The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation
Chapter 133 : [215] United States _v._ Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 430 (1886).[216] Prigg _v._ Pennsylva

[215] United States _v._ Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 430 (1886).

[216] Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 612 (1842).

[217] 1 Stat. 302 (1793).

[218] Jones _v._ Van Zandt, 5 How. 215, 229 (1847); Ableman _v._ Booth, 21 How. 506 (1859).

[219] Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 625 (1842).

[220] Moore _v._ Illinois, 14 How. 13, 17 (1853).

[221] Escanaba & L.M. Transp. Co. _v._ Chicago, 107 U.S. 678, 689 (1883).

[222] Madison, Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Const.i.tution, 89 (Hunt's ed., 1908).

[223] Ibid. 274.

[224] Ibid. 275.

[225] Pollard _v._ Hagan, 3 How. 212, 221 (1845).

[226] 2 Stat. 701, 703 (1812).

[227] Justice Harlan, speaking for the Court in United States _v._ Texas, 143 U.S. 621, 634 (1892); 9 Stat. 108.

[228] Permoli _v._ New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 609 (1845); McCabe _v._ Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914); Illinois Central R. Co.

_v._ Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 434 (1892); Knight _v._ United Land a.s.so., 142 U.S. 161, 183 (1891); Weber _v._ State Harbor Comrs., 18 Wall. 57, 65 (1873).

[229] Coyle _v._ Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911).

[230] Ibid. 567.

[231] United States _v._ Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716 (1950); Stearns _v._ Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 245 (1900).

[232] Pollard _v._ Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223 (1845); McCabe _v._ Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914).

[233] Van Brocklin _v._ Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 167 (1886).

[234] Wilson _v._ Cook, 327 U.S. 474 (1946).

[235] Permoli _v._ New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 609 (1845); Sands _v._ Manistee River Imp. Co., 123 U.S. 288, 296 (1887); _see also_ Withers _v._ Buckley, 20 How. 84, 92 (1858); Willamette Iron Bridge Co. _v._ Hatch, 125 U.S. 1, 9 (1888); Cincinnati _v._ Louisville & N.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390 (1912); Huse _v._ Glover, 119 U.S. 543,(1886).

[236] Draper _v._ United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896) following United States _v._ McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1882).

[237] d.i.c.k _v._ United States, 208 U.S. 340 (1908); Ex parte Webb, 225 U.S. 663 (1912).

[238] United States _v._ Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1914).

[239] Boyd _v._ Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 170 (1892).

[240] Baker _v._ Morton, 12 Wall. 150, 153 (1871).

[241] Freeborn _v._ Smith, 2 Wall. 160 (1865).

[242] John _v._ Paullin, 231 U.S. 583 (1913).

[243] Hunt _v._ Palao, 4 How. 589 (1846). _Cf._ Benner _v._ Porter, 9 How. 235, 246 (1850).

[244] 179 U.S. 223, 245 (1900).

[245] How. 212, 223 (1845). _See also_ Martin _v._ Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 410 (1842).

[246] United States _v._ California, 332 U.S. 19, 38 (1947); United States _v._ Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699 (1950).

[247] 339 U.S. 707, 716 (1950).

[248] Brown _v._ Grant, 116 U.S. 207, 212 (1886).

[249] s.h.i.+vely _v._ Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 47 (1894). _See also_ Joy _v._ St. Louis, 201 U.S. 332 (1906).

[250] United States _v._ Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 378 (1905); Seufert Bros.

Co. _v._ United States, 249 U.S. 194 (1919). A fis.h.i.+ng right granted by treaty to Indians does not necessarily preclude the application to Indians of State game laws regulating the time and manner of taking fish. Kennedy _v._ Becker, 241 U.S. 556 (1916). But it has been held to be violated by the exaction of a license fee which is both regulatory and revenue-producing. Tulee _v._ Was.h.i.+ngton, 315 U.S. 681 (1942).

[251] Ward _v._ Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 510, 514 (1896).

[252] 14 Pet. 526 (1840).

[253] Ibid. 533, 538.

[254] Ashwander _v._ Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 335-340 (1936). _See also_ Alabama Power Co. _v._ Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 (1938).

[255] United States _v._ Fitzgerald, 15 Pet. 407, 521 (1841). _See also_ California _v._ Deseret Water, Oil & Irrig. Co., 243 U.S. 415 (1917); Utah Power & Light Co. _v._ United States, 243 U.S. 389 (1917).

[256] Sioux Tribe _v._ United States, 316 U.S. 317 (1942); United States _v._ Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459, 469 (1915).

[257] Gibson _v._ Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 99 (1872); _see also_ Irvine _v._ Marshall, 20 How. 558 (1858); Emblem _v._ Lincoln Land Co., 184 U.S. 660, 664 (1902).

[258] Bagnell _v._ Broderick, 13 Pet. 436, 450 (1839). _See also_ Field _v._ Seabury, 19 How. 323, 332 (1857).

[259] Tameling _v._ United States Freehold & Emigration Co., 93 U.S.

644, 663 (1877). _See also_ United States _v._ Maxwell Land-Grant and R.

Co., 121 U.S. 325, 366 (1887).

[260] Ruddy _v._ Rossi, 248 U.S. 104 (1918).

[261] Light _v._ United States, 220 U.S. 523 (1911). _See also_ Hutchings _v._ Low, 15 Wall. 77 (1873).

[262] Camfield _v._ United States, 167 U.S. 518, 525 (1897). _See also_ Jourdan _v._ Barrett, 4 How. 169 (1846); United States _v._ Waddell, 112 U.S. 76 (1884).