section, prohibiting the importation of aliens with dangerous diseases, is valid.30

SUITS AGAINST RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES

80. The twenty-third paragraph of section 24 of the Judicial Code confers on the district court jurisdiction of all suits and proceedings arising under any law to protect trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies.

These acts have been the subject of many decisions. As they are based upon the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, they do not apply to trusts to regulate a local product which has not become the subject of commerce between the states.82 The main act is the Sherman act of July 2, 1890.

It applies to agreements regulating rates, and to a pooling agreement between different common carriers engaged in interstate commerce, but only to agreements directly connected with interstate commerce, including the transportation, purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities be

Ann. Cas. 1066. But the amendment of March 26, 1910, is valid. Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460, 32 Sup. Ct. 734, 56 L. Ed. 1165. See "Aliens," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 40; "Constitutional Law,” Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 318.

30 Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 29 Sup. Ct. 671, 53 L. Ed. 1013. See "Aliens," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 40.

81 Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, § 4, 26 Stat. 209 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3201); Act Aug. 27, 1894, c. 349, § 73, 28 Stat. 570 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3202).

32 U. S. v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 15 Sup. Ct. 249, 39 L. Ed. 325. See "Monopolies," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 9, 10; Cent. Dig. §§ 8-10.

33 U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 290, 17 Sup. Ct. 540, 41 L. Ed. 1007; U. S. v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U. S. 505, 569, 571, 19 Sup. Ct. 25, 43 L. Ed. 259. See "Monopolies," Dec. Dig. (KeyNo.) 88 10-12.

tween citizens of different states, and the instrumentalities by which such commerce is conducted.34

It applies to an agreement between private corporations engaged in different states in the manufacture and marketing among the different states of iron pipe.35

It applies to an agreement between manufacturers and dealers in tile grates and mantels in the different states, and controlling the price of products in those states.

36

It applies to the organization of a holding corporation which bought up a controlling interest in two competing lines of transportation for the purpose of preventing competition between them.37 It applies only to undue restraints of interstate or foreign commerce.38 The decisions on the act have been numerous, ranging from tobacco to tubs.39

34 Hopkins v. U. S., 171 U. S. 578, 19 Sup. Ct. 40, 43 L. Ed. 290; Anderson v. U. S., 171 U. S. 604, 19 Sup. Ct. 50, 43 L. Ed. 300. See "Monopolies," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 10-12.

35 Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211, 20 Sup. Ct. 96, 44 L. Ed. 136. See "Monopolies," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 10-12, 17. 36 W. W. Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38, 24 Sup. Ct. 307, 48 L. Ed. 608. See "Monopolies," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 10-12, 17. 37 U. S. v. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. (C. C.) 120 Fed. 721; ID., 193 U. S. 197, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679. See "Monopolies," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 8-10, 17.

38 Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. U. S., 221 U. S. 1, 31 Sup. Ct. 502, 55 L. Ed. 619, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 834, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 734. See "Monopolies," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. § 10.

39 See, as examples, U. S. v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, 31 Sup. Ct. 632, 55 L. Ed. 663; Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 226 U. S. 20, 33 Sup. Ct. 9, 57 L. Ed. 107; U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 226 U. S. 61, 33 Sup. Ct. 53, 57 L. Ed. 124; U. S. v. Reading Co., 226 U. S. 324, 33 Sup. Ct. 90, 57 L. Ed. 243. Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 8-20; Cent. Dig. §§ 8–14.

See "Monopolies,”

CLAIMS OF INDIANS FOR LANDS UNDER
TREATIES

81. The twenty-fourth paragraph of section 24 of the Judicial Code confers on the district court jurisdic

tion of actions, suits or proceedings involving the right of any Indian to any allotment of land.

This paragraph was amended December 21, 1911, by adding a sentence giving increased force to the judgment or decree in such cases.

This is one of the classes of jurisdiction transferred from the circuit court. These questions often get into the courts of the District of Columbia by proceedings against government officials.40

SUITS AGAINST UNITED STATES FOR
PARTITION

82. The twenty-fifth paragraph of section 24 of the Judicial Code confers on the district court jurisdiction of suits in equity for partition where the United States is one of the tenants in common or joint tenants, the suit to be in the district where the land lies.

This was a jurisdiction formerly vested in the circuit court, and is based on the act of May 17, 1898.*1

40 See, as examples of such questions, Garfield v. U. S. ex rel. Goldsby, 211 U. S. 249, 29 Sup. Ct. 62, 53 L. Ed. 168; Ballinger v. U. S. ex rel. Frost, 216 U. S. 240, 30 Sup. Ct. 338, 54 L. Ed. 464; Henry Gas Co. v. U. S., 191 Fed. 132, 111 C. C. A. 612. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 449; "United States," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §

41 30 Stat. 416, c. 339 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 516).

SUITS UNDER CHINESE EXCLUSION LAWS

83. These are but a special class of immigration and alien suits, but are made the subject of a special section of the Judicial Code (section 25).

UNCLASSIFIED CASES

84. The statute contains a saving clause conferring on the district court any power or duty theretofore exercised by the circuit court.

Scattered through the federal statutes are provisions conferring on the circuit court jurisdiction to enforce the rights or duties thereby created. Section 289 of the Judicial Code having abolished the circuit court, such cases were protected by section 291, which reads:

"Wherever, in any law not embraced within this act, any reference is made to, or any power or duty is conferred or imposed upon, the circuit courts, such reference shall, upon the taking effect of this act, be deemed and held to refer to, and to confer such power and impose such duty upon, the district courts."

CHAPTER X

THE DISTRICT COURT (Continued)-JURISDICTION TO ISSUE CERTAIN EXTRAORDINARY WRITS

85. Ad Quod Damnum or Condemnation Proceedings.

86. Writ of Habeas Corpus.

87.

88.

89.

90.

Same-Federal Jurisdiction.

Same-When Jurisdiction Exercised.

Same The Particular Federal Courts Having Jurisdiction to
Issue.

Same-Procedure on Habeas Corpus.

91. Ne Exeat.

AD QUOD DAMNUM OR CONDEMNATION PRO

CEEDINGS

85. Under the federal statutes several proceedings by condemnation are authorized, the jurisdiction in these being now in the district court.

1. The Act of February 22, 1867 1

This authorizes the Secretary of War to purchase such real estate as is necessary for national cemeteries, or, in case he cannot agree with the owner, to enter upon and appropriate any real estate which in his judgment is suitable and necessary for such purpose. In order to secure the rights of the owner, the act provides that the Secretary of War, or the owners, may apply to the circuit or district court within any state or district where such real estate is located for the appointment of appraisers; and it gives the court power, upon such application, to so frame its proceedings as to secure a just and equitable appraisement. It further provides that on payment of the appraised value to the owner, or into court in case he refuses to take it, the

1 Rev. St. §§ 4870-4872 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3375).