BPS ec 5 - PSS ies bee ett RSS : ‘ : ; i. ‘ Sree ett a : ine at ha Sere ose % ; ag tehiee rane arn i HRS hac ‘ Saadeh x i CorRNELL UNIVERSITY Law LIBRARY FROM THE BENNO LOEWY LIBRARY RECEIVED BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY UNDER THE WILL OF MR. BENNO LOEWY DATE DUE PRINTED IN U.S.A, ini JEREMIAH S. BLACK. POLICE POWER STATE AND FEDERAL yA 300209 a or oe. DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS? ">! 2 ee, 9 9 a? 99 3 > 52? D2 957'2 @ 3,” on > LIMITATIONS UPON OTHER POWERS. PERSONS “AND THINGS as SPECIALLY SUBJECT TO DOMESTIC ECONOMY AND MUNICIPAL REGULATION. PERSONS UNDER DISABILITY STATE AND INTER-STATE COMMERCE CONTROL OF STRIKES, BOYCOTTS, ETC. BY WILLIS REED BIERLY a AUTHOR OF ‘“TIME AND NOTICE,” ‘‘ PROCEDURE BY PETITION AND RULE,” AND OTHER WORKS PHILADELPHIA REES WELSH & CO. LAW PUBLISHERS AND BOOKSELLERS 901 SANSOM STREET 1907 Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1907, by REES WELSH & CO., In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C. RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF THAT ILLUSTRIOUS JUDGE AND PUBLICIST Jeremiah J. Wlack OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND AS A TOKEN OF ADMIRATION TO Gheodore ioosevelt PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO HAS ACHIEVED MORE IN HIS PUBLIC SERVICE, FOR THE RESTRAINT OF INORDINATE CORPORATE AGGRESSION, THAN ANY PRESIDENT SINCE ANDREW JACKSON, BY THE AUTHOR. WILLiAMsPoRT, Pa., 1907. PREFACE. There is no subject of law and economics in which there is more universal interest at present, than the power of the government to regulate, control and restrain the actions of individuals or corporations whether in private relations or in commercial transactions. The Police Power of government is not to be con- founded with the official duties of municipal officers known as ‘‘ police,” but is treated of in this work, as a sovereign and inalienable attribute of govern- ment. It is sought to distinguish and make clear this great power, so that it may not be confused with other powers, and the constitutional limitations of state and federal domains are drawn, under the au- thority of both state and federal courts, so that the lay reader as well as the lawyer may comprehend. The text of this work is founded upon the Common Law and the development. thereof in the leading cases as well as by statutory declarations. It is not confined to Pennsylvania but embraces the entire Union of States, and especially those Code States which closely followed the Code of New York. Whilst this subject is intimately connected with and related to the power of Eminent Domain, it is thought best to treat of that subject in a compre- hensive manner independently in a separate and companion volume, so as to prevent confusion in making a proper and useful index—so necessary to every book demanded by the busy lawyer. WILLIS REED BIERLY. WILLIAMSPORT, Pa., January, 1907. TABLE OF STATUTES. ENGLISH STATUTES. ' PAGE 21 Jac. I. C. 8, Anti-monopoly... ................008 Slee 121 26 Geo. IT. C, 88,1, Vagrancy........... 0.0. c ccc cece e eee ae? 8 UNITED STATES STATUTES. 1789, Aug. 7; 1 Stat. 54, Pilotage............. 2... cece eee 22 1862-8, Treasury note acts.... 6... cece cece ec eset eeee 7 1866, June 15, R. S. Sec. 5258, Railroads made post roads... 122 1886, Aug. :2, 24 Stat. 209, C. 840........00.. 0200. cee 26 1889, March 2, Amended 1906, I. S. Commerce.............. 155 Inter-state Commerce law, Rev. Stat............... c0. cee 19 as se March 2, 1889................0. 161 ss oe Feby. 10, 1891.................. 164 s eS June 29, 1906...........0.. 0c eae 149 “e ss as Be iss sie ee aoheaualaieh eaten 168 ss ss as SE ute tociate & eater weathers 171 7 ss as SS” 1 YS tarctacae ac ioteeastern aay 177 a es March 2, 1889.... .............. 178 Ms June 29, 1906....... ......... ~ 179 ee es March 2, 1889........ .......... 184 as es Feby. 8, 1895........... ........ 185 “8 sé March 2, 1889................055 187 a6 Ks June 29, 1906.................., 188 s “ Feby. 11, 189825...¢¢24 543404408 189 es ee June 30, 1906................... 191 ss as Feby. 11, 1908...............04. 198 1888, Aug. 7, Government aid to railroads, etc............. 200 1890, Aug. 8, 26 Stat. 313, C. 728, Original packages...... 25, 120 ‘© 26 Stat. 209, Ch. 647, Anti-monopoly...... Rereer r 28, 111 1893, Amended 1896, Safety appliance act.................. 206 1908, March 2, ns i hake whe acdos 209 1898, June 1, Arbitration law............,... desieiie aes aces 215 Vv vi TABLE OF STATUTES. ’ 1906, March 7, Resolution of investigation ...........++ oe ae ae 21, “ CALIFORNIA STATUTES. 1858, P.87, Water rates. .2c%. 24 ¥icenenuseeputed tae neces 1862, P. 540 eRe k RAR Tees eT errr Tee 1885, P. 95 Rah EG OER E RRS A Ae eee 1907, Anti-trust law... 2.06.66. ce ce cece eee teen eee KANSAS. 1897, P. 481, Anti-trust law.... 6... 6.6) cee ee eee eee MINNESOTA. Statute punishing drunkard. ......... 06. cee cece eee e es N. DAKOTA. Con. Sec. 146, Art. 7, Anti-monopoly .................+ OHIO AntiHtrist Taw... cas. asic Peedi se Sees goed a eas s sa resi TENNESSEE. 1903; Anti-trust laws. <.:eeccestes essere cae. weiosedss PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES. 1705, 1 Sm. L. 25, Sunday, service of process.... ....... 1721, 1 Sm. L. 129, Sale of fireworks...................4- 1780, 1 Sm. L. 180, Marriage.............. 6c eee eee eee 1777, 1 Sm. L. 429, Common law abrogated............. 1906, June 30, Pure food law........ 6... cee eee eee 1898, Labor unions......... 0.0. ce eee cece crete 1906, C. 3078, Employer’s Liability. ........... 20. eee eee PAGE 211 214 226 80 254 77 ot TABLE OF STATUTES. vii , PAGE 1794, 3Sm. L. 177, Sunday law........ 0 . cece cece cece eee 13, 40 1806, 4 Sm. L. 332, Common law restored.................. 114 1834, P. L. 117, Public licensed houses.................200 104 1836, Sec. 26, P. L. 539, Lunacy proceedings........... .. 33, 44 1838, P. L. 626, Projections over sidewalks............. ... 103 1841, P. L. 416, County's liability for riots ................. 52 1849. Riot Mapilit ys iy weary. gee Gaus. naareawie oe tecmmatibee na Sen 52 1850, P. L. 670, Concealed weapons, Phila ................. 37 1851,,Gebl.. Boro. 1AW: oisscncs aieatioawe vbeee s baioneene eas 57 1851, Sec. 2, P. L. 518, Obstructing highwaga SRP seer ae 92 1854, Sec. 4, P. L. 664, Marriage of intoxicated............. 45 1856, Sec. 29, P. L. 207, Drunkenness. S pacaubhe bea 4 tua ania aye Oe 45 1858, P. L. 870, Drunkenness........00.. 0.0.00. cece eee eens 45 1860, P. L. 382, Sale of poisons ............ 0.000 cee ee ee eee 46 1860, P. L. 792, Inter-state railways......... 0... cece eee eee 95 1861, P. L. 88, Discrimination in charges... .... oy iene’ 97 1863, May 6, Sale of R. tickets........... 00... cee cece eee 52 1864, P. L. 393, Limitation of railroad contracts.. ......... 94 te ‘452, as « te Mladen 94 1865, P. L. 30, Negligence of railroad employes...... ....... 91 1865, P. L. 30, Deed of minor wife...... 2. 1... 2... ee eee. 36 1865, P. L. 852, Limitation on railroads sold... .......... . 94 1866, P. L. 259, 720, Vagrants........0.0.. 0.0.0 ee eee eee ee eee 46 “ P, L. 182, 99, Railroad police............... eee ee eee 91 o ‘ 299, Building ordinances................. aoe 103 1870, P. L. 14, Insurance authority............0..0 0. eee eee 73 1871, P. L. 1360, Equity power over railroads ............. 94 1872, April10, P. L. 51, Railroad tickets.................... 52 1874, P. L. 78, Rates of Gas and Water Co.’s...... 74, 75, 76, 102 1874, P. L. 271, Limited partnerships............. 0.56. 06. 53 “6 275, Acceptance of constitution....... ... ..... 96 “4 989, Abolition of free passes..........0..e seer eee 96 1875, P. L. 38, Concealed weapons..........-....065 see 37 1876, P. L. 154, Tramps... 1.2.2. eee 46 «106, Fixing rates of railroads................66. 95 «© «916, Forfeiture of railroad charter. ............. 95 1877, P. L. 14, Strike by railway men............ 20.0000 eee 81 1878, P. L. 9, Female waiters in saloons..............+..505 104 1878, P. L. 102, Explosives ON tAINS... cise ceenseds d odeee 91 1878, P. L. 125, Trespass on trains......... seduscduaeyh nel seein 91 1879, P. L. 83, Beggars, etc... .. 6... cece eect eee eee 47 1879, May 8, Camp meetings........-.. 00... se eee e eee e eee 52 1879, June 7, Office license.......... 6. 2 eee eee eee erences 97 1879, P. L. 148, Minors in saloons......... 0. eee eee eee eee 104 1879, P. L. 152, Trespass on trains...... Bay hae Goin emia 91 1881, P. L. 87, Playing for drinks, etc...............+e eee. 104 viii TABLE OF STATUTES. PAGE 1881, P. L. 116, Pure milk law.............c cee coven eens 237 1883, P. L. 72, Railroad discriminations..................+5 90 1883, P. L. 96, Sale of theatre tickets............. 0.00 cee ee 52 1885, P. L. 22, Oleomargarine................. 000000 50, 62, 237 «27, Enticement of minor female................ 42 «6 29, Gas and Electric Light Cos.................. 102 ‘© 146, Marriage license... ......... 0. ccc cece eee 35, 36 «251, Steam engines on highways................ 57, 59 1887, P. L. 128, Age of consent.............00e cece eee ee oe 85, 42 fe 108) DIQUOP AW oi saehedksdiwsan. sana wind ool 51 ss 4-470, Marriage license. .............0..0 eee eee eee 36 fe S189, Salecof Poisons. ss. pisses eviecawe dager wagers 46 «© «© 310, Exclusive privileges...............6..005 77-102 HEN ee BLL Water tatesenmceseecss Sees sae nee es eeeee 95 «895, Building inspection............... 00.0 eee 103 1889, May 9, Peddling......0. 20065 co es ces ceeae eee eb neienenned 52 “ P, L. 277, Cities of third class............. 0.000000 76, 103 1891, P. L. 300, Coercion ......... cece cece eee te eee eeeceence 86 as ‘© 121, Obstruction of railway tracks, etc.......... 91 * sho 55. SIMS walks wig sisideewis's poise avaae wiemadaone 103 1898, P. L. 27, Marriage license ..............-.e cece eee eee 36 . “* 94, License of Physicians ........ ......s..e eee 53 “ ‘“* 152, Dairy and Food Commissioner.............. 62, 241 ee “ 360, Buildings, Phila ............... ceeeee eee 103 105, P. L. 17, Dairy etc., Comm.............0.00.005 ",.. 62, 242 “« 202, Marriage oer h A Dale Riek ae Gir oiaoa Mee EEA 35, 36 * “© 2038, Vaccination of school children..... Gite lod 48, 49 “6 ‘© 231, Pollution of water.............. 0 ceeee vee ees 73 a“ ‘* 248, Surety Co’s bond................ cece ee ee oe 73 ae £8290; ASYMIUNS 5 fsyuhtoausiantatcn Sate learen danas 33 ae “300, Weak-minded..............0. 0. ccc ee eee 33 - B77, Drunkardccccceasaneseee cs. bs aea ews vcnndds 45 ee “© 317, Pure food law.......... cece cece e eee 243 1897, P. L. 85, Adulteration of drugs..................0006. 46 ‘6 116, Labor unions.......0 2.0.0.0... ccc eee ee cece 99) «128, Hunting on Sunday.....................0006 40 «185, Collection of taxes by corporations.......... 60 “e “ 166, Wages of employes, pay days........... .... 60 ee ** 287, Miners’ certificates................ccceceeeue 49 1899, P. L. 241, Oleo license...... .... eee eee ee cee eee 50, 240 1901, P. L. 327, 648, Renovated butter................... 51, 240 «493, Health regulations........... ........5 . cea 54 + ‘ 574, Weak-minded......... sree lt 08 Sak ea char dale 33 1903, P. L. 80, Marriage license................0cc ec eu eee 36 “© 115, Quarantine Hospital...... ............-0... 53 se * 268, Automobile speed...........cccee eee ee eee 85 TABLE OF STATUTES. ix PAGE 1903, P. L. 811, Drug fiend. ....... . ccc cece eee ene 46 es ‘© 324, Adulteration of food..........cc cee eee ee 245 1905, P. L. 62, Fraudulent sales...............0c0c cece cues 53 “ ‘* 188, License of telegraph poles, etc......... Meiioiee, | 30 se ‘© 198, Board of health. .... 0.00... cc cece cece eee 54 ee ‘© 202, Bawdy house-loafers...... 02.6... see ee ee eee ‘ ef ‘* 217, Automobiles, license.............. .ee.ee- 55, 100 re ** 260, Board of health............cc cece eee ee 54, 66, 248 a 312, OE oneeae alas Gaara mais eum sions and 53, 248 s ‘© 234, Food law repeal ......... ccc cece cece eee eae 245 ss “© 811, Adulteration of fruit syrups. ............... 246 ss ‘* 317, Epidemic emergency fund.................+ 248 1907, Railroad rate law. ........cccccneesseceeeees 258 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE AGNEW vs. Boro’, 7 C. C. 180....,..... cece cece e eee ee eenne 104 Alderman’s case, 2 Parsons 458............... Dalia aueewariace 47 Aldrich vs. Bennett, 63 N. H. 415...... 00... 2c cece cece 35 Allentown vs. Tel. Co., 148 Pa. 117.0... 2. ccc cence ee cee 56 Allentown vs. Wagner, 27 Supr. C. 485.............. 00000 53 Allgeyer vs. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578...............0. 00008 17 Anderson vs. U.S., 171 U. S. 604.............. cece cece 20 Arthur vs. Oakes, 63 Fed. R. 810..........0.0 cece eee eee 82, 85 Asher vs. Texas, 128 U.S, 129 ................0005 tesa. Gey 26 Assocn. vs. Heidt, 107 Ia. 297... .. 0. ccc cece ce cee eee 60 Att’y Genl. vs. Water Co., N. J. Eq.—1906................. 63 Aultman’s Ap. 98 Pa. 505.0... ... cece eee eee eee . 268 Austin vs. Tenn., 179 U.S. 848.....00. 00. cece ce eee ees 26 Ayers vs. Russell, 50 Hunter (N. Y.) 282.............2..0.. 55 BANK vs. Earle, 18 Peters 519............. 000 cece eueeee 263 Bank vs. Gardner, 31 Supr. C. 185......... 0... eee eee eee 58 Barbier vs. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27-81. .......... 02. eee 9, 72 Barclay vs. Comth., 25 Pa. 508...... ccc ce cece eee ee cee 64 Barney vs. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 824...... 0... cece e eee eee eae 21 Barr vs. Council, 53 N. J. Eq. 101................. eee eee 86, 87 Bartemeyer vs. Iowa, 18 Wallace 129 ................-0005- 28 Bartlett vs. Lockwood, 160 U. S. 857 .........-...0. cee 23 Bauman vs. Ross,.167 U. 8. 548.......... cece cece ee eee eee 128 Beebe vs. State, 6 Ind. 501... 0... 0. cee cece eee eee eee eee 12 Beelman vs. Roush, 26 Pa. 509. .......... 22. cece ee eee eee 85 Beer vs. Twp., 17 Supr. C. 587 0.6... cee eee cece eee eens 59 Beer Co. vs. Mass., 97 U.S. 25.2.0... 0. cece eee e nsec er eee 11, 28 Behney vs. Foundry Co., 80 Supr. C. 625.........-.0...005+ 34 Beltz vs. Pittsburg, 26 Supr. C. 66 2. 10... ceca eee eee eee 54 Benson vs. Remington, 2 Mass. 113 ..................2 0000 86 Benton vs. Phila., 198 Pa. 396............ 0. cece cece eee eens 59 Bertholf vs. O’Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509....... 0... 0.000. ween 45 Biesecker’s Est., 7 D. R. 70.02... cc cee eee eee eee ene eens 35 Bigler vs. Waller, 14 Wallace 297......... ..sseeeeeee reese 17 Blanchard vs. Isley, 120 Mass. 487........ ofa ne es SoeeeaweS 36 x1 xli TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Blizzard vs. Danville, 175 Pa. 479...... 0... ccc ceeee eee ceeee 65 Blumenthal vs. Shaw, 77 Fed. 954. ........ 0... cee e eee eee 89 Bly vs. Water Co., 197 Pa. 80............ ce cece cece eee 16. Bollin vs. Neb., 176 U.S. 83... 0.0.0... 0... ec eee ee eee eee 15 Booth vs. Burgess, 65 Atl. 226.......... 0... cece cence eee e eee 86 Borough’s Ap. 1 Atl. 604..... 0.0... ce cece center ee eeeee oe 104 Boro, vs. Brownback, 10 Supr. C. 227. 2.0.0... cece eee eee 57 be MS te 194 Pa. 609...,.......... paren Ge aha 57 “Gas Co., 26 Supr. C. 855.0... 0... cece eee 57 $6 4O (Geer, 11% Pa. 207. cis es aeinwee Ses seats aneehusninnsc ys 57 He 9 “Home; 181, Pay 109s ceicssacan duce ewe siee tan cutyers 18 «Koons, 18 Supr. C. 181... 0... 0. cee cee eee eee eee 57 ee 8@ “Phillips; 148 Pa. 482. oie s saya teienieles ce ag pais ets 59 “Scott, 29 Supr. C. 156 2.0.66. cece cee ete eens 56 ® Tel.-Co,, 16: Super. Ce 844. ssc ccousste eves anenasae 56 AE 98! Oe Si 64 cavesenastudaeiee sav ak Seon 56 Ae SE RG ES. ADIGE, Ce B44 a cag es scacoa aa geass Ores, RT eo 56 $8 SE EE OG SS BAG, eiacisca min aiencowiepe7aac So caeut 56 BE. EES | ES SE: O09 Par BBB cia Gace Sea nne. Wes aed Qlenteen 56 ve «6 Water Co., 62 Atl. 890.00... 0. cece cc cee ee eee 77 Boswell, ex parte, 86 Cal. 232.............. anes bate ofats ate Gntetnnes 43 Bower vs;..Boro’, 1. Di Re WIG) eiseiieeceg eeceeeer ge daiwa 104 Bowman vs: R. Co., 125 U. S. 465....... kgs dyaqwuscevanaysuaitdes te 20, 25, 123 Boyd vs. Alabama, 94 U.S, 645............e cece eee eee cee 11 Boyer vs. Tel. Co., 124 Fed. 246.......... ccc c cee eee eee 80 Boyles vs. Newton, 50 N. J. L. 549 ........... 2.0... 0s ee eee 50 Brace vs. Evans, 35 Pitts. L. J. 899... 0.0... cee cece eee eee 90 Bradley vs. Pierson, 148 Pa. 502......... ccc sec eee ce eee ene 89 Bradwell vs. Ill., 16 Wallace 180............. cece eee eee eens 67 Braunn vs. Keally, 146 Pa. 519... 0... cc ccsee eens ual oiahitets 239 Brazier vs. Phila., 215 Pa. 297 0... .. cc cee cece eee tenes 55, 100 Breedlove vs. Nicollet, 7 Peters, 418... ............ 0.00.5. 264 Brennan vs. Titusville, 158 U.S. 289........... 0. cece eee ee 26 Brewing Assn. vs. Houck, 88 Tex. 184...............0c eee 110 Bridge Co. vs. Dix, 6 Howard (U. 8.) 583................... 10 Brimmer vs. Rebman, 188 U.S. 78......... 0-00 cee eee veee 25, 50 Briscoe vs. Bank, 11 Peters 217 ........... ccc cece ue eee 15 Brooks vs. R. Co., U. 8. C. Ct. 1907, 148 Fed. R............ 254 Brown vs. Huston, 114 U.S. 680................6. 20, 24, 25, 123 ee ‘“ Maryland, 12 Wheaton 419................ 24, 27, 117 «Phelps, 108 Mass, 818......... 0... cece eee eee eee 42. Brua's Ap. 55 Pas 294 oc ccspunmnawad ss seve sect en aaateke bess 42 Brymer vs. Water Co., 172 Pa. 489.0... .. 0 ccc ccs eee neon 74, 75. Buchanan vs. Kerr, 159 Pa. 488.......... cece ec ence ene eeeee 89 Buckner vs. Finley, 2 Peters 586.......... 0... cces ee ee ee eee 15: ‘Builder’s Assn. vs. Niezerowski, 95 Wis. 129.... ........... 85. TABLE OF CASES. xill PAGE Burdick vs. Illinois, 149 Tl]. 600 .......... cee cece we eee eee 91 Butchers’ Union Co. vs, Crescent Co., 111 U.S. 746...... 12, 120 Buttfield vs. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470..2 ....... 22.2.0. 19, 126 Byers vs. Comth, 42 Pa. 89 0... .. cece cece cece een tenes 47 CALLAN vs. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540.2... 2. cece cee eee 88 Cannon vs. New Orleans, 20 Wallace 577............0.00008 22 Carnig vs. Carr, 167 Mass. 544....... 0.0.0 cee cee cece e eens 110 Carpenter vs. Lancaster, 212 Pa. 581......... 0c ese eee ee 65 Casey vs. Typo. Union, 45 Fed. R. 185.......... cee eee eee 87 Cavanaugh vs. Nav. Co., 13 N. Y. Sup. 540.... ...........- 264 Cemetery Co. vs. Phila., 98 Pa. 129 ...........0 cece ee ee eee 18 Charge to Grand Jury, 62 Fed. 828...... 2... cee ee cee eee 87 Cherokee Nation vs. R. Co., 185 U. S. 641................8- 128 Chesapeake & Ohio R. case, U. 8. Sup. Ct. 1906............ 129 Chester vs. Tel. Co., 148 Pa. 120. ........ 2.0. cece cece eee 56 % © Tr. Co. 4 Supr. C. 575. cé ce ccc vvawmeercn caccae 100 China Co. vs. Brown, 164 Pa. 449..0.. 2.0... cheese eee 86, 90 Chinese Exclusion Law, 180 U.S. 581........... cece cece eee 19 Christian Science case, 205 Pa. 548.......... 2. cece eee eee 38 Church vs. Kelsey, 121 U.S. 282............ cee cee eee eee 15, 97 City vs. Co, 107 Cale524. vsccwies ccs ves peeee cheesey wreley das 55 "6 es iGas' Cory 172) Pa: 682s éc0d cay ve tsexwee ee occas sa wians 102 © «© Heyl, 26 Pitts. L. J. 70... . 0c. cc ec ee eee cece cee 101 i666 Bight Co., B.D. Re: 6B. cc csiesiedteaiee den erste a actin aes 100, 103 “© «© Navin, 151 Ind. 139... ..... Hs hadi deinaste es dew Sadao eats 97 ee OR Cong 159: Pas lieve ce sun ates Be Sesh eee tie ke 103 ( «Tarwater; 943 Mox 40.e%0 x shcoeee eeeea har gues 44 Civil Rights cases, 109 U.S. 3............. eas Exh eee s 94 Clark’s Est., 195 Pa. 520... ... 0.0.2 cc cece eee ceca cence cence 73 Cleveland vs. R. Co., U. S. Sup. Ct. adv. R. 1908............ 127 Clune vs. U. S., 159 U.S. 590.2... 21. ec cee cee eee 87 Coden vs. Gettysburg, 8 Leg. Gaz. 167............ 06. e cee 104 Coe vs. Errol, 116 U. 8. 528... 1. cece cee cece ete e eee 19, 119 Cohen vs. Co., 166 N. Y. 292.2... 0. cece ee cee cee ee eet eens 29, 117 Cohn vs. People, 149 Ill. 486...5......... 20sec cece scenes 50: Collett vs. Scott, 830 Supr. C. 4380..... 0... cece cee ee cee ee eee 34 Collins vs. Comth., 3S. & R. 220 ........ cee cece ee eee 115, 116 Colt’s Case, 215 Pa. 383......... Riatans ioGlesonas sieit ate cate adtamtvemee = 83. Comrs. vs. Co., 6 Ore. 222........ eve hegbeuega wag ISG: beens > 12 es ‘© Gas Co., 12 Pa. 318...... ccc cee eee eee eee eee 100 Comth vs. Alburger, 1 Wharton 469 . ...........--..6.- 73, 103 sé “ Alger, 7 Cushing 58..... .. ...-..--- Hoaiting ea ine 9 ts © Allen, 148 Pa. 858.0. c6.6 602 occ ce eee cece beeen 59 aS ‘© Anderson, 211 Pa. 110........ ccc cece eee eee 51 ed ‘“« Beatty, 16 Mont’g. Co. 63...... 0c. seer eee eee eee 34 x1V Comth vs ee oe ce oe ee oe oe ee 6 be oe “ce “a “ ce oe ee oe oe ee 6e ce “ce oe “cs “ee 6é ee ee 6e “ce oe se “ee 66 oc se ee oe be oe 73 oe oe ee +e ee be oe ee “ ce 6s oe 6s ee oe oc es ce ee “ee oe “ee “ce ee be Ge “ce oe ee oe sé oe be oe “ce ae ee ee oe se ee “cc 66 ee oe “ce “cs se TABLE OF CASES. PAGE , Bend er, 7°C. C620 0.3 sciences ceahevanwyatoote cxctvielarena 51 Berks Co. R. Co., 11 D. R. 45.0.0... 00. e eee eee ee 40 Bredin, 165 Pa. 224.060. secssidecesviwscennneses 101 Brown, 8 Supr. C. 3389.........00 000... cee eee eee 52 Canal Co., 66 Pa. 41.0... 00... eee 10, 11 Carlisle, Brightly, 386 .........0 00... cece eee 82 Caulfield, 27 Supr. C. 279.0 0.0.0... eee 51 Clare, 18 Phila. 261........0......c. ccc eee e ees 103 Clark, 14 Supr. C. 485.........0.....00..0. cece ee "9 Cleary, 139 Pa, WG4e: ccaguicy'sy oc ews: een eens 44 Davison, 11 Supr. C. 1380............. 2... eee 50 Denstan, 30 Supr. C. 631 .................0000.8 53 Diefenbacher, 14 Supr. C. 264. .............. 51, 241 Emmers, Supr. C. 1907........... 0.0 eee eee 66, 250 Fink, 16 Supr. C. 191........ .......... siete ae 51 Finn, 11 Sapr: Cs, 620 .ccc seven aneneedinnnene 67 Flannery, 208 Pa. 28.0... ceecegse Hees eacsees 98 Forrest; 170 PaO. ois cecauanwats soceoews eens cs 59 Funk; 9'C. C.. 27 Trsccseaswvasteacamiass wedeyets 40 Gill, 7 Ws Ne Ce B57... geen ce keda: Sewanee eass 47 Gillespie, 146 Pa. 546...............2. ce eee eee 40 Ks OS OCR AGD occas tointenvs Rad eeegie aa. 115 Graham, 157 Mass. 78......... cece cece cece eee 35 Graves, 155 Mass. 164 ........ 0... ccc eee cee eee 47 Isenberg, 8 Kulp 116..0...0,...0c% cece Gav enenues 52 Kammerdiner, 165 Pa. 222..... 00. ... ce eee e eee 41 Kirkbride, 8 Brewster 586.................. 00. 55 Kneeland, 20 Pick. 206........... Bs ecavenssiiesas ast suit 39 Leslie, 20 Supr. C. 529... 2.0.0... cee eee eee 51 Lippincott, 7 C. C. 82.0.0... eee cee ee 52 Madden, Q. S. Luzerne Co................0000 52 Manf’g Co., 120 Mass. 883........ 0.0.00 eee e eee 49 Mathews, 152 Pa. 166............0... cece eee 40 McClean, 2 Parsons, 367.,..... -......... oe 110-115 McGowan, 189 Pa. 641............. cece cece 44 McKeagy, 1 Ashmead, 248....................4- 47 McKisson, 8S & R. 420............0. cece eee eee 115 McManus, 148 Pa. 64......... 2 ec cee eee 44 McMillan, 144 Pa. 610............. Hl ateai ene alto oars 44 Miltenberger, 7 Watts, 450. ........... 0.0.0... 73 Morning Star, 144 Pa. 108.......... 0c... ee eee 60 Morrissy, 157 Mass. 471.................. Aa eee 44 Neill, 16 Supr. C. 210.........0... 02 ee eee cee eee 51 Nesbit, 84 Pais 398. 2 ciesiinscincce caesacdveccatue duarrevene 40 Passmore, 1S. & R. 217.0... ... 0... eee cece ee 102 Paul, 148 Pa. 559. oo... cc cece cece cece eee ees 50, 239 TABLE OF CASES. XV PAGE Comth vs. Rearick, 26 Supr. C. 384,... 00.2... cece eee 57 «© Ronemus, 205 Pa. 420........ 0.00 cc eee eee eee 88 so Ruddle, 142 Pa. 144............. ine aoe? saeee 66 se 8 Russell, 172 Pa. 506). o6056 8 scccasaus cme en ees 67, 75, 78 se Bicbollenberger, If Supr, Cy 218) cessccccadsos oe 51 see : pdt Us Si Te cc.anag es mamoaslcg ea 50, 239 «Seiler, 20 dupe, Os 260 cise Sen codionipesitiiine pucheeipingess 51 a 8 ‘Seward,:2 Kaulp204. 5... ccsgq dice ce aeaven segtemes 52 “ * Shaleen, 216 Pa. 595.............0 08. FPS 49 “Sheriff, 16 Phila. 518.............0.. 00... cee ee ee 46 “«« *s Shortall, 206 Pa. 165..... dhintialadoe eam wh Share wiecues 88 « «Silverman, 188 Pa, 642......00 0... c cece cece eee 51 ee ee Shirley;162 Paw 170 ic2 sedans os e< ver -4 ae SOS 239 “sf Specht, 8 Pa. 312...... (MaGeiateoaaew eae 40) «Sterling, 10 Lance. L. R. 41.................5- eases LS ‘ce ** Stevens, 178 Pa. 548... ccc ccna eas Saves Mavens 104 « Suppert. 152 Pa. 169........ 002. cee ee 40 «Van Dyke, 13 Supr. C. 484............ 0000 nee 51, 241 se © "Vrooman, 164 Pa. 806....... cece cee cee eee 73 se 46 "Waldman, 140 Pa, 89..... wc. cc cece een cee 13, 40 see Warren, 161 Mass. 281... 0... eee ee eee eee 43 seo ts , Pa. Supreme Court, 1907.. ....... 2... 62, 242 6 Warwick, 6 D. RB. 478.0... cece eens 102 se "Water Co., 62 Atl. 478... cece eee cee 77 se f° Wells; 110: Pa, 4685 .1 88 Wilson, 0° Wi NGs 291 occaa, tenants eae out 52 eee ale fe dd Phila. B84 025. seasivaivncwapape eevee 90 ce “Winslow, 1 Cs C667 wn couse exe sees wag chues 52 (6 6 Wolf; 8'Ss & Re Seesctc ss aca cacrodeeades ye ects 40 9 88 Vosb TOT Bas Mida sc. a cscaviciughda ae hea htt vache 66, 67 ‘SS Felt, 138 Pa cOlS. a seticed ava iaenenedo aia saad 51 Co.'s Ap: 122. Pa. 154i cceaey kg eee ees weag ae sedengees 109 Compaigne vs. Bd. of Health, 168 U.S. 880.......... wee 28 Co. va: Brister, 179 U. 8. 445. .v25 snawcaisess inte tasenee Siu 26 “© «© Canal Co. U.S. Supr. C. 1908, Adv. R.. 2 0.2... 2. 241 68 Com. U.S) Sup. COo.c cescihe bccn eas Saemewimess hae 101 Hews 6S WAS) Bb ss cieonin gicieaaci angie goaded woe RL se «© Co, 208 Pa. 87....... Aces Wikies cake doteeeee ema eds 110 i & Deans; $8 Pas 18leccvocesa53 seerweree eebesaase eae . 73 eS Nagely 18? Pa. 198s: c. caged anes caaees ae dveu 8e% 60 #6 86 (Gage 100 US O16 0.06 dan vcssiomaied bx Rk ie cas terneunmianaia 26 6 C8 Gibson; 90 Pa. 80% canes owe Ace anr gh seaneess 52 «© « Hench, 76 Fed. 667............... sp eet iacnn aia : 134 « Jutte, 210 Pa. 288......... Vacdesanawes cata or wide: Ge 110 i xvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Co. vs. Keesy, 5 D. R. 366. Wiad ie En aad bia aiereadierase ae ee. Leunlauns savers 102 ee 48 oiball, 102 U.S. 69 bso. Wace cance wn vacss ecu aes 20 “© <¢ Louisiana, 156 U.S. 590.2... eee ce cee eee eee 25 He 66 “MeKennai, 30: Fed. 48) 5.0245 essa agiet scoters Gheeees 87 ne 8 Mobile; 187 WsSi 479. wiss SiScece a ccsse ¢ Sigstn 8 axe tiece erm icuttn 15, 21 ee 288 Mullen, 176: US: 1263 cise vos ans een dees swede eenons 28, 25 ef ee Miatiay;, 80) Bed. S10 ic-ancuan aaa oxremmagancaiea seated 86 ss ON. Carolina, 171 U.S. 845 oo. ee eee eee 25 86 8©- People, 156: Tl) A489 a:se cons gins ddaeasue acly.cw saeedals 134 ee 0% “Penna, 122° U8. B86eess oa ess sdesoseews eee ons ees 18 i “Phila, 15 WN: C. SU isescea sa vewycsaceasdisdves aces 102 “« «© Port Wardens, 6 Wallace 31 .... 0.0... ccc eee eee ees 22 fe 6 St. Louis; 107 Uw. Ss B74. ca 2266 veetewt ivan opetial 26% 18 « «Scranton, 1 Lack. Jur. 177........... cece eee eee 102 se 86 “Qpeeds. 192° U.S) 000) vs cascoe ned ete wnvawinomwan noses 24 6 ET, Se 198 Ue Si TOT eat cc eee item ae eiaee #45 17 ee 86 Nallage, 70 Ts 684.5 sc se eas sis se aleuneaables enaae ys 10 te 8 “Walker, 159: Pa: 5900 sec: ava auc ouauseteures, Geese 90 Conrier vs. Whitmey, 9 Phila, 184.................0 200s ee » 101 Considine vs. Ins. Co. 165 Mass. 462............c cece cece 60 Cooley vs. Wardens, 12 Howard 299................0.ee ee 22, 128 Cook vs. Penna. 97 U.S. 566. 0.0... eee cece cence eee eee 24 Cookman vs. Texas, 24 Texas 894............00.005 ceeeeee 387 Coquard vs. Oil Co. 171 Ill. 480........ 00... eee eee eee 134 Corson vs. Maryland, 120 U. S. 502....... sich eulaetaaneaers ass | 326 Cortejo vs. R. Co. 1907, U. 8.0. GC... eee ee cee eee eee 254 Cote vs. Murphy, 159 Pa. 420........ 0... cece ee eee ee ee ne 85, 89 Cotting vs. Stock Yards, 79 Fed. 679.................005 0 50 Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wallace 35 ...... 0... . cece ce eee 25 Cronin vs. Adams, U. 8. Sup. Ct. 29 Colo. 488.............. 104 Crossman vs. Lurman, 192 U.S. 189..................0. 26, 28, 63 Crutcher vs. Kentucky, 14f U.S. 47...... 0... eee eee eee 26, 123 Cubbison vs. McCreery, 2 W. & S. 262....-.....0... 00.000, 39 Cummings vs. Co. 164. N. Y. 401.0... 0... eee cece ee eee 29, 117 Cummings vs. Cummings, 8 Watts 366.................000, 36 Curran vs. Galen, 152 N.Y. 88......... 0... cece cece eee 80, 86 Cushing vs. Perot, 175 Pa. 66......... 0. cece eee eee eee Sig: hes 263 DAGGS vs. Ins. Co., 186 Mo. 382... 0... cece cece eee eee 60 Davis vs. Caldwell, 12 Cushing 512..............0. ee eee eee 35 Dean vs. Emerson, 102 Mass. 480..... 0... ccc cece eee ee eee 110 Debs Case, 158 U. 8. me WROAK LEER IERKAAGH 3S ol BEEENaRE LS 16 & ine, 8 MM sae ae ea ee eee eye ed Gee oe 84 Denehy vs. Harrisburg, 2 Pearson $380 ........ 0.0... cece eee 108 Deni vs. R. Co. 181 Pa. 525 2.0.6... cece eee ee eee jasvaicbte ais 264 Dooley vs. U. S., 183 U. 8. 151 ......... cal GeeneiGaawtien'ss 16 TABLE OF CASES. XVii PAGE Doremus vs. Hennessey, (Ill.) 52 N. E. R. 924.............. 88 Dorr vs, U. 8., 195 U.S. 188.0200... cece eee cee 16 Downes vs. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 251..........0.000...0..00. 15, 16 Dows vs. Glaspel, 4 N. Dak. 251 ..........0..000 ccc ce eee es 43 Du Bois Boro’, vs. Water Co., 176 Pa. 480......... cece e eee 76 Duffield vs. Williamsport, 162 Pa. 476 ............ 0.2.0. ee 49 Duffey vs. Duffey, 44 Pa. 899... 26... cc cec eee eee ee cae 36 Durkin vs. Coal Co., 171 Pa. 198 ......0. 00. c cee eee eee 49 EDEN vs. People, 161 Ill. 296.......... 00... cc cecee eee ee 18, 40 Edwards vs. Hoeffinghoff, 88 Fed. 689................00.005 43 Eight Hour Law, 21 Colo. 29...........0000 cece cence eens 81 Embrey vs. Jemison, 131 U. S. 8386............ 00. cece cece 43 Emert vs. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296....... cc. ccc cee eee eee 25, 26 Emery vs. Gowen, 4 Me. 38........ cece cece eee e ee eee eenes 36 Erb vs. Morasch, 177 U. S. 584....... 0.0.0 cece cece cence oe 27 Erdman vs. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79......... 00 cc cece cease eee 80, 86 Evans vs. Cleary, 125 Pa. 204..... 2... cece cece scene eeeee 263 Executors vs. Gratz, 2 P. & W. 412....... ccc ccc eee eee 41 ee ‘ Thomas, 97 Pa, 278... 0... ccc cece cence 42 FAREIRA vs. Gabell, 89 Pa. 89........ ccc cece eee cece 42 Felsenheld vs. U. S., 186 U. S. 126..........00. cc... 0... ee 20 Ferrier, ex parte, 103 Tll. 867.0... 00. cece cece eee 34 Ferry Co. vs. Penna., 114 U.S. 208.......0. cece eee eee 123 Ficklen vs. District, 145 U. S.1........0...........002.. 008 26 Field vs. Clark, 148 U.S. 649.2... 000 cece cece 126 Field vs. Robinson, 198 Pa. 6388 ............ cece eee eee 49 Filbert vs. Dechert, 22 Supr. C. 362........... 0.000... eee 67 Fischer vs. St. Louis, 167 Mo. 654. ..........-0..00..000005 60, 101 Fitzgerald vs. Robinson, 112 Mass. 871............0......... 39 Flaccus vs. Smith, 47 Pitts. L. J. 129...........00........04. 90 Flynn vs. Boro’, 19 C. C. 622 0... 0. ccc ccc cece e eens 104 Foote vs. Produce Co., 195 Pa. 190..... 0.0... 2c eee eee 59 Foster vs. Masters, etc., 94 U.S. 246.............0.....005. 22 Fraser vs. Co., 82 Fed. 257. ........ 0. ccc cece cece ete tenes 60 Frey vs. Boro’, 22 Montg. Co. 110 ........6. 0... eee eee eee ee 55 Friedeborn vs. Comth, 1138 Pa. 242.............0.. cee eee eee 40 Frost vs. Vought, 37 Mich. 65........... 0 ce cece eee eee ee 35 Furman vs. Vansise, 56 N. Y. 435...............0..0000 se 36 GAS CO’S Ap., 4 Atl. 733 0.2 cece cece ee ces 102 Gas Co. vs. Pittsburg, 34 Pitts. L. J. 240...............0.04. 102 sce Seranton, 214 Pa. 586.2... cee eee ee eee 101 «ce Wilkes-Barre, 6 Kulp 481...........-..20005- - 102 Gatzow vs. Buening, (Wis.) 81 N. W. R. 1008............... 87 Xvill TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Geer vs. Conn. 161 U.S. 519... .... cee cece eee eee e eens 20 Gerber’s Est., 196 Pa. 386 ....... 0... cee cee eee eens 60 Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheaton 189............ 128, 117 16, 18, 25 Gibbs vs. Gas Co., 180 U.S. 896......... 0... cee ee eee ... 90 Gilley vs. Gilley, 79 Me. 292......... 02. cece eee eee eee eee 36 Gilman vs. Phila., 8 Wallace 718.............0 cece eee eens 16 Giozza vs. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 67.0.0... 0. cece eee eee eee 67 Girard Will, 2 Howard 127........... a ert al oe tenia 39 Gladson vs. Minn. 166 U.S. 427.........-..600 ce ee cece eee 27 Glasgow vs. Altoona, 27 Supr. C. 55... 62. oe eee eee ee 65 Godcharles vs. Wigeman, 118 Pa. 481..................---- 52 Good vs. Altoona, 162 Pa. 498........ ......6- Siwy eases 64, 73 Grantivs. Erie, 69 Pa. 420. oc neice cece ee et tleca seas OSes 101 Grice, in re, 79 Fed. R. 627......... 2. ccc cee ee en neces Bl Grim vs. School Dist., 57 Pa. 483.....0 .. 0c. cee eee ce eee ee 99 Guy vs. Baltimore, 100 U.S. 484.. ... ind Gals CA ate 25 Gyger vs. R. Co., 26 W. N.C. 487.0... ccc eee eee ee 99 HALL vs. De Cuir, 95 U.S. 485... 0... cece eee eee eee ee 22 . Hanley vs; R. Co., 187 U.S. 617s cece neemes ces cies 20 Hardin vs. Jordan, 140 U.S. 871................05 08 “Mensa 2B Harmon vs. City, 110 Ill. 400........ WAG be RE wseemantecceaed tobe 9 ae * Chicago, 147 U.S. 896.................. 000 23, 55 ae #8 OO sy, BOM AA ccc ore y ieee a eee Bae Arar wleti seated oe an 80 Harrison vs. Baltimore, 1 Gill (Md.) 264................0.. 49 Haupt’s Ap. 125:-Pas 211) cia sci naeieuliiase asus ai Sea eee 67 Hawaii vs. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197.............6. ce ee ee eee 16 Hawthorne vs. People, 109 Ill. 802 ........... 0c cere e ee eee 12 Helfenstine vs. Thomas, 5 Rawle 209 .. ............0..000. 35 Hennington vs. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299................0005- 27 Hess vs. Lancaster, 4D. R. 787.0... ccecc eee e cece cece 103 Hill vs. Supervisors, 119 N. Y. 844........0.....0....00..000, 264 Hinchman’s Case, 4 Clark 184........... cece cee eee eee 45 Holden vs. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366....... ohoeccuun Gtnaigon cece 68, 70, 81 Homer vs. Comth., 106 Pa. 22.0... 2... ce cee eee cece eens 10t Hoover'vs. BR. 'Coi; 156 Pas 220.6003 5409 a ves weweaeneer vances 90 Hopkins vs. U.S., 174 U. 8. 578.0000... ccc cece eee ees 20 Houston vs. Moore, 5 Wheaton 49.............020 cee cece eee 16 Howe vs. Orange, 62 Atl. 777... ce ccc eee eee Baines ME Howell vs. McCoy, 38 Rawle 256. 6... eee eee eee 64, 67 Huse vs. Glover, 119 U.S. 548. ..... 0... cee cee eee 23 I. C. COM. vs. Brimson, 154 U. S. 478....0...-.......5 0.005 « 127 I. C. Com. vs. R. Co., 167 U.S. 479... cece eee cee 127 Insurance Co. vs. Clements, 140 U.S. 226. ......... 0.0.4... 60 Ins. Co. vs. Ins. Com. of Kentucky, U. 8. Sup. Ct. 1906.... 17 TABLE OF CASER. xix PAGE. Insurance Co. vs. Robinson, 54 Fed. R. 580.......... seeeeee 80 “ © © State, 86 Texas 250 .......... ccc eee eee eee al Tron Co, vs. Carmonoskie, 10 Kulp 87...............0000005 90 Irvine vs. Henry, 2 C. C. 8862..... 0.0... cee eee eee eee 45 Isaac’s Case, 1 Lanc. Bar, No. 80.... 0.0... . cee cee eee eeee 46 JACOBSON Case, 179 U.S. 287......... cece ee cee cee 127 James, Matter of, 830 Howard’s Pr. 446... 20... eee cece eee 44 Japanese Cases, 189 U.S. 86. oo... cece ccc eee cence ee cee 17, 19 Jentzsch, ex parte, 112 Cal. 468....... (cece cee eee eee 13 Johnston’s Est. 185 Pa. 179.00... 0.0.0.0 cece cece ee een eee eee 60 Jones vs. Comth., 75 Pa. 408... 00... ccc cece cece eee eens 44 Judd vs. Harmon, 189 N.Y. 105... 0... ccc cece cee eee eee 116. Judd vs, Harrington, 189 N. Y. 251.0... 0... cece een eee ees 29: Juilliard vs. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.............0.. 2000s 17 Juniata Co. vs. Overseers, 22 Supr. C. 187..........--02 0 eee 33: KANSAS vs. U.S., 186 U.S. 198.0... cece cece eee 19 Keeler vs. Taylor, 53 Pa. 467.............0.0-05 ere 29, 116, 109 Keeley vs. Shanley, 27 W. N. C. 863..........-.....-..005- 58 Keenan vs. Comth., 44 Pa. 55.0.0... ccc cec cece eens 44 Keith vs. Clark, 97 U.S. 454.000... 20.00. ce ccc cece eee 15 Kelly vs. Rhoads, 188 U. S. 10.0... eee eee cee eee 19 Kennedy vs. Baker, 159 Pa. 146 ... 1... ee eee eee eee 85 Kennedy vs. Shea, 110 Mass. 147 2. 1 oo. eee eee 36 Kidd vs. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1........ 0... cee cece eee 119 Kieffer vs. Classis, 9 Northam 78............ cece eeeeee vee 39 Kilbourne vs. Thompson, 103 U.S. 190............ .....04. 124 Kirkpatrick vs. Bonsall, 72 Pa. 155 ........ ..-. cece eee eee 42: Krecker vs. Shirey, 163 Pa. 584...... 0.2.00... eee eee eee eee 3 LANCASTER vs. Reisner, 14 Lanc. L. R.193. ............ 101 Lane vs. Nelson, 79 Pa. 407........ 0... cee eee cee cea e eens 99: Langford vs. U.S., 101 U.S. 841.......... 0... eee eee ee 15 Lawton vs. Steele, 152 U. S. 188.............0 cece eee eee eee 12, 70: Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wallace 457 .... .......0e0025 oe 17 Leiger ys; Re C0 are asa ein ase’ a Ae pono wig eee eas 264. Leisy vs. Hardin, 185 U. S. 100..... ci... eee cece eee eee 20, 28, 25. Lewis & Nelson’s Ap., 67 Pa, 153...........2..-0000 ashe 44 15. License Cases, 5 Howard 504....... ccc cece eee ee eee 28, 18, 20 Lincoln’s Case, 1 Brewster 892 0... 0... cece eee eee eee 46 Liquor Co. vs. Platt, 148 Fed. 894..............ec ee cee en eee 51 Livingston vs. Wolf, 186 Pa. 519.......... ce cece eee cece eee 104 Logan vs. U. S., 144 U.S. 268.0... eee eee cece cence 16 Look vs. Dean, 108 Mass. 116....... ....... . Pailin Ride 08 ae 55 Lord vs. Water Co., 185 Pa. 122........ fee cece ce eee eee eee 66. XxX TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Lord vs. Steamship Co., 102 U.S. 541.0... cece eee eee eee 20 Los Angeles vs. Pfahler, 121 Ia. 482.......0.. cece cree eceee 60 Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 821 20... cc ce ee eee eee 17 Low vs. Austin, 18 Wallace 29.... 00... 0. cece cece eee eee ee 24 ‘* © Printing Co., 41 Neb. 127...2......2. cece cee eee 81 Luxton vs. Bridge Co., 153 U. 8. 529.................00005. 127 Lyng vs. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446........ 0.0.00. cee ee eee 25 McCARTER vs. Water Co., N. J. Eq. R. 61 Atl. 710..... ... 63 McCandless vs. O’Brien, 38 Pitts. L. J. 485................. 90 McCann vs. Comth., 198 Pa. 509.... 02... cece cee eee ee 51, 241 McCausland’s Est.¢ 218 Pa. 189........ 0... eee w eee eens 37 McCollum vs. Water Co., 54 Pa. 40 ........ 0. cece eee eee 64, 67 McCready vs. Virginia, 94 U.S. 891......... 0... cece eee eee 21 McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton 316.... .......... 15, 16, 18 McDade vs. Chester, 117 Pa. 414........... aude By aulitincst erin 101 McGinnis vs. Watson, 41 Pa. 9.......... 0. cee cece ete e eens 39 McGuire vs. Comth., 3 Wallace 887.............cc cece cece 20 “ RCo; 108 Ni Wa Ri 902). os ve ciein a maeemeneanites 254 McKee vs. McKee, 14 Pa. 281... 2.0.0... ccc cece eee e cece en eee 33 McKeesport vs. R. Co., 2 Supr. C. 242 .....00 0c cece eee eee 56, 100 McNeil, ex parte, 138 Wallace 236............... 0.0. ee 22 Maiovatio: vs. Re. COiiccais cae ccs vs neciseaeaie s tte cede a Gatien 264 Mfg. Co. ws. Binney, 4 Pickering 425.........-.......0000 0 82 Manchester vs. Mass., 189 U.S. 240... 0... 0... eee eee 21 Mapstick vs. Raugs, 9 Neb. 390 ......... 0.0.6 cece eee eee 85 Mardorf vs. Hemp, 6 Atl. 754............. cece eee ee eee 45 Martin vs. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton 304.............0008 15 Martin vs. Waddell, 16 Peters 867.................0008 fi xdlvgi 21 Master Stevedores vs. Walsh, 2 Daley 1...................05 82 Mathews vs. N. C., 106 Fed. R. 574 2.0... ce cece cee 13 Matthew vs. ASso, Press, 186 N. Y. 888..............0..00 ee 110 May vs. New Orleans, 178 U.S. 496 .......... 0. eee eee eee 24 Med#Aville Water Co., 185 Pa. 122.........0 ccc cece cece ee oe 67 Meister vs. Moore, 96 U.S. 76....... 0... cece ee cnet eens 35 Melchert vs. Tel. Co., 11 Fed. 198............... weenie Bese 43 Minnesota vs. Barber, 186 U.S. 318. .... 0... cece eee ee 25, 50 Mississippi vs. R. Co. U.S. Sup. Ct. 1907..............0..005 27 Mitchell vs. Smale, 140 U.S. 871.............200, A ele Cac 21 Mobile vs. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691.0... 0. eee 23 Moore vs. Moore, 64 Ia. 867. .... 0.0.0.2 ccc cece eee 38 More vs. Bonnet, 40 Cal. 251......-..........08. Darl ates eect hoeace 110 More vs. Bennett, 140 Ill. 69......... 0. ccc eee ee cece eee 85 Morgan vs. Comth., 30 Pitts. L. J. 14....................... 101 Morgan vs. Louisiana, 118 U.S, 455......... 00.0. cece eee 23 Morris Run Coal Co. vs. Coal Co., 68 Pa. 173 ..... .....110, 115, 6 TABLE OF CASES. xxi PAGE Morrissey in re., 187 U.S. 157.... 0. cece ccc ce eee eee 37 -Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U.S. 628......... ..0...2.008. 19, 28, 119 Munn vs, Illinois, 94 U. S. 186, 113 .............. 60, 105, 117, 121 Murdock vs. Walker, 152 Pa. 595...... ........ ie ss Sag i te 87 Musserus Stauffer, 178 Pa. 99.0.0... ... ccc cece cence ee eae 263 NESTER vs. Brewing Co., 161 Pa. 473. 0... ....- eee eee eee 90 N.S. Co. vs: U. S., 198 U.S. 197, cocci ccc e ec ce se esneneeees 133 New Castle vs. Cutler, 15 Supr. C. 612........... 0.0.0 ee eee 57 rs er ME TL: Cy, 207 PaO To iasiare: esses cae atuewinyis oe 56 Newman, ex parte, 9 Cal. 509.......-..... 0. ce cee cee ees 40 New York vs. Miln, 11 Peters 102.................0c cece 22 Nevling vs. Comth., 98 Pa. 822.......... 00.22 c cece cence ees 44 Nightingale vs. Withington, 15 Mass. 274.................. 36 Nissley vs. Boro’, 5 D. R. 732.0... .. 0. cece eee ene eee eee 49 North vs. Phillips, 89P as 200. ca geaes Coe eae ves cgieeminwais’s 42 Northern Securities Case, 193 U.S. 197 nang Gea eee 2 19, 127 Northumberland Co. vs. Zimmerman, 75 Pa. 26............ 9 Nutting vs. Mass., 183-U. S. 558.0... . 0. eee ee eee 7 O’BRIEN vs. Erie, 7 D. R. 491......... 0... ce eee eee ce eee 56 O’Hara vs. Stack, 90 Pa. 477.0... 0. cece cee eee eens 388 Weg iene 98 RID oss de auupeee ve yee oe Meet 38 Oil Co. vs. Nunnemaker, 142 Ind. 560..................... 110 ag © Oil Co. 5.66. Pas STG .2 i aagsuncceesd te Bales sim nacencons 134 Oleo Licences, 27 C. C. 655...... 0... ccc ccc cece eee ee eens 51 O'Neill vs. Behanna, 182 Pa. 286.......... 2.0.0. e ee eeee 86, 90 Osborn vs. Bank, 9 Wheaton, 788...............20eeeee eens 16 Owens vs. Lancaster, 182 Pa. 257........ 0... cece cece eens 64 Oyster vs. Tr. Co., 195 Pa. 820........ cee e eee e ee eee ees . 89 PARKER vs. Union, 21 0. L. J. 28........... ee ee 89 Parton vs. Harvey, 1 Gray, 119...... 02... cece eee eee ee eee 35 Passenger Cases, 7 Howard, 402......... 0.0. ce cece cece 18 Patterson vs. Building Trades, etc., 31 Supr. C. 112........ 86 Patterson vs. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501.............. 9, 18, 20, 50 Peete vs. Morgan, 19 Wallace, 581..............-0-e0 sees 22, 24 Peik vs. R. Co., 94 U. S. 164. 2.2.0. 2... cee eee eee 27, 126 Peirce vs. New Hampshire, 5 Howard, 504................. 20 Penna. Co. vs. James, 81* Pa. 194..... 06. ccc cee eee eee 100 Penna. R. Co.’s Case, 218 Pa. 878.........0 0.0 cc cece eee 57, 104 Pecple vs. Arensburg, 105 N. Y. 128.......... iieaucntudetes 50 *¢ “Briggs; 114 NOV 56s. cc occ cmbe semesters 50 “« « Cipperly, 37 Hunter (N. Y.) 319... .... ....... 18 6 (Con D (Mich: 288siccs xs sna erence ney ears sta es 13 «© «© Compaigne, 107 U.S. 59.0... cece eee cee eee 25 xxii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE People vs. Ewer, 141 N.Y. 129.. wc ccc scence eee eens ieee USE se Forbes, 4 Park (N. Y.) 611..... cece eee ee ee eee 47 sc i! Pormosa, 1381 IN. XS 418 sc tease ee oeess 4 ee apemaes 60 o> 8 Gas Co., 1801, 268 cuniccan segs on acetweacaaisoe, sve’ 134 He ee Girard. 746i Ns Ws, TOS cacenact eeede ex) eka 'a hte cena 50 60 EO Grayod Parke 616, cteactrnoed cons cise: ewes porto 47 « « ‘Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195..... BREAD bg Sa OWT Rutagarere 40 ‘© Milk Exchange, 145 N. Y. 267.. ... matrenie (ees 29, 117 ‘« «© Moses, 65 Hunter, 161....... 00... eee eee ee eee 40 «N.Y. Central R. Co., 28 Hunter, 548......... Sis LTT «Phillips, 1 Park. 95.......... Lie Sadik a3 Rdvaelenion 47 «Ruggles, 8 Johnson, 290..... Ehoaititastanae: Ga 39 ‘© Sheldon, 189 N. Y. 257............008- 29, 90, 107, 116 ‘Sugar Ref’g Co., 121. N, Y. 582......-.. cee enone 133 “Supervisors, 70 N.Y. 228.00 sceccsascssn seeeeos 33 ee oes Turner; 00. Ty 280s cau die saeco eee vata dea ats 84 «Warden of Prison, 157 N. Y.116 .... .......... 91 « « Wilzig, 4 N. Y. Crim. R. 408.............00..068 87 Pervear vs. Comth., 5 Wallace, 475.0... 0... 0c. ceee eens 20 Pettibone vs. U. S., 148U. 5. 197 2... cece eee 86, 88 - Pfeiffer vs. Bd. of Ed., 77 N. W. 250............0ce cece eee 38 Phila. vs. Davis, 6 W. & S. 269 2... 0. ccc eee eee eee eee 103 6 ER C6.5 58 Pa. O58 ass a aiasanen's eee Ga tasanste 100 ‘© Sheppard, 158 Pa. 847..... 0.0... c cece eee 103 as “« Tel. Co., 11 Phila. 827. 0.0... cee eee eer eee eee 56, 102 Pittsburg’s! Ap.,. 115. Pa. 4, .scssiseeed esas nena nenbe eg enaeie 102 Pittsburg vs. Bates, 156 U.S. 587 ........ cee oe 123 es “Daley, 5 Supr. C. 258........ 0.0... ccc eee ees 103 Plant vs. Woods, 176 Mass. 492.......... 00. c cece cece een ees 86 Plumly vs. Mass., 155 U.S. 461.0... 0.0... cece eee eee eee 26 Pollard vs. Hagan, 3 Howard, 212....................00.. 15, 21 Pool vs. Trexler, 76 N.C. 297. ...... ccc cee eect ence eeaees 13 Powell vs. Comth., 114 Pa. 265........... ccc cece cece ee eens 9 ; st ee 127 OSs 6983 22 sous vies cae saicdenies. 71, 2389 Preston vs. Linen Co., 119 Mass. 400..............02 20 eee 80 Pub’g Co. vs. Howell, 27 Ore. 527.0... 0... cee cece eee eee 85 Purvis vs. Union of Carpenters, 214 Pa. 348................ 86 RADNOR TWP. vs. Bell, 27 Supr. C. 1.0.02... 2. eee eee eee 59 Rafferty vs. Tr. Co., 147 Pa. 579.0... 0. cece cece eee eee es 101 Rahrer, in re, 140 U.S. 545.00... 0. ccc sce c ence eee e eens 25, 119 R. Telegr. vs. R. Co., 148 Fed. 487.0... 0.0... cece eee eee 81 Railroad Co. vs. Alabama, 128 U.S. 96............00 eee eee 27 a “« Allegheny, 31 Pitts. L. J. 259............. « 102 ws ‘“ Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26................ 00. 28 i ‘Best; 104: Pa, 26) wos nenanes weseeeeeaeasne 85 TABLE OF CASES. Xxili PAGE Railroad Co. vs. Bristol. 151 U.S. 556............ceeeee eee 11 ‘© Co’s Case, 6 Warton, 25........ 0... c cece cece ners 109 ss “ QP ai: BUS vendcarcneenere caaiwe esa 28, 57 “© Co. vs. Casey, 2 Casey (Pa.) 807........... cece eee 138 a oO Citys OT Ty 87a sioan se eee sy aegis keane 9 ss * Conirs., 1ONIG, Tia ces eecdsomansanmce 127 s #6 CGi, G4 BOG. 180i. warned se Admins ota Lone 87 e Comth., 186 U. S. V4.0. ee cee ee ennseas 7 “ “ County, 16 Wallace 667............... 4. 15 “ © Gill, 156: U.S. 659s e3 scioeee es seas eamerews 124 s ““ Gilmore, 8 Ohio C. C. 658...............4- 81 a “Defiance, 167 U. 8. 88.0... 0... ccc cece eee 11 ae “Duncan, 129 Pa. 181....... 00. cee cee eee 96 se “ Fuller, 17 Wallace, 560.............000ceee 27 oe “« Harrisburg, 7 C. C. 584.0... .........0 000 102 i ‘“ Humes, 115 U.S. 512... 0.0... eee eee ee 28 se ‘* Husen, 95 U.S. 465....... 0c. cece ee 24 et “ Tilinois, 163 U.S. 142.00. ...........08 rosa. 27 “s ‘“ Tllinois, 146 U.S. 887............... 00000 21 ts “Towa, 94 U.S. 155.020... 0... ce eee 27, 94, 126 ee “© Jacobson, 179 U.S. 287........... cece ees 27 ay “Johnson, 15 Wallace, 195................0. 17 “ “Jones, 149 Ill. 878............. 008 Hague .. 127 ss “Kentucky, 179 U.S. 888.................. 28, 27 « “ Mackey, 127 U.S. 205............... 02... 28 eH ‘© Milner, 57 Fed. 276 2.0.2... ccc cece eee 49 fe ‘© Minnesota, 184 U.S. 418............0.4. 124, 126 a as Hs L8G is Ss QB Tien a's arene eed Ca chicuectnen 127 a sit ae 193 WS DSi eaxioees teeedas oes 28 oe ‘« Mississippi, 183 U. S. 587, 591... .... ... 238, 27 “ ‘© McCann, 174 U.S. 580................005. 27 ee “ New York, 165 U.S. 628.................. 27 as 8 Ohio, 1738 U.S. 28532 .sesdiwaadeaees eatesinn, 27 es ‘© Osborn, 180 Mich. 248.................040- 98 ee «Pennsylvania, 145 U.S. 192............... 20 Me “¢ “Phila: 47 (Pas 814.6 caddy, Geers: anraevee 100 a 1 SReCOe D4 WS Gs W380i ks wee wien. y us aeuls sagas 88 ss “* R. Co’s Servants, 70 L. J. Kings Bch. 905.. 89 ss RCo. 118 Un 8. 290.6 stew ee enoes a: am 134 me “ R.Com., U. 8.8. C., 1907.0... . cee eee eee 127 “ ‘“« Richmond, 96 U.S. 521.........-......00- 28 fe Sims; 191 U.S. 441 soa ce weew cecies on ake 26 “6 «© Smith, 128 U.S: 174.0. cscseacnecaces eevee 97 es “ Solan, 169 U.S. 188...... .. cee cece ee eee 28 es “ Stone, 8 Am. L.R. 112.............0000 00 100 6 ‘© Water Co., 182 Pa. 418...............00. 66, 67 XXIV TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Railroad Co. vs. Wellman, 148 U.S, 389..........0.- eee eee 97 Ramsey vs. People, 142 Il. 880. ...... 0.65 cece eee eee ees 52 Rash vs. Farley, 159 U.S. 268.00... 0. cece cee eee eee eens 26 Rasmussen vs. Idaho, 181 U.S. 198............05 0 eee weeee 24 Reading vs. Gas Co., 2 Del. Co. 487... 0.0.0. e erence eee eee 102 Reagan vs. Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362...........-... 06+ 97, 124, 127 Reid vs. Colo., 187 U.S. 187. ...... cee cece cee eee eee 24 Reimer’s Ap,, 100 Pa. 182......... cee. cece eect eee eee tee 108 Resp. vs. Ross, 2 Yeates, 8........ eR oceans Gh Naval erirg ease baens 115 Reynolds vs. U.S., 98 U.S. 145.0... 0. . cece cece e eee eee 41 Rhode Island vs. Moss, 12 Peters, 722..... 0.0... cece eee ee 15 Rice vs. Alber, 164 Mass. 88............... eee eee eee cent ees 87 ‘Rider vs. Regan, 114 Cal. 667....... ..... sees cee eee Caine 33 Ritchie vs. People, 155 Ill. 101..... 0... 0 cece eee eee 81 Road Co. vs. Scranton, 175 Pa. 290... .... ccc cee cece eee eee 103 Robbins vs. Dist., 120 U.S. 489.0... 0... cece eee cee eee 26 Robertson vs. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275....... .cccceeeeeeeeee 80 Rodenbaugh vs. Sanks, 2 Watts, 9..........:cc cece eee eeee 35 Rothermal vs. Meyerle, 26 W. N. C. 422..........000005 wees 99 ss ie Tig ler. TC. Or S00 niyo sewer eens 99 Rowland vs. Wanamaker, 193 Pa. 598...........0..0eceees . «669 Ruchizky vs. De Haven, 97 Pa. 202............5 ceeeee aes 42 Rundle vs. Co., 14 Howard, 80........... SR ROC RR ERER SOS 21 Russ vs. Comth., 210 Pa. 544.00... 0... cece cece eee eee 15, 126 Rymer vs. Water Co., 179 Pa. 231......... 0... cece eee eee 13 SAMPSON vs. Camperdown, 82 Fed. 888..............20005 42 Sanderson vs. Coal Co., 118 Pa. 145.............000 eee 64, 67, 75 Sands vs. R. Co., 128 U.S. 288.00... cece ccc eee e cece e es 23 Sauers vs. T. Co., 198 Pa. 602......... ccc cee cece e eee 59 Schellsburg vs. Tel. Co., 26 Supr. C. 348................ a 6 Schmalz vs. Wooley, 56 N. J. Eq. 649...... ............08. 52 Schneider vs. Turner, 180 II]. 28............ 0c. 0cce eee eee 42 Schollenberger vs. Penna. 171 U.S. 1....... ....... 02.000 26 Schrack vs. Boro’, 19 C. C. 884... 0... 0... cece cece ce cee 104 Schroeder vs. Water Co., 20 Supr. C. 235.. ..............- 13, 76 Scott vs. Donald, 165 U.S. 58.... 2.0... .. cece ce eee eee 25, 26 Scranton vs. Oil Co., 5 Lance. L. R. 277............... 20s 100 Scranton vs. Straff, 28 Supr. C. 258............ cee. e eee eee 55 Seattle vs. Hinckley, 40 Wash. 468................ se... 104 Sewerage Co. vs. Schmidt, 22 Mont’g Co., 164.............. 73 Sharpless vs. Mayor, 21 Pa. 168............ 0. cee eee ee cee 99 Shaughnessy vs. Pittsburg, 20 Supr. C. 609................. 64 Sheehy vs. Shinn, 103 Cal. 325.............. 22 eeee cee eee 42 Sherburne vs. Hartland, 87 Vt. 528..........:0eeeeeeeeeeees 35 Sherry vs. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212............ eee. ee eens 87 TABLE OF CASES, XXV PAGE Shipper vs. R. Co., 47 Pa. 888.... 0... cece eee ences cease ee (987 Shively vs. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1.0... cee eee eee eee 15 Sing Vs; U.S), 158 U.S. O88ececss coassaweaada code mwnnes 17, 19 Sinnott vs. Davenport, 22 Howard 227.............0 ec eens 22 Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wallace 86.............200e00 ce 67, 94 Smiley vs. McDonald, 42 Neb. 5.......... ccc cece eee eee 13 * State, 65 Kan. 240........ cece cece ee eee 31, 118 Smith, ex parte, 185 Mo. 220.... 0.0.0.0. cece cece eee eens o ‘vs. Maryland, 18 Howard 71.............0.0005 cee ee 21 fe 8 R. Co., 114 Mich. 460.......0 02... cece eee ee eee 94 BOO SME Ete EN AB SO Siar OAS a cit salaseeaj.nis ane ley yiaiele See does SE 24 “e ** Selin’s Grove, 199 Pa. 615........... cee eee eee 101 Smith vs. Wildman, 178 Pa. 245.........0.0 ccccceu cee ec ees 33 Smythe vs. Ames, 169 U.S. 466............ 2. cee eee eee . 9 Spiller vs. Woburn, 12 Allen 127.......... 0... eee seen eee ee 38 Splane vs. Comth, 12 Atl. 481......... 0... ccc ees ence eens 40 Sprague vs. Baldwin, 18 C. C. 568......... 0... cece cee eee 49 _Spraigue vs. Thompson, 118 U.S. 90........... 0... ce eee ee 22 S. Co. vs. Joliffe, 2 Wallace 450. ......... 0... cece ce eee eee 22 fe ee 8 Pinker; 94 Us Se 298) esis paeewaues seesewtawuee st 22 Stanton vs. Allen, 5 Denio, (N. Y.) 484.................05. 117 State vs. Billings, 55 Minn. 474..............000 ceceeeeees 33 so Campbell, 13 Atl. 587.00... ccc cece eee eee 52 tt 86 -Corbett,, 57 Minti. 845. ove sninweesane aes cacamaa as 91 ‘“ Freight Tax, 15 Wallace 277... 0.0... ccc cece eee ee 18 ‘© vs. Gritner, 184 Mo. 512.0... ccc cee ee eee eee eee ees 42 st Julow, 129 Mod 168.005. cisavewdseaccees vee vec .. 80 s¢ «© Kilbourne, 68 Minn. 320..... .........-..005 Phat 33 £8 46 OU CO, 49O! TSE wieccand ta4 edd aS AR wee 133 fe se Ryan, 10 WSs, 61 Gis vole cvonhisae eye eee eet 44 “© Schlemmer, 42 La. An. 1166.................0-005 12 “ Tax Cases, 12 Wallace, 204. ........ 2c. cece eee eee 21 © vg. Williams, 82S. C. 128........2 cee eee e cece noes 80 ss 66) White, 64 N. H. 48................ Dae cate aniston 39 Steel vs. Young, 4 Watts, 459........ 0. cece cece eee eee 45 Stevenson vs. Hanyon, 7 D. R. 585........ 00... cece eee eens 38 Stewart vs. Palmer. 94 N. Y. 183........... OT ee 33 St. Louis vs. Roche, 128 Mo. 541..................- Fon dioleiste 47 Stockard vs. Morgan, 185 U.S. 27....... 0. cee cece eee eee 26 Stone vs. Dennison, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 1............0..45 cee 36 «© Farmer’s Loan Assn., 116 U.S. 807.............. 18, 76 «© Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814....... 0... cece eee ees 11 8 OR. Oo. 116 Un. Se B40 oie careae es oe ecb pee ak elas 27 66M Coy, 116 Us Se: BOT i acetates cond die ate soiersielwiouy 27, 127 Straus vs. Pubrs. Assn., 177 N. Y. 473 ......-. ce eee eee 29, 117 Stull vs. Reber, 215 Pa. 155 .... ccc cece cece rete en eneees 49 Xxvi TABLE OF CASES. Sturges vs. Crowninshield, 4 Wheaton 198 ........ seereatne 15 Swift vs. U.S. Adv. R., U. S. Sup. Ct., 1904, 276.. ....., 29, 111 TAYLOR vs. Carpenter, 3 Storey 458.......... 22. 28. eee 264 nl Co: vs:-Boro’, 192° US: 64. pacts esc Gas cos ae saleee ose 56 a 48 8S Phileas, 190 US 160 sca seied oss Heese ei yet 6 56 eee Pub’g C., 181 Oe Se 92h isk wivenacsg ales G08 112, 119 me 4 ee IMSL (CO ., 06 Ul, Sel citen nas ahah uehoemoasoeees 17 Se kB 68 Meas 100 Un Se A460 racks vcvies Fomine ew dannarwa 17 ab ote te James; 162 U.S: 600 cuscceesnces aeiesesieses: aT Tennessee Vs. Davis, 100 U.S. 207 cv eesdwau oes see guna eeinde ds 18 Texas vs. White, 7 Wallace 700........... ccc cece eee eens 15 The Baker’s Case, U. 8. S. Court, 1905... ...........-.208 00 81 The China, 7 Wallace 58........... 0.0 ccc cece eee ee eeeeees 22 The Daniel Ball, 10 Wallace 557.............005 0 cece ccna 22 The James Gray vs. The John Fraser, 21 Howard 184,...... 22 The Mary, 2 Peters Con. R. 812.......-... 0. cece cece eens 33 Ting “vs. U.Ss,449-'U. S, 69820 cewed ox eeee cask vas apeteenweae 17 Titusville vs. Brennan, 153 U.S. 289............ cece eee 55 Thellusson vs. Woodford, 4 Vesey Jr. 227........c. cece eee 60 Thompson vs. Tr. Co., 193 Pa. 555...............05 sharndons 59 Town of Lake View vs. Co., 70 Ill. 191............ccceeeuee 9 Trade Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82.0.0... 0. 0c cece e eee cree es 17 Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290.. .............. 117 Transportation Co. vs. Wheeling, 99 U. 8. 280.............. 18 Troy Water Co. vs. Troy Boro’, 200 Pa. 453..............005 76 Trust Co. vs. R. Co., 60 Fed. R. 808........... 0... cece eee 83 BE) REO PEL AE BO: Beds Re dive, of aa lacees Shaseudaiiiar aeeavena ws 97. Turner vs. Maryland, 107 U.S. 55.0.0... 0... cece eee ee eee 25 Turnpike Co. vs. Lancaster, 151 Pa. 548.................0.. 103 Twitchell vs. Comth, 9 Pa. 211........ At canndlaenen 109, 118 Tyrone, etc., vs. Burley, 19 Supr. C. 354..............0000 13, 76 es «Borough, 195 Pa. 566......... 2.0... cece 76 UPDEGRAPH vs. Comth., 118. & R. 894.................. 39 U.S. vs. Bevans, 3 Wheaton 336..... 1.0... 062 ee cere ees 21 U.S. vs. Cassiday, 67 Fed. R. 698......... 0... cece cece ens 87 U.S. vs. Co., 189 U. S. 891........ Belen lace Rretels Ge id mae onset 21 U.S. vs. DeWitt, 9 Wallace 41........... 0... cece eee eee 20 U.S. vs. Freight: Assn., 166 U.S. 290 ...............000, 90, 111 U.S. vs. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 2.0... 0... cee eee cee eee 15 U.S. vs. Joint Traffic Assn., 171 U. S. 505...............40. 111 UesS.cvs. Knight, 1660 US.. 1. cc saan. eee Fy eee cy ea ulatiewas 111 U.S. vs. Scott, 148 Fed. R. 481.2... 0. eee ee ee eee 81 U.S. vs. Standard Oil Co., 148 Fed. R. 719.............0005 132 TABLE OF- CASES. XXvii PAGE U. 8. vs. Tuck, 194 U.S. 161....... cc cece cece cece een nee 19 U.S. vs. Workingmen’s Council, 54 Fed. 994............... 86 VAN DEUSEN vs. Newcomer, 40 Mich. 90 ...............4 55 ‘Van Swartow vs. Comth, 24 Pa. 181............0.00c cece eee 51 Veazie vs. Moor, 14 Howard 568......... 0 . cc cece cceueceuee 22 Vegelahn vs. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92...........0..6 cece ee eee 87 Vicksburg vs. Water Works Co., U. S. Sup. C. 1905, 660..... 77 Vidal vs. Girard Exs., 2 Howard 127...........0cccccceees 39 Voight vs. Wright, 141 U.S. 62.......... cece eee eee 25 WAGNER, etc. vs. Phila., 182 Pa. 612 ..............00 000s 10 Waite vs. Frank, 148. Dak. 682.200.000.000 ccc cece eee eee 43 ‘Walker vs. Comth, 11 Atl. 623........ .....0..... Mo canahibes 9 a “ Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90....... 0.0. c eee eee eee 33, 68 Walling vs. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446...... 00. cece cee 25 Walter vs. Comth, 88 Pa. 1387........ 0.0... cece cee ec ee ceeee 104 Ward vs. Maryland, 12 Wallace 418. ..................0000 25 Waring vs. The Mayor, 8 Wallace 110..................0005 24 Warren vs. Comth, 87 Pa. 45......0.0.0 0000.0 cece cece eee ee 44 Wartman vs. Phila., 83 Pa. 202........ 00. e cece cece 49, 108 Water Co. vs. Boro’, 65 Atl. 408.......... ccc cc cece eee eee 78 “ *¢ © Coal Co., 212 Pa. 115-6.......ccceecceeeesnes 73 ‘Watertown vs. Mayor, 109 Mass. 815............ 22. cece 18 Water Works vs. San Francisco, 124 Fed. 574............... 13 ud « Schottler, 110 U.S. 847...............006 94 es «Tampa, 199 U.S. 241....... 2.0... 0.0 77, 97 “ «© Water Works, 14 Fed. 194.............0.. 12 ‘Webber vs. Va., 103 U.S. 344... ... 0. cece eee cease 25 Weber vs. Coms., 18 Wallace 57... 20... . ccc cee eee cee eee 21 Weir vs. Boro’, 148 Pa. 566......... 0.0... cece cence eee eee 65 Weister vs. Hade, 52 Pa. 474 00... cece cece ee eee eens 99 Welton vs. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275... 2... eee eee ees 20, 25 Western Union Tel. Co. vs. Pub’g Co., 181 U.S. 92...... 112, 119 Wharton vs. School Directors, 42 Pa. 358..... .........0005 49 Wheelock vs. Church, 119 Cal. 477..........0 cece cece eee 38 White vs. Carroll, 42 N.Y. 161.0... 0.0.0.0 cece eeeeeeee ees 54 # “Hart, 138 Wallace 646. ......... cc ccc eee eee 15 Whitwell, ex parte, 98 Cal. 73.0... 0... cece cece eee eee 55 Wigton vs. Ri 'Co., 8 C.C. 191s wei aadincsas pi esees niwunsie e's 99 Wilkes-Barre vs. Bergunder, 7 Kulp 68.................000- 102 « He “ Garrabed, 11 Supr. C. 855 ..........-..0.. 67 ci se ‘“ Proxell, 5 Luz. L. R. 1838 ........... 0.05. 108 a as ‘© Water Co., 4 Lack L. N. 867..... ...... 18, 74 Willis vs. Standard Oil Co., 50 Minn. 290................04. 55 86) ASS Willis, V2 Pay LOO. oa. cenieanie wen oes ike terages 33, 46 XXViii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Wilson vs. McNamee, 102 U.S. 572... . cece ee cece ee eee eee 22 Wood's Ap., 29 Pitts. L. J. 264... . cc ccc eee tee ee eens 52, 101 Woodruff vs. Perham, 8 Wallace 123 ...0........eeee eens 24, 25 “ “ OR. Co., 59 Conn, 68...... 0c eect eee e eens 9 Wright vs. Comth, 77 Pa. 470... 0.00... cece eee ee ee eens 37 VO vs: Wi 8.5 185 Wy 8296 to socccsvasae veer cen eves saevewwes 19 POLICHK POWER. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. . Origin. . Subjects embraced and distinctions. Definitions. . Generalization. . Pennsylvanian limitation. . Corporations and individuals, . Views of Judge Black, . Universal application. . Classification. 10. Effect on private rights. 11. Reasonableness. 12. Sunday laws. OKADA P wwe 1. The origin of police power and its definition in Origin, American jurisprudence are important and necessary to a clear conception of its scope and limitations. In volume four of Blackstone’s Commentaries at page 162, after having exhausted a series of public wrongs, including those against the public health, the learned author comes to those classified as offenses against the ‘‘ public police and economy.” He explains: “‘ By the public police and economy I mean the due regulation and domestic order of the kingdom, whereby the individuals of the state, like members of a well-governed family, are bound to conform their general behavior to the rules of pro- priety, good neighborhood, and good manners, and to be decent, industrious and inoffensive in their respective stations.” a Blackstone's Definition. 8 Subjects Considered Within the Power. Enlargement. Distinctions. POLICE POWER. Before coming to this division he had disposed of the subject of public health and quarantine, both now considered as coming within the scope of the police power. The subjects specifically belong- ing to ‘‘police and economy,” were clandestine marriages declared by statute 26 Geo. II., c. 33, 1, to be felonies ; bigamy, polygamy, vagrancy or idle- ness, wanderings of the Zingari (gypsies), common nuisances, disorderly conduct, gambling and play houses, common scolds and eavesdroppers. ‘The origin of police power” as a legal phrase has been variously attributed by writers. Ante- dating the federal constitution, in The Crisis, No. 3, by Thomas Paine, Sec’y for Foreign Affairs to the U. S. Congress, we find this outline of the power : “ The necessity of always fitting our national police to the circumstances of the times we live in, is something so strikingly obvious, that no sufficient objection can be made against it. The safety of all societies depends upon it, and where this point is not attended to, the consequences will either bea general languor ora tumult. The encouragement and protection of the good subjects of any state, and the suppression and punishment of bad ones, are the principal objects for which all authority is instituted, and the line in which it ought to oper- ate.” 2. The scope of police power has been much broad- ened in American jurisprudence, and by some noted writers, until it is as comprehensive as sovereignty itself, whereas it originally was, and now ought to be only a distinct power of the sovereign, as applied to specific objects. For example, legislation is a sovereign power ; so is execution of the laws in general. Taxation is an exercise of sovereignty—but it is not police power. Eminent domain is a sovereign power, yet distinct from ‘‘ public police andeconomy.” The war power INTRODUCTION. is sovereign and yet it is not police power, for it is exercised to preserve the sovereignty itself, rather than the health, or economy or morals of a com- munity. The executive function is an exercise of sovereignty to the end that infractions of the law may be discovered and punished; but the police power is quite as much if not more concerned, in the prevention of disorder or crime, as in the detec- tion and punishment. Therefore, when we speak of police protection, we catch the idea of safety, in that vigilance which preserves the public peace, morals and ‘‘ good-neighborhood,” rather than to stand around idly and unconcerned, until the peace is dis- turbed and crimes are committed, and then make indiscriminate, irresponsible and sometimes brutal arrests. 3. The police power has been defined to be devoted Definition by to the protection of the lives, health and property of Ov Courts. citizens and the maintenance of good order. (1.) It is the power of the state to make all manner of reasonable laws for the welfare of the common- wealth and the good people thereof. (2.) In Ilinois it was defined to be ‘‘that inherent and plenary power of the state which enables it to prohibit ab things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society,” subject in its exercise to constitutional limitations. (3.) But laws cannot prohibit that which is harmless in itself, under pretense of police regulations. (4.) (1.) Patterson vs. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501; Barbier vs. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27; Woodruff vs. R. Co., 59 Conn. 63 ; Harmon vs. City, 110 Ill. 400 ; North- umberland Co. vs. Zimmerman, 75 Pa. 26. (2.) Powell vs. Comth., 114 Pa. 265, following Thorpe vs. R. Co,, 27 Vermont, 149 ; Walker vs. Comth., 11 Atl. 623; Comth. vs. Alger, 7 Cushing, 53. (3.) Town of Lake View vs. Cemetery Co., 70 Il. 191. (4.) R. os vs. City, 67 Ill. 37. ’ 10 Maine Generalization. Pennsylvania Limitation. Applies to Corporations the Same as Individuals. Not Divestible, By Contract Or Otherwise. POLICE POWER. 4. In Maine it was said (State vs. Noyes, 47 Me. 189): ‘‘ With the legislature the maxim of law, ‘salus popult suprema lex,’ should not be disre- garded. It is the great principle on which the statutes for the security of the peopleare based. * * * How far the provisions of the legislature can extend, is always submitted to its discretion, provided its acts do not go beyond the great principle of securing the public safety.” 5. In Pennsylvania it has been held that its exer- cise lies within the discretion of the legislature, and the rule in Dartmouth College case is limited. (5.) In its application to property it was said to be the power to compel all owners’ so to use it as not to injure others, which follows closely the maxim of the civil law. (5a.) 6. Initsoperation, there is no distinction between persons natural or corporate. (6.) “Tt is believed that the power was never, or, at any rate, rarely questioned, until the opinion seems to have obtained, that the right of property in a chartered corporation was more sacred and intan- gible than the same right could possibly be in the person of the citizen; an opinion which must be without any grounds to rest upon, until it can be demonstrated either that the ideal creature is more than a person or the corporeal being is less.’ (7). It is a power committed to the state by the people, (5.) Wagner, etc. vs. Phila. 132 Pa. 612. (5a.) Comth. vs. Canal Co., 66 Pa. 41. Justinian in his In- stitutes, I, 1-3, lays down the elements of the law, thus: ‘‘ Juris precepta sunt haec, honesta vivere, aiterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere,” which Christian translates : The precepts of the law are these: ‘‘ to live honorably, not to injure another, and to give to every one his due.” (6.) Company vs. Village, 70 Ill. 634. (7.) Daniel, J., in Bridge Co. vs. Dix, 6 Howard (U. 8.) 533. INTRODUCTION. which cannot be leased or given away by the legis- lature. (8.) In R. Co. vs. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, a law of Con- necticut was upheld, which abolished grade crossings as a menace to public safety. It was held to be a valid exercise of police power and applied to every railroad company whose charter was subject to al- teration or amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court said : ‘‘The governmental power of self-protection cannot be contracted away, nor can the exercise of rights granted nor the use of property be withdrawn from the implied liability to governmental regula- tion in particulars essential to the preservation of the community from injury.” Municipalities, it was held in R. Co. vs. Defiance, 167 U.S. 88, may make contracts with reference to the use of their streets, but the legislative powers vested in them by law, cannot be bartered away in such manner as to disable them from the perform- ance of their public functions. 7. Concerning this power the eminent judge and publicist, Jeremiah 8. Black, once said : ‘‘ The police power of the state of which she cannot disarm her- self, if she would, enables her to regulate the use, even of private property in such manner that neither the general public nor particular individuals can be made to suffer by it unjustly. Upon that principle you can forbid an excessive rate of interest upon the loan of money, fix charges of hack-drivers, or ferrymen, or tavern keepers, or the owners of grain elevators. Besides all that, the state can abolish a monopoly or bring it to termsof justice at any time, by virtue of her right of eminent domain. All property, corporeal or incorporeal is held upon con- (8.) Comth. vs. Canal Co., 66 Pa. 41; Boyd vs. Alabama, 94 U.S. 645 ; Beer Co. vs. Mass., 97 U. 8. 25 ; Stone vs. Miss., 101 U. 8. 814. 11 Grade Crossings. Municipalities. Views of Judge Black. Examples, All Property Subject to it. 12 Rule Immemorial. Must Apply to All Equally. Classification. Effect on Private Rights. POLICE POWER. dition that it may be divested whenever the general interest requires it. All charters or acts of incorporation are subject to such modification as may be necessary to prevent the owners from doing wrong to the public. This principle was expressed in the constitutional amend- ment of 1856, but it was not its origin; it existed from time immemorial as a rule of public and uni- versal law.” 8. Its application to corporations as well as to natural individuals, must be maintained on prin- ciples of justice. To discriminate in favor of artifi- cial persons is to overturn justice with expediency and substitute for law, judicial or legislative favor- itism. It is especially true of a monopoly without consideration or common right. (9.) And applies with equal force to every trust in restraint of trade or in extinction of competition. 9. In Oregon, the police powers of the state have been classified as follows : 1, prevention of offenses ; 2, prevention of calamities ; 3, prevention of epidemic diseases ; 4, charity; 5, interior communications ; 6, public amusements ; 7, recent intelligence; 8, re- gistration. (10.) 10. Before this power, private rights are com- pelled to give way, for the benefit of the whole body politic. (11.) So it may restrain business toa reason- able extent, as limited by the constitution. (12.) But property rights guaranteed by the constitution may not be molested, in the guise of police power. (13.) (9.) Butcher’s Union Co. vs. Crescent Co., 111 U. S. 746. (10.) Commissioners vs. Co., 6 Ore. 222. (11.) Water Works Co. vs. Water Works Co., 14 Fed. R. 194. (12.) Hawthorne vs. People, 109 Ill. 302. (13.) Beebe vs. State, 6 Ind. 501; 63 Am. Dec. 391; But, see State vs. Schlemmer, 42 La. Ann. 1166, 10 L. R. A. 135 for modification. Lawton vs. Steele, 152 U.S. 133. INTRODUCTION. 13 11. Its exercise must be reasonable and not con- Hedeonstls fiscatory, like a war-power, and must be absolutely = necessary to the public health or safety. (14.) So the fixing of a water rate so low as to be unjust and unreasonable cannot be justified by police power. (15.) The same is true of fixing railroad rates, at a loss, which amounts to confiscation. (16.) The doctrine in New York is as first stated supra, that the rights of private property must give way for the safety, health and comfort of society. (17.) 12. In Pennsylvania, it was held that the law of Sunday 1794 (3 Sm. L. 177), prohibiting all worldly employ- 5°45,. ment except works of necessity, is valid though it prevents a barber. from shaving a man in his shop. (18.) Similar laws as to barbers were held uncon- stitutional in Illinois and California. (19.) (14.) People vs. Co., 9 Mich. 285,; Smiley vs. McDonald, 42 Neb. 5; R. Co. vs. State, 47 Neb. 549. (15.) Water Works vs. San Francisco, 124 Fed. R. 574; Stone vs. Farmers’ Loan Assn., 116 U.S. 307; Act 1874, p. 1. 73 ; Act 1887, p. 1. 311; Tyrone Co. vs. Burley, 19 Supr. C. 354; Rymer vs. Water Co., 179 Pa, 231 ; Wilkes-Barre vs. Water Co., 4 Lack L. N- 367 ; Schroeder vs. Scranton Co., 20 Supr. C. 255; Comth. vs. Russell, 172 Pa. 506 ; DuBois vs. Water Co., 176 Pa. 480; Troy Water Co. vs. Borough, 200 Pa. 453; Water Co. vs. Boro, 195 Pa. 566. (16.) Mathews vs. N. C., 106 Fed. R. 7. (17.) Village vs. Frederick, 122 N. Y. 268, L. R. A. 178. See also, Pool vs, Trexler, 76 N. C. 297. (18.) Comth. vs. Waldman, 140 Pa. 89 (19.) Eden vs. People, 161 Ill. 296 ; Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468. CHAPTER II. DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE, . Distinction between state and federal. . Extent of jurisdiction. . Doctrine of implication. . Inter-state commerce . Distinction of powers. . Definitions. . Particular distinctions. . Commencement of inter-state. . State commerce. . Jurisdiction of waters. . Right to fish. . Tax on commerce. . Pilotage. . Permissive regulation. . Quarantine. . Imports. . Exports—inspection. . Original packages. . Non-discrimination. . Discrimination interdicted. 21. Transportation, regulation of, 22. Anti-trust law of U.S. 23. Conspiracy to monopolize. 24, New York Statute. 25. Corporate contracts prohibited. 26. Contracts declared void. 27. Other State laws. 28. Constitution of N. Dakota. 29, Anti-trust law of Tennessee. H CU MWA OAK WNWH RH wore Bee eee Oo OH oF CO 2 So Distinction 1. To comprehend the delimitation between a a Federal and State police power, it is necessary State. to keep in view the distinction between the Federal and State Constitutions. In the Federal Constitution all powers not conferred by the States are reserved to the States, in addition to those pow- 14 q DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE. 15 ers expressly reserved. (1.) In a State constitution all powers not reserved therein from the domain of legislation are conferred upon the legislative power. (2.) Thus, then, the federal power is supreme and When Federal the state power must give way, in all cases where ‘8 Supreme. Congress and the President are expressly given con" ‘trol of the subject matter, and such power may be exercised anywhere within the United States or its territories. And, on the other hand, with respect to the subjects not granted to the United States» wyoioin the states severally are supreme within their re- State is spective jurisdictions. eae 9. The constitution’ of the United States binds all Extent of the citizens of all the States and is co-extensive 7 suche™ with its entire territorial jurisdiction. (3.) So that when a new State was added to the original thirteen, it became permanently as one of the original, in its relations to the Constitution. (4.) But the legisla- tive power of the Sovereign is confined to the pow- ers delegated to it by the States, either expressly or by necessary implication. (5.) In so far as powers When Exclusive. (1.) See note 5, infra. (2.) R. Co. vs. County, 16 Wallace (83 U. 8.) 667 ; Lewis and Nelson's Ap. 67 Pa. 153 ; Russ vs. Comth., 210 Pa. 544, But a state constitution is not a contract within the meaning of the term in the U. 8. Con- stitution, (Church vs. Kelsey, 121 U. 8. 282.) (3.) Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304; McCul- loch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316; Downes vs. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 251. (4.) Texas vs. White, 7 Wallace, 700; White vs. Hart, 13 Wallace, 646; Keith vs. Clark, 97 U. 8. 454; Pollard vs. Hagan, 3 Howard, 212; Shively vs. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1; Co. vs. Comrs., 168 U. 8. 349; Bollin vs. Ne- braska, 176 U.S. 83; Co. vs. Mobile, 187 U.S. 479. (5.) Sturges vs. Crowninshield, 4 Wheaton, 193; Buckner vs. Finley, 2 Peters, 586; Rhode Island vs. Massa- chusetts. 12 Peters, 722; Briscoe vs. Bank, 11 Peters, 217; U.S. vs. Harris, 106 U. 8. 629; Langford vs. U.S. 101 U. 8. 341. 16 ‘Faryttories Beyond the Seas. Tnplication. Cunstruction— Stiict and Elastic. National Currency. POLICE POWER. are delegated to the United States, whose exercise necessarily excludes the exercise by the States, the federal power is exclusive. (6.) Since the U. S. has become a ‘‘ world power,” it seems to have outgrown the constitutional rules theretofore recognized, and a strangely incoherent doctrine obtains as to acquired territory beyond the seas. (7.) 3. It has been difficult to define and restrain the doctrine of implication. One of the greatest orato- rical efforts of Patrick Henry, was his‘arraignment of this doctrine in the Virginia constitutional con- vention in answer to Henry Lee, June 5, 1788, pointing out its dangers. (8.) It would seem that the implied powers meant are only such as are ne- cessary to exercise powers which are expressed, and without which the latter would be unexercisable. (9.) But, as was foreseen by Henry, the courts have lent their ears to the mercantile spirit and have stretched the word ‘‘ necessary ” to embrace what is useful and desirable. (10.) And so the treasury (6.) Juilliard vs. Greenman, 110 U. 8, 421; Logan vs. U. S., 144 U. S. 263; Deb’s Case, 158 U.S. 564, which case went up on a misapprehension of the facts as to the jurisdiction of the court and was decided accord- ingly ; Downes vs. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 288; Houston vs. Moore, 5 Wheaton, 49; Gilman vs. Phila. 3 Wallace, 713, i (in) Downes vs, Bidwell, 182 U. §. 244; Dooley vs. U.S., 183 U. 8. 151; Pepke vs. U.S. 183 U. 8.176; Dorr vs. \ 40 U.S., 195 U. 8. 188; Hawaii vs. Mankichi, 190 U.S. “(8.) See Wm. Wirt Henry's Life of Patrick Henry, vol. 3. (9.) Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 189. (10.) McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 421; Osborn vs. Bank of U. 8. 9 Wheaton, 738; Downe; vs. Bidwell, 182 U. 8. 244; Dooley vs. U. S.. 183 U. 8. 157: In re Ross, 140 U. 8. 453; Chinese Exclusion DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE. note acts of 1862 and 1863, were sustained as an ex- ercise of the power to ‘‘ borrow money” and ‘‘ pay debts.” (11.) These acts have been much inveighed against by academicians, but they stand on higher and more patriotic ground of utility, than the power claimed for the national banks to issue currency upon the evidences of the debts of the Sovereign. 4, Under the power of regulating commerce, con- gress has been sustained in going very great lengths —particularly among the states; as for example, telegraphic communication, (12.) carriage of lottery tickets; (13.) transfer of railway shares of competing railroad companies, (14.) the use and sale of trade- marks. (15.) A contract of insurance has been held to be “ a mere incident of commercial intercourse,” (16.) and a sub- ject of state police control. (17.) So astate has power in the exercise of its police regulations, to revoke the license of an insurance company to do business within the state, whenever such company violates a state law which prohibits it from' removing a cause from a state to a federal court, as in the case of Kentucky. Insurance Co. vs. Insurance Commissioner of Kentucky, U. 8. Supreme Court, May 14, 1906. Case, 180 U. S. 581; Sing vs. U. §., 158 U.S. 538; Japanese Case, 189 U. 8. 86; Ting vs. U.S. 149 U. S. 698. (11.) Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wallace, 457; Dooley vs. Smith, 13 Wallace, 604; Bigler vs. Waller, 14 Wallace, 297; R. vs. Johnson, 15 Wallace, 195; Juilliard vs. Greenman, 110 U. §. 421. (12.) T. Co. vs. T. Co., 96 U. 8. 1; T. Co. vs. Texas, 105 U. S. 460; T. Co. vs. James, 162 U. 8. 650. (13.) Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321. (14.) Co. vs. U. S. 193 U.S. 197. (15.) Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. 8. 82. (16.) Nutting vs. Mass., 183 U. 8. 553. (17.) Allgeyer vs. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578. Inter-State Commerce. Contract of Insurance. 17 18 Regulation. Distinct from Taxation. Definition of Police Power. POLICE POWER. Chief Justice Marshall defined the regulation of commerce, ‘‘ to prescribe the rule by which commerce is governed.” (18.) It is not confined to mere con- trol, but may absolutely prohibit that which is in- jurious to the public good. (19.) 5. But this power is distinct from that of taxa- tion, which is the levying of money or services by the sovereignty for its maintenance; (20.) and a state may within its jurisdiction, if not prohibited by organic law or congress, levy taxes upon property which is the subject of interstate or foreign com- merce, provided it is not in restraint of commerce between the states, (21.) as by discrimination in taxation. (22.) 6. It was said by Taney, OC. J., that the police powers ‘‘ are nothing more nor less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty to the extent of its dominions,” (23.) but Harlan, J. specified the application ‘‘ to the protection of the lives, the health and the property of the community against the injurious exercise by the citizen of his own rights.” (24.) 7. In the exercise of the police power the federal (18.) Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 1. (19.) Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 201; Passenger Cases, 7 Howard, 402. (20.) McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 420: State Freight Tax, 15 Wallace, 277; Borough vs. Home, 131 Pa. 109; Cemetery Co. vs, Phila., 93 Pa. 129. (21.) Transportation, Co. vs. Wheeling, 99 U.S. 280; Co. vs. St. Louis, 107 U.S. 374; Co. vs. Kentucky, 154 ~ U.S. 204. (22.) Co. vs. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 336. (23.) License Cases, 5 Howard, 504. (24.) Patterson vs. Kentucky, 97U. 8.501. See in this con- nection Tennessee vs. Davis, 100 U. S. 257: Water- town vs. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315; People vs. Cipperly, 37 Hunter (N. Y.) 319. i DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE. government has prevented the importation of goods ; (25.) and the entry of persons considered un- desirable. (26.) But the states themselves have the right to regu- late the storage and sale of original packages of liquors within the states though brought in from other states. (27.) The federal government regulates inter-state transportation of live stock, (28.) and arbitration between employers and einployees of inter-state railways. (29.) It has required inter-state rail- ways to provide for automatic couplers, (380.) and safety heating appliances. By the inter-state com- merce law, and its supplements, (31.) it has regulated a variety of abuses and discriminations in the carry- ing of goods and passengers, though not as thor- oughly as it may do. ~ 8. Inter-state commerce does not commence until a subject is started on its way to another state or country with that as the objective point ; (32.) for, if its destination is a point within the same state, Particular Distinctions. Commence- ment. though it must pass through another to reach it, the state does not lose control for purposes of taxation ; el (25.) Buttfield vs. Stranahan, 192 U. 8. 470. (26.) Chinese Exclusion Law, 130 U. 8. 581; Sing vs. U. 8., 158 U.S. 588; Ting vs. U. 8., 149 U. 8. 698; .Jap- anese Case, 189 U. 8S. 86; Kan. vs. U. 8., 186 U.S. 193; U. S. vs. Tuck, 194 U.S. 161; Yo. vs. U.S., 185 U. S. 296. See Immigration Laws. (27.) 26 Stat., 313, C. 370; and see Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623. (28.) Rev, Stat., 4386, (29.) 3@Stat., 424, C, 370. (30.) 27 Stat., 531, C. 196. (B1.) 24 Stat., 379, C. 104 et seg. See Northern Securities Co. vs. U. S., 193 U.S. 197. (32.) Coe vs. Errol, 116 U. 8, 528; Kelley vs. Rhoads, 188 U.S. 1. 19 20 State Commerce. Matters for State Control. Waters. POLICE POWER. (33.) however, the transportation is within the power of the federal government. (34.) So also is naviga- tion on the high seas between ports of the same state. (35.) 9. The commerce and trade within a state are wholly subject to the regulation of such state ; (36) though there are some matters upon which it ig competent for the state to act, until the national government legislates upon them. (87.) But if the subject is ex necessitate rez of federal import, though congress fails to act, a state may not take it up. (38. ) But where the state has full power, it is incompe- tent for the U.S. to regulate the subject ; as, for example, to license the sale of liquor in a state which has prohibited it as a nuisance ; (39.) or to prohibit sale of oils within a state; (40.) or to sell patented articles in contravention of a state law, (41.) or regulate game. (41a.) 10. The several states have police power over their (33.) R. Co. vs. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192. (34.) Hanley vs. R. Co., 187 U. 8. 617. (35.) Lord vs. Steamship Co., 102 U. 8. 541. (36.) License Cases, 5 Wallace, 462; Hopkins vs. U. 8., 171 U.S. 578; Anderson vs. U. 8. 171 U. S. 604. (37.) Co. vs. Kentucky, 154 U. 8. 204. (38.) Welton vs. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275; County vs. Kim- ball, 102 U.S. 691; Brown vs. Houston, 114 U. 8. 622. Robbins vs. Dist., 120 U. 8. 493; Bowman vs. R. Co., 125 U. 8. 465; Leisy vs. Hardin, 135 U. 8. 100; Peirce vs. New Hampshire, 5 Howard, 504, overruled. (39.) McGuire vs. Comth., 3 Wallace, 387; Pervear vs. Comth., 5 Wall. 475. (40.) U.S. vs. Dewitt, 9 Wallace, 41; Felsenheld vs. U.8., 186 U.S. 126. (41.) Patterson vs. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501. (41a.) Geer vs. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519. DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE. interior waters ; (42.) as to riparian rights, but it depends on the laws of each state ; (43.) as to states bounded by the sea or bays, their control extends as far as the jurisdiction of the U. S., but they do not control questions of commerce. (44.) In the exercise of its police power over this subject a state may declare a forfeiture of vessels violating its rules, even though they carry a U. 8. license to navigate such waters. (45.) 11. It has been held that the right to fish is one not based upon citizenship of the state alone, but because of it and also the right of property in the fish. (46.) The state’s jurisdiction over its waters is of such a character, that when a murder was com- mitted on a U. 8. naval vessel while at anchor, within the waters of the state, the case was held not to be triable in the U. 8. but in the State Court. {47.) 12. But, as has been seen, this state power has no relation to features of trade or commerce. Soastate may not levy a tonnage tax on vessels, without con- sent of congress ; (1.) or impose a port warden’s fee ; (42.) Martin vs. Waddell, 16 Peters, 367; Rundle vs. Co., 14 Howard, 80; Smith vs. Maryland, 18 Howard, 71; Weber vs. Harbor Comrs., 18 Wallace, 57; R. Co. vs. [llinois, 146 U. S. 387; 184 U. 8S. 77; Co. vs. Comrs., 168 U.S. 349. (43.) Barney vs. Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324; Hardin vs. Jordan, 140 U.S. 871; Mitchell vs. Smale, 140 U. 8. 371. (44.) Pollard vs. Hagan, 3 Howard, 212; Weber vs, Comrs., 18 Wallace, 57; Shively vs. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1; Co. vs. Mobile, 187 U. S. 479; U.S. vs. Co., 189 U.S. 391. (45.) Smith vs. Maryland, 18 Howard, 71; Manchester vs. Mass., 139 U. 8. 240. (46.) McCready vs. Virginia, 94 U.S, 391. (47.) U. S. vs. Bevans, 3 Wheaton, 336. (1.) Sec. 10, Art. 1, Con. State Tax Cases. 12 Wallace, 204. Right to Fish. Tax on Commerce. lo bo Pilotage. POLICE POWER. (2.) or a fixed sum per ton ; (8) or a fee for mooring ina port, (4.) or in any other guise. (5.) 13. But the regulation of pilotage was by act of congress, Aug. 7, 1789, (1 Stat. 54) left to the several states until such time as congress shall legislate upon the subject, and the various:states have there- fore regulated it, (6.) and foreign vessels are not exempt. (7.) But a vessel with a pilot licensed by the U. 8S. need not take on a state pilot. (8.) Where the federal power is exercised in respect to inter-state navigation, it is not competent for the state to interfere ; (9.) but as to waters wholly within the state its jurisdiction is supreme. (10.) Such state regulations of vessels within its ports as refer to the safety, health and order, while there, are maintained on the ground of police power. (11.) There is nothing incongruous between this necessary power, and that which might be exercised in the form of taxation or license exaction or regulation of commerce. * * R. Co’s v."Treasurers of Nebraska, U. 8. Supreme Court, Feb'r 25, 1907. (2.) Co. vs. Port Wardens, 6 Wallace, 31. (3.) Peete vs. Morgan, 19 Wallace, 581., (4.) Cannon vs. New Orleans, 20 Wallace, 577. (5.) S. Co. vs. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238; Foster vs. Masters, etc., 94 U.S. 246. (6.) Cooley v. Wardens, 12 Howard, 299; Ex Parte McNeil, 13 Wallace, 236; Wilson vs. McNamee, 102 U. 8S. 572; 8. Co. vs. Joliffe, 2 Wallace, 450. (7.) The China, 7 Wallace, 53. (8.) Spraigue vs. Thompson, 118 U. 8. 90. (9.) Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 1; The Daniel Ball, 10 Wallace, 557; Sinnott vs. Davenport, 22 Howard, 227; Acts July 7, 1838, 5 Stat. 304; Aug. 30, 1852, 10 Stat. 61; New York vs. Miln, 11 Peters, 102; Hall vs. DeCuir, 95 U.S. 485. (10.) Veazie vs. Moor, 14 Howard, 568. (11.) The James Gray. vs. The John Fraser, 21 Howard, 184; New York vs. Miln, 11 Peters, 102; DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE. The separate coach laws for white and black pas- Separate is ‘ : Coaches. sengers, within a state are constitutional.* 14. Until congress acts, there are some things Permissive ‘ ; fi Regulation. states may do, ex necessitate rei, even though it be toa certain extent regulation of commerce. ‘‘ Where from the nature of the subject or the sphere of its operations the case is local and limited, special regu- lations adapted to the immediate locality could only have been contemplated. State action upon such subjects can constitute no interference with the commercial power of congress, for when that acts, the state authority is suspended.” * * * For the time being, and until it sees fit to act, they may be regulated by state authority. The improvement of harbors, bays and navigable rivers within the states falls within this last category of cases. (12.) So a state may build dams and locks on a navigable river and levy tolls for their use, (13.) but not on vessels so light, as to render the improvement of no benefit to them. (14.) It may also improve harbors on the coast. (15.) . 15. So the laws of quarantine are administered Quarantine. by the states, the Federal government being loath to interfere with the local sanitary needs, (16.) and so the states establish all needful rules and regula- tions in this regard, (17.) but may not impose a tax * R. Co. vs. Kentucky, 179 U. S. 388; R. Co. vs. Miss., 133 U.S. 591. (12.) Mobile vs. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691. (18.) Huse vs. Glover, 119 U. 5. 543; Sands vs. R. Co., 123 U.S. 288; Co. vs. Mullen, 176 U.S. 126. (14.) Harman vs. Chicago, 147 U.S. 396. (15.) Mobile vs. Kimball, supra. (16.) Bartlett vs. Lockwood, 160 U.S. 357. (17.) Morgan vs. Louisiana, 118 U.S. 455; Compaigne vs. Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380. 24 Imports. Exports— Inspection. POLICE POWER. upon the vessels to pay for it. (18.) A quarantine law to come within the scope of a valid exercise of the police power must be for the protection of health and the prevention of disease or infection. (19.) And this principle limits the operation of quarantine laws as to animals, so that when they prohibit com- merce as to the healthy as well as the diseased, they overstep the bound—and such laws are unconsti- tutional. (20.) 16. States are prohibited from levying a duty or tax upon imports, that power being vested in Con- gress, and when by it imposed is vulgarly called “tariff.” An ‘‘import” must necessarily come from a foreign country into a state, (1.) and in its original form, the state cannot levy a license exac- tion for the right to sell it. (2.) But if it be im- ported by the foreign owner subject to his risk until delivery, it may be taxed in the port of entry. (3.) Until the property imported passes over and becomes a part of the mass of property of the State it is free from State control. (4.) But after the original case is broken, the State’s authority steps in. (5.) 17. A State may regulate its products and pre- scribe a system of inspection under the police power, whether the property be for home consumption or (18.) Peete vs. Morgan, 19 Wallace, 581. (19.) Smith vs. R. Co., 181 U. S. 248; Rasmussen vs. Idaho, 181 U.S. 198; Reid vs. Colo., 187 U. S. 137. (20.) R. Co. vs. Husen, 95 U. 8. 465; Minnesota vs. Barber, 136 U.S. 313. (1.) Co. vs. Speed, 192 U. 8. 500; Woodruff vs. Parham, 8 Wallace, 123, and Brown vs. Houston, 114 U. 8. 622, upheld. ; (2.) Brown vs. Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 419. (3.) Waring vs. The Mayor, 8 Wallace, 110. (4.) Low vs. Austin, 13 Wallace, 29; Cook vs. Pennsyl- vania, 97 U.S. 566. (5.) May vs. New Orleans, 178 U.S. 496. DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE. exportation. (6.) This power does not extend to persons. (7.) By virtue of inspection a state may not reach beyond its jurisdiction and discriminate against ar- ticles brought from the outside. (8.) 18. The prohibition upon the state as to original packages ‘‘ imported” from a foreign country does not apply to such as are delivered from one state into another ; (9.) but no state shall discriminate in favor of its own and against the citizens of another state, with respect to this power. (10.) In respect to original packages of liquor imported into states where the sale of intoxicating liquors was declared a nuisance, Congress by act of Aug. 8, 1890, 26 Stat. 313, C. 728, legislated upon the subject, to meet the cases of Leisy vs. Hardin, 1385 U.S. 100, and Bowman vs. R. Co., 125 U. 8. 465. This act made original packages of liquor, subject to the police control of the state, immediately. It was sustained by the Supreme Court, (11.) and held not to permit dis- (6.) Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 1; Turner vs. Mary- land, 107 U. S. 55; Co. vs. Louisiana, 156 U. 8. 590; Co. vs. Mullen, 176 U.S. 126; Co. vs. N. Car., 171 U.S. 345. (7.) Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wallace, 35; People vs. Com- paigne, 107 U.S. 59. (8.) Brimmer vs. Rebman, 138 U. 8.78; Voight vs. Wright, 141 U.S. 62; Minnesota vs. Barber, 136 U.S. 313; Vance vs. Co., 170 U.S. 438. (9.) Woodruff vs. Perham, 8 Wallace, 123; Brown vs. Houston, 114 U. S. 622; Emert vs. Missouri, 156 U.S. 296. (10.) Ward vs. Maryland, 12 Wallace, 418; Welton vs. Mis- souri, 91 U. 8S. 275; Webber vs. Virginia, 103 U.S. 344; Guy vs. Baltimore, 100 U.S. 484; Corson vs. Maryland, 120 U. S. 502; Walling vs. Michigan, 116 U. 8. 446; Lyng vs. Mich., 185 U. S. 161; Scott vs. Donald, 165 U. S. 58. (11.) ne Rahrer, 140 U.S, 545. Original Packages. 26 Oleo Cases. _ Non- Discriminating Restrictions. Discrimination Interdicted. POLICE POWER. crimination as to articles not prohibited by state laws. (12.) The same doctrine has been announced as to the | sale of oleomargarine or imitation butter. (13.) But an act which discriminates against the producer of another state is void. (14.) The sale or importation of cigarettes, being prohibited as deleterious to health and morals, is not protected as interstate commerce. (15.) 19. So the vice of state regulation is discrimina- tion. For, when a state imposes a license or tax upon all of a class equally, the law is sustained as a valid exercise of its powers, as, an exaction from all salesmen of sewing machines, (16.) or on all commis- sion agents, (17.) or traffic in liquor at all places other than the place of manufacture. (18.) 20. But alicense law which discriminates against a salesman of goods made beyond the state, is un- constitutional where the discrimination is shown. (19.) Inter-state commerce is not subject to the license of any state. ‘‘It is a right which every citizen of the United States is entitled to exercise under the constitution and laws of the United States.” (20.) But the police power as properly de- (i2.) Scott vs. Donald, 165 U. 8. 58; W. Va. act 1903, p. 130, held void in Liquor Co. vs. Platt, 148 Fed. 894. (13.) Act Aug. 2, 1886, 24 Stat. 209, C. 840; Plumley vs. Mass., 155 U. S. 461; Crossman vs. Lurman, 192 U.S. 189. (14.) Schollenberger vs. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1. (15.) Austin vs. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343. (16.) Co. vs. Gage, 100 U. 8. 676; Emert vs. Missouri, 156 U.S. 296; Rash vs. Farley, 159 U. S. 263. (17) Ficklen vs. District, 145 U.S. 1. (18.) Co. vs. Brister, 179 U.S. 445. (19.) Brennan vs. Titusville, 153 U. 8. 289; Stockard vs. Morgan, 185 U. 8. 27; Robbins vs. Dist., 120 U. 8. 489; Asher vs. Texas, 128 U. S. 129; R. Co. vs. Sims, 191 U.S. 441; Co. vs. Speed, 192 U. S. 500. (20.) Crutcher vs. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE. fined, always remains with the state when the objects of commerce become a part of the mass of property of the state. (21.) 21. And this power extends to transportation of goods by public or common carriers, so that, even before the interstate commerce laws were passed, the states might by valid laws require railways to fix and post rates of fare and freight, and compel them to adhere to reasonable charges ; (22) and reg- ulate their conduct of business; (23.) or prohibit doing business on Sunday. (24.) It may regulate arailroad company’s appliances for safety of em- ployes and the traveling public, as, e. g., its heating arrangeiments, (25.) and compel state rail- road companies to stop passenger trains to receive and let out passengers, at county towns (26.) or other stations; but not inter-state or through trains ; (Mississippi vs. R. R. Co., U.S. Supreme Court, 1907.) It may invest a municipality with power to regu- late by ordinance the speed of trains within its limits. (27.) It may require railroads to become liable for damages to property delivered by them on connecting lines, (28.) and provide facilities for transferring cars at points of intersection with other lines. (29.) It may compel a railroad company to (21.) Brown vs. Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 443. (22.) R. Co. vs. Fuller, 17 Wallace, 560; R. Co. vs. Iowa, 94 U.S. 155; Peik vs. R. Co., 94 U.S. 164. (23.) Stone vs. T. Co., 116 U.S. 307; Stone vs. R. Co., 116 U.S. 847; Stone vs. R. Co., 116 U. 8. 352; R. Co. vs. Alabama, 128 U.S. 96; R. Co. vs. Mississippi, 133 U. 8. 587; R. Co. vs. Kentucky, 179 U. S. 388. (24.) Hennington vs. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299. (25.) R. Co. vs. New York, 165 U. 8. 628. (26.) Gladson vs. Minn., 166 U.S. 427; R. Co. vs. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285; R. Co. vs. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142. (27.) Erb vs. Morasch, 177 U. S. 584. (28.) R. Co. vs. McCann, 174 U. S. 580. (29.) R. Co. vs. Jacobson, 179 U. 8. 287. 27 Transporta- tion—Regula- tion of. State Powers. 28 Municipal Control. Trusts Declared Illegal. POLICE POWER. maintain cattle-guards and fences, and prescribe penalties for failure (30.) to erect and maintain sta- tions at proper places. (31.) It may make them liable for damages to employes by co-employes. (382.) It may prohibit a railroad company from lim- iting its liability by contract, (33.) except by a vol- untary contract by the owner of goods. (34.) It may prohibit the manufacture, sale or importation of intoxicating liquors, whether in the original package or otherwise as a nuisance; (35.) or of adulterated food, as against public health, (36.) and it may em- power a municipality to prohibit the use of steam power within its limits. (37.) Buta borough in Penn- sylvania has no such power, for example to compel a railroad company to erect safety gates at street crossings, unless conferred by the legislature in the charter. (38.) It is competent for the legislature to enact a valid law on this subject. 22. Anti-trust law of U.S., 26 Stat. at Large, 209, ch. 647, provides: Sec. 1. Every contract, combina- tion in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any (30.) R. Co. vs. Humes, 115 U. 8. 512; R. Co. vs. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26. (31,) R. Co. vs. Minnesota, 193 U.S. 53. (32.) R. Co. vs. Mackey, 127 U.S. 205. (88.) R. Co. vs. Solan, 169 U.S. 133. (34.) R. Co. vs. Solan, 169 U.S. 133. (35.) License Cases, 5 Howard, 504; Bartemeyer vs. Iowa, 18 Wallace, 129; Beer Co. vs. Mass., 97 U.S. 25; Foster vs. Kansas, 112 U.S. 201; Mugler vs. Kan- sas, 123 U. 8. 623; Leisy vs. Hardin, 135 U. 8. 100, Act 1890, (36.) Crossman vs. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189. (37.) R. Co. vs. Richmond, 96 U. 8. 521. (38.) Railroad Co.’s Case, 213 Pa. 373, reversing 27 Supr. C. 113. DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE. such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall be deemed guilty of a misde- meanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be pun- ished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonmént not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. 23. Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exeeeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.” * 24. New York, by act 1893, ch. 716, provided that “every contract or combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, made after the passage of this act, whereby competition in the State of New York in the supply or the price of any article or commo- dity of common use in said State, for the support of life and health, may be restrained or prevented for the purpose of advancing prices, is hereby de- clared illegal.” (1.) 25. Sec. 3 (1896, ch. 267.) Every corporation or officer thereof, that shall make any contract, ar- rangement or agreement, or shall enter into any combination or conspiracy for the purpose of re- straining or preventing competition in the supply or * Applies to meat dealers. (Swift vs. U. S. Adv. Rep. U.S. Sup. Ct. 1904, 276.). (1.) See Keeler vs. Taylor, 53 Pa. 467, in construing the N. Y. Code; see, also, People vs. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 251; followed in Judd vs. Harrington, 139 N. Y. 105. See People vs. Milk Exchange, 145 N. Y. 267; Cohen vs. Co., 166 N. Y. 292; Cummings vs. Co., 164 N. Y. 401; Straus vs. Publs. Assn., 177 N. Y. P. 478, by Parker, C. J. 29 Conspiracy to Monopolize. New York Provision. Corporate Contracts Prohibited. 30 Proceedings to Restrain. Contracts Declared Void. Other State Laws. \ POLICE POWER. price of any article or commodity in common use in this state pursuant to any such contract, arrange- ment, agreement or combination, wherever the same may be made, or shall in any manner, in this state engage or aid in carrying out or executing the agreements contained in any such contract or arrangement, wherever the same may be made, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The Attorney- General may, in addition to the power now con- ferred by law, bring an action in the name and in behalf, of the people of the State against one or more trustees, directors, managers or other officers of a corporation, or against any corporation, foreign or domestic, to restrain them or either of them from carrying out in this state any such contract, com- bination or business in this state, where such con- tract, combination or business is threatened, or there is good reason to apprehend that the same may be made.” 26. Act 1897, N. Y. Sec. 1. ‘‘ Every contract, agreement, arrangement or combination whereby a monopoly in the manufacture, production or sale in this state of any article or commodity of common use is or may be created, established or maintained, or whereby trade or commerce in this state in any such article or commodity is or may be restricted, or whereby competition in this state, in the supply or price of any such article or commodity is or may be restrained or prevented, or whereby for the purpose of creating, establishing or maintaining a monopoly within this state, of the manufacture, production or sale of any such article or commodity, the free pur- suit of any lawful business, trade or occupation is or may be restricted or prevented, is hereby declared to be against public policy, illegal and void.” 27. Other states have similar provisions of law. In Texas, a federal judge held the law to be class legislation and in restraint of the contracting power DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE. 81 of the citizen, (2) but the Supreme Court of that State affirmed its constitutionality. (3.) 28. One State, North Dakota, has implanted the Constitution of doctrine in its constitution which provides as follows : N: P*ota. Art. 7, Sec. 146: ‘‘ Any combination between in- dividuals, corporations, associations or either, having for its object or effect the controlling of thé price of any product of the soil or any article of manufacture or commerce, or the cost of exchange or transporta- tion, is prohibited and hereby declared unlawful and against public policy ; and any and all franchises heretofore granted or extended, or that may here- after be granted or extended in this state whenever the owner or owners thereof violate this article shall be deemed annulled and become void.” 29. Following the gist of the constitutional: pro- Anti-trust Law vision of North Dakota, the State of Tennessee in aac 1903 enacted as follows: ‘‘ All arrangements, con- tracts, agreements, trusts or combinations, between persons or corporations, made, with a view to lessen, or which tend to lessen full and free competition in the importation or sale of articles imported into this state, or in the manufacture or sale of articles of domestic growth or of raw domestic material, and all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts or combinations between persons or corporations de- signed, or which tend, to advance, reduce, or control the price or the cost to the producer or consumer of any such product or article are hereby declared to be against public policy, unlawful and void.” The second section provides for the forfeiture of the charter of an offending corporation and the third prescribes a penalty of fineandimprisonment. This law has been held constitutional by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.* * Kansas act 1897, p.\481 held constitutional. (Smiley vs. State, 65 Kan. 240; U.S. Sup. Ct. 1904, Adv. R. 289.). (2.) In re Grice, 79 Fed. R. 627. (3.) Ins. Co. vs. State, 86 Tex. 250. CHAPTER IIL. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. . Due process of law. . Persons incapacitated. . Infants and orphans. . Right to protection. . Emancipation. te by marriage. . Pennsylvania license law. . Right to bear arms. . Concealed deadly weapons. 10. Religious liberty. 11. Reading Bible in public schools. 12. Religious societies. 13. Salvation army. 14. Exclusion of sects. 15. Blasphemy. 16. Oath of witness, 17. Sunday Laws. 18. “cc ce 19. “cc 6c 20. Vices. 21. Polygamy. 22. Adultery. 23. Fornication. 24. Gambling. 25. Options—wagers—futures, 26. Sumptuary laws. 27. Drunkenness. 28. Responsibility of liquor seller. 29. Marrying one intoxicated. 30. Punishment of drunkenness. 31. Habitual drunkard. 32. Drug fiend. 5 33. Vagrants. 34, Tramps. 35. Beggars. 36. Bawdy house loafers, CO -F DOT OD BW] Due Processof 1. ‘‘ Due process of law requires that a party shall fast be properly brought into court, and that he shall have an opportunity, when there, to prove any fact 32 DUE PROCESS OF LAW. which, according to the constitution and the usages of the common law, would be a protection to him or his property.” (People vs. Supervisors, 70 N. Y. 228; State vs. Billings, 55 Minn. 474; State vs. Kilbourne, 68 Minn. 320.) ““Due process of law requires an orderly proceed- ing adapted to the nature of the case in which the citizen has an opportunity to be heard, and to defend, enforce, and protect his rights. A hearing, or an opportunity to be heard, is absolutely essential. “Due process of law’ without these conditions can- not be conceived.” (Stewart vs. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183; Walker vs. Sauvinet, 92 U. 8. 90.) Due process of law imperatively requires notice Notice. and the right to be heard. (McKee vs. McKee, 14 Pa. 231; Smith vs. Wildman, 178 Pa. 245; The Mary, 3 Peters’ Con. R. 312. 2. In the case of an insane person a statute which Person _ Incapacitated. provides for notice to the nearest relative of such person, is constitutional. (Rider vs. Regan, 114 Cal. 667.) But the alleged insane person must have an op- portunity to traverse the allegation ; (Underwood vs. People, 32 Mich. 1,) and under the Pennsylvania law, (Sec. 6, Act 1836, P. L. 539,) not only all the parties in interest but the alleged lunatic must be properly notified of the proceedings. (Willis vs. Willis, 12 Pa. 159.) But under the Act of 1895, P. L. 270, for commitment to the state asylum, this notice need not be given at the inception to parties chargeable with maintenance. (Juniata Co. vs. Overseers, 22 Supr. C. 187.) Weak-minded persons who are clearly unable to take care of their property are also properly within the care of the State. The Act of 1901, P. L. 574, amending the Act of 1895, P. L. 300, is a valid ex- ercise of power in their behalf. (Colt’s Case, 215 Pa, 333.) 33 34 Infants and Orphans. Correlative Duties. Right to Protection. Natural Rights. Emancipation. POLICE POWER. 3. The police power is especially concerned with the protection of persons under legal disability, while non sui juris. So the doctrine of parens pa- trice applies peculiarly to minors and orphans deprived of parental care. By nature and the com- mon law the support, care, training and education of children belongs tothe parents. Blackstone says (Book 1, p. 454) the duties of parents to children are maintenance, protection andeducation. The duties of children to parents are obedience, honor and maintenance. 4. A minor may not be deprived of his liberty without due process of law, (1); and his life and health are within the proper solicitude of the State, so that an act (1897, p.1. 30) which prescribes the con- ditions under which children and women shall work . in factories and fixing the minimum age of employ- ment as thirteen years, is a valid exercise of the police power, being enacted for the health, safety and well-being of all concerned. (2.) But the act of 1905, pl. 344, classifying them as to certificates of employment is unconstitutional. (a) A contract of apprenticeship though not indentured will be sus- tained by the courts. (0.) The natural rights and duties of parent and child are correlative and cannot be ruthlessly severed by any law passed under the pretense of the exercise of police power, as parens patric. 5. This parental control is continued until the child arrives at the age of twenty-one, or is sooner emancipated, and is recognized by our laws even after majority if the family relation is kept up. (1.) People vs. Turner, 55 Ill. 280; Hx parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367. (2.) Comth. vs. Beatty, 16 Montg. 63. (a.) Collett vs. Scott, 30 Supr. C. 430. (b.) Behney vs. Foundry Co., 30 Supr. C. 625. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. But mere emancipation of a minor does not qualify him to make a note or execute a contract except for necessaries. However he may ratify it when he be- comes of age. (3.) 6. At common law, marriage of a minor creates anew status and emancipates him, even without the parent’s consent, and he becomes liable on all contracts for necessaries for himself and his family. It matters not if he is married beyond the State. (4.) ‘* His new relations to his wife and children create obligations and duties which require him to be the master of himself, his time, his labor, earnings and conduct.” (4a.) Where an infant daughter marries she is thereby emancipated ; that is, freed from pa- rental control, though not all the disabilities of infancy are removed. (4b.) Her marriage, if she be above the age of legal consent is valid although in defiance of parental wishes and authority, notwith- standing a law forbidding ministers, etc., to perform the ceremony without such consent. (4c.) An infant having arrived at the age of consent which at common law was twelve but now, in Penn- sylvania, under act 1887, p.1. 128, issixteen, is compe- tent to form the marriage relation, but not to make a contract for which breach of promise will lie. (5.) (3.) R. Co. v. Best, 104 Pa. 26; Tyler vs. Gallop, 68 Mich. 185; Kennedy vs. Baker, 159 Pa. 146. (4.) Comth. vs. Graham, 157 Mass. 73; Davis vs. Caldwell, 12 Cushing, 512. (4a.) Sherburne vs. Hartland, 37 Ver. 528. (4b.) Aldrich vs. Bennett, 63 N. H. 415. (4c.) Parton vs. Hervey, 1 Gray 119; Meister vs. Moore, 96 U. 8. 76; Rodenbaugh vs. Sanks, 2 Watts. 9; Beel- man vs. Roush, 26 Pa. 509; Helffenstine vs. Thomas, 5 Rawle, 209, under act 1730, 1 Sm. L. 180; Bie- secker’s Est., 7 D. R. 70, under act 1885, p. 1. 146, and 1895, p. 1. 202. (5.) Frost vs. Vought, 87 Mich. 65. 35 Marriage, Emancipation by. 36 POLICE POWER. The fact of emancipation as well as the law, is recognized in the act of 1865, p.1. 30, which qualifies a minor wife to join in a deed for her husband’s land, with the same effect as if she were of full age. Support, Irrespective of any statutory provision a father is bound to support his minor children, but it 1s otherwise with the mother during his lifetime, or even after a divorce a vinculo, where the custody has not been committed to her. (5a.) This is based on the principle that the father is entitled to the services and earnings.of the minor children, during his life. After his death, the mother is entitled. (5b.) Whena mother furnishes maintenance to a child the presumption of law is that she does it gratui- tously. (5c.) Thesame is true of a grandfather. (5d.) In an action for damages for seduction of a minor daughter by a father, the loss of services will be presumed, evenif she resides temporarily away from home. (5e.) f An infant is liable for his board and may contract validly for payment of this liability, in any legal form. (7.) Pennsylvania 7. In Pennsylvania under acts of 1885, p.1. 146: Licence. 1887, P. L. 170; 1893, P. L. 27; 1895, P. L. 202, and 1908, P. L. 80, marriages of minors may not be legally performed without a license, which must show the consent of the parents or guardians. But this being a police regulation, when a marriage is (5a.) Gilley vs. Gilley, 79 Me. 292. (5b.) Nightingale vs. Withington, 15 Mass. 274; Furman vs. Vansise, 56 N. Y. 485. (5e.) Cummings vs. Cummings, 8 Watts. 366. (5d.) Duffey vs. Duffey, 44 Pa. 399. (5e.) Emery vs. Gowen, 4 Me. 83; Kennedy vs. Shea, 110 Mass. 147; Blanchard vs. Isley, 120 Mass. 487; Ben- son vs. Remington, 2 Mass. 113. By act 1901, p. 1. 639, the mother of a bastard child has the same rights as if it were legitimate. (7.) Stone vs. Dennison, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 1. = DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 37 contracted, it will be nevertheless valid, at common law, until some Jaw shall declare the contrary. An infant over 16 may enlist in the U. 8. army with the consent of his parents, who alone are capable pot annulment. (8.) A common law marriage in Colorado not only legitimated the child born out of wedlock, in Colo- rado, but also in Pennsylvania for purposes of in- heritance in Pennsylvania (McCausland Est. 213 Pa. 189.) 8. Art. 2, of the amendment to the U. S. Consti- The Right to tution provides this guaranty for the protection of Be@* Am™s. every citizen of the United States: ‘‘ A well-regu- lated militia being necessary ‘to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shail not be infringed.” (9.) This guaranty does not belong of right to a for- eigner. No alien is entitled to any higher right in this country than a citizen of the United States would enjoy in his country in accordance witha cardinal doctrine of inter-national law. 9. The police power of the state regulates the man- Dongeaied ner of keeping and bearing arms in the several Weapons. states, and the foreigner who comeshere to live and get money and property must submit himself to the lexloct. Hehas no right to bring his foreign societies here, to do murder, nor has he a right to bear arms in pursuit of any unlawful purpose or combination. By an.act of 1850, P. L, 670, it was provided that when the police of Philadelphia arrested any one in Presumption in an unlawful act and found concealed upon his per- Phila. son, a deadly weapon, that fact was to be taken as evidence of his intention to riot unless the contrary be shown. The act of 1875, P. L. 33, made it a Common Law Marriage. (8.) In re Morrissey, 137 U. S. 157. ' ' (9.) Wright vs. Comth., 77 Pa. 470; Cookman vs. Texas, 24 Texas, 394. 38 Religious Liberty. Reading the Bible in Public Schools. Religious Societies. Injunction, When Refused. POLICE POWER. misdemeanor for any one to “‘carry firearms, slung shot, handy-billy, dirk knife, razor or other deadly weapon, concealed on the person, with intent there- with unlawfully and maliciously to doinjury to any other person.” 10. The constitution guarantees absolute freedom of choice as to religious beliefs, but it does not per- mit of violation of the rights of citizens, -by religious denominations. Thus the Sunday law imposes upon the Jew and the Seventh Day worshippers, a day of rest which his religious belief does not approve. It recognizes the right of the Christian Scientist to be- lieve anything his ‘‘Science” teaches him, but it does not permit him to practice his faith in healing, to the detriment and neglect of votaries when the public health is concerned. (10.) 11. The reading of the Bible in the public schools is not a violation of religious liberty, since it is done as a moral influence only. (11.) 12. The state will not, as a rule, interfere with the internal affairs of religious societies. They must fight out their ecclesiastical rights according to their own laws. The state will only interfere when some right of the citizen has been infringed upon by a violation of the laws of the religious society it- self, as where a priest who has property in his office, has been summarily removed sub gravi and without’ trial as required by his church law. (12.) Nor willa Court restrain the act of a church judicatory, while it is in course of judicature ; (10.) Christian Science Case, 205 Pa. 543; 41 W. N. C. 259. (11.) Stevenson vs. Hanyon, 7 D. R. (Pa.) 585; 9 Kulp, 256; Spiller vs. Woburn, 12 Allen, 127; Moore vs. Moore, 64 Iowa, 367; Pfeifer vs. Board of Education, 77 N. W. 250. (12.) O’Hara vs. Stacke, 90 Pa. 477; Wheelock vs. Church, 119 Cal. 477. See, also, Stacke vs. O’Hara, 98 Pa. 2138. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. (13.) and in disputes between rival bodies it will recognize that which follows the church law in its organization. (14.) 13. The Salvation Army is purely a religious and charitable sect, yet when its religious worship on the public thoroughfares, by means of beating a drum, interfered with the rights of the public, an ordinance repressing the drum beat was sustained. (15) 14. In the Girard Will (Vidal vs. Girard Exs., 2 Howard, 127,) religious and sectarian teachers were excluded from participation in the college which Stephen Girard established. This will was sustained as a matter of private right. 15. Blasphemy is made a crime under the statute ~-and it is also punishable summarily under the police power, as a breach of the peace. (16.) 16. The common law required a witness to swear to tell the truth by appealing to God. In Pennsy]- vania, early the form of oath was modified by the Quakers or Friends who under William Penn es- tablished this commonwealth—and instead of swear- ing by Almighty God the Searcher of all hearts, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, a Friend or a ‘‘ Dissenter ” of any kind who thought an oath some form of blasphemy, might ‘‘solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm ” to the truth of what he was about to testify to. (17.) (13.) Krecker vs. Shirey, 163 Pa. 584; McGinnis vs. Wat- son, 41 Pa. 9; Fitzgerald vs. Robinson, 112 Mass. 871; Kieffer vs. Refd. Classis, 9 Northam. 78. (14.) Krecker vs. Shirey, 163 Pa. 534. (15.) State vs. White, 64 N. H. 48. (16.) Updegraph vs. Comth. 11 S. & R. 394; People vs. Rug- gles, 8 Johnson, 290; Comth. vs. Kneeland, 20 Pick. 206; State vs. Chandler, 2 Harr. 553. (17.) See Cubbison vs. McCreery, 2 W. & S. 262, for the test of competency. Salvation Army. Exclusion of Sects. Blasphemy. Oath of Witness. 39 40 Sunday Laws. ~ POLICE POWER. 17. The Sunday is not wholly a religious institu- tion but a civil one asa day of rest and recuperation. The enforcement of this regimen rests with the police power. (18.) In Pennsylvania, by Sec. 4, Act 1705, 1 Sm. L. 25, “no person shall serve or execute or cause to be served or executed any writ, precept, warrant, order, judgment, or decree, except in case of treason, felony, or breach of the peace,” on Sunday ; and by Sec. 1, Act April 22, 1794, 3 Sm. L. 177, all “‘ worldly employment or business,” works of necessity and charity only excepted, are forbidden. (19.) 18. By statute fishing may be prohibited on Sun- day (20.) and hunting is prohibited onSunday by Act of 1897, P. L. 123. 19. In some states barbers are probibited from Sunday work; (1.) but a law of this kind was de- declared unconstitutional as class legislation in California and Illinois. (2.) As to what are works of necessity seems to depend on the particular ex- igency. (3.) To publish or sell a newspaper is not a work of necessity ; (4.) and a druggist may not sell beverages on Sunday. (5.) (18.) Terry in Hx parte Newman, 9 Cal. 509; Comth. vs. Specht, 8 Pa. 312; Comth. vs. Wolf, 3 Sergt. & R. 48; Comth. vs. Nesbit, 34 Pa. 398. (19.) See Comth. vs. Berks Co. Railway, 11 D. R. 45, for review of authorities; and see Pepper & Lewis Digest of Decisions, ete., vol. 20, col. 35, 431; see, also, Sparhawk vs. R. Co., 54 Pa. 401. (20.) People vs. Moses, 65 Hunter 161, and 140 N. Y. 214. (1.) Comth. vs. Waldman, 140 Pa. 89; People vs. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195. (2.) Hx Parte Jentzch, 112 Cal. 468; Eden vs. People, 161 Il. 296; Friedeborn vs. Comth. 113 Pa. 242. (3.) Comth. vs. Funk, 9 C. C. 277; Comth. vs. Gillespie, 146 Pa. 546; Logan vs. Mathews, 6 Pa. 417. (4.) Comth. vs. Mathews, 152 Pa. 166; Comth. vs. Suppert, 152 Pa. 169. (5.) Splane vs. Comth., 12 Atlantic R. 431, \ DUE PROCESS OF LAW. A Jcw cannot claim a’ continuance of his cause from Saturday because that is his Sabbath. (6.) '20. It is peculiarly the province of police power to restrain and control the social vices, those offences which Blackstone classed as against, the public econ- omy, using the word in the Greek sense as inter- preted by Aristotle. Vices are not all crimes per se —but in the United States there are some prominent ones coming in the class mala prohibita. 21. Polygamy as an annex of Mormonism has been repressed by the police power of the U. S. though it is as much a part of the religion of Mor- mon, as was the concubinage a recognized social asset of ancient Judaism. (21.) 92. Adultery, as defined in monogamic states, comes within the repressive scope of this power, if not subject to ‘‘ the unwritten law,” which in a few causes célébres, was applied by juries In excusing homicide where the offending member of society was caught 7 flagrante delictu. It is prohibited by statute and not atcommon law. It has been sub- ject to some queer comment, that the Mosaic law prohibited it and yet the Judaic system recognized concubinage as an institution among the patriarchs. 23. Fornication is a criminal offense under the statutes of many states, though not classed asa crime. (22.) The evil results to orderly society in its consequence are what the law seeks to repress. _ The same is true of the repression of ‘the social evil,” which is dealt with by general statute and municipal ordinances and police regulations. The enticement of females under the age of sixteen for purposes of prostitution is almost equivalent to an assault with intent to commit rape, in Pennsyl- (6.) Executors vs. Gratz, 2 P. & W. 412. (21.) Reynolds vs. U. 8., 98 U. S. 145. . (22.) Comth. vs. Kammerdiner, 165 Pa. 222. 5 Vices. Polygamy. Adultery. Fornication. 42 Gambling. Betting.} Options. } Options. Wagering Contracts. POLICE POWER. vania, (23.) and in some of the Southern States, the penalty for rape is death, while in extreme cases ‘another ‘‘ unwritten law” is executed summarily. 24. Gambling is a vice which tends to idleness, chance living and crime, and dealing in ‘‘ options,” betting on futures, and playing the races are forms of gambling, hence, laws are passed to repress or discourage them. (1.) In Pennsylvania, betting on elections is punished with a fine and disqualifi- cation, (2.) yet it has been held that the sale of goods for future delivery, whereof the party had not possession, was not void ; (3.) if he intended to get the actual possession. (4.) The test is the intention to make actual delivery. (a.) : 25. An option to buy or to sell with the property in contemplation is a different thing from the ‘‘ op- tion,” of the stock exchange or the ‘‘ bucket-shop,” which stands no higher in law or morals than the poker table or the wheel of fortune. (5.) Hence all wagering contracts are held void by the courts. The difficulty is in distinguishing the gambling con- tract from the genuine one. An illegal contract is. void from public policy alone. A pretended purchase and sale of produce is a mere wager where neither party contemplates a de- livery, but each intends to settle the transaction by (23.) Act 1885, p. 1. 27. As to rape see Act 1887, p. 1. 128. (1.) State vs. Gritzner, 1384 Mo. 512. (2.) Comth. vs. Wells, 110 Pa. 463. (3.). Bruas Ap., 55 Pa. 294. (4.) Fareira vs. Gabell, 89 Pa. 89; North vs. Phillips, 89 Pa. 250. (a.) Snider vs. Harvey, 215 Pa. 538. (5.) Sheehy vs. Shinn, 103 Cal. 325; Sampson vs. Camper- down, 82 Fed. R. 833; Schneider vs. Turner, 130 Ill. 28; Brown vs. Phelps, 103 Mass. 318; Ruchizky vs. DeHaven, 97 Pa. 202; Executor vs. Thomas, 97 Pa. 278; Kirkpatrick vs. Bonsall, 72 Pa. 155. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. the payment of the difference between the purchase price and the market value at the time specified, (Dows vs. Glaspel, 4 N. Dak. 251; 60 N. W. 60, approved in Waite vs. Frank, 14 8. Dak. 632; 86 N. W. 645. This was an action to recover commissions for ad- Futures in vances on the purchase and sale of wheat on the en board of trade of Duluth, Minn., on ‘future deliv- ery.” Justice Corliss, later Chief Justice, of North Dakota, in delivering the opinion said: ‘‘ Illegality is seldom guilty of the consuminate folly of flaunt- ing its defiance of law in the face of public senti- ment—of furnishing itself the evidence of its viola- tion of law. To escape the penalties of breaking the law, it will always put on the ‘suits and trappings’ of honest transactions. Mere wagering contracts invariably wear the garb of bona fide sales. This is common knowledge. Myriads of gambling oper- ations are daily arranged by two interested brokers, who fatten on the folly of their dupes in the decent and decorous habiliments of lawful business trans- actions. The nadveté of a tribunal which in such cases should unquestioningly take the semblance for the substance, would, indeed, be pitiable, if it did not excite derision and contempt. The courts have always sought to pierce the disguise and ascer- tain the real intention of the parties.” Citing among others, Embrey vs. Jemison, 131 U. 8. 336; Melchert vs. Tel. Co., 11 Fed. 193, and Edwards vs. Hoeffinghoff, 38 Fed. 639. In Massachusetts and California it is an offense Gambling to visit a public gambling house. (6.) Houses. 26. ‘“‘Sumptuary laws ” may have passed into de- Sumptuary litescence, but the fundamental reasons for them Ws. yet exist in human nature. Their origin is sup- (6.) Comth. vs. Warren, 161 Mass. 281; Hx Parte Boswell, 86 Cal. 232. 44 Drunkenness. POLICE POWER. posed to have been in Sparta—but they were a Hebraic institution, as written in Leviticus and founded upon public policy. 27. Drunkards in some countries are punished by whipping. (7.) It was laid down by Blackstone that drunkenness is no excuse for crime, but an aggra- vation of the offense, though in criminal law, prac- tically administered, where the essence of the crime was intent and premeditation, it has served to re- duce the degree of murder. (a.) Drunkards who endanger the peace of society come within the police power—and in Pennsylvania are classed and treated in the same law with lunatics. (8.) While a man may be said to have a natural right to becloud his reason and destroy his will power, by excessively im- bibing stimulants, whenever the effect of this is to disturb the order, peace and quiet of his family and neighborhood, he becomes amenable to the restraint of the police power and may be punished. But he must be taken into custody and his case adjudicated strictly in due process of law. (9.) A habitual drunkard is not considered civilly dead, so that his trustee pendente inebrietate, cannot be sued on a contract made by the drunkard before inquisition. (7.) See Statute of Minnesota following the police laws of Germany. (a.) Warren vs. Comth., 37 Pa. 45; Jones vs. Comth., 75 Pa. 403; Comth. vs. Cleary, 185 Pa. 164; 148 Pa. 26. But, see these cases where it did not reduce the de- gree: Comth. vs. McGowan, 189 Pa. 641; Comth. vs. Werling, 164 Pa. 559; Comth. vs. McMillan, 144 Pa. 610; Comth. vs. McManus, 143 Pa. 64; Nevling vs. Comth., 98 Pa. 322; Keenan vs. Comth. 44 Pa. 55. (8.) Act 1836, p. 1. 539. (9.) Matter of James, 30 Howard’s Pr. 446; State vs. Ryan, 70 Wis. 676; Comth. vs. Morrissey, 157 Mass. 471; City vs. Tarwater, 143 Mo. 40. © DUE PROCESS OF LAW. (10.) But specific performance may be enforced in due forin. (11.) 28. It is a valid exercise of police power to pass a law holding the owner of the property leased to a rum-seller responsible for damages done by the sale of liquor, as in New York, (12.) or to hold the seller himself responsible for damages, after notice not to sell to a person of known intemperate habits, as in Pennsylvania. (13.) 29. The Act of 1854, P. L. 664 (sec. 4), prescribes a penalty of fifty dollars and imprisonment for not more than sixty days, for performing a marriage for one who is in a state of intoxication. 30. Sec. 29, Act of 1856, P. L. 207, amended in 1858, P. L. 370, provides a penalty of not more than two dollars, for the use of the school fund, for being found intoxicated in any street, highway, public house or public place. The same act fixes a penalty of $5 upon a vendor of liquors who allows one to drink liquor he sells and become drunk therefrom on his premises—to be sued for within twenty days from the time the act takes place. 31. The Act of 1895, P. L. 377, provides for the commitment of a habitual drunkard to an inebriate asylum for not less than six months nor more than two years, to be modified in the discretion of the court. The accused should have an opportunity to be present at all stages of the proceeding involving his civil liberty and competency. (14.) (10.) Steel vs. Young, 4 Watts, 459. (11.) Secs. 35 to 39, Act of 1836, p. 1. 539. (12.) Bertholf vs. O’Reilly, 74 N.. Y. 509. (13.) See. 7, Act 1875, p. 1. 41. Held constitutional in Mar- dorf vs. Hemp, 6 Atl. 754. But a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction: Irvine vs. Henry, 2 C. C. 336. (14.) Hinchman’s Case, 4 Clark, 184; Lincoln’s Case, 1 45 aula g Seller Responsible. Marrying Intoxicated Person. Punishment of Drunkard. Habitual Drunkard. 46 Drug Fiend. Vagrants. The tramp Act—1876. In Certain Counties. POLICE POWER. 32. A drug fiend may also be committed to an asylum for not more than one year, under Act 1903, P. L. 211. The regulation of the sale of poisons by druggists or others is within the police power. (a.) 33. Dr. Tiedeman, author of State and Federal Control, happily says, ‘‘ the vagrant has been very appropriately described as the chrysalis of every species of criminal,” which is an amplification of the line : ‘* For Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do.” Vagrants under the old English law were such as “wake in the night and sleep in the day, and haunt customable taverns and ale-houses and routs about ; and no man wot from whence they come, nor whither they go.” : So by Act of the Pennsylvania legislature follow- ing the great labor strikes and panic of 1873-4, vagrancy was defined, and punished. 34. The Act of 1876, P. L. 154, specifies, among others, this class of idlers : ‘‘All persons who shall come from any place without this commonwealth to any place within it, and shall be found loitering or residing therein and shall follow no labor, trade, occupation or business, and have no visible means of subsistence and can give no reasonablé account of themselves or their business in such place.” Prior to this, in the counties of Erie, Crawford, Franklin, Venango and Warren, a vagrant was de- fined as one “‘ having no apparent business, trade or occupation, and without any visible avocation or means of subsistence.” (Act 1866, P. L. 259, 720.) Brewster 392; Isaac’s Case, 1 Lance. Bar. No. 30; Willis vs. Willis, 12 Pa. 159. (a.) See Act 1860, p. 1. 382; Comth. vs. Sheriff, 16 Phila. 518; see also Act of 1887, p. 1. 189, and Act of 1897, p. l. 85, as to adulterated drugs. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. The Act of 1879, P. L. 33, against vagrants and beggars, was held net to apply to one having a resi- dence within the county- (Comth. vs. Gill, 7 W. NO. BAT; , 35. The Act of 1876, made beggars from house to house a class of vagrants subject to arrest, but these had been considered vagrants, where the public provided in its pauper regulations for the support of all indigent and helpless persons. (15.) Laws against vagrancy are a constitutional exer- cise of the police power, although they provide for summary conviction. (16.) But an ordinance which prohibits association with criminal classes is said to transcend personal liberty. (17.) Beggars. 47 36. Under Act of 1905, P. L. 202, the State of Bawdy House Pennsylvania attempts to suppress a large class of idle and vagrant males who frequent bawdy and gaming houses and vote from them in the large cities, while acting as parasites upon the unfor- tunate habitues. It provides: ‘‘If any male person, having no apparent trade, occupation or business, or being without any means of subsistence, shall stay, frequent, or loiter in or about any bawdy house, or if any male person whatsoever shall ask for or demand, take or receive any money or other valuable thing, except in the course of lawful busi- ness, from the proprietress or inmate of a bawdy house, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” (18.) (15.) Comth. vs. Holloway, 5 Binny. 516; Alderman’s Case, 2 Parsons, 458; Comth. vs. McKeagy, 1 Ashmead, 248; Comth. vs. Gill, 7 W. N. C. 557. (16.) People vs. Phillips, 1 Park. (N. Y.) 95; People vs. Forbes, 4 Park. 611; People vs. Gray, 4 Park. 616. (17.) St. Louis vs. Roche, 128 Mo. 541; Ex parte Smith, 135 ; Mo. 223. (18.) Such laws are constitutional; Byers vs. Comth., 42 Pa. 89; Comth. vs. Graves, 155 Mass. 164. Loafers. Public Health. Vaccination. CHAPTER IV. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.. . Public Health. . Restrictions on trade. . Fraud in food, etc. Oleo cases. Liquor importations. . Some subjects of regulation. . Wages of miners. . Secret partnerships. . State boards—quarantine. 10. Vacation of alleys, etc. 11. Classification of municipalities. 12. Quackery. 13. Sewer systems. 14. Insane persons. 15. Licenses. 16. State and city powers. 17. Telegraph and telephone companies. 18. Safety gates. 19. Gas pipes. 20. Retailers’ license. 21. Steam engines on highways. 2la. Control of machines. 22. Automobiles on highways. 23. Aliens. 24. Insurance. 25. Rule against perpetuities. 26. Referendum. 1. The public health as well as public morals and safety, has been held to be within the police power, although at common law it was not. So before the Act of 1895, P. L. 203, section twelve of which authorized school principals, etc., to refuse admis- sion of children to the public schools, ‘‘ except upon a certificate signed by. a physician, setting forth that each child has been successfully vaccinated, or that it has previously had small-pox,” a school board in its discretion, might ae a resolution to exclude 8 THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. 49 from the public schools all children that have not been vaccinated. (1.) Woodward, C. J., in Whar- ton vs. School Directors, 42 Pa. 358, said: ‘‘ Where there is nothing but an indiscrect exercise of a clearly granted discretion, he will vex the judicial ear in vain, for the judicial arm can redress no such wrong.” Quarantine laws are sustained as an exercise of this power, to protect the community from con- tagious diseases whether among men or domestic animals. (2.) 2. It is only by virtue of this power that the legislature may constitutionally regulate the age and sex of persons engaged in dangerous or noxious employments, and limit the hours of labor for such classes. (3.) So also noisome trades may be limited to certain localities where they may be carried on without becoming nuisances, such as tanneries, slaughter houses, fish and meat markets. (4.) A miner’s registration law, which requires experience in dangerous vocation, to preserve the lives and health of those employed, has been held constitu- tional ; (a.) and upon the same principle rest the inspection laws relating to mines and factories. 3. Laws which protect the public from covin and (1.) Duffield vs. Williamsport Sch. Dist., 162 Pa. 476. On Act of 1895, see Nissley vs. Boro, 5 D. R. 7382; Sprague vs. Baldwin, 18 C. C. 568. Declared con- stitutional, Stull vs. Reber, 215 Pa. 155. Also in Field vs. Robinson, 198 Pa. 638. (2.) R. Co. vs. Milner, 57 Fed. R. 276; In re Smith, 84 Hunter, (N. Y.) 465; Harrison vs. Baltimore, 1 Gill. (Md.) 264. (3.) Act of 1891, p. 1. 176, sustained in Durkin vs. Coal Co., 171 Pa. 193; Comth. vs. Mf’g. Co., 120 Mass. 383. (4.) Wartman vs. Phila., 33 Pa. 202. (a.) Act 1897, p. 1. 287, sustained in Comth. vs. Shaleen, 216 Pa. 595. Restrictions on Trade. Dangerous , Occupations. Fraud in Food, etc. « 50 Oleo Cases. POLICE POWER. fraud in foods, oils, liquids and common necessaries are valid (5.) and trades and professions may be regulated to this end. Thus are authorized the inspection of kerosene, (6.) and meats when not in restraint of inter-state commerce ; (7.) and the ar- ticles of food, such as butter, canned fruits, etc., in short, wherever specious substitutes for food and drink are used. (8.) 4, The Act of 1885, P. L. 22, which prohibited the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine within thestate was sustained by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as a valid exercise of the police power, (9.) distinguishing the quail case. (10.) The case of Powell vs. Comth., was carried to the U. 8. Supreme Court and affirmed. (11.) But subsequently the cases of Comth. vs. Paul, 170 Pa. 284, and Comth. vs. Schollenberger, 156 Pa. 201, involving the importa- tion and sale of oleo were appealed to the Supreme Court and reversed because the Act of 1885 failed to distinguish between pure oleo and the spurious article of butter. (12.) The Act of 1899, P. L. 241, was then passed licensing dealers in oleo and but- (5.) People vs. Girard, 145 N. Y. 105; see Act of Congress, and Acts of 1903 and 1905, in appendix. (6.) Patterson vs. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501. (7.) Brimmer vs. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78; Minnesota vs. Barber, 136 U. S. 313; Cotting ws. Stock Yards, 79 Fed. R. 679; Cohn vs. People, 149 Til. 486. (8.) People vs. Arensberg, 105 N. Y. 123; People vs. Briggs, 114 N. Y. 56; McCann vs. Comth., 198 Pa. 509; Comth. vs. Davison, 11 Supr. C. 1380; Boyles vs. Newton, 50 N. J. L. 549; Comth. vs. Crane, 158 Mass. 218. (9.) Powell vs. Comth., 114 Pa. 265; Comth. vs. Paul, 148 Pa. 559; Walker vs. Comth., 11 Atl. 623. (10.) Comth. vs. Wilkinson, 189 Pa. 298. (11.) 127 U. 8. 678. (12.) 171 U. S. 1. THE PUBLIC HEALIH AND SAFETY. BL terine, which has been declared in harmony with both constitutions. (13.) The subject was further regulated by the Act of 1901, P. L. 327, and the Act of 1901, P. L. 648, in relation to renovated butter, which was held to be constitutional. (14.) It was held under the Act of 1901 that a license ee only covered one place of sale. (15.) The provision ae empowering the Court of Quarter Sessions toissue a restraining order against the sale was also declared constitutional. (16.) This being in restraint of an offense declared by statute, it does not conflict with the constitutional provision guaranteeing a jury trial, as at common law. (17.) 5. An agent of a liquor dealer residing in another Liquor state, who sells liquor within this state to a person Importations. of known intemperate habits, or a minor, although in the original package, may be convicted under Act of 1887, P. L. 108, although he might not be held for selling without a license. (18.) 6. Among the subjects which come within the Some Subjects scope of police power are these : Bt Hegulntion. Laws regulating the time and manner of catch- (13.) McCann vs. Comth., 198 Pa. 509; Comth. vs. Van Dyke, 18 Supr. C. 484; Comth. vs. Diefenbacher, 14 Supr. C. 264; Comth. vs. Fink, 16 Supr. C. 191; Comth. vs. Neill, 16 Supr. C. 210; Comth. vs. Schol- lenberger, 17 Supr. C. 218; 156 Pa. 210; Comth. vs. Leslie, 20 Supr. C. 529. (14.) Comth vs. Seiler, 20 Supr. C. 260. (15.) Oleo licenses, 27 C. C. 655. (16.) Comth. vs. Anderson, 211 Pa. 110, affirming the Su- perior Court. See Comth. vs. Caulfield, 27 Supr. C. 279. (17.) Van Swartow vs. Comth., 24 Pa. 131. (18.) Comth. vs. Zelt, 188 Pa. 615; Comth. vs. Silverman, 138 Pa. 642. The W. Va. law of 1903, p. 1. 130 punishing a railway agent for delivering a package of liquor without a license, is void (Liquor Co. vs. Platt, 148 Fed. R. 894.) 52 Wages of Miners. Labels. POLICE POWER, ing fish ; (19.) which operate upon the owner of the stream as well ; (20.) the game laws ; municipal or- dinances giving police power to arrest without war- rant visitants at disorderly houses ; (21.) the acts of May 6, 1863, and April 10, 1872, P. L. 51, making it a misdemeanor to sell railroad tickets unless au- thorized by the railroad company ; (22.) act May 8, 1879, making it a misdemeanor to traffic within a mile of a camp-meeting ; (23.) the acts of 1841, P. L, 416, and the act of 1849 extending it to Allegheny County making it liable for property destroyed within it by rioters; (24.) act May 9, 1889, prohib- iting pedling without a license; (25.) act 1854, reg- ulating pedlars in Lehigh, Dauphin, Sullivan, Wyoming and Bucks Counties. (26.) Act 1883 p.1. 96, sale of theatre tickets on street. (Comth. vs. Madden, Q. 8. Luzerne County, 1907. 7. A law regulating the wages of coal miners by weight and quality of coal mined by them has been held constitutional ; (27.) but one requiring payment in money at specified times was declared ‘‘ vicious and void,” as conflicting with the right of free con- tract. (28.) Laws passed to protect labels from imitation have been sustained, but in New Jersey the recognition (19.) Comth. vs. Bender, 7 C. C. 620. (20.) Comth. vs. Bender, 7 C. C. 620. (21.) Wood’s Ap., 29 Pitts. L. J. 264. (22.) Comth. vs. Wilson, 9 W. N. C. 291. (28.) Comth. vs. Seward, 2 Kulp, 294. (24.) County vs. Gibson, 90 Pa. 397. (25.) Comth. vs. Winslow, 7 C. C. 667. (26.) Comth. vs. Lippincott, 7 C. C. 32. For discussion of pedlars see note to State vs. Campbell, 13 Atl. 587. (27.) Comth. vs. Brown, 8 Supr. C. 339; Ramsey vs. People, 142 Tll. 380. (28.) Comth. vs. Isenberg, 8 Kulp, 116; 4 D. R. 579; God- charles vs. Wigeman, 113 Pa. 431. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. of the union label was declared invalid as granting a special privilege. (29.) 8. Secret partnerships are not encouraged by the law, and “‘ silent partners ” are required by state laws to give notice by filing names and defining their in- terests. When persons attempt to create a limited partnership under the act of 1874, P. L. 271, but fail to comply with its terms, they are held liable as gen- eral partners. (Bank vs. Gardner, 31 Supr. C. 135.) In some states sales alleged to be “ bankrupt,” are regulated, as in Ohio. The legislature of 1905, Pennsylvania, attempted to regulate fraudulent personal property sales, by requiring notice to be given. (P. L. 62.) 53 Secret Partnerships. e 9. The various state boards to regulate the practice State Boards. of medicine and surgery, dentistry, etc., are a form of police regulation, sometimes unwise and repress- ive of the individual liberty, yet enforceable, only because the public health has been classified as sub- ject to that power. The Pennsylvania legislature recently passed two important laws on public health, which lodge vast powers with the state commissioner. One creates a board of public health (1905, P. L. 312) ; the other creates a board of health and vital statistics, with a state registrar and a local registrar in every city, borough and township, and a deputy for each. Under this act nobody can be buried or transmitted without a death certificate from the local registrar, for which the fee is twenty-five cents. Act of May 18, 1893, P. L. 94, providing for licens- ing physicians and surgeons is constitutional. (Comth. vs. Denstan, 30 Supr. C. 631.) The quarantine hospital act of 1903, P. L. 115, was declared constitutional in Allentown vs. Wagner, 27 Supr. C. 485. (29.) Schmalz vs. Woolley, 56 N. J. Eq. 649. Practicing Medicine Without License. Quarantine. 54 Nuisance. Vacation of Alleys, etc. View—Notice. Report— Notice. Appeal. Classification of Municipali- ties. Quackery. Sewer Systems. Insane Persons. POLICE POWER. While health laws may declare what shall be nui- sances and provide for their abatement, when the destruction of property is involved, no man shall be deprived of it without due process of law, which imperatively requires that he have notice and the right to be heard, before the act is accomplished. (McKee vs. McKee, 14 Pa. 231; Smith vs. Wildman, 178 Pa. 245. See The Mary, 3 Peters Con. R. 312.) 10. Where a board of health condemns an alley, lane or passageway as injurious to health, a view is provided for in the Quarter Sessions, under act of 1905, P. L. 193. The viewers appointed shall give notice to abutting owners and others interested, of the time and place of their first meeting. When they have prepared their report they shall give ten days’ notice before filing same, so that it may be in- spected at a certain place and that exceptions may be filed before them. After filing the report, any person may appeal within thirty days. 11. The classification of municipalities for health regulations as by the act of 1901, P. L. 498, is con- stitutional. (1.) 12. Regulation of the practice of medicine was originally justified on the pretext of repressing quacks and fakirs, (2.) but it seems to have grown into a system well-nigh as dangerous as the evil it was pretended to counteract. 13. The act 1905, P. L. 260, required all munici- palities which have a sewer system to report to the State Commissioner of Health within four months from April 22, if the system discharges into any waters of the State. The Commissioner may grant a permit to discharge sewage into the streams and revoke the same. * 14. It has been seen that the state’s power over (1.) Beltz vs. Pittsburg, 26 Supr. C. 66. (2.) White vs. Carroll, 42 N. Y. 161. * See act, appendix. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. the insane is complete. But a question arose as to the right of relatives to restrain their insane. It was settled in favor of the private asylum in Comth. vs. Kirkbride, 3 Brewster, 586. (3.) Extra judicial confinement by relatives has been held valid. (4.) 15. All licenses are to a certain extent restraints upon trade limiting it to the licensees, and are im- posed as a matter of revenue, when placed on legit- imate employments, but when enacted as police economy, they are coupled witha penalty. A license law which is really in restraint of inter-state com- merce is void. (5.) But whether the license be re- quired for revenue only or for police regulation and incidentally for revenues, the power of the sovereign to levy it on proper subjects is indisputable. A municipality must use sound discretion in pass- ing ordinances forbidding or regulating certain occupations or amusements. (6.) 16. A state law which imposes a state license as a police regulation upon automobiles does not oust tle power of a city to impose a license under a valid ordinance for operating a machine within its con- fines, as a local police regulation. (7.) 17. The police power of a municipality over tel- egraph, telephone and electri¢ companies or corpo- (8.) See also Ex parte Whitwell, 98 Cal. 73; Van Deusen vs. Newcomer, 40 Mich. 90; Ayers vs. Russell, 50 . Hunter, (N. Y.) 282. (4.) Look vs. Dean, 108 Mass. 116. (5.) Titusville vs. Brennan, 153 U. 8. 289, reversing 143 Pa. 642; City vs. Co., 107 Cal. 524; Harmon ys. City, 147 U. S. 396; Willis vs. Standard Oil Co., 50 Minn. 290. See Oleo Cases, supra. (6.) Seranton vs. Straff, 28 Supr. C. 258. A borough may cause the removal of an over-hanging sign. (Frey vs. Boro, 22 Montg. 110.) (7.) Act of 1905, p. 1. 217, Construed in Brazier vs. Phila. 915 Pa. 297, and sustained. 55 Licenses. Discretion, State and City License. Telegraph and Telephone Companies. 56 Municipal License. Citation. POLICE POWER. rations, using the streets and alleys of the city or borough is ample to protect the public safety and interests. (a.) So every reasonable safeguard in the erection and maintenance of these quasi-public utilities, which city or borough authorities have prescribed, have been sustained under this power, by the courts. (6.) It has been held that a city of the third class has power to build a subway for tele- graph and telephone wires, so as to keep the public streets in a safe and passable condition. (c.) The objection in this case was from a citizen and not by a corporation affected by the proposition. The grant of the use of the streets for any such purpose, must necessarily be taken subject to the police power, which is not divestible. The only limitation to this power is its reasonableness. A municipality has power to impose a reasonable license upon telegraph and telephone companies for the privilege of erecting and maintaining poles and wires within it, but not as matter of revenue alone. (3.) When the parties cannot agree upon the rea- sonableness of the license fees, a petition may be presented to the Court of Common Pleas and a (a.) Allentown vs. Tel. Co., 148 Pa. 117; Chester vs. Tel. Co., 148 Pa. 120; Boro vs. Tel. Co., 202 Pa. 583; New Castle vs. Tel. Co., 207 Pa. 871; Boro vs. Tel. Co., 25 Supr. C. 544; Tel. Co. vs. Boro, 192 U. S. 64; Boro vs. Tel. Co., 26 Supr. C. 346; McKeesport vs. R. Co., 2 Supr. C. 242. (b.) Phila. vs. Tel. Co., 11 Phila. 327; see Pepper & Lewis Digest of Decisions, ete., vol. 21, col. 37054, for the various applications in local cases. (e.) O’Brien vs. Erie, 7 D. R. 491. (8.) Boro vs. Tel. Co., 16 Supr. C. 344; 202 Pa. 583, reversed in 192 U.S. 64, as a revenue measure; see 24 Supr. C. 208; Tel. C. vs. Phila. 190 U. S. 160; Schellsburg vs. Tel. Co., 26 Supr. C. 348; Boro vs. Tel. Co., 26 Supr. C. 346; Boro vs. Scott, 29 Supr. C. 156. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. citation issued, which must be served on the re- spondent not less than fifteen days before the time fixed for answering. Thecourt may then determine the question as provided by act of 1905, P. L. 183. 18. Although numerous cases hold that boroughs -in Pennsylvania have police power over streets, etc., the Supreme Court, recently, reversing the Superior Court, decided that the act of 1851 gives them no power to require a R. Co. to erect safety gates at crossings. (4.) 19. An ordinance of a borough regulating the laying and maintenance of a gas company’s pipes will be held valid so far as the council had power to exercise the power, and inoperative wherein ex- cessive. (5.) 20. The power of a borough to license retailers of goods who take orders and deliver, when the goods are shipped into the state in bulk, has been upheld. (6.) An ordinance which discriminates in favor of one who sells his own manufactures is not interdicted by the inter-state commerce law. (7.) Goods shipped into the state in mass are protected from a license until broken for delivery. But when so broken they become subject to the state con- trol. (8.) 91. The use of steam engines upon the highways is regulated by Act of 1885, P. L. 251. Section 1 (4.) Penna. R. Co.’s Case, 213 Pa. 373, reversing 27 Supr. C. 118. (5.) Boro vs. Gas. Co., 26 Supr. C. 355. (6.) Comth. vs. Rearick, 26 Supr. C. 384; Citing Cases under Act of 1851, as follows: Boro vs. Geer, 117 Pa. 207; Boro vs. Brownback, 10 Supr. C. 227, affirmed 194 Pa. 609; Boro vs. Koons, 18 Supr. C. 131. (7.) New Castle vs. Cutler, 15 Supr. C. 612. (8.) Comth. vs. Rearick, 26 Supr. C. 384; see opinion by Porter, J., for review of cases. 6 57 Service. Safety Gates. Gas Pipes. Retailer’s License. Steam Engines on Highways. 58: Control of Machine. Stop. Automobiles. Public Safety. POLICE POWER. provides that it shall not be lawful for any person or persons owning or controlling for himself or others, to move any machinery propelled by steam over any public road or highway, excepting under the provisions of the act herein provided. This has been held to mean the operation of the engine on the highway, as an element of danger, and not the standing of the same on the side of the road. (9.) 21a. Sec. 2, provides that in every case, when such machinery propelled by steam is being moved upon a public road or highway, it shall be the duty of the owner or owners, or person in charge of such machinery, upon the approach, in either direction, of all persons traveling in vehicles or in charge of teams, to move such machinery as far as practicable to the right or left of the road to a position where the said approaching vehicle or team may pass with the greatest safety and stop the same, before such persons, traveling in vehicles or in charge of teams, shall have arrived within three hundred feet of such machinery, and the owner or owners, or persons in charge of such machinery shall assist such passing vehicle or teams until they are safely by the danger ; and if there be any obstruction to the view of the road it shall be the duty of the owner or owners, or persons in charge of such machinery, not to ap- proach such obstruction nearer than three hundred feet without going to the place to see that the road is clear or sending some competent person for the purpose.. (a.) 22. A township of the first class may by ordinance regulate the speed of an automobile on its highways and limit it to ten miles per hour, notwithstanding (9.) Keeley vs. Shanley, 27 W. N. C. 363. : (a.) This Act should be made to embrace all automobiles, whether operated by steam, gasoline or electric power. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. the Act of 1903, P. L. 268, fixed a maximum of twenty miles per hour. It does this in the exercise of police power which imports full power to protect the lives, health and property of the citizens of that municipal division. (10.) The Act of 1885, P. L. 251 (supra), regulated the use of highways by trac- tion engines, so that the operators who did not com- ply with the requirements for the public safety, might be indicted for maintaining a public nuisance. It was said in Comth. vs. Allen, 148 Pa. 358, affirm- ing a conviction for nuisance: ‘‘It is common law and common sense that a man must use the high- way in a reasonable manner and not interfere with its reasonable use by other citizens.” In compliance with this principle the Act of 1905, P. L. 217, after fixing a maximum speed, provides ‘‘ that this section shall not permit any person or persons to drive an automobile at a greater speed than is reasonable, regarding traffic, danger or injury to property or person, at any time or any place.” The local au- thorities are prima facie the best judges of what is reasonable speed. (11.) The right to use the highway is relative and every license is subject to the above principle. For this reason a wheelman must turn out for teams and pedestrians, (12.) and the motorman ofa trolley car must keep his car under control so that he can stop it where necessary to avoid danger. (13.) 93. A law imposing a tax upon alien laborers (10.) Boro vs. Phillips, 148 Pa. 482. (11.) Radnor Twp. vs. Bell, 27 Supr. C. 1. (12.) Comth. vs. Forrest, 170 Pa. 40; Foote vs. Produce Co., 195 Pa. 190; Rowland vs. Wanamaker, 193 Pa. 598; Benton vs. Phila., 198 Pa. 396; Beer vs. Twp., 17 Supr. C. 587; Sauers vs. Tr. Co., 193 Pa. 602. (18.) Oyster vs. Tr. Co., 195 Pa. 320; Thompson vs. Tr. Co., 193 Pa. 555. 59 Common Law. Reasonable Speed. Relative Rights. Aliens. 60 Insurance. Usury. Rule against Perpetuities. Referendum. Cigarettes. Dairies. POLICE POWER. and requiring their employers to collect it from their wages due has been declared unconstitu- tional. (1.) 24. The regulation of insurance as a business, by the state, is not special legislation and invalid, nor cana contract be valid which waives the statute. (2.) The regulation of interest and usury is within the police power. (3.) 25. The English statute against accumulations and perpetuities which has been applied in Pennsyl- vania and other states, was called into being- by the will of one Thellusson that provided for accumula- tion of principal and income of his estate until all his heirs living when he died had passed away, then to be distributed according to its bequests. (4.) 26. An ordinance ratified by the vote of the people on the referendum principle, proscribing slaughter- houses in a city, was recently declared valid by the California Supreme Court in Los Angeles vs. Pfahler. The anti-cigarette law of Iowa was held con- stitutional in 121 Iowa 482, and sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court, Adv. R. 1904, p. 287. A St. Louis ordinance prohibiting dairies and cow- stables, was sustained in Fisher vs. St. Louis, 167 Mo. 654, affirmed, U. 8. Sup. Ct. 1908, adv. R. 673. (1.) Act 1897, pl. 166; Co. vs. Fagely, 187 Pa. 193; Fraser vs. Co., 82 Fed. 257: See Act 1897, pl. 135, author- izing employers to collect taxes due from aliens and pay over to the collectors. (2.) Comth. vs. Morning Star, 144 Pa. 103; Ins. Co. vs. Rob- inson, 54 Fed. R. 580; Considine vs. Ins. Co., 165 Mass. 462; Daggs vs. Ins. Co., 136 Mo. 382; 172 U. S. 557; Ins. Co. vs. Clements, 140 U. S. 226; People vs. Formosa, 1381 N. Y 478. (3.) Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U. 8. 136; Assn. vs. Heidt, 107 Ta. 297. (4.) Thellusson vs. Woodford, 4 Vesey 227; Johnston’s Est., 185 Pa. 179; Gerber’s Est. 196 Pa. 366. CHAPTER V. PUBLIC HEALTH, Continued. . Pure Food and Drinks. . State Control. . Title of Dairy and Food Commissioner, . Constitutional prohibition. . Sustained by U. S. Supreme Court. . Potable waters. . State’s Power Sovereign. . Pollution by bodies politic. . Pollution ‘by City. 10. Public and private injuries. 11. State control of sewers. 12. Private sewers. 13. Constitutional points. 14. Delegation of power. 15. ‘‘ Equal protection of the laws.” 16. Definition of ‘‘ Sewage.” 17. Tanneries, rule as to. 18. Legislative discretion. 19. Special legislation, when necessary. 20. Limited exemption of tanneries. 21. Classification. 22. Public sewer systems. 23. Injunction as a remedy. 24. Act of 1874, as to rates. 25. Duty of Water Company. 26. Right of the State. 27. Power of Court to fix rates. 28. Penalty for turning on water. 29. Cities of third class. 30. Monopoly in New Jersey. 31. Contract as to water rates. 82. Reserved power to alter rates. 33. Quo warranto as a remedy. OOH o>ohrwnre 1. Coming within the police power are all the Fe Hood and laws regulating the supply of pure foods and whole- ae 61 62 State Control. Dairy and Food Commissioner. Doubtful Powers. ‘Constitutional Prohibition. POLICE POWER. some drinks. Congress has regulated the subject by an act covering its domain, for which see appen- dix. But the several states have exclusive power over these subjects within their respective jurisdic- tions, 2. By various enactments (see appendix) Penn- sylvania has exercised this power in regulating the manufacture and sale of foods and liquids, and powers have been committed to the State Board of Agriculture, exercisable by the Dairy and Food Commissioner, and to the State Board of Health exercisable by the Commissioner of Health. 3. The title of the Dairy and Food Commissioner was recently sustained by the supreme court in quo warranto proceedings against Warren instituted by the attorney general. His appointment is au- thorized by the act of 1895, P. L. 17, which is held valid. The court in this proceding declined to enter into the domain of his powers and duties under the acts of 1885, P. L. 22; 1893, P. L. 152, or any subsequent acts, holding that if any of these powers are doubtful, they must be challenged in another proceeding. | 4, It was the contention in this case that the in- quisitiorial powers of examination and inspection conferred upon this state officer are contrary to Sec. 27, Art. 3 of the state constitution which or- dains: “No state office shall be continued or created for the inspection or measuring of any mer- chandise, manufacture or commodity, but any county or municipality may appoint such officers when authorized by law.” It was the obvious purpose of the people to pre- vent state espionage upon them, and to restrict in- terference in private affairs to each community. PUBLIC HEALTH. 5. The pure food laws of this and other states have been generally sustained by the courts.(1.) The New York statute 1893, Ch. 661, Sec. 41, was sustained by the U. S. Sup. Ct. 1903, in Crossman vs. Lurman, and held that the act of congress of 1890, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3185, did not render it inoperative. 6. That all the waters of a state come within its police regulation has been seen;(2.) and the potable waters, whether public or private, whether under control of a corporation or individuals, part- nership or joint stock company, are to be kept pure and wholesome, and to this end, the state police power is ample. So complete is this power that in a recent case, (3.) the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey by Pitney, J., affirmed the right of the state to restrain a corporation from diverting the potable waters and supplying them to citizens of another state. The corporation in this case claimed the right to use the waters impounded upon its grounds and serve it in its own pipes beyond the state. The state was held to have the ultimate right to preserve the use of the water to its citizens, subject to the rights of riparian owners. 7. It was also held in New Jersey,(4.) that the state may enjoin a corporation or individual from assuming and exercising sovereign rights in the conversion to private use of the common property it holds in trust for a public use, when the loss of it (1.) See Ante, p. 49, par. 8, and p. 50, par. 4. For the laws, see appendix. (2.) P. 20, par. 10. (3.) Attorney General vs. Hudson Co. Water Co., Nov. 19, 1906. See N. J. Eq. Rept. (4.) McCarter vs. Water Co. N. J. Eq., 61 Atl. 710. 63 Sustained by U.S. Supreme Court. Potable Waters. Diversion to Another State, Restrained. State’s Power Sovereign. 64 Riparian Rights. Pollution by Bodies Politic. Pollution of Water by City. POLICE POWER. may injure or destroy the health or comfort of the people. That this is the common law and appli- cable universally will appear in the sequence. The rule that applies to an individual, applies equally to a corporation. Where riparian owners are con- cerned, the rights of the lower riparian owner to have the water come down to him freely and un- polluted and undiminished, except by so much as the upper owner finds reasonably necessary for his uses, are so well known that it would be a waste of time to cite authorities. (5. ) 8. The growth of municipalities everywhere, and the absorption of water rights by corporations, and the multiplication of sewerage systems discharging noxious filth and disease engendering germs into the potable waters of the state, have recently called for drastic, legislation, and it is the purpose of this chapter to discuss the questions which have re- cently arisen, germane thereto. 9.. Good vs. Altoona,(6) which was an action of trespass for damages for polluting stream, spring and well and creating a nuisance, by defendant’s emptying its sewerage into a stream of water cross- ing plaintiff’s farm and polluting his supply of water for domestic uses, settled the law, that a municipality is liable for damages in such action. Coal Co. vs. Sanderson, 113 Pa. 126, is distin- guished as a case where nothing was done to dim- inish the purity of the water, save what resulted (5.) See Pepper and Lewis’ Digest of Decisions, subject Real Property—subdivision—Water Courses. (6.) 162 Pa. 4938. See Howell vs. McCoy, 3 Rawle, 256; Barclay vs. Comth., 25 Pa. 503; McCollum vs. Water Co., 54 Pa. 40; Owens vs. Lancaster, 182 Pa. 257; Shaughnessy vs. Pittsburg, 20 Supr. C. 609. PUBLIC HEALTH. from the natural use and enjoyment of their own property. Where the damages awarded are for a permanent injury to the land the plaintiff is pre- cluded from bringing new action for continuance of the injury. (7.) : 10. The courts make a distinction between such pollution of a stream as affects the general public and such as only affects the private right of a ri- parian owner. It has been said: “If the public, having a right to take from this stream pure and unpolluted water, found in it the germs of disease, coming from the cesspool of the defendant, which he maintained on a tributary of the stream, his offense would be a public one, for which he would be properly indicted. The wrong would be against the whole community—as a community not simply against an individual or certain individuals, how- ever numerous—and ought to be punished as a crime. If the public have a right to receive pure water through the agency of a corporation legally authorized to take it from a stream, he who pol- lutes it offends against the public. If, on the other hand, the waters of a stream, in which riparian owenrs alone have an interest, be polluted, the wrong or injury is a private one, for which the in- dividual or individuals injured may have redress; and this is true whether the riparian owner be a private person or a water company which does not take the water from the stream under the right of eminent domain. The rights of such owners are the (7.) Carpenter vs. Lancaster, 212 Pa. 581; Blizzard vs. Dan- ville Borough, 175 Pa. 479; Weir vs. Boro., 148 Pa. 566; Glasgow vs. Altoona, 27 Supr. C. 55. 65 Public and Private Injury. 66 State Control of Sewers. Private Sewer. Constitutional Points. POLICE POWER. same.” (8.) The court should have directed a ver- dict of not guilty in the case. (9. ) 11. Public sewers and private sewers have dis- charged their filth and disease bacilli into the state’s potable waters, until, in the winter time, when they are covered with ice and there is little aeration or opportunity to permit nature to work out purification, these streams become continuous conduits of disease and death. In view of this, the legislature of 1905, P. L. 260, passed a law, (10.) whose constitutionality was declared by the su- perior court Feby. 25, 1907, by Porter, J., in a lengthy opinion the salient points of which fol- low.” (11.) 12. The defendant Emmers was convicted of a misdemeanor for maintaining a private sewer from his hosiery mill to the Schuylkill river, which supplies Phila. and other places with drinking water. Notice had been given him to abate the nuisance he had maintained for fourteen years, and he paid no attention to the notice, nor did he exercise his right to appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. 13. The constitutionality of the act was attacked on several points, one being that it conflicts with the 14th amendment of the U. 8. Con., and the other that by reason of the exception it conflicts with Sec. 7, Art. 3, Con. of Penna. As to the first point (8.) Brown, J., in Comth. vs. Yost, 197 Pa. 171, citing Lord vs. Water Co., 185 Pa. 122; R. Co. vs. Water Co., 182 Pa. 418. (9.) Comth. vs. Ruddle, 142 Pa. 144, (10.) See Appendix for the Act in full. (11.) Comth. vs. Emmers, Q. S. Montg. Co., appealed to supreme court. 4 PUBLIC HEALTH. the court decided his riparian rights were not af- fected, since he had no right to pollute the waters,(12.) The riparian owner being confined to a reasonable use of the water, only, (13.) he has no right to erect anything which poisons, cor- rupts or renders the water offensive and unwhole- some for the lower riparian owner.(14.) The rule laid down in Sanderson vs. Coal Co., 113 Pa. 145, where there was no question of pollution of the water, was one of damages between private owners and the public was not concerned. Although the defendant had for fourteen years maintained this sewer, he had no right to continue it after notice to abate it. His offense, as a public one, was indict- able at common law. (15.) 14. The delegation by the law, to the commis- sioner, of the duty to determine a fact or facts upon which the law became applicable is not a delegation of legislative power.(16.) His decision is not final—an appeal being allowed to the C. P., giving the defendant a full opportunity to be heard. “ Due process of law, is process due according to the law of the land. This process in the states is (12.) Citing Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wallace 36; Brad- | well vs. Ill, 16 Wallace 130; Giozza vs. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 67; Comth. vs. Finn, 11 Supr. Ct. 620. (13.) Haupt’s Ap., 125 Pa. 211; Meadville Water Co., 135 Pa. 122; R. Co. vs. Water Co., 182 Pa. 418; Filbert vs. Dechert, 22 Supr. C. 362. (14.) Howell vs. McCoy, 3 Rawle, 256; Wheatley vs. Chris- man, 24 Pa. 298; McCullom vs. Water Co., 54 Pa. 40; Comth. vs. Russell, 172 Pa. 506. (15.) Comth. vs. Yost, 197 Pa. 171. A nuisance gains no right by lapse of time. (16.) Wilkes-Barre vs. Garrabed, 11 Supr. C. 355. 67 No Riparian Right to Pol- lute the Water. Sanderson vs. Coal Co. Dis- tinguished. Delegation of Power. Due Process of Law. 68 ‘+ Equal Protec- tion.” The Police Power. The Excep- tions. Definition of Sewage. POLICE POWER. regulated by the law of the state.”(17.) The con- viction was pursuant to due process of law. (18) 15. In discussing the question whether the law contravenes the 14th amendment by denying to any person within the state “jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” Judge Porter was under labor to combat the real difficulty, for he must show that the distinction or inequality of the exception is a substantial and reasonable one—and here he enters the domain of scientific debate. He says: “The statute was passed in the exercise of the police power of the state. That power undoubtedly extends to all regulations affecting the health, good order, morals, peace and safety of society. All sorts of restrictions and burdens are imposed under this power, and when these are not in conflict with any constitutional prohibition or fundamental prin- ciple they cannot be successfully assailed in a judi- cial tribunal. That the preservation of the waters of the state from pollution, involving danger to health, is a proper subject for the exercise of the po- lice power cannot be seriously questioned. Proceed- ing to an examination of the subjects excepted out of the operation of the statute, which exceptions the defendant asserts, involve a denial of the equal pro- tection of the laws to those not within the excep- tions, we must inquire whether the exceptions are founded on substantial distinctions, having reason- able relation to the subject matter of the statute. 16. That there might be no question as to the kind of sewerage that the legislature intended to forbid individuals, companies and private corpo- (17.) Walker vs. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90. (18.) Holden vs. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366. PUBLIC HEALTH. rations from discharging into the waters of the state, when it had been determined, in the manner provided by the statute, that such discharge had become dangerous to the public health, the statute embodied a specific definition, in these words: “ Sewerage shall be defined as any substance that contains any of the waste products, or excrementi- tious or other discharges from the bodies of human beings or animals.” The exception of water flow- ing from coal mines was unnecessary; such water does not naturally contain any of the ingredients of sewerage as defined by the statute. The water flow- ing from a coal mine may contain sulphate of iron, sulphate of lime or other chemicals in solution, which would make it unpleasant for drinking pur- poses, and perhaps injurious to health, but it could not contain the specific germs of those diseases which sometimes abound in sewerage of the char- acter defined by the statute. Should the water from a coal mine be mixed with sewerage of the kind prohibited, the compound would no longer be within the exception, but would come within the prohibition of the statute. 17. The same rule is to be applied to water flow- ing from tanneries. Such waters would undoubt- edly be offensive to both taste and smell, but the only waste products of animals which they would carry would be such as appertained to the hides. Those waste products had been long immersed in and saturated with chemical solutions, which give them a character essentially different from the waste product of a slaughter house or the excretions of human beings. The waters flowing from the tan- nery are only within the exception so long as they remain unmixed with other materials. Whether 69 Water from Coal Mines. Tanneries, Rule as to. 70 POLICE POWER. the processes employed in tanning of hides would, if applied to sewerage of the kind to which this statute applies, result in the destruction of the germ life with which it is asserted by science that the dejecta of human beings sometimes abounds, it is not for us to affirm or deny. One has been subjected to a prolonged process in which power- ful chemicals are made use of, and the other has not been subjected to such process. oe ofthe 18. It is not for the court to determine whether ‘ the classification adopted by the legislature was wise or unwise; we are only to inquire whether it Rule aste Dis- is founded in substantial distinctions having some SReHOR reasonable relation to the subject matter of the legislation.” Legislative “While the police power cannot be put forward ioe as an excuse for oppressive and unjust legislation, it may be lawfully resorted to for the purpose of preserving the public health, safety or morals, or the abatement of public nuisances, and a large dis- cretion is necessarily vested in the legislature to determine not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests.(19.) What is neces- sary for the protection of the public health is pri- marily a legislative question. Whether the intro- duction of sewerage, of the kind prohibited by the statute, into the waters of the various streams of the commonwealth, by private individuals, com- panies or corporations, could be conducted in such a way, or with such secrecy, as to baffle ordi- nary inspection, or whether it involves such dan- (19.) Holden vs. Hardy, 169 U. 8. 392; Lawton vs. Steele, 152 U. S. 133. PUBLIC HEALTH. gers to the public health as to require, for the protection of the people, the entire suppression of the business, rather than its regulation in such manner as to permit the discharge of such sewer- age as does not involve danger to the public health, are questions of fact and of public policy, which belong to the legislative department of the govern- ment.(20.) The question in each case is whether the legislature has adopted the statute in the exer- cise of a reasonable discretion, or whether its ac- tion be a mere excuse for an unjust discrimination, or the oppression or spoliation of a particular class, 19. “ From the very necessities of society, legis- lation of a special character, having these objects in view, must often be had in certain districts, such as for draining marshes and irrigating arid plains. Special burdens are often necessary for general benefits—for supplying water, preventing fires, lighting districts, cleaning streets, opening parks and many other objects. The 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 any one, but to promote with as little individ- ual inconvenience as possible, the general good. Though, in many respects, necessarily special in their character, they do not furnish just ground for complaint, if they operate alike upon all persons and property, under the same circumstances and conditions. Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited, but legislation (20.) Powell vs. Penna., 127 U. 8. 678. 71 Special Legisla- tion, when Nec- essary. Class legisla- tion. 72 Limited Ex- emption of Tan- neries. Classification Approved. Public Sewer Systems. POLICE POWER. which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its opera- tion it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment. (21.) 20. The exemption of the water discharged from tanneries, which must be construed as’ including only the liquid resulting from the operation of tanning without the admixture of such sewerage as is prohibited by the statute, involved only a classification of the kind of sewerage with which the legislation dealt. It did not exempt the tanner from liability to answer to any lower riparian owner for any injury which the discharge of the water from the tannery might cause, nor did it ex- empt him from prosecution under the law as it form- erly existed in case the discharge of the waters from his tannery became a public nuisance. (22.) The exemption was not limited to the existing tan- neries, but this defendant or any other person who hereafter engages in the tanning business is en- titled to its protection, to the extent that it is not affected by this statute in any manner whatever. 21. The classification adopted by statute, as to the character of the sewerage prohibited and that exempted from the provisions of the act, was founded upon substantial and material distinctions and was one which it was within the discretion of the legislature to make. 22. The public sewer systems are defended as an exception on the ground that they are built under (21.) Barbier vs. Conley, 113 U. 8. 31. (22.) The poisonous acids and excrements which a tannery discharges into potable waters are deleterious to health and life itself and the act constitutes a public nuisance. PUBLIC HEALTH. the authority of the state and under the police power. Any person who suffers from the discharge of public sewers into the waters of the state is entitled to damages. (23. ) The municipal divisions—as cities and boroughs —may be specially exempted—under the constitu- tion. (24.) 23. The pollution of potable water, by other means than a sewer, or by any means is a nuisance which the courts will restrain upon due cause shown.(25.) So, where a water company or cor- poration furnishes water to its patrons that is un- wholesome for drinking and cooking purposes, it may be restrained from collecting rents except for the flushing of closets and sewers and for fire pur- (23.) Good vs. Altoona, 162 Pa. 493. No presumption arises in favor of a nuisance, Comth. vs. Alburger, 1 Wharton, 469; Comth. vs. Miltenberger, 7 Watts. 450; County vs. Deans, 33 Pa. 131. (24.) Comth. vs. Vrooman, 164 Pa. 306, held Act of 1870, P. L. 14, requiring insurers against loss by fire to have authority conferred by a charter, a valid ex- ercise of police power. Clark’s Est., 195 Pa. 520, held the Surety Co. Act of 1895, P. L. 248, con- stitutional. But from the standpoint of public policy, no municipality should be exempt from police regulation requiring it to treat its sewage scientifically so as to destroy typhoid and other disease germs before they enter a stream or body of potable water. It is stated by scientific journals that disease germs may be destroyed by electricity. Besides there is no warrant for the doctrine that a municipality may gain the right to maintain a public nuisance by usage or permissive regulation. (25.) Water Co. vs. Coal Co., 212 Pa. 115-6; Sewerage Co. vs. Schmidt, 22 Montg. Co. 164. See act 1895, p. I. 231, as to reservoirs of water companies. 73 Injunction, as Remedy. ary 74 POLICE POWER. poses.(26.) Williams, J., in this case, said: “It is inequitable that a corporation chartered to serve a ‘public use’ and actually undertaking to serve the public with one of the necessaries of life should be allowed to collect the price of a supply of good water from those to whom it delivers an article that cannot be used, or be made fit for use by any proc- ess Within their knowledge or reach.” SET of 24. The courts take jurisdiction of the subject , of regulating the rates of these corporations, by vir- tue of a clause in the act of 1874, P. L. 73, as fol- lows: “And provided further that the Court of Common Pleas of the proper county shall have jurisdiction and power, upon the bill or petition of any citizen using the gas or water of any of said companies, to hear, inquire and determine as to the charges thereof for gas or water furnished, and to decree that the said bill be dismissed, or that the charges shall be decreased, as to the said court may seem just and equitable, and to enforce obedi- ence to their decrees by the usual process.” It was Purity of held by Edwards J., (27.) that a water compan Meee incorporated Feby. 12, 1851, which ar a plant to one incorporated March 11, 1896, was subject to the act of 1874. He, however, said: “Such water company is not bound to provide water that is chemically pure, but water that is ordinarily and reasonably pure and wholesome.” But the words “chemically pure” can not mean that poisoned water or water teeming with typhoid bacilli may be furnished. (26.) Brymer vs. Butler Water Co., 172 Pa. 489; Same Case, 179 Pa. 231. (27.) Wilkes-Barre vs. Water Co., 4 Lack. L. N. 367. PUBLIC HEALTH. 75 25. Recurring to Brymer vs. Butler Water Duty of Corpo- ration. Company and the opinion of Williams, J. (28.) As between the company and the consumer he holds it to be the duty of the former “ to exercise diligence in the effort to preserve it from pollution and to deliver it to the public in no worse condition than that in which it is taken from the source of supply. The power of the court, under the act, is to “investigate the efficiency of the system and the quantity and quality of the water furnished, and make such order as may be necessary and just for the protection of the public.” 26. In the case of Comth. vs. Russell, 172 Pa. 506, growing out of the same facts, but directed against the parties who polluted the water supply of Butler, it was held that the furnishing of water, as well as light and heat is a public use, and that the commonwealth had a right to intervene and have the interests of the public conserved and the purity of the water supply guarded, by virtue of the police power. To such a case the rule in Sanderson vs. Coal Co., 113 Pa. 126, does not apply, for that was a case of private injury from a lawful act. 27.. When the second case of Brymer vs. Water Co., came into the supreme court, it was on the question of the power of the court to fix a schedule of rates, under the acts of 1874, P. L. 95, and 1887 P. L. 311. The attempt to fix rates is primarily with the water company, whose stockholders are entitled to a reasonable return on their investment, not less than the legal rate of interest. The proper remedy here was held to be in the consumer who claimed to be aggrieved, by petition to the court to have the rates decreased, The right (28.) 172 Pa, 489. Right of the State. Power of Courts to fix Rates. Remedy by Consumer. %6 POLICE POWER. to reasonable profits was asserted and any rate fixed with a view to give less, is partial confisca- tion—(see Stone vs. Farmer’s Loan Assn. 116 U. 8. 307. The Act of 1887 referred to above gives the court of common pleas jurisdiction of a complaint by any citizen using the water or gas, of any impurity or deficiency in quantity, or both, as under Act of 1874 amended by it. Penalty. 28. It was held in Tyrone Gas and Water Co. vs. Burley, 19 Supr. C. 348, that clause 5, Sec. 34, Act of 1874, P. L. 94, is a valid exercise of the po- lice power, and the penalty for turning on the water by the borough authorities, after the water Co. had turned it off, fer non-payment of rent— is legally collectible. The borough should have ap- plied to court to have the rates adjusted equitably. The borough authorities cannot decide what are reasonable rates. (DuBois Borough vs. Water Co. 176 Pa. 430. Troy Water Co. vs. Troy Boro. 200 Pa. 453.) Ci of Third 29. A city of the third class has no power to : regulate the charges of a water Co. This power is vested in the Common Pleas court by Act of 1874. An ordinance so regulating the rates of a company chartered in 1854, (P. L. 599, Acts 1856) which accepted the Act of 1874 is subject to its provi- sions and is invalid. (29.) The general welfare clause of the Act of 1889, P. L. 277, confers no power on a city of the third class to regulate such charges. (30.) (29.) Schroeder vs. Scranton Gas & Water Co., 20 Supr. C. 255; Tyrone Gas & Water Co. vs. Borough, 195 Pa. 566. (30.) See Bly vs. Water Co., 197 Pa. 80. PUBLIC HEALTH. 30. In New Jersey, a water Co. which has a monopoly of the supply of water to a borough is a quasi-public corporation and bound to supply water at a reasonable rate, to be fixed by a com- petent tribunal where they cannot agree.(31.) A municipality has power to fix rates(32.) and to revise its contracts as to rates, but they must be reasonably remunerative. (33. ) 31. Under the Constitution and laws of Florida, the supreme court of that state decided that a municipality could not divest itself by contract, of its right to establish reasonable maximum rates for a water company. (34.) Under the California law of 1853, p. 87, amended 1862, p. 540, notwithstanding a contract not to reduce water rates below a certain point, the legis- lature, by virtue of its reserved power to amend or repeal, vested by the Constitution of 1849, (Sec. 31 Art. 4.) can reduce such rate, as by Act of 1885, p. 95. (35.) 32. Where a municipality grants an exclusive privilege of water supply to a company, for a defi- nite term, it is precluded from installing a com- petitive plant during such term.(36.) Since the Act of 1887, P. L. 310, a water company organized under it, cannot restrain a borough in Pennsyl- (31.) Boro. vs. Water Co., 62 Atl. 390. (32.) Howe vs. Orange, 62 Atl. 777. (33.) Com. vs. Water Co., 62 Atl. 474. ; (34.) Water Works vs. Tampa, affirmed 199 U. 8. 241. (35.) Co. vs. Canal and Irrig. Co., Adv. Rep. U. 8. Sup. Court, p. 241, 1903. (36.) Vicksburg vs. Water Works Co. Adv. Rep. U. S. Sup. Ct. 1905, p. 660. 17 Monopoly of Supply. Contract as to Rates. Reserved Power to Alter. Exclusive Privilege. is The States’ Remedy. POLICE POWER. vania, from erecting its own water works in com- petition. (37. ) 33. Recurring again to Comth. vs. Russell, 172 Pa. 506, and the opinion of the court in that case, the state’s right to intervene where a corporation charged with a public duty, fails to perform it, is asserted and the remedy of the state against corporations, would seem to be an appropriate one. The only way to bring an arrogant, monopolistic corporation down to a level with its functions is the writ of quo warranto, and if that were more in use, the citizens would be put to less, pains to wring common right from these creatures of the state. This is particularly applicable to a corpora- tion which has gathered into its tentacles all the springs and streams of available water supply for many miles around a municipality, and serves it with polluted water, at such rates as it likes, and in such manner as it pleases. The equitable remedy of the Act of 1874, has no relation to this great public remedy, and is not ex- clusive of it: (87.) Water Co. vs. Boro., 65 Atl. 403. CHAPTER VI. PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER. . Lawful labor organizations. . Right to contract. . Act of Congress. . Hours of labor. Railroad strikes. Lawful associations defined. . Unlawful acts. . The right to quit work. . Illegal features of a strike. 10. A strike legally defined. 11. The Debs case reviewed. 12. The remedy for riot. 13. The posse comitatus. 14, Confederations in restraint of trade, 15. The boycott. . 16. Contempt for violating injunction. 17. Placards, etc., unlawful. 18. Intimidation. 19. Sympathetic strikes. 20. Conspiracy defined. 21. Refusal to employ strikers. 22. Union’s liability. 23. Practice. 24. Remedy in equity. 25. Pooling rates. 26. Trading in passenger tickets. 27. Manufacturers’ conspiracy. 28. Discrimination by railroad companies, 29. Railroad police. 80. Railroad conductors as police. 31. Trespass on trains. 32. Acts, when murder. 83. Negligence of employés. 34. Obstructing public roads. OBIOAAPwVWH . MS ‘ “Lawful 1. The right to belong toa “lawful labor organi ea zation” was recognized by the act of 1897, P. L. Organization.” 116, which, however, was declared unconstitutional by Judge Rice in Comth. vs. Clark, 14 Supr. C. 435, 79 80 Right to Contract. Act of - Congress. POLICE POWER. because it applied only to corporations, and as such was special legislation interdicted by the con- stitution. This was an act punishing any officer, agent or employé ot a corporation coercing any em- ployé, because of his connection with a lawful labor organization. The judge, however, plainly inti- mates in his opinion that the lawis otherwise vici- ous, as interfering with the universally protected right to contract for labor. 2. As every person, who is sud juris, has the con- stitutional right to make a free-minded contract, courts will compel the fulfilment of such contracts, lawfully entered into,(12.) and agreements requiring mutual notice and containing a penalty for quitting without giving such notice, even to forfeiture of arrears of pay, are valid. (13.) An employer who has no contract otherwise bind- ing him, may discharge an employé for joining a union and may keep a list of employés who have so left, for information. (14.) An agreement to em- ploy none but ‘‘union men” is void in New York, as in restraint of trade, (15.) A strike called ona building to force out employés who do not belong to a union, or compel them to join it, is illegal and a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act. (16.) 3. By act of Congress, June 1, 1898, it was de- clared a misdemeanor for an employer engaged in (12.) Robertson vs. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, affirming the power of a justice of the peace under the Revised Statutes to arrest a sailor under contract, and re- turn him to his vessel: State vs. Williams, 32 S. C. 123. (18.) Harmon vs. Co., 85 Me. 447; Preston vs. Linen Co., 119 Mass. 400. (14.) Boyer vs. Tel. Co., 124 Fed. 246. (15.) Curran vs. Galen, 152 N. Y. 33; Same in Missouri, State vs. Julow, 129 Mo. 163. (16.) Erdman vs. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79. PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER. inter-state commerce, to require an employé neither to become or not to remain a member of a labor or- ganization, or to discriminate against such member.* 4, It is not within the province of a legislature to fix the hours of labor so as to interfere with the contracting power of those who are sui juris, (1.) but the police power applies to minors, (2.) and those under disability. In Illinois a woman, who is sud juris, is placed on a level with a man, as to con- tracts. (3.) But the right of the state, exercising police power, is undisputed, in the regulation of hours and conditions of employment in dangerous and unwholesome places. (4.) 5. Strikes may be legal in theory, but seldom in practice. In Pennsylvania the act of 1877, P. L. 14, deals with strikes on railroads. It provides for the punishment of locomotive engineers or other em- ployés on strike or to incite a strike, who abandon the locomotive engine in their charge, when attached to a passenger or freight train, at any other than schedule or otherwise appointed destination of such train. The penalty is not less than $100 nor more than $500 fine and imprisonment for six months, or the fine alone. The same penalty is prescribed for refusal to aid in moving the cars of other companies. Section 3 provides the same penalty for interfering with, molesting or obstructing any locomotive en- * Declared Unconstitutional in R. Teleg. vs. R. Co., 148 Fed. R. 487 and U. S. vs. Scott, 148 Fed. R. 481. ‘(1.) Eight Hour Law, 21 Colo. 29; The Baker’s Case, (N. Y.) U. S. Supreme Court, 1905; Low vs. Printing Co., 41 Neb. 127; R. Co. vs. Gilmore, 8 Ohio C. C. 658. (2.) People vs. Ewer, 141 N. Y. 129. (3.) Ritchie vs. People, 155 Ill. 101, declaring the eight hour law as to women unconstitutional. (4.) Holden vs. Hardy, 14 Utah, 71; 169 U. S. 366. See act of congress 1907, limiting the hours of railway tele- graphers to nine and of trainmen to sixteen. 81 . Hours of Labor. Railroad Strikes. Abandonment of train. Refusal to Move Cars. Molesting Employes. 82 Obstructing Track, ete. Lawful Associations, Defined. Unlawful Acts, Reprehended. The Right to Quit. POLICE POWER. gineer or other railroad employé in doing his duty. The same penalty is fixed for obstructing the track or injuring the rolling stock, etc., in aid or further- ance of the objects of the strike. 6. Primarily any association for a lawful purpose and to better one’s condition socially and in a mate- rial way is not subject to interference. So the courts hold labor unions, in their organization and con- duct as such, valid. (1.) It is the unlawful mani- festation of the union, in strikes, boycotts and enforced idleness and vagrancy that courts denounce and equity restrains. Wherever these unions are recognized by laws incorporating them, as in Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, etc., it is for the purpose of betterment of conditions and wages, by ‘‘ lawful means.” 7. But nowhere is there a statute or a decision which declares that a strike or a boycott constitutes “lawful means.” Fundamentally, an individual or any number of in- dividuals embracing a union have a right to contract for the highest wages at the best terms possible. 8. If the terms and wages offered for their labor do.not suit them they need not contract ; or when their contracts are irksome and terminated, they have a right peaceably to quit and leave singly or collectively, and better themselves elsewhere or in some other vocation, but no man has a right to be idle singly or in union and force others who would work to be idle also. In other words, when a man or a number of men have quit work, the job is gone and no law gives him or them a right toa stand around and boss it. (1.) (1.) Comth. vs. Carlisle, Brightly, 36--40; Mfg. Co. vs. Binney, 4 Pickering, 425; Master Stevedores vs. Walsh, 2 Daley, 1. (1.) Arthur vs. Oakes, 63 Fed. R. 310. PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER. 9. A strike is illegal, because it is a demonstra- tion of force, to prevent others from accepting labor who have an equal right legally and morally to contract for it. There is no such thing known as a peaceful and legal strike. Every strike has two effects: to leave the employer without means of performing his contracts and to prevent any other workmen from assisting him. Hence it is an unlawful combination, in restraint of trade and, is usually accompanied by violence, bankruptcy and ruin. The public is made the sufferer, in every case, and therefore the police power of the State is the proper force to repress a strike or a boycott. The usual resort is not to the police power, but to courts of equity to enjoin the unlawful concomi- tants. 10. “A strike is a combined effort among work- men to compel the master to the concession of a certain demand, by preventing the conduct of his business until compliance with the demand. The concerted cessation of work is but one of, and the least effective of the means to the end, the intimi- dation of others from engaging in the service, the interference with, and the disabling and destruc- tion of property, and resort to actual force and violence, when requisite to the accomplishment cf the end, being the other and more effective means employed.” (Jenkins, U. 8S. J. in Trust Co. vs. R. Co. 60 Fed. R. 803. A strike, says Justice Brewer of the U. 8S. Su- preme Court, “is coercion, force; it is the effort of the many, by the mere weight of numbers, to com- pel the one to do their bidding. It is a proceeding outside of the law, in defiance of the law, and in spirit and effect an attempt to strip from one that 83 Illegal Features of a Strike. ‘A Strike” Defined. By Justice Brewer. 84 The Debs Case. The Remedy for Riot. POLICE POWER, has, that which of right belongs to him—the full and undisturbed use and enjoyment of bis own.” 11.. The Debs Case (2.) is usually cited as au- thority for Federal interference by injunction. But the principal things for which the Debs Case stands are a misconception of facts and a mis- application of penal law by U. S. Judge Grosscup. Debs and his confreres who were illegally pun- ished for what they could not prevent and were not responsible for, were officers of the American Railway Union, a body in which every member voted to strike or not to strike and when the ma- jority voted to strike in sympathy for the starve- lings of Pullman, the officers so declared the resa!t and that tied up every wheel of transportation west of Chicago. There was no power in the offi- cers to call off the strike, as they were ordered to do, by the Judge, except by the vote of the mem- bers who had voted for it. After the fact, on pe- tition to a U. S. Court, Debs e¢ al. officers, were en- joined from continuing the strike which as a neces- sary consequence of strikes became one vast mob of disorder and destruction. Because they did not obey this injunction, and could not, they were imprisoned, and subsequently, felt the dagger of ingratitude from Unionism, as has every one sooner or later, who has ‘hitherto been a leader of it. 12. The remedy for the unlawful consequences of that strike was applied by the much-maligned Governor of Illinois, Altgelt, when his militia as an arm of the civil law fired into the mob of in- cendiaries, thieves and murderers in Chicago, and broke the cowardly back of it all. It was not the (2.) In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564; In re Grand Jury, 62 Fed. R. 832; U. 8. vs. Debs, 64 Fed. R. 724; 65 Fed. 210. PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER. Federal Court nor the Federal troops at Fort Sheridan. 13. The remedy for all unlawful assemblies upon the highways and in public places is first in the posse comitutus and if that is insufficient, the state power, as provided by law. If this principle were recognized more fully, there would be less “ government by injunction.” But the courts are forced to grapple with the law because constables, police, sheriffs and govern- ors, in political poltroonery or sympathy with crime and disorder, fail to discharge their duties. It was to remedy this local sympathy and cow- ardice that the Pennsylvania legislature of 1905 enacted the state constabulary law. 14. It is laid down that confederations of labor in restraint of trade are in conflict with the U. 8. law as well as the common law.(3.) But associa- tions for the peaceful and lawful increase of wages are recognized in many states; this however, does not mean by strike, intimidation or boy- cott. (4.) 15. . . “1. To create or carry out restrictions in trade or commerce. “2. To limit or reduce the production or increase or reduce the price of merchandise or any com- modity. “3. To prevent competition in manufacturing, making, transportation, sale or purchase of mer- chandise, produce or any commodity. “4. To fix any standard or figure whereby its Monopoly of | price to the public or consumer shall be in any man- ee ner controlled or established, of any article or com- modity of merchandise, produce or commerce in- tended for sale, barter, use or consumption in this State. “5. To make or enter into or execute or carry out any contracts, obligations or agreements of any kind or description by which they shall bind or have bound themselves not to sell, dispose of or transport any article or any commodity of any article of trade, ANTI-TRUST LAWS. use or merchandise, commerce or consumption be- low a common standard, figure or fixed value, or by which they shall agree in any manner to keep the price of such article, commodity or transportation at a fixed or graduated figure, or by which they shall, in any manner, establish or settle the price of any article, commodity or transportation be- tween them or themselves and others, so as to di- rectly or indirectly preclude a free and unrestricted competition among themselves or any purchasers or consumers in the sale or transportation of any such article or commodity, or by which they shall agree to pool, combine or directly or indirectly unite any interest that they may have connected with the sale or transportation of any such article or commodity, that its price might in’ any manner be affected.” 257 Monopoly of Transportation. Every combination as above defined shall be de- - clared unlawful, against public policy and void. To put the trusts out of existence it is provided by the bill that the Attorney General or the District At- torney of the proper county shall move against such a combination by quo warranto proceedings in the court of competent jurisdiction where the trust ex- ists for the forfeiture of its charter rights, fran- chises, privileges and powers, and for its dissolu- tion. Foreign corporations engaged in trust operations shall, by legal action, be barred from further busi- ness in the State. _Any violation of the Anti-Trust law shall be re- garded asa conspiracy against trade, and any per- son engaged in it or giving aid or advice, as princi- pal manager, director, agent, servant or employer, or in any other capacity to knowingly carry out any of its stipulations, shall be punished by a fine rang- Against Public Policy and Void. 7 Foreign Corpo- rations Barred. Conspiracy. 258 Evidence. Legislative Power. Fare Two Cents Per Mile. Minimum Fare. Cash Payment. POLICE POWER. ing from $500 to $1000 or imprisonment from six mouths to one year, or both. In prosecutions it shall be sufficient to prove that the trust exists, and that the defendant has belonged to it, or has acted in connection with it,’ without establishing its entire membership. MAXIMUM FARE LAW. 1. By act approved April 5, 1907, the Pennsyl- vania legislature exercised its undoubted reserved power to prescribe a maximum charge for trans- porting passengers by steam railroads in Pennsyl- vania, inasmuch as every .railroad charter and privilege is held subject to legislative alteration and control. 2. The title is “an act to regulate the maximum rate and mimimum fare to be charged for trans- portation of passengers by railroad companies and prescribing the penalty for violation thereof.” Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Penn- sylvania in General Assembly met and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same: That, after the thirtieth day of September one thousand nine hundred and seven, no company, operating a rail- road in whole or in part in this Commonwealth, shall demand or receive more than two cents fare per mile or for a fraction thereof contracted to be traveled or traveled by any passenger on such rail- road in this Commonwealth; Provided, however, That the minimum fare charged by such company need not be less than five cents; Provided further, That passengers paying fare in cash upon the trains CONTAGIOUS DISEASES. of said companies, may be charged a sum not to ex- ceed ten cents, in addition to the regular fare as hereinbefore provided, and for such excess pay- ment, shall be given a rebate check redeemable in cash at any ticket office of the company issuing said check. Sec. 2, Any railroad company which shall charge, demand, or receive any greater compensa- tion for the transportation of any passenger or per- son than is authorized by this act, shall be subject to a penalty of one thousand dollars for each and every offense, which shall be payable to the county where such illegal charge is made and shall be re- coverable by said county as debts of like amount are now recoverable by law. Sec. 3. That all acts or parts of acts either gen- eral or special, inconsistent herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES. Duties of School Directors as Board of Health. 1. The Act of April 11, 1899, P. L. 38, which constitutes the school directors in each township a board of health, by its title, provides as follows: Sec. 1. Be it enacted etc., that the school direc- tors in each township of the State of Pennsylvania shall, in addition to the powers vested in them by existing laws, have full power and authority to make and enforce all needful rules and regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of contagi- ous or infectious diseases, by the regulation of in- tercourse with infected places, by prohibiting from 259 Rebate Check. Penalty. School Town- ship Board of Health. 260 Diseases Enumerated. ‘Physicians must Report. Power over Nuisances, etc. Appointment of Sanitary Agent. POLICE POWER. attending any public school any child or other per- son belonging to or residing with the family of any person, or residing in the same house, in which any person may be suffering from cholera, small pox, (variola, varioloid) scarlet fever, typhus fever, yel- low fever, relapsing fever, diphtheria, diphtheritic croup or membranous croup, or any other contagi- ous disease; and it shall be the duty of all physi- cians practicing within the several townships to report to the secretary of such school board the names and residences of all persons coming under their professional care, afflicted with any of the aforesaid contagious or infectious diseases, within twenty four hours after the development of any such disease. (1.) Sec. 2. In the case of the prevalence of any con- tagious or infectious disease in any township of this commonwealth, the board of school directors of such township shall have power by themselves, or by a sanitary agent to be by them appointed, to enter at any time upon any premises in the said township in which there is suspected to be any contagious or infectious disease, or nusiance pro- ductive of such disease, or detrimental to the pub- lic health, for the purpose of examining the said premises and abating any nuisance found thereon detrimental to the public health. Sec. 3. Before appointing any sanitary agent to aid in enforcing the rules and regulations of the board, as aforesaid, the board shall make applica- tion to the Court of Common Pleas of the County (1) A positive duty is enjoined upon the School Directors and they may be compelled by mandamus to organize as a board of health. (Comth. vs. Directors, 18 York, 125.) CONTAGIOUS DISEASES. in which the township is located, or to a law judge thereof, setting forth particularly the reasons which, in their judgment, make the appointment of such agent necessary, setting forth also the com- pensation which the board deems proper to pay for the services of such sanitary agent, and if the said court, or judge thereof, shall approve the reasons given by the said board for the appointment of such sanitary agent, and shall also approve the compen- Sation deemed proper therefor, said board shall have the authority to appoint such sanitary agent for such term as may be designated by the said court, or judge thereof, the said compensation to be paid out of the school fund of the respective townships. (2.) 4. Under act 1895, P. L. 206, children shall be excluded from the public schools “ for a period of thirty days following the discharge by recovery or death of the person last afflicted in said house or family, or his or her removal to a hospital, and the thorough disinfection of the premises,” in cases of “cholera, small pox, variola, or varioloid, scarlet fever, typhus fever, yellow fever, relapsing fever, (2) The board is liable for only such supplies as it con- tracts for, in case of quarantine ; (Borger vs. Boro ; 28 Supr. C. 407.) And where it hires a guard it cannot recover from the Poor District. (School Dist. 31 C. C. 573; Meteer vs. Dist. 15 D. R. 360.) The authority which quarantines a family is liable for the expenses. School Dist. vs. School Dist. 82 C. C. 444; Beaver Co. Com. 14 D. R. 491; County vs. Boro. 2 Just. L. R. 101; Wilson vs. Boro. 4 Lack. Jurist, 101. They may furnish a hospital, and medical attendance and supplies. (School Directors, 2 Just. L. R. 237.) They may appoint physicians and fix their compensation. (Fos- ter vs. Twp. 3 Just. L. R. 65.) But see Brown vs. School Dist. contra. vol. 3, J. L. R. 73. The legislature of 1907 passed a bill requiring the poor district to pay the expenses of such as are necessitous, in case of contagious diseases, when quarantined by the health authorities. 261 Term and Com: pensation. Payable out of School Fund. Exclusion from School. 262 Certificate of Physician. Daily Reports. Aliens Resident within a State. POLICE POWER. diphtheria, diphtheretic croup, membranous croup or leprosy.” 5. Before being permitted to return to school in such case, the pupil excluded shall furnish the principal or other person, in charge of said schools, a certificate signed by the medical attendant of said children or persons, or by a physician to be designated by the health authorities of said muni- cipalities, setting forth that the thirty days men- tioned in this section have fully expired. 6. Sec. 14 of the same act provides that the health authorities in municipalities shall furnish daily, by mail or otherwise, to principals or other persons in charge of said schools, a printed or writ- ten bulletin containing the name, location and dis- eases above enumerated. STATE POLICE POWER AFFECTED BY INTERNATIONAL COMITY. 1. Under the common law, as administered in the United States, the law of the domicile affects citizen and alien alike. In the absence of any positive rule, our courts will presume that other nations tacitly adopt the operation of foreign laws, unless repug- nant to their policy and prejudicial to their interests. This creates comity among states as well as nations, and the presumption is in favor of such comity. (1) So it will be presumed that the law of the land is also that of an alien country having as its basis the common law. (2) And this principle has been en- (1). Ch. J. Taney in Bank vs. Earle, 13 Peters, 519. (2). Cushing vs. Perot, 175 Pa. 66. STATE POLICE POWER. 263 larged to cover statute law. (3). The lex loc? governs as to contract in all relations. (4). 2. The doctrine of alien friendsis of English origin. Alien Friends. The presumption of law in England is that English subjects are not less favorably treated when domi- ciled in the domain of a friendly sovereign than the citizens of that sovereignty are in England. (5) So Lord Campbell’s Act, passed in 1846, recognized the right of an alien friend to sue for damages for per- sonal injuries in England, and fixing the limitations of actions, which is fully recognized in the courts of | the United States. (6). Judge Denio said : ‘‘ Such is the view taken by the United States Supreme Court, of statutes of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania in part materia with the English statutes.” 3. It was long since held in the United States Right to Sue. Circuit Court for Massachusetts, that alien friends are entitled to the same rights in our courts as citizens. (7). This right was fully recognized by the United States Supreme Court, (8), and is laid down | by Wharton as a principle of international law. (9). Notwithstanding this, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Deni vs. R. Co. (10), by way of ob¢ter dictum, denied this right, because the learned justice averred that no cases were cited and none were found in which an alien had sued a corporation for personal injuries in Pennsylvania. The case had already (3). Evans vs, Cleary, 125 Pa. 204; Musser, vs. Stauffer, 178 Pa. 99. (4). Aultman’s Ap., 98 Pa. 505. (5). Bar’s International Law (1898) P. 74. (6). Hill vs. Supervisors, 119 N. Y. 344 ; vere uaeN, VS. Nav. Co. Lt., 13 N. Y. Sup. 540. (7). Bavilar vs. Carpenter, 3 Story, 458. (8). Breedlove vs. Nicollet, 7 Peters, 413. (9). Dig. Int. Law, vol. 2, sec. 201. (10). 181 Pa. 525. 264 Treaty Rights. Effect of Treaty on Police Power. POLICE POWER. been put out of court on the ground that the party suing had not made out sufficient proof of right or standing for damages, in case they might be recover- able. This dictum, however, has been recently fol- lowed by the same supreme court in Maiorano vs. R. Co. (not yet reported), from which opinion an appeal has been taken to United States Supreme Court. 4, The ground is assumed in the last case above alluded to, that there is no right to recover in an action because the treaty with Italy accords no such right although Italian citizens in the United States are given the rights of the most favored nations, which would put them on an equality with the citi- zens of Great Britain. In this connection, a refer- ence is pertinent, to the case of Mayer Leiger vs. R. Co, in which Judge Ewing recently nonsuited the plaint- iff on thesame ground, viz: the absence of a treaty. But under the law of comity of nations the plaintiff had a standing in court because the law of Austro- Hungary, of which plaintiff was a subject, declares that ‘‘foreigners shall enjoy the same rights and privileges as the subjects of Austro-Hungary, ex- cept the right to vote.” 5. If, then, under the law of comity, as here claimed, the alien has the same right to the equal protection of the laws, as to his person and his prop- erty, he must alsosubmit himself to the police power of the state, and no treaty of his sovereignty with the United States can absolve him from his amena- bility to the lex locz, which applies to all equally. The treaty-making power conferred upon the United States by the constitution must be construed to be limited by the federal and state constitutions and the laws thereunder. If it were otherwise, then the federal power might by treaty with a foreign government wipe out our very sovereignty and re- duce the citizens to vassalage, while exempting the , STATE POLICE POWER. 265 alien in our midst from the burdens of government, which is an absurdity. 6. The controversy which recently arose in Califor- The San Fran- nia over the exclusion of Japanese from the public one schools attended by white children, has pointedly brought to public attention the danger of foreign ar- rogance under ‘“‘the most favored nation” treaty clause. Under the contention of the “ treaty” mon- gers, numbering some Universitarians, San Francisco, by establishing separate schools for the yellow child- ren, put the nation in peril, and one writer went so far, as to assume that the treaty-making power in- volved the cession of San Francisco, or even Califor- nia itself, if necessary, at the end of a disastrous war, in order to save the remainder of the territory. Be- cause this might be so, after the war power had failed to preserve the integrity of the national do- main, furnishes no reason to overthrow the federal and state constitutions and unnerve the police power at the mere apparition of a remote possibility. But the fact is, no such contingency presents itself. The treaty of Japan with the United States ex- pressly reserves to each Power full exercise of all necessary police regulations, within its domain. The concessions which were diplomatically made by the school board of San Francisco in no wise com- promise the right eventually to close some or all of the schools of that municipality, subject only to the will of the legislature of California. What is true of this state applies equally to all the states in the regulation of their domestic concerns within their respective jurisdictions. 19 266 POLICE POWER. COMITY WITH CANADA. Intercourse 1. The bordering of Canada on the system of great with Canada.) es on the northern boundary of the United States, makes it proper and advantageous to observe comity between the two governments, especially in the rail- road transportation of passengers and baggage from one to another. The custom laws of both countries are administered with a spirit of mutual amity. Bee 2. Section 28 of Act of Congress of 1890, Compiled fieonen the Stat. vol. 2, p. 1896, provides that any baggage or United States. personal effects, arriving in the United States in transit to any foreign country may be delivered by the parties having it in charge to the collector of the proper district, to be by him retained, without the payment or exaction of any import duty, or to be forwarded by such collector to the collector of the port of departure and to be delivered to such parties on their departure for their foreign destina- tion, under such rules and regulations as the Secre- tary of the Treasury may prescribe. Peon Regu- 3. In pursuance of the Act of Congress above, : Articles 595 and 596 of the Customs Regulations of 1899 provide that the baggage of passengers in transit from or to Canada, through the United States, may be corded and sealed by Customs officers at the port of arrival and be transported across American territory under special manifest without examination. PURE FOOD LAW OF 1907. PURE FOOD LAW OF 1907. é AN ACT For the protection of public health by prohibiting the manufacture, sale, offering for sale, or having in possession with intent to sell, within the State, of adulterated, mis- branded, poisonous or deleterious foods and confections, regu- lating the enforcement of the provisions hereof, providing for the protection of persons buying and selling adulterated or misbranded foods and confections under a guaranty, and pro- viding penalties for the violation thereof. The Pennsylvania legislature at its session of 1907, enacted the following: Src. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Penn- sylvania in General Assembly met and it is hereby enacted by the authority of. the same That it shall be unlawful for any person within this State to manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or have in posses- sion with intent to sell any article of food which is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act. Src. 2. That the Dairy and Food Commissioner of the State shall be charged with the enforcement of the provisions of this act, and, for the purposes of its enforcement, shall be empowered to employ such assistants, agents, chemists, attorneys, clerks and experts as he may deem necessary. The ex- aminations of the articles purchased or procured shall be made by the chemists appointed by the said Dairy and Food Commissioner for the pur- pose of determining from such examinations 267 Manufacture and Sale of Ime pure Food Un- lawful. Enforcement by Dairy and Food Commr. Chemists to Examine Articles. 268 Notice to Own- er or Guaran- tor. Action for Penalty. Rules and Reg- ulations, to Conform with Federal Law. “ Food ” De- fined. POLICE POWER. whether such articles are adulteratel or mis- branded within the meaning of this act, and, if it shall appear from any such examination that any of such samples is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, the Dairy and Food Commissioner shall cause notice thereof to be given to the person from whom such sample was obtained, ‘and, in case such person shall produce a guarantee in writing, then notice shall be given to the guaranty. If it appear that any of the provisions of this act have been violated by such person then the Dairy and Food Commissioner shall begin an ac- tion against the said person for the enforcement of the penalty or penalties prescribed by this act. Src. 3. The Dairy and Food Commissioner shall make uniform rules and regulations under and subject to which the provisions of this act shall be enforced, and such rules and regulations shall, where practicable, conform to and be the same as the rules and regulations adopted from time to time for the enforcement of the act of Congress approved June thirtieth, one thousand nine hun- dred and six, and known as “The Food and Drugs Act,” such rules and regulations to be pub- lished from time to time in bulletins to be issued by the Department. (a) Seo. 4. The term “food” as used herein shall include all articles used for food, confectionery or condiment by man, whether simple, mixed or com- pound, and all substances or ingredients intended for use in food, confectionery or condiments as above defined, except as hereinafter excepted. The term “ person” as used in this act shall in- (a) See supra, p. 226. PURE FOOD LAW OF 1907. clude individuals, firms, co-partnerships, unincor- porated associations and bodies corporate, as well as all officers, agents, employes or others acting for any of the same, and shall be taken as applying in the singular or plural, as the case may require. Src. 5. That for the purpose of this act an arti- cle shall be deemed to be adulterated, (b) In the case of food: First. If any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuri- ously affect its quality or strength. Second. If any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article. Third. If any valuable constituent of the arti- cle has been wholly or in part abstracted. Fourth. If it be mixed, colored, powdered, coated or stained in a manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed. Fifth. If it contains any added substance or in- gredient which is poisonous or injurious to health; Provided, however, That no action shall be brought. or sustained for violation of the provisions of this section when the article alleged to be adulterated is not adulterated within the meaning of the provi- sions of the “Food and Drugs Act” of June thirtieth, one thousand nine hundred and six, en- acted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress as- sembled and the rules and regulations promulgated from time to time for the enforcement of the same; And provided, further, That when in the prepara- tion of food products for shipment they are pre- served by any external application applied in such (b) This supplies the Act of 1895 repealed by it. See p. 243. 269 “ Person ” De- fined. Food, when Adulterated. Mixture. Substitution. Abstraction. Colored, etc. Poisonous or Injurious. Preservatives. 270 Decomposition. Confectionery, when Adulter- ated. Coloring. ‘« Misbranded,” Applied. POLICE POWER. manner that the preservative is necessarily re- move mechanically or by maceration, in water or otherwise, and directions for the removal of said preservative shall be printed on the covering of the package the provisions of this act shall be con- strued as applying only when said products are ready for consumption. Sixth. If it consists in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed or putrid animal fish or vegeta- ble substance or any portion of an animal or fish unfit for food, whether manufactured or not, or if it be the product of a diseased animal or fish, or an animal that has died otherwise than by slaughter. In the case of confectionery: First, If it contain terra alba, barytes, talc, chrome yellow or other mineral substance or poisonous color or flavor or other ingredient dele- terious or detrimental to health or any vinous, malt or spirituous liquor, or compound, or narcotic drug: Provided, That this paragraph shall not be con- strued to prohibit the use of harmless colors of any kind when used for coloring and not for fraudulent purposes. Sec. 6. That the term “misbranded” as used herein shall apply to all articles of food or articles which enter into the composition of food the pack- age or label of which shall bear any statement, de- sign or device regarding such article or the ingredi- ents or substances contained therein which shall be false or misleading in any particular and to any food product which is falsely branded as to the state, territory or country in which it is manufac- tured or produced. That for the purpose of this act an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded, PURE FOOD LAW OF 1907. In the case of food: First. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article. Second. If it is labelled or branded so as to de- ceive or mislead the purchaser or purport to be a foreign product when not so or if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been re- moved in whole or in part and other contents shall liave been placed in such package. Third. If in package form and the contents are stated in terms of weight or measure they are not plainly and correctly stated on the outside of the .package. Fourth. If the package containing it, or its label shall bear any statement, design or device regard- ing the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which statement, design or device shall be false or misleading in any particular: Pro- vided, That an article of food which does not con- tain any added poisonous or deleterious ingredi- ents shall not be deemed to be adulterated or mis- branded in the following cases: First. In the case of mixtures or compounds which may be now or from time to time hereafter known as articles of food under their own distinc- tive names and not an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, if the same be accompanied on the same label or brand with a statement of the place where said article has been manufactured or produced. Second. In the case of articles labeled, branded or tagged so as to plainly indicate that they are compounds, imitations or blends and the word “ compound ” “ imitation ” or “blend ” as the case may be is plainly stated on the package in which it is offered for sale; Provided, That the term 271 ‘“‘ Misbranded ” Food. a False Label. Packages. False State- ment of Ingree dients. Excepted Articles, Compounds, Ktc., Properly Labeled, Ex- cepted. 272 “Blend” De- fined. Trade Formula. ‘Sample of Articles. Order for De- livery of Sample, in Court, for Chemical Ana- lysis. POLICE POWER. “blend ’’ as used herein shall be construed to mean e mixture of like substance not excluding harmless coloring or flavoring ingredients used for the pur- pose of coloring and flavoring only; And provided further, That nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or compelling proprietors or mann- facturers of proprietary goods which contain a0 unwholesome added ingredients to disclose their trade formule except in so far as the provisions cof this act may require to secure freedom from adulteration or misbranding. Src. 7. Whenever the Dairy and Food Com- missioner or his agents shall obtain an article for the purpose of determining whether or not the same is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, two like samples shall be ob- tained where the article is in the original pack- age, or, if not in the original package, then two portions shall be obtained and each of the portions sealed. One of the said samples shall be delivered to the Dairy and Food Commissioner and by him preserved in the condition in which it was obtained and under the seal placed thereon by the agent procuring the same and shall remain in the cus- tody and possession of the Dairy and Food Com- missioner until such time as it shall be determined whether or not any action shall be brought against the person from whom the article was obtained for violation of the provisions of this act. If an action shall be brought against the party from whom the article was obtained for violation of the provisions of this act it shall be lawful for the person from whom the said sample was obtained to make ap- plication to the magistrate or court in which the said action is pending for an order requiring the delivery of the portion of said sample in the custody PURE FOOD LAW OF 1907. of the Dairy and Food Commissioner to a chemist to be designated by said magistrate or court for the purpose of analysis and at the time the analy- sis is being made by the chemist so appointed the person from whom the sample was obtained shall have the privilege of having present a second chemist. All expenses incurred in the analysis of samples made by the chemist so designated or appointed shall be assessed by the magistrate or court and paid by the party requesting the same as part of the costs of said action. No action shall be instituted against any person for violation of the provisions of this act unless the same shall have been commenced within four months from the date of the taking of the sample nor until all the provisions of this act have been complied with. Sec. 8. Any person engaged in the manufacture or sale of any article of food who shall be desirous of having determined whether or not any such article so manufactured or sold or offered for sale is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, may submit a sample thereof to the Dairy and Food Commissioner who shall there- upon cause the same to be analyzed and examined within a reasonable time and report the result of such examination to the person submitting said sample. The expense of such examination shall be paid by the person submitting the sample and the amount thereof shall be as nearly uniform as pos- sible and shall be regulated by the Dairy and Food Commissioner. Any person dissatisfied with the decision of the Dairy and Food Commissioner on any such examination, may notify said Dairy and Food Commissioner thereof, and, thereupon, it 273 Expenses of Analysis. Limitation of Action. Analysis of Sample on Re- quest. ula Action for Penalty. Certificate not Evidence. Penalty for Ad- vertising it. Exemption on Guaranty of Purity. ; POLICE POWER. shall be the duty of the said Commissioner, within a reasonable time thereafter, to purchase or cause to be purchased a sample of the alleged adulterated or misbranded article and immediately thereafter to-institute a civil action in the name of the Com- monwealth for the recovery of the penalty provided herein for the violation of the provisions of this act in order that the question whether or not said article is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act may be determined by a court of final jurisdiction: Provided, however, That whenever any person shall have submitted any article for the purpose of having determined whether or not the same is adulterated or mis- branded within the meaning of this act, the certif- icate of the Dairy and Food Commissioner in re- gard thereto shall not be used as evidence in any court and it shall be unlawful for such person to afterwards publish or advertise the fact that such article had been submitted to and passed upon by the Dairy and Food Commissioner and any. person so publishing or advertising that such article had been so submitted and passed upon shall be guilty cof a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine of not exceeding two hun- dred dollars ($200.00). Sec. 9. No person shall be prosecuted under the provisions of this act for selling, or offering for sale, or having in possession with intent to sell any article or goods as defined herein, when same an article or goods as defined herein, when same is found to be adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, when he can establish a guaranty signed by the person residing in the United States from whom such article was pur- chased to the effect that the same is not adulter- PURE FOOD LAW OF ‘1907. ated or misbranded within the meaning of this act designating it, or within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, June thirtieth, one thousand nine hundred and six, enacted by the Senate and House ‘cf Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled: Provided, how- ever, That if the article in question is in a. broken 275 Broken Pack- age Excepted, en or open package said guaranty shall not afford Wh immunity from prosecution, unless such person Shall furnish satisfactory proof that the article has not been changed in quality. The affidavit of such person shall be accepted as such proof and the person making such affidavit falsely shall be guilty of perjury and punished accordingly. Said guaranty, to afford protection, shall con- tain the name and address of the person making the sale of such articles to such dealer, and, in such case, the said person shall be amenable to the prosecution, fines and other penalties which would ottach in due course to the dealer under the pro- visions of this act when said articles are found to be adulterated or misbranded; Provided, That no such guaranty shall operate as a defense to prosecu- tion for the violation of this act if the dealer shall continue to sell after written notice by the Dairy and Food Commissioner that such article is adul- terated or misbranded within the meaning of this act. Any person who shall have been adjudged to have violated any of the provisions of this act by reason of the purchase or sale of an article adul- terated or misbranded within the meaning of this act and who shall have purchased the article so found to be adulterated or misbranded within the ! weantae of this act under a guaranty from the vendor thereof to the effect that the same is not Requisites of Guaranty. Guarantor Liable to Pen- alties. Notice from Commissioner, Right of Action Against Guar- | antor. 276 Punitive Dam- ages. Set off, Expen- ses and Attor- neys Fees. Non-resident Guarantor. Report to Sec’y. of Agriculture of U.S. Penalty for Violations, POLICE POWER. adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act or the act of Congress passed June thirty, nineteen hundred and six, shall have a right of action against the guarantor for the recovery of such damages as shall have been sustained by reason of such adulteration or misbranding, and such person shall, in addition thereto, be entitled to recover punitive damages, and such person shall further have the right to set off any sum or sums of money which shall have been incurred and paid in the defense of any action which shall have been instituted against said person for the violation of any of the provisions of this act, against any claim or right of action which the guarantor may have arising out of the sale of the article or articles in question or otherwise and which shall include all expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees, When the examination or analysis herein pro- vided for shows that any of the provisions of this act have been violated and the person relieved from prosecution under this section, by the pro- duction of a guaranty signed by such person resid- ing outside of this State, then the Dairy and Food Commissioner shall report such fact to the Secre- tary of Agriculture of the United States or the proper officers appointed for the enforcement of the act of Congress approved June thirtieth, one thousand nine hundred and six, known as “ The Food and Drugs Act.” Sec. 10. Any person who shall violate any of the foregoing provisions of this act shall for each offense forfeit and pay the sum of sixty dollars, to- gether with the costs of suit, to be recovered as debts are by law recovered, in an action to be insti- tuted in the name of the Commonwealth, before any alderman, magistrate or justice of the peace in PURE FOOD LAW OF 1907. the county, wherein the offense shall have been committed, and no appeal shall be allowed from any judgment rendered in such case except upon special allowance of the court of common pleas, subject to all the rules and regulations applicable to appeals from actions in summary convictions. Sec. 11. All fines and penalties imposed and re- covered for violation of any of the provisions of this act shall be paid to the Dairy and Food Com- missioner or his agent and when so collected and paid shall thereafter be paid into the State Treasury, on or before the tenth day of the next succeeding month, in which the same shall have been collected and paid. Sec. 12. The following acts of Assembly, namely, an act entitled “ An Act to provide against the adulteration of food and providing for the en- forcement thereof” approved the twenty-sixth day of June one thousand eight hundred and ninety- five, (Pamphlet Laws three hundred and seven- teen ;(c) All other acts and parts of acts, pertaining to the said matter covered by this act, be and the same are hereby repealed; Provided, nevertheless, That this act shall not apply to nor in any way affect any acts of Assembly heretofore passed reg- ulating the manufacture, sale and dealing in milk, creaun, butter, oleomargarine, butterine and all other substitutes for butter, oleaginous or dairy products; also acts relating to fresh meats, poultry, game, fish, cider, vinegar, and fruit syrups, all of which acts shall remain in full force and be en- forced by the Dairy and Food Commissioner as fully in all respects as if this act had not been (c) See supra, p. 243. 277 Appeal on Special Allow- ance, only. Fines etc., Pay- able to Dairy and Food Comr. Act of 1895, Repealed, Acts Repealed and Acts Saved 278 Actions saved, under Repealed Acts. State Livestock Sanitary Board Empowered. Service to be. Organized. POLICE POWER. passed; And, provided further, That the repeal of the acts hereinbefore specifically repealed, shall not prevent the prosecution to final judgment and execution of any action now pending for violation thereof nor to the commencement and prosecution to final judgment and execution of any action for any violation of any of said acts heretofore com- mitted. MEAT AND FOOD INSPECTION ACT OF 1907. AN ACT To protect the public health by providing for the pre- vention of the preparation and sale of meat and food products which are unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome and otherwise unfit for human food ; defining what shall be regarded as meat and meat food products; authorizing the appointment and compensation of local meat inspectors ; authorizing the State Live Stock Sanitary Board to enforce the provisions of this act, to make rules and regulations for its enforcement and to appoint agents to assist in its enforcement and to provide pen- alties for the violation or perversion hereof. The Pennsylvania legislature of 1907, enacted as follows: Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House ef Representatives of the Commonwealth of Penn- sylvania in General Assembly met and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same: That the State Livestock Sanitary Board is hereby author- ized to organize and to administer in accordance with the provisions of this act a service for the purpose of protecting the consumers of meats from injury by diseased, contaminated, putrid or other- wise unsound, unhealthful or unwholesome meats or meat food products, unfit for human consump- tion. The State Livestock Sanitary Board shall ¢ MEAT AND FOOD INSPECTION ACT OF 1907. formulate and promulgate rules and regulations for the disposal of the carcasses of diseased ani- mals. So far as they are applicable and are ap- proved the meat inspection regulation of the United States Department of Agriculture may be adopted and promulgated by the State Livestock Sanitary Board. Sec. 2. No person, firm or corporation or any officer or agent of such person, firm or corpora- tion shall sell, offer for sale, expose with intent to sell, or prepare for use, as human food, any meat or meat product from an animal that is in such condition that its flesh is unsound, unhealth- ful, unwholesome or otherwise unfit for human food. Nor shall any unsound, unhealthful or un- wholesome meat or meat product be sold or offered for sale or exposed with intent to sell for use as human food, or be manufactured or prepared for use as human food. The terms meats and meat food products wherever used in this act shall include and apply to all carcasses or parts of car- casses of cattle, sheep, swine and goats and the meat or meat food products thereof. Src. 3. The owners, lessees, occupiers or man- agers of all abbattoirs, slaughtering, packing, butchering, meat-canning, meat manufacturing or rendering establishments, and of places or vehicles where meat is prepared, stored, sold or trans- ported, shall keep such establishment, places and vehicles in a wholesome, clean and sanitary con- dition. Sec. 4. The Governor is hereby authorized and empowered to appoint ten persons to serve as agents to assist in the enforcement of the provi- sions of this act. Such agents shall have knowl- edge of the diseases of meat producing animals and 279 Rules and Regu- lations. Unwholesome Meats Interdic- ted. Terms Defined. Slaughter- houses etc., to be kept whole- some. Agents, Ap- pointment of. Qualifications. 280 Salary of Agents. Duties of Agents. Powers. POLICE POWER. shall be versed in the conditions that affect the soundness, healthfulness and wholesomeness of animal food products. An appropriate standard of fitness for appointees to these offices shall be established and maintained by the State Livestock Sanitary Board. Sec. 5. Agents of the State Livestock Sanitary Board as provided for in section four of this act shall receive a salary of one thousand eight hun- dred dollars per year and their actual necessary travelling expenses while engaged in the proper duties of their office: Provided, however, that such expenses shall not exceed one hundred dollars per month. Src. 6. It shall be the duty of agents of the State Livestock Sanitary Board as provided in this act to perform such services prescribed by this act as may be imposed by authority of the State Livestock Sanitary Board. Such agents are au- thorized, without let or hindrance, to enter upon any premises or to enter any place, building, vehi- cle or vessel used for the storage, preparation, or transportation of animals, or their products, and to examine in any way that may be necessary any animals, meats or meat food product there found, for the purpose of determining whether such ani- mals, meats or meat food products are or inay be made into sound, wholesome and healthful human food. Animals, carcasses or parts thereof that are unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome or otherwise unfit for human food shall be rejected or con- cemned and said animals, carcasses or parts or products thereof shall be treated and disposed of in such a way that they cannot be used as human food, as shall be provided by the rules of the State Livestock Sanitary Board. MEAT AND FOOD INSPECTION ACT OF 1907. 281 Src. 7. It shall be the duty of the agents of the ee of State Livestock Sanitary Board as provided by this act to make examinations of slaughtering, packing, meat canning, rendering or similar es- \tablishments, and of places where meats or meat ‘food products are manufactured, prepared, stored cr sold, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the said establishments or places are constructed, arranged, equipped, managed or cared for, in such a way, as injuriously to affect the soundness, healthfulness or wholesomeness, or otherwise to render unfit for human food the meats or meat food products therein prepared, stored or sold. In case the establishment or the manner in which it is ar- ranged, equipped, managed or cared for, shall be found to be defective in such particulars as to make it probable that by virtue of such defect or defects the meats or meat food products may be rendered unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome or otherwise unfit for human food, it shall be the duty Notice to of the agent of the State Livestock Sanitary Board Sa Eres to notify the owner, occupier or manager thereof as to the nature of the particular defects found, and report the same to the State Livestock Sani- Report to tary Board. The said Board shall thereupon send 2°24. io the owner, occupier or manager of the defective — establishment or place a notice in writing in which the defect or defects shall be described, and the Notice of De- : - fects and owner, occupier or manager shall thereupon with- Abatement. in reasonable time remedy, remove or abolish the said defects. In the case that a defect in respect to the construction, arrangement, equipment, man- agement or care of a slaughtering, packing, meat- canning, rendering or similar establishment, or of a place where meat or meat food products are man- vines prepared, stored or sold, deemed by the 282 Closing Estab- lishment, after Notice. Local Meat In- spectors in Cities, Bor- oughs and Townships. Qualifications. Jurisdiction, and Duties. POLICE POWER. State Livestock Sanitary Board to be of such a nature as to render it probable that the meat or meat food products therein prepared, stored or sold, may, by virtue of said defect, be rendered un- sound, unhealthful or unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, is not removed or abolished within reasonable time, to be designated by the State Livestock Sanitary Board after notice from the said Board, the said establishment: or ‘place may be closed and the owner, occupier or man- ager thereof and all other persons, are forbidden to use the said establishment or place for the prep- aration, storage or sale of meats or meat food products until the said defect is remedied, removed or abolished in a way that is approved by an au- thorized agent of the State Livestock Sanitary Board. Sec. 8. All cities and boroughs’ and all town- ships of the first class are authorized and empow- ered to provide for the appointment of local meat inspectors as may be required and to fix their com- pensation which shall be paid from the funds of the city, borough or township of the first class. The qualifications of such local meat inspectors shall be certified by the State Livestock Sanitary Board and they shall have the same authority and duties as are by this act conferred on agents of the State Livestock Sanitary Board and shall be sub- ject to the same rules and regulations. Such cer- tificates of qualification may be withdrawn or re- voked at any time by the State Livestock Sanitary Board for incompetency or neglect of duty. Local meat inspectors shall have jurisdiction only within the limits of the city or borough or.township of the _ first class, by and for which they are appointed. Such local meat inspectors shall not be governed by MEAT AND FOOD INSPECTION ACT OF 1907. ordinances, rules or regulations that are incom- patible with or that conflict with provisions of this act or with the rules or regulations for the guid- ance of its agents approved and promulgated by the State Livestock Sanitary Board. Sec. 9. The State Livestock Sanitary Board may under such rules and regulations as it may adopt not incompatible with the Acts of Assembly or the constitution of the Commonwealth, appoint local agents to examine the animals, carcasses, meats and meat food products, used, prepared or stored in local slaughtering, packing, canning, ren- dering or similar establishments and to affix an approved stamp.or mark to the meats and meat food products that are found to be sound, health- ful, wholesome and fit for human food. The meats and meat food products that are found to be un- sound, unhealthful, unwholesome or otherwise un- fit for human food shall be rejected or condemned and disposed of so that they cannot be used for human food in the manner provided by the rules and regulations of the State Livestock Sanitary Board. Such agent shall report to and they may be transferred or dismissed by the State Livestock Sanitary Board; they shall be subject to the provisions of this act and to the regulations govern- ing and for the guidance of agents of the State Livestock Sanitary Board. The funds for the compensation of such local agents as are provided for in this section of this act shall be furnished by the owner or manager of the establishment that such agent is appointed to oversee and upon whose request this form of in- spection is established. The funds for the payment of such local agents shall be deposited by the 283 Examination of Animals, Car- casses etc. Reports and. Dismissal. Compensation. 284 Appointment on Request of Dealer. Employes of U.S. Dept. may be Ap- pointed. Unusual or Difficult Dis- eases. Regulations by Board. POLICE POWER. owner or manager of such establishment to his own credit in some bank or trust company to be desig- nated by the State Livestock Sanitary Board and shall be paid out upon the cheque of such owner or manager payable to the order of the local agent entitled to compensation, after the bill of such local agents for services has been approved by au- thority of the State Livestock Sanitary Board and the cheque so drawn for said compensation has been approved by authority of said Board: Pro- vided, that such agents as are provided for by this section of this act shall be appointed only upon request of the persons or firms who agree to meet such expense. Employes of the United States Department of Agriculture engaged in the inspection of animals, meats and meat food products may be appointed agents of the State Livestock Sanitary Board and be clothed with the powers of such agents: Pro- vided, however, that such employes of the United States Department of Agriculture shall receive no pay or compensation for such service as agents of the State Livestock Sanitary Board. Src. 10. The State Livestock Sanitary Board shall make arrangemnts for co-operation between the laboratory of the board and those engaged in the examination and inspection of meat producing animals and meats so that unusual or difficult diseases and conditions may be scientifically studied and accurately diagnosed for the benefit of the meat inspection service. Src. 11. The State Livestock Sanitary Board may from time to time make such regulations for the enforcement of this act as may be necessary to carry its provisions into force and effect, and, so far as is compatible with the purposes of this act, MEAT AND FOOD INSPECTION ACT OF 1907. the. plans, regulations and methods of the meat inspection service of the United States Department of Agriculture shall constitute the standard to be adopted and followed; and the meat inspection work of the United States Department of Agricul- ture shall not be repeated or duplicated by the agents of the State Livestock Sanitary Board nor by local meat inspectors: Provided, That the pro- visions of this act shall not apply to animals slaughtered by any farmer on the farm and sold or transported to market as meat or meat food products, nor to retail butchers and retail dealers in meat or meat food products supplying their cus- tomers. But this proviso shall not prevent agents of the State Livestock Sanitary Board or local meat inspectors from inspecting such premises, animals, meats or meat food products at any time. And if any such person shall sell or offer for sale or transportation any meat or meat food products which are diseased, unsound, unhealthful, unwhole- some or otherwise unfit for human food, knowing that such meat food products are intended for hu- man consumption or shall keep his establishment, sales place or vehicle in unsanitary condition after official notice being served, be shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Sec. 12. No person shall make, duplicate, re- produce, forge or counterfeit any stamp, certificate, mark or emblem used or authorized to be used by the State Livestock Sanitary Board for marking or designating animals, carcasses, meats or meat food products that have been approved or con- demned, and no such stamp, certificate, mark or emblem, used or authorized to be used by the State Livestock Sanitary Board, shall be used or em- 2285 Farmers and Retail Butchers Exempt. Subject to In- spection. Misdemeanor. Stamps, Marks, Certificates, Use of. 286 POLICE POWER, ployed without specific authority so to do from the State Livestock Sanitary Board. Tsuaiey On Sec. 13. Any agent of the State Livestock San- Sear itary Board or any local meat inspector appointed by authority of.the said board or any local meat inspector appointed by any city, borough or town- ship of the first class, who shall pass or approve any meat or meat food product that is unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome or otherwise unfit for buman food or who shall fail to perform his duties as prescribed by this act, or who shall accept any money, gift or other thing of value, from any per- son, firm or corporation, or officers, agents or em- ployes thereof, given with intent to influence his official action, shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be summarily discharged from office and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Hu Pely Punish- Any person, firm or corporation or any agent or employe of any person, firm or corporation, who shall give, pay or offer, directly or indirectly, to any agent, officer or inspector, authorized to per- ‘ form any of the duties prescribed by this act, or by the rules and regulations of the State Livestock Sanitary Board, any money or other thing of value, with intent to influence said. agent, officer or in- spector in the discharge of any duty herein pro- vided for, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. If any person shall sell or offer for sale, or offer for transportation to market any meat or meat COMMERCE COMMISSION LAW. food product which is diseased, unsound, unhealth- ful, unwholesome or otherwise unfit for human food, knowing that such meat or meat food prod- uct is intended for human consumption, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any person, firm or corporation or any officer or agent of such firm or corporation, who shall vio- late any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon convic- tion thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceed- ing five hundred dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding one year or by both such fine and im- prisonment. Src. 14. All fines and penalties arising from violations of any of the provisions of this act shall be paid to the State Livestock Sanitary Board and shall be immediately paid by said Board to the State Treasurer for the use of the Commonwealth. COMMERCE COMMISSION LAW. The Pennsylvania legislature of 1907, passed a Commerce Commission law, which provides for the appointment of three Commissioners whose duties are to investigate the various lines of commerce and transportation within the State, to make re- ports thereof, and to draw their salaries. Before the bill’ passed by the House of Representatives was allowed to pass the Senate, all its teeth were extracted. 287 Penalty for, Selling Un- wholesome Meat. Penalty for Violations. Fines etc. to whom Payable, 288 POLICE POWER. EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT. The Pennsylvania legislature of 1907, passed the following: In all the actions brought to recover from an employer for injury suffered by his employe, the negligence of a fellow-servant of the employer shall not be a defense where the injury was caused or contributed to by any of the following causes, namely : Any defect in the works, plant or machinery of which the employer could have had knowledge by the exercise of ordinary care, the neglect of any person engaged as superintendent, manager, fore- man or any other person in charge or control of the works, plant or machinery; the negligence of any person to whose orders the employe was bound to conform, and did conform, and by reason of his. having conformed thereto the injury or death re- sulted, the act of any fellow-servant done in obe- dience to the rules, instructions or orders given by the employer or any other person who has au- thority to direct the doing of said act. The manager, superintendent, foreman or other person in charge or control of the works or any part of the works shall under this act be held as the agent of the employer in all suits for damages. for death or injury suffered by employes. (a) (a) See Act of Congress, p. 254. VACCINATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN. VACCINATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN. AN ACT To regulate the admission to school of pupils whose physical condition makes vaccination dangerous to their health. The legislature of 1907 passed the following: Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That whenever a pupil presents to a teacher a certifi- cate from a reputable physician saying that vac- cination is dangerous to the health of the pupil on account of his or her physical eondition and which certificate shall have been approved by the physi- cian of the local board of health in cities and boroughs or by a physiciaw acting under authority of the State Department of Health where there is no local Board of Health, it shall be lawful for the teacher to admit such pupil, unless in case of an epidemic, when the admission of all pupils shall “be regulated by the local Board of Health in cities and boroughs and the State Department of Health in townships or where there is no local Board of Health. (a) Src. 2. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (a) The Supreme Court in the case of Comth. on relation of Carson, Atty. Genl. against School District of Waynesboro, reversed the lower court, on the ground that it was the duty of the school principal and not the directors to en- force the vaccination law. 289 Children Ex- empt, on Phy- sicians Certifi- cate. 290 “ Bucket Shop ” Defined. POLICE POWER. STOCK GAMBLING. AN ACT Defining bucket shops, prohibiting the maintenance and operation of the same within the Commonwealth and imposing penalties therefor, invalidating all contracts made therein and imposing penalties upon corporations, associations, partnerships and individuals furnishing market quotations thereto or knowingly permitting bucket shops to be maintained and operated in or on any property owned, leased, controlled or operated by them, The following act passed the legislature of 1907: Sec. 1. Be it enacted b the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Penn- sylvania in General: Assembly met and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That a bucket-shop within the meaning of this act is de- fined to be an office, store or other place, wherein the proprietor or keeper thereof, either in his or his own behalf, or as the agent or correspondent of any other person, corporation, association or co-partnership, within or without the Common- wealth, conducts the business of making or offer- ing to make contracts, agreements, trades or trans- actions respecting the purchase or sale or purchase end sale of any stock, grains, provisions, or other commodity, or personal property, wherein both parties thereto or said proprietor or keeper con- template or intend that such contracts, agreements, trades or transactions shall be or may be closed, adjusted, or settled, according to, or upon the basis STOCK GAMBLING. of the public market quotations of prices made on any Board of Trade or Exchange upon which the commodities or securities referred to in such con- tracts, agreements, trades or transactions are dealt in, and without a bona fide transaction on such Board of Trade or Exchange, or wherein both par- ties, or such keeper or proprietor shall contemplate or intend that such contracts, agreements, trades or transactions shall be or may be deemed closed or terminated when the public market quotations of prices made on such Board of Trade or Exchange for the articles or securities -named in such con- tracts, agreements, trades or transactions shall reach a certain figure, and also any office, store or other place, where ithe keeper or proprietor thereof, either in his or its own behalf, or as agent afore- said, therein makes or offers to make with others, contracts, agreements, trades or transactions for the purchase or sale of any such commodity wherein the parties do not contemplate the actual or bona fide receipt or delivery of such property but do contemplate a settlement thereof based upon differences in the prices at which said property is or is claimed to be bought and sold. The said crime shall be complete against any proprietor or keeper thus offering to make any such con- tracts, agreements, trades or transactions whether such offer is accepted or not. It is the intention of this act to prevent, punish and prohibit within this Commonwealth the _ busi- ness now engaged in and conducted in places com- monly known and designated as “bucket-shops ” and also to include the practice now commonly known as “ bucket shopping” by persons, corpora- tions, associations or co-partnerships who or which ostensibly carry on the business or occupation of 291 Offer Consti- tutes the Of- fense. Intent of Act. bo —D 1 ay Keeping Bucket Shop, Declared Un- lawful. Penalty. Second Offense. ‘Forfeiture, Evidence, Offer to make Con- tract etc. Suffi- cient. POLICE POWER. commission merchants or brokers in grain, pro- visions, petroleum, stocks and bonds. Src. 2. It shall be unlawful for any corporation, association, co-partnership, person or persons to keep or cause to be kept within this Common- wealth any “bucket shop” and any corporation, association, co-partnership, person or persons; whether acting individually or as a member or as an officer, agent or employe of any corporation, association, co-partnership, person or persons who shall keep or assist in the keeping of any bucket shop within this commonwealth, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars or im- prisonment in the county jail for a period not ex- ceeding six months or both in the discretion of the court; and any person or persons who shall be judicially determined guilty of a second offense under this statute shall in addition to the penalty above described be subject to a penalty of impris- onment in the county jail for a period of not less than sixty days nor more than six months and if a corporation, shall be liable to the forfeiture of its charter by a proceeding in quo warranto to be in- stituted at the relation of the Attorney General or of the district attorney of the district within which the offence shall have been committed. The con- tinuance of the establishment after the first con- viction shall be deemed a second offence. Src. 3. It shall not:be necessary in order to con- vict any corporation, association, co-partnership, person or persons of keeping a bucket shop or caus- ing one to be kept within this Commonwealth, un- der the provisions of this act, that the proprietor or keeper thereof or any person or persons on his STOCK GAMBLING. behalf has entered into any contract, agreement, trade or transaction of the nature described in section one of this act, but it shall be sufficient to show that such proprietor, keeper, person or per- sons has offered to make such a contract, agree- ment, trade or transaction, whether the contract, agreement, trade or transaction was accepted or not; and proof of a single instance wherein the proprietor or keeper thereof or any person or per- sons on his behalf has made or offered to make any contract, agreement, trade or transaction of the nature described in section one of this act, shall be conclusive that the place wherein the same was made is a bucket shop within the meaning of this act. Src. 4. Any corporation, association, co-part- nership, person or persons who shall transmit or communicate by telegraph, telephone, wireless telegraphy, express, mail or otherwise, or who shall receive, exhibit or display in any manner any State- ment or quotation of the prices of any property mentioned in section one of this act with a view of entering into any contract, agreement, trade or transaction or offering to enter into any contract, agreement, trade or transaction, or with a view of aiding others to enter or offer to enter into any such contract, agreement, trade or transaction of the nature described in section one of this act shall be deemed an accessory to the keeping of a bucket shop, and, upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine and punishment the same as a principal and as provided in section two of this act; and if a cor- poration, its charter shall be forfeited by a pro- ceeding in quo warranto instituted either at the relation of the Attorney General or the District 293 Corporations Transmitting News, Liable as Accessory. Forfeiture of Charter. 294 Misdemeanor. Penalty. Lien. Contracts De- clared to be Gambling and Criminal. Repeal, POLICE POWER. attorney of the county within which the offense was committed. Sec. 5. Any corporation, association, co-part- nership, person or persons whatsoever who shall knowingly permit a bucket shop to he maintained or operated in any building, house, out-house, booth, arbor, tent or erection, or on any boat, flat, barge or other vessel whatsoever, owned, leased, controlled or operated by it, him or her, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, and any penalty so adjudged, shall be a lien upon the premises or boat, barge or other ves- sel in or on which the said bucket shop shall be maintained and operated. Sec. 6. All contracts, agreements, trades or transactions of the nature described in section one of this act are hereby declared gambling and crim- inal acts and absolutely null and .void, and all persons, corporations, associations, co-partnerships or firms entering into the same, whether for them- selves or as agent or broker of any corporation, as- sociation, co-partnership, person or persons, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each and every offence. Src. 7. All acts and parts of acts inconsist- ent herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. + INDEX. PAGE PAR. ABANDONMENT—Railway train, by engineers, etc. 81 5 ABATEMENT—Nuisance, notice of ........... Hu esa 66 12 laws: FO oie seca sangeaws 53 9 ACCEPTANCE—Constitution by corporations....... 96 9 sf BOT. Sesgiaoe 98 13 ACCOUNTS—Carriers—uniform prescribed.......... 180 form, compulsory............ 182 false entries—punishment for......... 182 inspectors Of... cawexcepuss vines seisawd 182 penalty for failure to keep........... . 182 special examiner, penalty for divulg- TDG sisters lowe heave caqyareavoremecsc sparen ae Aiea eat 183 ACCUMULATIONS— Limit upon... ............ 2... 60 25 ACT—Of agent or officer is that of carrier............ 193 ACTION—Limitation on complaints I. S. C. law..... 172 (See “ Surts.”) ADMINISTRATIVE—Powers ............c cece eee eee 126 7 ADMIRALTY—Practice—in libel against impure £6608, Ctx 2k. «cee sawed sae on oatwe 285 10 ADULTERATION—Of food (See Foods)............. 28 21 OS: daw soe ne gn eens 226 definition of............ 230 7 misdemeanor........... 244 5 Oto Biever hay Gritetaii 245 1 fruit SYTUPSs cceeneresess aves 246 1 ADULTERY ii shat i aise cele ae sGimtew ee Bae A Ree 41 22 AFFIRMATION—In lieu of oath .......... 0.00.00 eee 39 —Ss«16 AGE—Employment of minors ...........:s eee ee ee eee 34 4 marriage and consent ...............000 veers 35 6 AGENT—Act of, binds carrier......... 0 ce... cee eee 193 AGENT—Liquor seller..when liable... . .......-.-- 51 5 manufacturers Of ole0..........0 eee eens .s 2389 a salesman, discrimination against....... .. 26 19, 20 sanitary, appointment of...........-...66+ 260 3 295 296 INDEX. » PAGE AGENTS—Carriers, Orders of I. 8. C. Com.......... 173 corporations, penalties upon............. 161 railroads are for the state................ 137 AGNEW, C. J.—Against monopolies ................ 110 AGRICULTURE—State board of—pure foods........ 62 U.S. Dept. of examination of foods 228 ALIEN—Friends—rights in States................... 268 ALIENS—Arms, no right to carry.......... 00.0 ce eae 37 tax upon, unconstitutional... ... see Siahabayans 59 subject to lex loci............0. eee ee eee 263 suits by in U.S. courts......... 0.22.6... 263 treaty rights of.........6. 6 foc ee ee ce eee 264 ALLEYS—Cities, control of by............. 000 cee 100 health, vacation for.... ......... cece eee 54 ALTERATION—Charters by government..... ...... 129 form of : Ee abuse aie 125 rates of water supply............... 74 me # OE Reeeeh anaes orton 75 “4 se Me! Hs goieim asain ais U7 AMENDMENT—Form of government.... ........... 125 AMERICAN Railway Union—Strike of.............. 84 AMUSEMENTS—License of...............ceeeeeeeee 55 ANALYSIS—Of foods...........