake & O.R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 242 U.S. 603 (1917); Ft. Smith Light & Traction Co. v. Bourland, 267 U.S. 330 (1925).
[244] Chesapeake & O.R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 242 U.S. 603, 607 (1917); Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Commission, 251 U.S. 396 (1920); Railroad Commission v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 264 U.S. 79 (1924); Broad River Power Co. v. South Carolina ex rel. Daniel, 281 U.S. 537 (1930).
[245] Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 283 U.S. 380, 394-395 (1931).
[246] Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co. v. Minnesota ex rel. Railroad & W. Commission, 193 U.S. 53 (1904).
[247] Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 (1897).
[248] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Taylor, 216 U.S. 262 (1910).
[249] Chesapeake & O.R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 242 U.S. 603 (1917).
[250] Lake Erie & W.R. Co. v. State Public Utilities Commission ex rel. Cameron, 249 U.S. 422 (1919); Western & A.R. Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission, 267 U.S. 493 (1925).
[251] Alton R. Co. v. Illinois Comm'n, 305 U.S. 548 (1939).
[252] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U.S. 196 (1910).
[253] Chesapeake & O.R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 242 U.S. 603, 607 (1917).
[254] Great Northern R. Co. v. Minnesota ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commission, 238 U.S. 340 (1915); Great Northern R. Co. v. Cahill, 253 U.S. 71 (1920).
[255] Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Wisconsin, 238 U.S. 491 (1915).
[256] Washington ex rel. Oregon R. & N. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U.S. 510, 528-529 (1912). See also Michigan C.R. Co. v. Michigan Railroad Commission, 236 U.S. 615 (1915); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 240 U.S. 324, 327 (1916).
[257] Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co., 212 U.S. 132 (1909).
[258] Michigan C.R. Co. v. Michigan Railroad Commission, 236 U.S. 615 (1915).
[259] Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Iowa, 233 U.S. 334 (1914).
[260] Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Minneapolis C. & C. Asso., 247 U.S. 490 (1918). Nor are railroads denied due process when they are forbidden to exact a greater charge for a shorter distance than for a longer distance. Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 U.S. 503, 512 (1902); Missouri P.R. Co. v. McGrew Coal Co., 244 U.S. 191 (1917).
[261] Wadley Southern R. Co. v. Georgia, 235 U.S. 651 (1915).
[262] Richmond, F. & P.R. Co. v. Richmond, 96 U.S. 521 (1878).
[263] Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U.S. 548 (1914).
[264] Great Northern R. Co. v. Minnesota ex rel. Clara City, 246 U.S. 434 (1918).
[265] Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Denver, 250 U.S. 241 (1919).
[266] Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. White, 278 U.S. 456 (1929).
[267] Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Alabama, 128 U.S. 96 (1888).
[268] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453 (1911); St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U.S. 518 (1916); Missouri P.R. Co. v. Norwood, 283 U.S. 249 (1931).
[269] Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U.S. 280 (1914).
[270] Erie R. Co. v. Solomon, 237 U.S. 427 (1915).
[271] New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628 (1897).
[272] Chicago & N.W.R. Co. v. Nye Schneider Fowler Co., 260 U.S. 35 (1922). See also Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217 (1912); Cf. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 (1913).
[273] Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Glenn, 239 U.S. 388 (1915).
[274] St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Mathews, 165 U.S. 1 (1897).
[275] Chicago & N.W.R. Co. v. Nye Schneider Fowler Co., 260 U.S. 35 (1922).
[276] Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U.S. 325 (1914).
[277] St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U.S. 354 (1912).
[278] Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Polt, 232 U.S. 165 (1914).
[279] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Tucker, 230 U.S. 340 (1913).
[280] St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63, 67 (1919).
[281] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U.S. 512 (1885); Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 (1889).
[282] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Cram, 228 U.S. 70 (1913).
[283] Southwestern Teleg. & Teleph. Co. v. Danaher, 238 U.S. 482 (1915).
[284] New Orleans Debenture Redemption Co. v. Louisiana, 180 U.S. 320 (1901).
[285] Lake Shore & M.S.R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U.S. 684, 698 (1899).
[286] National Council v. State Council, 203 U.S. 151 (1906).
[287] Munday v. Wisconsin Trust Co., 252 U.S. 499 (1920).
[288] State Farm Ins. Co. v. Duel, 324 U.S. 154 (1945).
[289] Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 326 U.S. 207 (1945).
[290] Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 527-528 (1934).
[291] Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447 (1905). See Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909); National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U.S. 115 (1905), also upholding antitrust laws.
[292] International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U.S. 199 (1914). See also American Seeding Machine Co. v. Kentucky, 236 U.S. 660 (1915).
[293] Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi, 217 U.S. 433 (1910).
[294] Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194 (1904).
[295] Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U.S. 157 (1912).
[296] Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 274 U.S. 1 (1927).
[297] Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp., 299 U.S. 183 (1936); The Pep Boys v. Pyroil Sales Co., 299 U.S. 198 (1936).
[298] Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U.S. 578, 588 (1913), citing McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U.S. 539, 550 (1909).
[299] Merchants Exch. v. Missouri ex rel. Barker, 248 U.S. 365 (1919).
[300] Hauge v. Chicago, 299 U.S. 387 (1937).
[301] Lemieux v. Young, 211 U.S. 489 (1909); Kidd, D. & P. Co. v. Musselman Grocer Co., 217 U.S. 461 (1910).
[302] Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U.S. 176 (1935).
[303] Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U.S. 578 (1913).
[304] Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U.S. 504 (1924).
[305] Petersen Baking Co. v. Bryan, 290 U.S. 570 (1934).
[306] Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U.S. 510 (1916).
[307] Heath & M. Mfg. Co. v. Worst, 207 U.S. 338 (1907); Corn Products Ref. Co. v. Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 (1919); National Fertilizer Asso. v. Bradley, 301 U.S. 178 (1937).
[308] Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Jackson, 287 U.S. 283 (1932).
[309] Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539 (1917); Caldwell v. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co., 242 U.S. 559 (1917); Merrick v. Halsey & Co., 242 U.S. 568 (1917).
[310] Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425 (1902).
[311] Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606 (1903).
[312] Brodnax v. Missouri, 219 U.S. 285 (1911).
[313] House v. Mayes, 219 U.S. 270 (1911).
[314] Rast v. Van Deman & L. Co., 240 U.S. 342 (1916); Tanner v. Little, 240 U.S. 369 (1916); Pitney v. Washington, 240 U.S. 387 (1916).
[315] Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104 (1911); Shallenberger v. First State Bank, 219 U.S. 114 (1911); Assaria State Bank v. Dolley, 219 U.S. 121 (1911); Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U.S. 765 (1931).
[316] Provident Inst. for Savings v. Malone, 221 U.S. 660 (1911); Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233 (1944).
When a bank conservator appointed pursuant to a new statute has all the functions of a receiver under the old law, one of which is the enforcement on behalf of depositors of stockholders' liability, which liability the conservator can enforce as cheaply as could a receiver appointed under the pre-existing statute, it cannot be said that the new statute, in suspending the right of a depositor to have a receiver appointed, arbitrarily deprives a depositor of his remedy or destroys his property without due process of law. The depositor has no property right in any particularly form of remedy.—Gibbes v. Zimmerman, 290 U.S. 326 (1933).
[317] Doty v. Love, 295 U.S. 64 (1935).
[318] Farmers & M. Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank, 262 U.S. 649 (1923).
[319] Griffith v. Connecticut, 218 U.S. 563 (1910).
[320] Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U.S. 225 (1911).
[321] La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465 (1919); Stipcich v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 277 U.S. 311, 320 (1928).
[322] German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U.S. 389 (1914).
[323] O'Gorman and Young v. Hartford Insur. Co., 282 U.S. 251 (1931).
[324] Nutting v. Massachusetts, 185 U.S. 553, 556 (1902), distinguishing Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897). See also Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648 (1895).
[325] Daniel v. Family Ins. Co., 336 U.S. 220 (1949).
[326] Osborn v. Ozlin, 310 U.S. 53, 68-69 (1940). Dissenting from the conclusion, Justice Roberts declared that the plain effect of the Virginia law is to compel a nonresident to pay a Virginia resident for services which the latter does not in fact render.
[327] California Auto. Assn. v. Maloney, 341 U.S. 105 (1951).
[328] Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897).
[329] New York L. Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357 (1918).
[330] National Union F. Ins. Co. v. Wanberg, 260 U.S. 71 (1922).
[331] Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. Nelson (N.O.) Mfg. Co., 291 U.S. 352 (1934).
[332] Merchants Mut. Auto Liability Ins. Co. v. Smart, 267 U.S. 126 (1925).
[333] Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557 (1899).
[334] Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U.S. 313 (1943).
[335] German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Hale, 219 U.S. 307 (1911). See also Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 199 U.S. 401 (1905).
[336] Life & C. Ins. Co. v. McCray, 291 U.S. 566 (1934).
[337] Northwestern Nat. L. Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U.S. 243 (1906).
[338] Whitfield ex rel. Hadley v. Aetna L. Ins. Co., 205 U.S. 489 (1907).
[339] Polk v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, 207 U.S. 310 (1907).
[340] Neblett v. Carpenter, 305 U.S. 297 (1938).
[341] Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U.S. 340 (1916).—With four Justices dissenting, the Court, in Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590 (1917), "struck down a State law absolutely prohibiting maintenance of private employment agencies." Commenting on the "constitutional philosophy" thereof in Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U.S. 525, 535 (1949), Justice Black stated that Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U.S. 236 (1941), (see p. [997]) "clearly undermined Adams v. Tanner."
[342] Liggett (Louis K.) Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928).
[343] McNaughton v. Johnson, 242 U.S. 344, 349 (1917). See also Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889); Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898); Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505 (1903); Watson v. Maryland, 218 U.S. 173 (1910).
[344] Collins v. Texas, 223 U.S. 288 (1912); Hayman v. Galveston, 273 U.S. 414 (1927).
[345] Semler v. Oregon State Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 611 (1935). See also Douglas v. Noble, 261 U.S. 165 (1923); Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425, 427 (1926).
[346] Olsen v. Smith, 195 U.S. 332 (1904).
[347] Nashville, C. &. St. L.R. Co. v. Alabama, 128 U.S. 96 (1888).
[348] Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630 (1914).
[349] Western Turf Asso. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359 (1907).
[350] Cargill (W.W.) Co. v. Minnesota ex rel. Railroad & W. Commission, 180 U.S. 452 (1901).
[351] Lehon v. Atlanta, 242 U.S. 53 (1916).
[352] Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U.S. 183, 185 (1900).
[353] Bourjois, Inc. v. Chapman, 301 U.S. 183 (1937).
[354] Weller v. New York, 268 U.S. 319 (1925).
[355] Packer Corp. v. Utah, 285 U.S. 105 (1932).
[356] Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907).
[357] McCloskey v. Tobin, 252 U.S. 107 (1920).
[358] Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U.S. 621 (1891).
[359] Murphy v. California, 225 U.S. 623 (1912).
[360] Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U.S. 260 (1912).
[361] Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp., 300 U.S. 55, 76-77 (1937), citing Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana (No. 1), 177 U.S. 100 (1900); Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911); Oklahoma v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 (1911).
[362] Champlin Ref. Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 U.S. 210 (1932).
[363] Railroad Commission v. Oil Co., 310 U.S. 573 (1940). See also R.R. Commission v. Oil Co., 311 U.S. 570 (1941); R.R. Commission v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 311 U.S. 578 (1941).
[364] Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp., 300 U.S. 55 (1937).
[365] Cities Service Co. v. Peerless Co., 340 U.S. 179 (1950); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma, ibid., 190 (1950).
[366] Walls v. Midland Carbon Co., 254 U.S. 300 (1920). See also Henderson Co. v. Thompson, 300 U.S. 258 (1937).
[367] Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Ct., 284 U.S. 8 (1931).
[368] Gant v. Oklahoma City, 289 U.S. 98 (1933).
[369] Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
[370] Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 356-357 (1908).
[371] Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 277, 279 (1928).
[372] Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52 (1915).
[373] Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422, 426 (1936).
[374] Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240 (1891); Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896).
[375] Miller v. McLaughlin, 281 U.S. 261, 264 (1930).
[376] Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).
[377] Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896).
[378] Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. 31 (1908).
[379] Reinman v. Little Rock, 237 U.S. 171 (1915).
[380] Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 (1915).
[381] Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U.S. 361 (1904).
[382] Reinman v. Little Rock, 237 U.S. 171 (1915).
[383] Bacon v. Walker, 204 U.S. 311 (1907).
[384] Northwestern Laundry Co. v. Des Moines, 239 U.S. 486 (1916). For a case embracing a rather special set of facts, see Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U.S. 223 (1904).
[385] Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909).
[386] Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926); Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 274 U.S. 325 (1927); Nectaw v. Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928); Cusack (Thomas) Co. v. Chicago, 242 U.S. 526 (1917); St. Louis Poster Advertising Co. v. St. Louis, 249 U.S. 269 (1919).
[387] Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberage, 278 U.S. 116 (1928).
[388] Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912).
[389] Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603 (1927).
[390] Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).
[391] Pierce Oil Corp. v. Hope, 248 U.S. 498 (1919).
[392] Standard Oil Co. v. Marysville, 279 U.S. 582 (1929).
[393] Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 (1885); Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 (1885).
[394] Maguire v. Reardon, 255 U.S. 271 (1921).
[395] Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, 328 U.S. 80 (1946).
[396] Compagnie Francaise de Navigation à Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902).
[397] Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); New York ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr, 199 U.S. 552 (1905).
[398] Perley v. North Carolina, 249 U.S. 510 (1919).
[399] California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, 199 U.S. 306 (1905).
[400] Hutchinson v. Valdosta, 227 U.S. 303 (1913).
[401] Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52, 59-60 (1915).
[402] Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678 (1888); Magnano (A.) Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40 (1934).
[403] North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908).
[404] Adams v. Milwaukee, 228 U.S. 572 (1913).
[405] Baccus v. Louisiana, 232 U.S. 334 (1914).
[406] Roschen v. Ward, 279 U.S. 337 (1929).
[407] Minnesota ex rel. Whipple v. Martinson, 256 U.S. 41, 45 (1921).
[408] Hutchinson Ice Cream Co. v. Iowa, 242 U.S. 153 (1916).
[409] Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919).
[410] Price v. Illinois, 238 U.S. 446 (1915).
[411] Sage Stores v. Kansas, 323 U.S. 32 (1944).
[412] Weaver v. Palmer Bros Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926).
[413] Ah Sin v. Wittman, 198 U.S. 500 (1905).
[414] Marvin v. Trout, 199 U.S. 212 (1905).
[415] Stone v. Mississippi ex rel. Harris, 101 U.S. 814 (1880); Douglas v. Kentucky, 168 U.S. 488 (1897).
[416] L'Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U.S. 587 (1900).
[417] Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164 (1900).
[418] Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25, 33 (1878); Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887); Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888); Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U.S. 192 (1912); James Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland R. Co., 242 U.S. 311 (1917); Barbour v. Georgia, 249 U.S. 454 (1919).
[419] Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 671 (1887).
[420] Hawes v. Georgia, 258 U.S. 1 (1922); Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U.S. 465 (1926).
[421] Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251 (1932).
[422] Stanley v. Public Utilities Commission, 295 U.S. 76 (1935).
[423] Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251 (1932).
[424] Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Duke, 266 U.S. 570 (1925).
[425] Frost v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583 (1926); Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553 (1931).
[426] Bradley v. Pub. Util. Comm'n., 289 U.S. 92 (1933).
[427] Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374 (1932).
[428] Railway Express v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949).
[429] Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33 (1941).
[430] Young v. Masci, 289 U.S. 253 (1933).
[431] Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30 (1933). See also Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924); Sprout v. South Bend, 277 U.S. 163 (1928); Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. Cincinnati, 284 U.S. 335 (1932); Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932).
[432] Irving Trust Co. v. Day, 314 U.S. 556, 564 (1942).
[433] Demorest v. City Bank Co., 321 U.S. 36, 47-48 (1944).
[434] Connecticut Ins. Co. v. Moore, 333 U.S. 541 (1948). Justice Jackson and Douglas dissented on the ground that New York is attempting to escheat unclaimed funds not located either actually or constructively in New York and which are the property of beneficiaries who may never have been citizens or residents of New York.
[435] 341 U.S. 428 (1951).
[436] Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944).
[437] Angle v. Chicago, St. P.M. & O.R. Co., 151 U.S. 1 (1894).
[438] Coombes v. Getz, 285 U.S. 434, 442, 448 (1932).
[439] Gibbes v. Zimmerman, 290 U.S. 326, 332 (1933).
[440] Shriver v. Woodbine Sav. Bank, 285 U.S. 467 (1932).
[441] Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 315-316 (1945).
[442] Sentell v. New Orleans & C.R. Co., 166 U.S. 698 (1897).
[443] Soliah v. Heskin, 222 U.S. 522 (1912).
[444] Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182 (1923).
[445] Chicago v. Sturges, 222 U.S. 313 (1911).
[446] Louisiana ex rel. Folsom Bros. v. New Orleans, 109 U.S. 285, 289 (1883).
[447] Attorney General ex rel. Kies v. Lowrey, 199 U.S. 233 (1905).
[448] Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907).
[449] Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U.S. 14 (1915).
[450] Tonawanda v. Lyon, 181 U.S. 389 (1901); Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, 181 U.S. 396 (1901).
[451] Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas, 217 U.S. 114, 119 (1910).
[452] Citizens' Sav. & L. Asso. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1875); Jones v. Portland, 245 U.S. 217 (1917); Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233 (1920); Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 300 U.S. 644 (1937).
[453] Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel Improv. Dist., 262 U.S. 710 (1923).
[454] Jones v. Portland, 245 U.S. 217 (1917).
[455] Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233 (1920).
[456] Nicchia v. New York, 254 U.S. 228 (1920).
[457] Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel Improv. Dist, 262 U.S. 710 (1923).
[458] Cochran v. Louisiana State Bd. of Ed., 281 U.S. 370 (1930).
[459] Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 300 U.S. 644 (1937).
[460] Fox v. Standard Oil Co., 294 U.S. 87, 99 (1935).
[461] Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U.S. 550 (1935). See also Chapman v. Zobelein, 237 U.S. 135 (1915); Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U.S. 78 (1881).
[462] Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249 (1933); Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 300 U.S. 644 (1937). A taxpayer therefore cannot contest the imposition of an income tax on the ground that, in operation, it returns to his town less income tax than he and its other inhabitants pay.—Dane v. Jackson, 256 U.S. 589 (1921).
[463] Stebbins v. Riley, 268 U.S. 137, 140, 141 (1925).
[464] Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U.S. 543 (1906).
[465] Keeney v. New York, 222 U.S. 525 (1912).
[466] Salomon v. State Tax Commission, 278 U.S. 484 (1929).
[467] Orr v. Gilman, 183 U.S. 278 (1902); Chanler v. Kelsey, 205 U.S. 466 (1907).
[468] Nickel v. Cole, 256 U.S. 222, 226 (1921).
[469] Coolidge v. Long, 282 U.S. 582 (1931).
[470] Binney v. Long, 299 U.S. 280 (1936).
[471] Whitney v. State Tax Com., 309 U.S. 530, 540(1940).
[472] Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 147 (1938).
[473] Hoeper v. Tax Commission, 284 U.S. 206 (1931).
[474] Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 147-150 (1938).
[475] Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Seattle, 291 U.S. 619 (1934).
[476] New York, P. & N. Teleg. Co. v. Dolan, 265 U.S. 96 (1924).
[477] Barwise v. Sheppard, 299 U.S. 33 (1936).
[478] Nashville, O. & St. L. Ky. v. Browning, 310 U.S. 362 (1940).
[479] Paddell v. New York, 211 U.S. 446 (1908).
[480] Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U.S. 701 (1884).
[481] Butters v. Oakland, 263 U.S. 162 (1923).
[482] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Western Crawford Road Improv. Dist., 266 U.S. 187 (1924). See also Roberts v. Richland Irrig. Co., 289 U.S. 71 (1933) in which it was also stated that an assessment to pay the general indebtedness of an irrigation district is valid, even though in excess of the benefits received.
[483] Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist, 239 U.S. 254 (1915).
[484] Road Improv. Dist. v. Missouri P.R. Co., 274 U.S. 188 (1927).
[485] Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Road Improv. Dist., 266 U.S. 379 (1924).
[486] Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 197 U.S. 430 (1905).
[487] Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia & St. M. Drainage Dist., 239 U.S. 478 (1916).
[488] Wagner v. Leser, 239 U.S. 207 (1915).
[489] Charlotte Harbor & N.R. Co. v. Welles, 260 U.S. 8 (1922).
[490] Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194, 204 (1905). See also Louisville & J. Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, 188 U.S. 385 (1903).
[491] Carstairs v. Cochran, 193 U.S. 10 (1904); Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285 (1910); Frick v. Pennsylvania, 268 U.S. 473 (1925); Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1 (1928).
[492] New York ex rel. New York, C. & H.R.R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U.S. 584 (1906).
[493] Wheeling Steel Corp v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 209-210 (1936); Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194, 207 (1905); Johnson Oil Ref. Co. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Mitchell, 290 U.S. 158 (1933).
[494] Robert L. Howard, State Jurisdiction to Tax Intangibles: A Twelve Year Cycle, 8 Missouri Law Review 155, 160-162 (1943); Ralph T. Rawlins, State Jurisdiction to Tax Intangibles: Some Modern Aspects, 18 Texas Law Review 296, 314-315 (1940).
[495] Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 498 (1879).
[496] Savings & L. Soc. v. Multnomah County, 169 U.S. 421 (1898).
[497] Bristol v. Washington County, 177 U.S. 133, 141 (1900).
[498] Fidelity & C. Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U.S. 54 (1917).
[499] Rogers v. Hennepin County, 240 U.S. 184 (1916).
[500] Citizens Nat. Bank v. Durr, 257 U.S. 99, 109 (1921).
[501] Hawley v. Maiden, 232 U.S. 1, 12 (1914).
[502] First Bank Stock Corp. v. Minnesota, 301 U.S. 234, 241 (1937).
[503] Schuylkill Trust Co. v. Pennsylvania, 302 U.S. 506 (1938).
[504] Harvester Co. v. Dept. of Taxation, 322 U.S. 435 (1944).
[505] Wisconsin Gas Co. v. United States, 322 U.S. 526 (1944).
[506] New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152 (1907).
[507] Graniteville Mfg. Co. v. Query, 283 U.S. 376 (1931).
[508] Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392 (1907).
[509] Brooke v. Norfolk, 277 U.S. 27 (1928).
[510] Greenough v. Tax Assessors, 331 U.S. 486, 496-497 (1947).
[511] 277 U.S. 27 (1928).
[512] 280 U.S. 83 (1929).
[513] Senior v. Braden, 295 U.S. 422 (1985).
[514] Stebbins v. Riley, 268 U.S. 137, 140-141 (1925).
[515] 199 U.S. 194 (1905).—In dissenting in State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 185 (1942), Justice Jackson asserted that a reconsideration of this principle had become timely.
[516] 268 U.S. 473 (1925). See also Treichler v. Wisconsin, 338 U.S. 251 (1949); City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Schnader, 293 U.S. 112 (1934).
[517] 240 U.S. 625, 631 (1916).—A decision rendered in 1920 which is seemingly in conflict was Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Doughton, 272 U.S. 567, in which North Carolina was prevented from taxing the exercise of a power of appointment through a will executed therein by a resident, when the property was a trust fund in Massachusetts created by the will of a resident of the latter State. One of the reasons assigned for this result was that by the law of Massachusetts the property involved was treated as passing from the original donor to the appointee. However, this holding was overruled in Graves v. Schmidlapp, 315 U.S. 657 (1942).
[518] 233 U.S. 434 (1914).
[519] Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Doughton, 270 U.S. 69 (1926).
[520] 277 U.S. 1 (1928).
[521] First National Bank v. Maine, 284 U.S. 312, 330-331 (1932).
[522] 280 U.S. 204 (1930).
[523] 188 U.S. 189 (1903).
[524] 281 U.S. 586 (1930).—In dissenting, Justice Holmes observed that Wheeler v. Sohmer, 233 U.S. 434 (1914), previously mentioned, apparently joined Blackstone v. Miller on the "Index Expurgatorius."
[525] 282 U.S. 1 (1930).
[526] 284 U.S. 312 (1932).
[527] 316 U.S. 174 (1942).
[528] 307 U.S. 357, 363, 366-368, 372 (1939).
[529] 308 U.S. 313 (1939).
[530] 307 U.S. 383 (1939).
[531] Ibid. 386.
[532] 315 U.S. 657, 660, 661 (1942).
[533] 4 Wheat. 316, 429 (1819).
[534] 319 U.S. 94 (1943).
[535] 306 U.S. 398 (1939).
[536] Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193 (1936). See also Memphis Gas Co. v. Beeler, 315 U.S. 649, 652 (1942).
[537] Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U.S. 194 (1897).
[538] Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Massachusetts, 268 U.S. 203 (1925).
[539] Cream of Wheat Co. v. Grand Forks County, 253 U.S. 325 (1920).
[540] Newark Fire Ins. Co. v. State Board, 307 U.S. 313, 318, 324 (1939). Although the eight judges affirming this tax were not in agreement as to the reasons to be assigned in justification of this result, the holding appears to be in line with the dictum uttered by the late Chief Justice Stone in Curry v. McCanless (307 U.S. at 368) to the effect that the taxation of a corporation by a State where it does business, measured by the value of the intangibles used in its business there, does not preclude the State of incorporation from imposing a tax measured by all its intangibles.
[541] Delaware L. & W.R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341 (1905).
[542] Louisville & J. Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, 188 U.S. 385 (1903).
[543] Kansas City Ry. v. Kansas, 240 U.S. 227 (1916); Kansas City, M. & B.R. Co. v. Stiles, 242 U.S. 111 (1916).
[544] Schwab v. Richardson, 263 U.S. 88 (1923).
[545] Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 1 (1910); Pullman Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 56 (1910); Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U.S. 178 (1917); International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 135 (1918).
[546] Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 (1929).
[547] St. Louis S.W.R. Co. v. Arkansas ex rel. Norwood, 235 U.S. 350 (1914).
[548] Atlantic Refining Co. v. Virginia, 302 U.S. 22 (1937).
[549] American Mfg Co. v. St. Louis, 250 U.S. 459 (1919). Nor does a State license tax on the production of electricity violate the due process clause because it may be necessary, to ascertain, as an element in its computation, the amounts delivered in another jurisdiction.—Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost, 286 U.S. 165 (1932).
[550] James v. Dravo Contracting Co. 302 U.S. 134 (1937).
[551] Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905).
[552] Southern Pacific Co. v. Kentucky, 222 U.S. 63 (1911).
[553] Old Dominion Steamship Co. v. Virginia, 198 U.S. 299 (1905).
[554] 199 U.S. 194 (1905).
[555] Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 (1891).
[556] Northwest Airlines v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 294-297, 307 (1944).—The case was said to be governed by New York Central Railroad v. Miller, 202 U.S. 584, 596 (1906). As to the problem of multiple taxation of such airplanes, which had in fact been taxed proportionately by other States, the Court declared that the "taxability of any part of this fleet by any other State than Minnesota, in view of the taxability of the entire fleet by that State, is not now before us." Justice Jackson, in a concurring opinion, would treat Minnesota's right [to tax as] exclusive of any similar right elsewhere.
[557] Johnson Oil Ref. Co. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Mitchell, 290 U.S. 158 (1933).
[558] Pittsburgh, C.C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421 (1894).
[559] Wallace v. Hines, 253 U.S. 66 (1920).—For example, the ratio of track mileage within the taxing State to total track mileage cannot be employed in evaluating that portion of total railway property found in said State when the cost of the lines in the taxing State was much less than in other States and the most valuable terminals of the railroad were located in other States. See also Fargo v. Hart, 193 U.S. 490 (1904); Union Tank Line v. Wright, 249 U.S. 275 (1919).
[560] Great Northern R. Co. v. Minnesota, 278 U.S. 503 (1929).
[561] Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 309 U.S. 157 (1940).
[562] Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932).
[563] Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1920); Travis v. Yale & T. Mfg. Co., 252 U.S. 60 (1920).
[564] New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937).
[565] Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12 (1920).
[566] Guaranty Trust Co. v. Virginia, 305 U.S. 19, 23 (1938).
[567] Whitney v. Graves, 299 U.S. 366 (1937).
[568] Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 254 U.S. 113 (1920); Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton v. State Tax Commission, 266 U.S. 271 (1924).
[569] Hans Rees' Sons v. North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123 (1931).
[570] Matson Nav. Co. v. State Board, 297 U.S. 441 (1936).
[571] Wisconsin v. J.C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 448-449 (1940). Dissenting, Justice Roberts, along with Chief Justice Hughes and Justices McReynolds and Reed, stressed the fact that the use and disbursement by the corporation at its home office of income derived from operations in many States does not depend on, and cannot be controlled by, any law of Wisconsin. The act of disbursing such income as dividends, he contended, is "one wholly beyond the reach of Wisconsin's sovereign power, one which it cannot effectively command, or prohibit or condition." The assumption that a proportion of the dividends distributed is paid out of earnings in Wisconsin for the year immediately preceding payment is arbitrary and not borne out by the facts. Accordingly, "if the exaction is an income tax in any sense it is such upon the stockholders [many of whom are nonresidents] and is obviously bad."—See also Wisconsin v. Minnesota Mining Co., 311 U.S. 452 (1940).
[572] Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Grosjean, 301 U.S. 412 (1937).
[573] Equitable L. Assur. Soc. v. Pennsylvania, 238 U.S. 143 (1915).
[574] Provident Sav. Life Assur. Soc. v. Kentucky, 239 U.S. 103 (1915).
[575] Continental Co. v. Tennessee, 311 U.S. 5, 6 (1940), (Emphasis supplied).
[576] Palmetto F. Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, 272 U.S. 295 (1926).
[577] St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. Arkansas, 260 U.S. 346 (1922).
[578] Connecticut General Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77 (1938).
[579] Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. v. New Orleans, 205 U.S. 395 (1907).
[580] Board of Assessors v. New York L. Ins. Co., 216 U.S. 517 (1910).
[581] Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 221 U.S. 346 (1911).
[582] Orient Ins. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 221 U.S. 358 (1911).
[583] Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U.S. 51, 58 (1902); Glidden v. Harrington, 189 U.S. 255 (1903).
[584] McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 37, 42 (1877).
[585] Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 239 (1890).
[586] Hodge v. Muscatine County, 196 U.S. 276 (1905).
[587] Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 U.S. 701, 709-710 (1884).
[588] Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 U.S. 701, 710 (1884).
[589] McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 37, 42 (1877).
[590] Taylor v. Secor, (State Railroad Tax Cases), 92 U.S. 575, 610 (1876).
[591] Nickey v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 393, 396 (1934). See also Clement Nat. Bank v. Vermont, 231 U.S. 120 (1914).
[592] Pittsburgh, C.C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421 (1894).
[593] Michigan C.R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U.S. 245, 302 (1906).
[594] Pittsburgh, C.C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Board of Public Works, 172 U.S. 32, 45 (1898).
[595] St. Louis & K.C. Land Co. v. Kansas City, 241 U.S. 419, 430 (1916); Paulson v. Portland, 149 U.S. 30, 41 (1893); Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548, 590 (1897).
[596] Tonawanda v. Lyon, 161 U.S. 389, 391 (1901).
[597] Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908).
[598] Withnell v. Ruecking Constr. Co., 249 U.S. 63, 68 (1919); Browning v. Hooper, 269 U.S. 396, 405 (1926). Likewise, the committing to a board of county supervisors of authority to determine, without notice or hearing, when repairs to an existing drainage system are necessary cannot be said to deny due process of law to landowners in the district, who, by statutory requirement, are assessed for the cost thereof in proportion to the original assessments.—Breiholz v. Pocahontas County, 257 U.S. 118 (1921).
[599] Fallbrook Irrig. District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 168, 175 (1896); Browning v. Hooper, 269 U S. 396, 405 (1926).
[600] Utley v. St. Petersburg, 292 U.S. 106, 109 (1934); French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U.S. 324, 341 (1901). See also Soliah v. Heskin, 222 U.S. 522 (1912).
[601] Hibben v. Smith, 191 U.S. 310, 321 (1903).
[602] Hancock v. Muskogee, 250 U.S. 454, 488 (1919).—Likewise, a taxpayer does not have a right to a hearing before a State board of equalization preliminary to issuance by it of an order increasing the valuation of all property in a city by 40%.—Bi-Metallic Invest. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915).
[603] Detroit v. Parker, 181 U.S. 399 (1901).
[604] Paulsen v. Portland, 149 U.S. 30, 38 (1893).
[605] Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908). See also Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P.R. Co. v. Kentucky (Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases), 115 U.S. 321, 331 (1885); Winona & St. P. Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U.S. 526, 537 (1895); Merchants' & Mfgrs. Nat. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U.S. 461, 466 (1897); Glidden v. Harrington, 189 U.S. 255 (1903).
[606] Corry v. Baltimore, 196 U.S. 466, 478 (1905).
[607] Leigh v. Green, 193 U.S. 79, 92-93 (1904).
[608] Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 212 U.S. 152 (1909). See also Longyear v. Toolan, 209 U.S. 414 (1908).
[609] Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Sav. Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673 (1930).
[610] Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Wright, 207 U.S. 127 (1907).
[611] Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363 (1930). See also Ward v. Love County, 253 U.S. 17 (1920).
[612] Farncomb v. Denver, 252 U.S. 7 (1920).
[613] Pullman Co. v. Knott, 235 U.S. 23 (1914).
[614] Bankers Trust Co. v. Blodgett, 260 U.S. 647 (1923).
[615] National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 232 U.S. 58 (1914).
[616] Pierce Oil Corp. v. Hopkins, 264 U.S. 137 (1924).
[617] Carstairs v. Cochran, 193 U.S. 10 (1904); Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285 (1910).
[618] Travis v. Yale & T. Mfg. Co., 252 U.S. 60, 75-76 (1920).
[619] League v. Texas, 184 U.S. 156 (1902).
[620] Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660, 669 (1890).
[621] Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co. v. Bowland, 196 U.S. 611 (1905).
[622] King v. Mullins, 171 U.S. 404 (1898); Chapman v. Zobelein, 237 U.S. 135 (1915).
[623] Leigh v. Green, 193 U.S. 79 (1904).
[624] Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 107 (1878).
[625] Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U.S. 193 (1899).
[626] League v. Texas, 184 U.S. 156, 158 (1902). See also Straus v. Foxworth, 231 U.S. 162 (1913).
[627] Exercisable as to every description of property, tangibles and intangibles including choses in action, contracts, and charters, but only for a public purpose, the power of eminent domain may also be conferred by the State upon municipal corporations, public utilities, and even upon individuals. Like every other governmental power, the power of eminent domain cannot be surrendered by the State or its subdivisions either by contract or by any other means.—Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685 (1897); Offield v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 203 U.S. 372 (1906); Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380 (1895); Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (1905); Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U.S. 20 (1917); Galveston Wharf Co. v. Galveston, 260 U.S. 473 (1923).
[628] Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 238 (1920).
[629] 7 Pet. 243.
[630] 96 U.S. 97, 105.
[631] 166 U.S. 226, 233, 236-237 (1897); see also Sweet v: Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 (1895).
[632] Hairston v. Danville & W.R. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 606 (1908).
[633] Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 240 (1920); Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439, 446 (1930).
[634] Hairston v. Danville & W.R. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 607 (1908).
[635] United States ex rel. T.V.A. v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 551-552, 556-558 (1946), citing Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 101 (1946), and New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572 (1946)—Concurring in the result, Justice Frankfurter insisted that "the fact that the nature of the subject matter gives the legislative determination nearly immunity from judicial review does not mean that the power to review is wanting." Also concurring in the result, Justice Reed, for himself and Chief Justice Stone, dissented from that portion of the opinion which suggested that "there is no judicial review" of the question whether a "taking is for a public purpose."
[636] Justice Reed concurring in United States ex rel. T.V.A. v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 557 (1946).
[637] Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57-59 (1919).—It is no longer open to question that the State legislature may confer upon a municipality the authority to determine such necessity for itself.—Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 678 (1923).
[638] Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700 (1923).
[639] Pumpelly v. Green Bay Company, 13 Wall. 166, 177-178 (1872); Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909); Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922). See also comparable cases involving the Federal Government and discussed under the Fifth Amendment, United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 (1903); United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (1917); Portsmouth Harbor L. & H. Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327 (1922); United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). See also the cases hereinafter discussed on the limitations on "[uncompensated takings]."
[640] Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685 (1897)
[641] Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (1905).
[642] Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527 (1906).
[643] Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v.. Alabama Interstate Power Co., 240 U.S. 30 (1916).
[644] Hendersonville Light & Power Co. v.. Blue Ridge Interurban R. Co., 243 U.S. 563 (1917).
[645] Roe v. Kansas ex rel. Smith, 278 U.S. 191, 193 (1929).
[646] Dohany v. Rogers, 281 U.S. 362 (1930).
[647] Hairston v. Danville & W.R. Co., 208 U.S. 598 (1908).
[648] Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Morristown, 276 U.S. 182 (1928).
[649] Otis Co. v. Ludlow Mfg. Co., 201 U.S. 140, 151, 153 (1906). See also Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9, 20-21 (1885).
[650] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Nebraska ex rel. Board of Transportation, 164 U.S. 403, 416 (1896). The State court in this case was declared to have acknowledged that the taking was not for a public use. Hence, its reversal by the Supreme Court did not conflict with the later observation by the Court that "no case is recalled where this Court has condemned * * * a taking upheld by the State court as a taking for public uses in conformity with its laws."—See Hairston v. Danville & W.R. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 607 (1908).
[651] Backus (A.) Jr. and Sons v. Port Street Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557, 573, 575 (1898).
[652] McGovern v. New York, 229 U.S. 363, 370-371 (1913).
[653] Ibid. 371.
[654] Provo Bench Canal and Irrig. Co. v. Tanner, 239 U.S. 323 (1915); Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U.S. 524 (1911).
[655] Backus (A.) Jr. and Sons v. Port Street Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557, 569 (1898).
[656] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 250 (1897); McGovern v. New York, 229 U.S. 363, 372 (1913).
[657] Roberts v. New York, 295 U.S. 264 (1935).
[658] Dohany v. Rogers, 281 U.S. 362 (1930).
[659] Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 677 (1923).
[660] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 255 (1897).
[661] Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 484-485 (1905).
[662] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 252 (1897).
[663] Darling v. Newport News, 249 U.S. 540 (1919).
[664] Northern Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 642 (1879). See also Marchant v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 153 U.S. 380 (1894).
[665] Meyer v. Richmond, 172 U.S. 82 (1898). For cases illustrative of the types of impairment or flooding consequent upon erection of dams or aids to navigation which have been deemed to amount to a taking for which compensation must be paid, see Pumpelly v. Green Bay Company, 13 Wall. 166 (1872); United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 (1903); United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (1917).
[666] Sauer v. New York, 206 U.S. 536 (1907).
[667] Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909).
[668] Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413-414 (1922). For comparable cases involving the Federal Government see Portsmouth Harbor L. & H. Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327 (1922) and United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946).
[669] Georgia v. Chattanooga, 264 U.S. 472, 483 (1924).
[670] North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 268 U.S. 276, 283 (1925). See also Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57 (1919).
[671] Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57 (1919); Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 678 (1923).
[672] Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57, 59 (1919); North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 268 U.S. 276 (1925).
[673] Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57, 59 (1919).
[674] Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685, 695 (1897).
[675] Hays v. Seattle, 251 U.S. 233, 238 (1920); Bailey v. Anderson, 326 U.S. 203, 205 (1945).
[676] The requirements of due process in tax and eminent domain proceedings are discussed in conjunction with the coverage of these topics. See pp. [1056-1062], [1069].
[677] Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701, 708 (1884); Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 537 (1884).
[678] Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 175 (1899); Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 529 (1884); Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 101 (1908); Anderson Nat. Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233, 244 (1944).
[679] Marchant v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).
[680] Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 255 (1907); Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660, 668 (1890).
[681] McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 37, 41 (1877).
[682] R.R. Commission v. Oil Co., 311 U.S. 570 (1941). See also Railroad Commission v. Oil Co., 310 U.S. 573 (1940).
[683] Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71, 83-84 (1902).
[684] New York ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr, 199 U.S. 552, 562 (1905).
[685] Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park Dist, 281 U.S. 74, 79 (1930).
[686] Carfer v. Caldwell, 200 U.S. 293, 297 (1906).
[687] Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 46 (1894); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1878).
[688] National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257, 270 (1904); Iron Cliffs Co. v. Negaunee Iron Co., 197 U.S. 463, 471 (1905).
[689] Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U.S. 316, 321 (1890); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914); Pennington v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 243 U.S. 269, 271 (1917).
[690] Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71, 80 (1909).
[691] Pennington v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 243 U.S. 269, 271 (1917).
[692] The jurisdictional requirements for rendering a valid decree in divorce proceedings are considered under the full faith and credit clause, supra, pp. [662-670].
[693] Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878); Simon v. Southern R. Co., 236 U.S. 115, 122 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 392, 394 (1914).
[694] Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230 (1900); McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90, 91, (1917). See also Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59 (1938).
[695] Rees v. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107 (1874); Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413, 423 (1915); Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220 (1946).
[696] Sugg v. Thornton, 132 U.S. 524 (1889).
[697] Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189, 193 (1915); Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 355 (1927). See also Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476 (1879); Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U.S. 41 (1892).
[698] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 462-464 (1940).
[699] McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90, 92 (1917).
[700] Thus, in an older decision rendered in 1919, the Court held that whereas "States could exclude foreign corporations * * *, and therefore establish * * * [appointment of such an agent] as a condition to letting them in," they had no power to exclude individuals; and as a consequence, a statute was ineffective which treated nonresident partners, by virtue of their having done business therein, as having consented to be bound by service of process on a person who was their employee when the transaction sued on arose but was not their agent at the time of service.—Flexner v. Farson, 248. U.S. 289, 293 (1919).
Because it might be construed to negative extension to nonresidents, other than motorists, of the statutory device upheld in Hess v. Pawloski, the doctrine of Flexner v. Farson, "that the mere transaction of business in a State by a nonresident natural person does not imply consent to be bound by the process of its courts," was recently condemned as inadequate "to cope with the increasing problem of practical responsibility of hazardous business conducted in absentia * * *"—Sugg v. Hendrix, 142 F. (2d) 740, 742 (1944).
[701] Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927); Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13, 20, 24 (1928).
[702] 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
[703] 326 U.S. 310.
[704] Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U.S. 264, 265 (1917).
[705] In a very few cases, "continuous operations within a State were thought to be so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suits against See St. Louis S.W.R. Co. v. Alexander, 227 U.S. 218 (1913); Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Reynolds, 255 U.S. 565 (1921).
[706] Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 21 (1907).
[707] Simon v. Southern R. Co., 236 U.S. 115, 129-130 (1915).—In neither this case, nor the preceding decision were the defendant corporations notified of the pendency of the action, service having been made only on the Insurance Commissioner or the Secretary of State.
[708] Green v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 205 U.S. 530 (1907). See also Davis v. Farmers Co-operative Co., 262 U.S. 312, 317 (1923).
[709] Pennsylvania F. Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Min. & M. Co., 243 U.S. 93, 95-96 (1917).
[710] Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 517 (1923).
[711] Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518 (1895).
[712] Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U.S. 406 (1903).
[713] Riverside Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189, 195 (1915).
[714] Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602 (1899).
[715] St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350, 356 (1882). See St. Louis S.W.R. Co. v. Alexander, 227 U.S. 218 (1913).
[716] Mutual Reserve &c. Assn. v. Phelps, 190 U.S. 147, 156 (1903).
[717] Washington v. Superior Court, 289 U.S. 361, 365 (1933).
[718] 326 U.S. 310, 317-320 (1945).
[719] This departure was recognized by Justice Rutledge in a subsequent opinion in Nippert v. Richmond, 327 U.S. 416, 422 (1946).
The principle that solicitation of business alone is inadequate to confer jurisdiction for purposes of subjecting a foreign corporation to a suit in personam was established in Green v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 205 U.S. 530 (1907); but was somewhat qualified by the later holding in International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579 (1914) to the effect that when solicitation was connected with other activities (in the latter case, the local agents collected from the customers), a foreign corporation was then doing business within the forum State. Inasmuch as the International Shoe Company, in addition to having its agents solicit orders, also permitted them to rent quarters for the display of merchandise, the observation has been made that the Court, by applying the qualification of the International Harvester Case, could have decided International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) as it did without abandoning the "presence" doctrine.
[720] 326 U.S. 310, 316-317.
[721] Ibid. 319.
[722] 339 U.S. 643 (1950).
[723] Ibid. 647-649.—Concerning the holding in Minnesota Ass'n. v. Benn, 261 U.S. 140 (1923), that a similar Minnesota mail order insurance company could not be viewed as doing business in Montana where the claimant-plaintiff lived, and that the circumstances under which its Montana contracts, executed and to be performed in Minnesota, were consummated could not support in implication that the foreign insurer had consented to be sued in Montana, the majority asserted that the "narrow grounds relied on by the Court in the Benn Case cannot be deemed controlling."
Declaring that what is necessary to sustain a suit by a policyholder in Virginia against a foreign insurer is not determinative when the State seeks to regulate solicitation within its borders, Justice Douglas, in a concurring opinion, emphasized that it is the nature of the State's action that determines the degree of activity in a State necessary for satisfying the requirements of due process, and that solicitation by existing members operates as though the insurer "had formally designated Virginia members as its agents."
Insisting that "an in personam judgment cannot be based upon service by registered letter on a nonresident corporation or a natural person, neither of whom has ever been" in Virginia, Justice Minton, with whom Justice Jackson was associated in a dissenting opinion, would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that "Virginia has not claimed the power to require [the insurer] * * * to appoint the Secretary of State as their agent for service of process, nor have [its] courts rendered judgment in a suit where service was made in that manner." He would therefore let Virginia "go through this shadow-boxing performance in order to publicize the activities of" the insurer.—Justices Reed and Frankfurter joined this dissent on the merits.—Ibid. 655-656, 658, 659.
In Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) it was held, that the State of Ohio was free either to open its courts, or to refuse to do so, to a foreign corporation owning gold and silver mines in the Philippine Islands, but temporarily (during Japanese occupation) carrying on a part of its general business in Ohio, including directors meetings, business correspondence, banking, etc. Two members of the Court dissented, contending that what it was doing was "giving gratuitously an advisory opinion to the Ohio Supreme Court. [They] would dismiss the writ [of certiorari] as improvidently granted." The case is obviously too atypical to offer much promise of importance as a precedent.
[724] Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U.S. 316, 321 (1890).
[725] Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 254 (1907); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878).
[726] Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U.S. 193, 203 (1899); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878).
[727] American Land Co. v. Zeiss, 219 U.S. 47 (1911).
[728] Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878); citing Boswell v. Otis, 9 How. 336 (1850); Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308 (1870). Such remedy, by way of example, is also available to a wife who is enabled thereby to impound local bank deposits of her absent husband for purposes of collecting unpaid instalments by him. Moreover, because of the antiquity of the procedure authorized, a statute permitting the impounding of property of an absconding father for the maintenance of his children is not in conflict with due process because it fails to provide for notice, actual or constructive, to the absconder.—Pennington v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 243 U.S. 269, 271 (1917); Corn Exch. Bank v. Coler, 280 U.S. 218, 222 (1930). Likewise, proceedings to attach wages in execution of a judgment for debt may be instituted without any notice or service on the judgment debtor. The latter, having had his day in court when the judgment was rendered, is not entitled to be apprized of what action the judgment creditor may elect to take to enforce collection.—Endicott Co. v. Encyclopedia Press, 266 U.S. 285, 288 (1924).
[729] Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71, 80 (1909).
[730] McCaughey v. Lyall, 224 U.S. 558 (1912).
[731] RoBards v. Lamb, 127 U.S. 58, 61 (1888). Inasmuch as it is within the power of a State to provide that one who has undertaken administration of an estate shall remain subject to the order of its courts until said administration is closed, it follows that there can be no question as to the validity of a judgment for unadministered assets obtained on service of publication plus service personally upon an executor in the State in which he had taken refuge and in which he had been adjudged incompetent.—Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346 (1913). Also, when a mother petitions for her appointment as guardian, and no one but the mother and her infant son of tender years, are concerned, failure to serve notice of the petition upon the infant does not invalidate the proceedings resulting in her appointment.—Jones v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co., 273 U.S. 195 (1927). Also a Pennsylvania statute which establishes a special procedure for appointment of one to administer the estate of absentees, which procedure is distinct from that contained in the general law governing settlement of decedents' estates and provides special safeguards to protect the rights of absentees is not repugnant to the due process clause because it authorizes notice by publication after an absence of seven years.—Cunnius v. Reading School Dist., 198 U.S. 458 (1905).
[732] Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U.S. 256, 275 (1896).
[733] Security Sav. Bank v. California, 263 U.S. 282 (1923).
[734] Anderson Nat. Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233 (1944).
[735] Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950).
[736] Voeller v. Neilston Co., 311 U.S. 531 (1941).
[737] Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 395-396 (1914).
[738] Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U.S. 236 (1914).
[739] Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 110 (1908); Jacob v. Roberts, 223 U.S. 261, 265 (1912).
[740] Bi-Metallic Co. v. Colorado, 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915); Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57, 58 (1919). For the procedural requirements that must be observed in the passage of legislation levying special assessments or establishing assessment districts, see pp. [1058-1059].
[741] Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U.S. 176 (1935); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Industrial Com'n., 24 F. Supp. 370 (1938); Ralph F. Fuchs, Procedure in Administrative Rule-Making, 52 Harvard Law Review, 259 (1938).
Whether action of an administrative agency, which voluntarily affords notice and hearing in proceedings in which due process would require the same, is voided by the fact that the statute in pursuance of which it operates does not expressly provide such protection, is a question as to which the Supreme Court has developed no definitive answer. It appears to favor the doctrine enunciated by State courts to the effect that such statutes are to be construed as impliedly requiring notice and hearing, although, in a few instances, it has uttered comments rejecting this notice-by-implication theory.—See Toombs v. Citizens Bank, 281 U.S. 643 (1930); Paulsen v. Portland, 149 U.S. 30 (1893); Bratton v. Chandler, 260 U.S. 110 (1922); Cincinnati, N.O. & T.R. Co. v. Kentucky, 115 U.S. 321 (1885). Contra: Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Wright, 207 U.S. 127 (1907); Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413 (1915); Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13 (1928).
[742] Bratton v. Chandler, 260 U.S. 110 (1922); Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U.S. 40 (1926).
[743] North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306, 315-316 (1908). For an exposition of the doctrine applicable for determining the tort liability of administrative officers, see Miller v. Horton, 152 Mass. 540 (1891).
[744] Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S. 188 (1925).
[745] 152 U.S. 133 (1894).
[746] Ibid. 140-141.
[747] Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233, 246-247 (1944).
[748] Coffin Bros. & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U.S. 29, 31 (1928).
[749] Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Newport, 247 U.S. 464, 476 (1918); Baker v. Baker, E. & Co., 242 U.S. 394, 403 (1917); Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230, 236 (1900).
[750] American Surety Co v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 168 (1932).
[751] Saunders v. Shaw, 244 U.S. 317 (1917).
[752] See [footnote 1], p. 1085.
[753] Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413, 424 (1915); Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13 (1928).
[754] Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398, 407, 409 (1900).
[755] Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71, 80 (1909). One may, of course, waive a right to notice and hearing, as in the case of a debtor or surety who consents to the entry of a confessed judgment on the happening of certain conditions.—Johnson v. Chicago & P. Elevator Co., 119 U.S. 388 (1886); American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156 (1932).
[756] See pp. [1084-1088].
[757] Holmes v. Conway, 241 U.S. 624, 631 (1916); Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230, 236 (1900).
[758] Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934); West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258, 263 (1904); Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897); Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U.S. 167, 176 (1912). The power of a State to determine the limits of the jurisdiction of its courts and the character of the controversies which shall be heard in them and to deny access to its courts, in the exercise of its right to regulate practice and procedure; is also subject to the restrictions imposed by the contract, full faith and credit, and privileges and immunities clauses of the Federal Constitution. Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183 (1947).
[759] Hardware Dealers Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Glidden Co., 284 U.S. 151, 158 (1931); Iowa C.R. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U.S. 389, 393 (1896); Honeyman v. Hanan, 302 U.S. 375 (1937).
[760] Cincinnati Street R. Co. v. Snell, 193 U.S. 30, 36 (1904).
[761] Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U.S. 94, 112 (1921). Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment does not constrain the States to accept modern doctrines of equity, or adopt a combined system of law and equity procedure, or dispense with all necessity for form and method in pleading, or give untrammeled liberty to make amendments.
[762] Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
[763] Young Co. v. McNeal-Edwards Co., 283 U.S. 398 (1931); Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59 (1938).
[764] Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U.S. 171 (1924).
[765] York v. Texas, 137 U.S. 15 (1890); Kauffman v. Wooters, 138 U.S. 285, 287 (1891).
[766] Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 236 U.S. 133 (1915).
[767] Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U.S. 94, 111 (1921).—Consistently, with due process, a State may provide that the doctrines of contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and fellow servant shall not bar recovery in actions brought against an employer for death or injury resulting from dangerous machinery improperly safeguarded. A person having no vested right to the defense of contributory negligence, a State may take it away altogether, or may provide that said defense, as well as that of assumption of risk, are questions of fact to be left to the jury.—Bowersock v. Smith, 243 U.S. 29, 34 (1917); Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Cole, 251 U.S. 54, 55 (1919); Herron v. Southern P. Co., 283 U.S. 91 (1931).
[768] Sawyer v. Piper, 189 U.S. 154 (1903).
[769] Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 259 (1907).
[770] Missouri K. & T.R. Co. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642, 650 (1914).
[771] Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U.S. 81 (1896).
[772] Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217 (1912); Chicago & N.W.R. Co. v. Nye Schneider Fowler Co., 260 U.S. 35, 43-44 (1922); Hartford L. Ins. Co. v. Blincoe, 255 U.S. 129, 139 (1921); Life & C. Ins. Co. v. McCray, 291 U.S. 566 (1934).
[773] Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. Yeldell, 274 U.S. 112, 114 (1927).
[774] Coffey v. Harlan County, 204 U.S. 659, 663, 665 (1907).
[775] Wheeler v. Jackson, 137 U.S. 245, 258 (1890); Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U.S. 140, 156 (1911).
[776] Blinn v. Nelson, 222 U.S. 1 (1911).
[777] Turner v. New York, 168 U.S. 90, 94 (1897).
[778] Soper v. Lawrence Bros. Co., 201 U.S. 359 (1906). Nor is a former owner who had not been in possession for five years after and fifteen years before said enactment thereby deprived of any property without due process.
[779] Mattson v. Department of Labor, 293 U.S. 151, 154 (1934).
[780] Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 623, 628 (1885).
[781] Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304 (1945).
[782] Gange Lumber Co. v. Rowley, 326 U.S. 295 (1945).
[783] Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 623 (1885). See also Stewart v. Keyes, 295 U.S. 403, 417 (1935).
[784] Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397, 398 (1930).
[785] Hawkins v. Bleakly, 243 U.S. 210, 214 (1917); James-Dickinson Farm Mortg. Co. v. Harry, 273 U.S. 119, 124 (1927). An omission in a criminal trial of any reference to the presumption of innocence effects no denial of due process of law where the State appellate court ruled that such omission did not invalidate the proceedings. Howard v. Fleming, 191 U.S. 126, 136 (1903).
[786] Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1, 5 (1929); Western & A.R. Co. v. Henderson, 279 U.S. 639, 642 (1929); Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 233 (1911); Mobile, J. & K.C.R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 42 (1910).
[787] Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 233 (1911).
[788] Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1, 7 (1929).
[789] Western & A.R. Co. v. Henderson, 279 U.S. 639 (1929).
[790] Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ford, 287 U.S. 502 (1933). See also Mobile, J. & K.C.R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35 (1910).
[791] Hawes v. Georgia, 258 U.S. 1 (1922).
[792] Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Ct., 284 U.S. 8, 19 (1931).
[793] Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898).
[794] Cockrill v. California, 268 U.S. 258, 261 (1925).
[795] Morrison v. California, 288 U.S. 591 (1933).
[796] Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 (1934).
[797] "The limits are in substance these, that the State shall have proved enough to make it just for the defendant to be required to repeal what has been proved * * *, or at least that upon a balancing of convenience or of the opportunities for knowledge the shifting of the burden will be found to be an aid to the accuser without subjecting the accused to hardship or oppression."—Ibid. 88-89.
[798] Ibid. 87-91, 96-97.
[799] Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (1952).
[800] Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1876); New York C.R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 208 (1917); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
[801] Marvin v. Trout, 199 U.S. 212, 226 (1905).
[802] Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101, 108 (1898); Eilenbecker v. District Court, 134 U.S. 31, 36, 39 (1890).
[803] Delgado v. Chavez, 140 U.S. 586, 588 (1891).
[804] Wilson v. North Carolina ex rel. Caldwell, 169 U.S. 586 (1898); Foster v. Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 112 U.S. 201, 206 (1884).
[805] Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685, 694 (1897).
[806] Montana Company v. St. Louis Min. & Mill Co., 152 U.S. 160, 171 (1894); Church v. Kelsey, 121 U.S. 282 (1887).
[807] Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U.S. 167, 176 (1912).
[808] Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 602 (1900).
[809] Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 509-510, 515 (1948). See also Cline v. Frink Dairy, 274 U.S. 445 (1927); Cole v. Arkansas, 338 U.S. 345, 354 (1949).
[810] Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 455 (1939).
[811] Minnesota v. Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270 (1940).
[812] Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 520, 538 (1884); Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 175 (1890); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 602 (1900); Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616, 627 (1912); Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U.S. 167, 176 (1912).
[813] Lem Woon v. Oregon, 229 U.S. 586, 590 (1913).
[814] Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86 (1928).
[815] Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935). See also Hale v. Kentucky, 303 U.S. 613 (1938); Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354 (1939); Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128 (1940); Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50 (1951).
[816] Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 66, 71 (1932).
[817] Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 324-325 (1937).
[818] 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
[819] Ibid. 71.
[820] 287 U.S. 45, 71 (1932).—The Court presently seems to be holding that in capital cases, notwithstanding the absence even of other circumstances prejudicial to the defendant, the right to counsel is unqualified. See the later cases discussed herein, especially Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 (1945); Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 (1945); Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271 (1945); and the Court's summary of its rulings in Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U.S. 437 (1948), supra, p. [1108].
[821] 308 U.S. 444 (1940).
[822] Ibid. 446-447.
[823] 312 U.S. 329 (1941).—In a post mortem comment on this case appearing in the later decision of Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 464 (1942), there is contained the intimation that the mere failure to appoint counsel, alone, in the absence of the proof of other facts tending to show that the whole trial was "a mere sham and a pretense," would not have sufficed to support a finding of a denial of due process.
[824] 316 U.S. 455, 462-463 (1942).
[825] Ibid. 462, 473.
[826] In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932); Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444 (1940); and Smith v. O'Grady, 312 U.S. 329 (1941), a State law required the appointment of counsel.
[827] 316 U.S. 455, 461-462, 474-476 (1942).—Dissenting, Justice Black, with whom Justices Douglas and Murphy were in agreement, acknowledged regretfully that the view that the "Fourteenth Amendment made the Sixth applicable to the States * * * has never been accepted by a majority of this Court," and submitted a list of citations showing that by judicial decision, as well as by constitutional and statutory provision, a majority of States require that indigent defendants, in noncapital as well as capital cases, be provided with counsel on request. This evidence, he contended, supports the conclusion that "denial to the poor of a request for counsel in proceedings based on serious charges of crime," has "long been regarded throughout this country as shocking to the 'universal sense of justice.'"
[828] 323 U.S. 471 (1945).
[829] 323 U.S. 485 (1945).
[830] 287 U.S. 45, 69, 71 (1932).
[831] 323 U.S. 471, 476 (1945).
[832] 324 U.S. 42 (1945). See also White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760 (1945).
[833] 326 U.S. 271 (1945).
[834] 324 U.S. 42, 46 (1945).
[835] 324 U.S. 786 (1945).
[836] 327 U.S. 82 (1946). Justices Murphy and Rutledge dissented, the former contending that "the right to counsel means nothing unless it means the right to counsel at each and every step in a criminal proceeding."—Ibid. 89.
[837] 329 U.S. 173 (1946).
[838] Rice v. Olson, 324 U.S. 786 (1945), was distinguished on the ground that the record in the older case contained specific allegations bearing on the disabilities of the accused to stand prosecution without the aid of counsel and the complete absence of any uncontested finding, as in the instant case, of an intelligent waiver of counsel.
Dissenting for himself and Justices Black and Rutledge, Justice Douglas declared that, under the authority of Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 476 (1945), "if * * * [the] defendant is not capable of making his own defense, it is the duty of the Court, at least in capital cases, to appoint counsel, whether requested so to do or not."—329 U.S. 173, 181 (1946). In a separate dissent, Justice Murphy observed that while "legal technicalities doubtless afford justification for our pretense of ignoring plain facts before us," facts which emphasize the absence of any intelligent waiver of counsel, "the result certainly does not enhance the high traditions of the judicial process."—Ibid. 183.
[839] 329 U.S. 663, 665 (1947).
[840] 332 U.S. 134 (1947).
[841] 332 U.S. 145 (1947).
[842] 332 U.S. 134, 136 (1947).—Acknowledging that the decision is in line with the precedent of Betts v. Brady, Justice Black, who was joined by Justices Douglas, Murphy, and Rutledge, lamented that the latter was a "kind of precedent [which he] had hoped that the Court would not perpetuate." Complaining of the loss of certainty occasioned by the Court's refusal to read into the Fourteenth Amendment the absolute right to counsel set out in the Sixth Amendment, Justice Black contends that the fair trial doctrine as enunciated in this and in the Adamson v. California case (see p. [1115]) decided on the same day is "another example of the consequences which can be produced by the substitution of this Court's day-to-day opinion of what kind of trial is fair and decent for the kind of trial which the Bill of Rights guarantees."—Ibid. 139, 140.—In a second dissenting opinion meriting the concurrence of Justices Black, Douglas, and Murphy, Justice Rutledge, who also is of the opinion that the absolute right to counsel granted by the Sixth Amendment should be enjoyed in State criminal trials, insisted that even under the fair trial doctrine, the accused had not been accorded due process.
[843] 332 U.S. 145 (1947).
[844] 332 U.S. 561 (1947).
[845] 332 U.S. 596 (1948).
[847] 333 U.S. 640, 678, 680-682 (1948).—As against the assertion of the majority that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not of its own force require appointment of counsel for one simply because he would have a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in a comparable federal case, the minority, consisting of Justices Black, Murphy, and Rutledge speaking through Justice Douglas, declared that "the Bill of Rights is applicable to all courts at all times"; for, otherwise, "of what value is the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial if an accused does not have counsel to advise and defend him." Noting that all members of the Court were in accord on the requirement of counsel in capital offenses, the minority contended that the considerations inducing such unanimity were "equally germane [in noncapital cases] where liberty rather than life hangs in the balance." Conceding that "it might not be nonsense to draw the Betts v. Brady line somewhere between that case and the case of one charged with violation of a parking ordinance, and to say the accused is entitled to counsel in the former but not in the latter," the minority concluded as follows: "* * * to draw the line between this case and cases where the maximum penalty is death is to make a distinction which makes no sense in terms of the absence or presence of need for counsel. Yet it is the need for counsel that establishes the real standard for determining whether the lack of counsel rendered the trial unfair. And the need for counsel, even by Betts v. Brady standards, is not determined by the complexities of the individual case or the ability of the particular person who stands as an accused before the Court. That need is measured by the nature of the charge and the ability of the average man to face it alone, unaided by an expert in the law."
[848] 334 U.S. 672, 683 (1948).
[849] 334 U.S. 728, 730, 731 (1948).
[850] 334 U.S. 736 (1948).
[851] Ibid. 740.—The majority also observed that "trial court's facetiousness casts a somewhat somber reflection on the fairness of the proceeding * * *"
Although Chief Justice Vinson and Justices Reed and Burton dissented without an opinion in Townsend v. Burke, four Justices, Black, Douglas, and Murphy speaking through Justice Rutledge filed a vigorous dissent in Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728, 733, 736 (1948). Justice Rutledge declared his inability to "square * * * [this] decision in this case with that made in Townsend v. Burke. I find it difficult to comprehend that the [trial] court's misreading or misinformation concerning the facts of [the] record [Townsend v. Burke] vital to the proper exercise of the sentencing function is prejudicial * * *, but its misreading or misconception of the controlling statute, [Gryger v. Burke] in a matter so vital as imposing mandatory sentence or exercising discretion concerning it, has no such effect. Perhaps the difference serves only to illustrate how capricious are the results when the right to counsel is made to depend not upon the mandate of the Constitution, but upon the vagaries of whether judges, * * * will regard this incident or that in the course of particular criminal proceedings as prejudicial."
[852] 335 U.S. 437, 438-442 (1948).
[853] 337 U.S. 773, 780 (1949).
[854] 342 U.S. 184 (1951); See also Per Curiam opinion granting certiorari in Foulke v. Burke, 342 U.S. 881 (1951).
[855] 339 U.S. 660, 665 (1950).
[856] 342 U.S. 55 (1951).
[857] Ibid. 64.
[858] 335 U.S. 437, 440-441 (1948).
[859] Rice v. Olson, 324 U.S. 786, 788-789 (1945).
[860] Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672, 683-684 (1948); De Meerleer v. Michigan, 329 U.S. 663, 664-665 (1947); Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 472 (1942); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 51-52, 71 (1932).
[861] Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 739-741 (1948); De Meerleer v. Michigan, 329 U.S. 663, 665 (1947); Smith v. O'Grady, 312 U.S. 329, 332-333 (1941).
[862] Rice v. Olson, 324 U.S. 786, 789-791 (1945).
[863] Gibbs v. Burke, 337 U.S. 773, 780-781 (1949). Devotion to the Fair Trial doctrine has also created another problem for the Court, that of a burdensome increase in the volume of its business. Inasmuch as accurate appraisal of the effect of absence of counsel on the validity of a State criminal proceeding has been rendered more difficult by the vagueness of that doctrine as well as by the Court's acknowledged variation in the application thereof, innumerable State prisoners have been tempted to seek judicial reconsideration of their convictions. To reduce the number of such cases which it is obliged to examine on their merits, the Court had been compelled to have recourse to certain protective rules. Thus, when a State prisoner seeks to attack the validity of his conviction by way of habeas corpus proceedings begun in a lower federal court, application for that writ will be entertained only after all State remedies available, including all appellate remedies in State courts and in the Supreme Court by appeal or writ of certiorari, have been exhausted. This rule, however, will not be applied when no adequate State remedy is in fact available. Also when a prisoner's petition for release on the grounds of the unconstitutionally of his conviction has been rejected by a State court, a petition for certiorari addressed to the United States Supreme Court will be denied whenever it appears that the prisoner had not invoked the appropriate State remedy. Or stated otherwise, where the State court's conviction or refusal to grant writs of habeas corpus to those under State sentences may fairly be attributed to a rule of local procedure and is not exclusively founded on the denial of a federal claim, such as, right to counsel, the Supreme Court will refuse to intervene. As in the case of other legal rules, Justices of the Supreme Court have often found themselves in disagreement as to the manner of applying these aforementioned principles; and vigorous dissents arising out of this very issue were recorded in the cases of Marino v. Ragen, 332 U.S. 561 (1947); Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672 (1948); and Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U.S. 437 (1948). Justice Frankfurter has frequently, albeit unsuccessfully contended, that "intervention by * * * [the Supreme Court] in the criminal process of States * * * should not be indulged in unless no reasonable doubt is left that a State denies, or has refused to exercise, means of correcting a claimed infraction of the United States Constitution. * * * After all, [it should be borne in mind that] this is the Nation's ultimate judicial tribunal, not a super-legal-aid bureau."
[864] 176 U.S. 581 (1900).
[865] 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
[866] Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U.S. 167, 176. (1912).
[867] Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900).
[868] Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U.S. 314 (1892).
[869] Ibid. 318-320.
[870] Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22 (1880); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 603 (1900); Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U.S. 167, 176 (1912); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
[871] Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 175, 176 (1899).
[872] Ashe v. United States ex rel. Valotta, 270 U.S. 424, 425 (1926).
[873] Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 288 (1947); Moore v. New York, 333 U.S. 585 (1948).—Both cases reject the proposition that the commandment of the Sixth Amendment, which requires a jury trial in criminal cases in the federal courts is picked up by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to become a limitation upon the States.
[874] Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 283-284 (1947).—Since Congress, by way of enforcing the guarantees contained in the Fourteenth Amendment, has, by statute [18 Stat. 336, 377 (1875); 8 U.S.C. 44], made it a crime to exclude a citizen from jury service only on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, the Supreme Court "never has interfered with the composition of State court juries except in cases where this guidance of Congress was applicable." Without suggesting that "no case of discrimination in jury drawing except those involving race or color can carry such unjust consequences as to amount to a denial of * * * due process," the Court has nevertheless required that a defendant, alleging grounds not covered by that statute, "must comply with the exacting requirements of proving clearly" that the procedure in his case was destructive of due process.
These statements reflect the views of only five Justices. Speaking for the minority (Justices Black, Douglas, and Rutledge), Justice Murphy declared that "the vice lies in the very concept of 'blue ribbon' panels—the systematic and intentional exclusion of all but the 'best' or the most learned or intelligent of the general jurors. Such panels are completely at war with the democratic theory of our jury system, a theory formulated out of the experience of generations. One is constitutionally entitled to be judged by a fair sampling of all one's neighbors who are qualified, not merely those with superior intelligence or learning. Jury panels are supposed to be representative of all qualified classes. Within those classes, of course, are persons with varying degrees of intelligence, wealth, education, ability and experience. But it is from that welter of qualified individuals, who meet specified minimum standards, that juries are to be chosen. Any method that permits only the 'best' of these to be selected opens the way to grave abuses. The jury is then in danger of losing its democratic flavor and becoming the instrument of the select few." A "blue ribbon jury" is neither "a jury of the * * * [defendant's] peers," nor "a jury chosen from a fair cross-section of the community, * * *"—Moore v. New York, 333 U.S. 565, 569-570 (1948).
[875] Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U.S. 638 (1906). The Supreme Court "has never entertained a defendant's objections to exclusions from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class."—Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 287 (1947).
[876] 211 U.S. 78, 93, 106-107, 113; citing Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22 (1880); and Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 387, 389 (1898).
[877] In several decisions the Court, assuming, but without deciding, that a State law requiring a witness to answer incriminating questions would violate the due process clause, has then proceeded to conclude, nevertheless, that a State antitrust law which grants immunity from local prosecution to a witness compelled to testify thereunder is valid even though testimony thus extracted may later serve as the basis of a federal prosecution for violation of federal antitrust laws.—Jack v. Kansas, 199 U.S. 372, 380 (1905).
[878] Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
[879] Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325-326 (1937).
[880] 297 U.S. 278, 285-286 (1936). For the significance of this decision as a precedent in favor of a more careful scrutiny by the Supreme Court of State trials in which a denial of constitutional rights allegedly occurred, see p. [1138].
[881] Ibid, 285-286.
[882] 309 U.S. 227 (1940).
[883] Ibid. 228-229, 237-241.
[884] 310 U.S. 530 (1940).
[885] 314 U.S. 219, 237 (1941). This dictum represents the closest approach which the Court thus far has made toward inclusion of the privilege against self-incrimination within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In all but a few of the forced confession cases, however, the results achieved by application of the Fair Trial doctrine differ scarcely at all from those attainable by incorporation of the privilege within that clause.
[886] 316 U.S. 547 (1942).
[887] 322 U.S. 143 (1944).
[888] See Baldwin v. Missouri, 281 U.S. 586, 595 (1930).
[889] 322 U.S. 143, 160-162 (1944).—All members of the Court were in accord, however, in condemning, as no less a denial of due process, the admission at the second trial of Ashcraft [Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 327 U.S. 274 (1946)] of evidence uncovered in consequence of the written confession, acceptance of which at the first trial had led to the reversal of his prior conviction.
[890] 322 U.S. 596 (1944).
[891] Ibid. 602.—Of three Justices who dissented, Justice Murphy, with whom Justice Black was associated, declared that it was "inconceivable * * * that the second confession was free from the coercive atmosphere that admittedly impregnated the first one"; and added that previous decisions of this Court "in effect have held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the prohibition [of the Fifth pertaining to self-incrimination] applicable to the States."—Ibid. 605-606.
[892] 324 U.S. 401 (1945).
[893] Chief Justice Stone, together with Justices Roberts, Reed, and Jackson, all of whom dissented, would have sustained the conviction.
[894] Justices Rutledge and Murphy dissented in part, assigning among their reasons therefor their belief that the "subsequent confessions, * * *, were vitiated with all the coercion which destroys admissibility of the first one." According to Justice Rutledge, "a stricter standard is necessary where the confession tendered follows a prior coerced one than in the case of a single confession * * *. Once a coerced confession has been obtained all later ones should be excluded from evidence, wherever there is evidence that the coerced one has been used to secure the later ones."—324 U.S. 401, 420, 428-429 (1945).
[895] In Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U.S. 596, 601 (1944), the Court stated that "when the State-approved instruction (to the jury) fairly raises the question of whether or not the challenged confession was voluntary, * * *, the requirements of due process, * * *, are satisfied and this Court will not require a modification of local practice to meet views that it might have as to * * * how specific an instruction * * * must be." In Malinski v. New York, the four dissenting Justices declared that "the trial court, * * *, instructed the jury that the evidence with respect to the first confession was adduced only to show that the second was coerced. And * * * that it could consider the second confession, only if it found it voluntary, and that it could convict in that case. In view of these instructions, we cannot say that the first confession was submitted to the jury, or that in the absence of any exception or request to charge more particularly, there was any error, of which the * * * [accused] can complain."—324 U.S. 401, 437 (1945).
[896] The coercive nature of the first oral confession was apparently acknowledged by the prosecuting attorney in his summation to the jury; for he declared that the accused "was not hard to break," and that the purpose of holding him incommunicado and unclothed in a hotel room from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., when the confession was made, was to "let him think that he is going to get a shellacking (beating)."—324 U.S. 401, 407 (1945).
[897] 332 U.S. 46, 56 (1947).
[898] 211 U.S. 78 (1908).
[899] 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
[900] Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 50, 53, 56, 58 (1947).
[901] Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 59-60, 63-64, 66 (1947). See also Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 414, 415, 417 (1945).
[902] Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 69, 74-75, 89 (1947).—Dissenting separately, Justice Murphy, together with Justice Rutledge, announced their agreement with Justice Black, subject to one reservation. While agreeing "that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights should be carried over intact into the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment," they were "not prepared to say that the latter is entirely and necessarily limited by the Bill of Rights. Occasions may arise where a proceeding falls so far short of conforming to fundamental standards of procedure as to warrant * * * condemnation in terms of a lack of due process despite the absence of a specific provision in the Bill of Rights."—Ibid. 124.
In a lengthy article based upon a painstaking examination of original data pertaining to the "understanding of the import of the * * * clauses of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time the Amendment was adopted"; that is, during the period 1866-1868, Professor Charles Fairman has marshalled a "mountain of evidence" calculated to prove conclusively the inaccuracy of Justice Black's reading of history.—Charles Fairman. Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights? The Original Understanding.—2 Stanford Law Review, 5-139 (1949).
[903] 332 U.S. 596 (1948).
[904] Ibid. 600-601.—In a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Vinson and Justices Jackson and Reed concurred, Justice Burton remarked that inasmuch as the issue of the voluntariness of the confession was one of fact, turning largely on the credibility of witnesses, the determination thereof by the trial judge and jury should not be overturned upon mere conjecture.—Ibid. 607, 615.
[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].
[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 50¢ per $100 on deposits in banks outside a State in contrast with a rate of 10¢ 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 Baumé 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).
[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. § 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.
[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. § 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. § 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.