and Sixth Amendments as to the nature and cause of an accusation and the delegation of legislative power. United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., U. S. 41 Sup. Ct. 298; Oglesby Grocery Co. v. United States, U. S.41 Sup. Ct. 306.

Congress in treating Indians as a class and designating representatives to defend them in a suit of an equitable nature concerning allotments of lands acquired through right of citizenship and a participation in funds held in trust by the United States did not have the effect of depriving the Indians of their property without due process of law. Winton v. Amos, U. S., 41 Sup. Ct. 342.

ARTICLE 6.-RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED.

An accused was tried by a jury of the state and district in which the crime was committeed when the jury was drawn from a part of the district. Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U. S. 480, 38 Sup. Ct. 168, 62 L. ed. 414.

A witness summoned to testify before a federal grand jury making inquiry concerning supposed violations of the criminal code, may not raise the question of the unconstitutionality of the act in justification of his refusal to recognize the jurisdiction of the grand jury to require him to testify. Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 39 Sup. Ct. 468, 63 L. ed. 979.

Stilson

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which requires congress to grant peremptory challenges to defendants in criminal cases. v. United States, 250 U. S. 583, 40 Sup. Ct. 28, 63 L. ed. 1154.

The mere existence of a state of war could not suspend or change the operation upon the power of congress of the guaranties and limitations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as to the nature and cause of an accusation and the delegation of legislative power. United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., U. S. 41 Sup. Ct. 298; Oglesby Grocery Co. v. United States, U. S. Ct. 306.

-

41 Sup.

ARTICLE 7.-TRIAL BY JURY.

SEC.

31. Jury, waiver.

31. Jury, waiver.

The Seventh Amendment to the U. S. Constitution concerning jury trials, requires that juries in the federal courts must unanimously agree upon a verdict, but such amendment does not apply to trials in state courts, although actions are founded upon acts of congress. Minneapolis etc. R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211, 36 Sup. Ct. 595, 60 L. ed. 961.

This amendment does not prohibit the introduction of new methods for determining what facts are actually in issue, nor the introduction of new rules of evidence. Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 40 Sup. Ct. 543, 64 L. ed. 919. ARTICLE 10.-RIGHTS RESERVED TO THE STATES AND PEOPLE. 34. The police power was reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment, but when the United States exerts any of its powers no valid objection can be based upon the fact that such exercise may be attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise by a state of its police power, or that it may tend to accomplish a similar purpose. Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146, 40 Sup. Ct. 106, 64 L. ed. 194.

The power to make treaties is delegated expressly. State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 40 Sup. Ct. 382, 64 L. ed. 641.

Congress may provide for carrying into effect the provisions of a treaty between the United States and a foreign country regulating the killing of migratory birds. State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 40 Sup. Ct. 382, 64 L. ed. 641. What is or is not a public use is a question of local legislative and judicial authority and a judgment of the highest court of a state declaring a given use to be a public use will be accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233, 40 Sup. Ct. 499, 64 L. ed. 878.

The due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment contains no specific limitation upon the right of taxation in the states but the state may not impose taxes for merely private purposes. Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233, 40 Sup. Ct. 499, 64 L. ed. 878.

ARTICLE 11.-LIMITATION OF JUDICIAL POWER.

35. A suit by a foreign corporation against state officers to enjoin them from enforcing the statutes in the discharge of duties resting upon them is not a suit against the state within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment. Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U. S. 178, 38 Sup. Ct. 85, 62 L. ed. 230.

Where an order of dismissal rested upon the assumption that the removal was because of diversity of citizenship and it afterward appears that the question of interstate commerce was also a ground for the removal a rehearing must be granted. Southern Pac. Co. v. Stewart, 245 U. S. 562, 38 Sup. Ct. 203, 62 L. ed. 472.

ARTICLE 13.-SLAVERY.

SEC.

37. Slavery prohibited.

37.

Slavery prohibited.

The statute of a state which make it a criminal offense for a person to fail to carry out a contract for the payment of money is void under the Thirteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude. United States v. Reynolds, 235 U. S. 133, 35 Sup. Ct. 86, 59 L. ed. 162.

The Thirteenth Amendment to U. S. Constitution on the subject of slavery and involuntary servitude does not prohibit states from requiring persons to perform labor upon highways. Butler v. Perry, 240 U. S. 328, 36 Sup. Ct. 258, 60 L. ed. 672.

The exaction by government from citizen the performance of his duty to defend the nation as a result of war is not imposing involuntary servitude. Arver v. United States, 245 U. S. 366, 38 Sup. Ct. 159, 62 L. ed. 352.

ARTICLE 14.-CITIZENSHIP, REPRESENTATION, OFFICIAL

DISABILITIES-PUBLIC DEBT.

SEC.

39. Who are citizens.

39. Who are citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment broadened the national scope of government by causing citizenship of the United States to be paramount and dominant instead of being subordinate and derivative. Arver v. United States, 245 U. S. 366, 38 Sup. Ct. 159, 62 L. ed. 352.

Residence and citizenship are different things. La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U. S. 465, 39 Sup Ct. 160, 63 L. ed. 362.

A distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of one of the states is recognized by this amendment. Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 40 Sup. Ct. 2, 63 L. ed. 1124.

No constitutional rights can be based on the error of prior decisions. Dunbar v. City of New York, 251 U. S. 516, 40 Sup. Ct. 250, 64 L. ed. 384.

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.

The Indiana statute providing for the elevation of railroad tracks does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. Morris v. City of Indianapolis, 177 Ind. 369, 94 N. E. 705.

Consideration of the validity of state laws regulating the equipment of railroad locomotives and cars that are used in interstate commerce. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co. v. State, 178 Ind. 498, 99 N. E. 801; Vandalia R. Co. v. Railroad Com., 182 Ind. 382, 101 N. E. 85, 242 U. S. 255, 37 Sup. Ct. 93, 61 L. ed. 276.

The Indiana statute providing for the confinement in asylums of persons who are acquitted of criminal charges because of insanity affords due process of law. Morgan v. State, 179 Ind. 300, 101 N. E. 6.

A statute which provides upon due notice for the appointment of guardians for persons who are old and incapable of managing their estates does not deprive them of property without due process of law. Kutzner v. Meyers, 182 Ind. 669, 108 N. E. 115.

A state statute regulating the operation of coal mines is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. Booth v. State, 179 Ind. 405 100 N. E. 563.

The establishing of a highway over and upon a railroad right of way is not the taking of property without due process of law. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co. v. Gregg, 181 Ind. 42, 102 N. E. 961.

A statute which requires railroad companies to construct bridges where public drains cross their rights of way, does not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution prohibiting the taking of property without compensation. Lake Shore etc. R. Co. v. Clough, 182 Ind. 178, 104 N. E. 975, 105 N. E. 905.

Nor does a statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution which makes railroad companies liable for damages caused by fires. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co. v. Chappell, 183 Ind. 141, 106 N. E. 403; Pittsburgh etc. R. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 183 Ind. 355, 108 N. E. 525.

A statute which authorizes the recovery of illegal taxes that have been paid and the claim for which is barred by the statute of limitation, does not authorize the taking of property without due process of law. Jackson Hill Coal etc. Co. v. Board of Comrs., 181 Ind. 335, 104 N. E. 497.

A statute which validates and authorizes the collection of taxes or assessments which the state has authority to levy or assess, is not the taking of property without due process of law. School Town v. Somerville, 181 Ind. 463, 104 N. E. 859. A statute which prohibits a married man from assigning his wages without the consent of his wife does not deprive him of property without due process of law. Cleveland etc. R. Co. v. Marshall, 182 Ind. 280, 105 N. E. 570.

As to the power of states to fix the rates to be charged by railroad companies for the carriage of passengers and freight, see the Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 352, 33 Sup. Ct. 729, 57 L. ed. 1511; Missouri Rates Cases, 230 U. S. 474, 33 Sup. Ct. 975, 57 L. ed. 1571; Chesapeake etc. R. Co. v. Conley, 230 U. S. 513, 33 Sup. Ct. 985, 57 L. ed. 1597; Southern Pacific etc. R. Co. v. Campbell, 230 U. S. 537, 33 Sup. Ct. 1027, 57 L. ed. 1610; Allen v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 230 U. S. 553, 33 Sup. Ct. 1030, 57 L. ed. 1625.

The requiring of common carriers to charge such rates for transportation as to prevent them from obtaining a reasonable return for the services rendered is a

deprivation of property without due process of law, and violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. Missouri etc. R. Co. v. Tucker, 230 U. S. 340, 33 Sup. Ct. 961, 57 L. ed. 1507.

States can not by law require sleeping car companies to keep upper berths up and not made ready for occupancy when the occupant of the lower berth pays only for such berth, although there is no occupant for the upper berth. Chicago etc. R. Co. v. State of Wisconsin, 238 U. S. 491, 35 Sup. Ct. 869, 59 L. ed. 1423.

The statute of Indiana regulating the width of entries in coal mines is not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Barrett v. State of Indiana, 229 U. S. 26, 33 Sup. Ct. 692, 57 L. ed. 1050.

The destruction of impure food in accordance with laws for the protection of the public health, is not a deprivation of property without due process of law. Adams v. City of Milwaukee, 228 U. S. 572, 33 Sup. Ct. 610, 57 L. ed. 971.

The statute of a state making it unlawful for unnaturalized foreigners to kill wild game in the state is not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 34 Sup. Ct. 281, 58 L. ed. 539.

Consideration of the power of states to limit the hours of labor of persons. Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U. S. 385, 35 Sup. Ct. 345, 59 L. ed. 632; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373, 35 Sup. Ct. 342, 59 L. ed. 628.

Consideration of the right of an employer to require an employe to agree to not belong to a labor organization as a condition to his being employed or continued in service. Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 35 Sup. Ct. 240, 59 L. ed. 441. Child labor laws, consideration of such laws and the effect of such laws on the liberty of persons to contract, and the deprivation of property without due process of law. Sturges etc. Mfg. Co. v. Beauchamp, 231 U. S. 320, 34 Sup. Ct. 60, 58 L. ed. 245.

Women, hours of labor in factories, consideration of the power of states to limit the hours for labor of women in factories. Riley v. Massachusetts, 232 U. S. 671, 34 Sup. Ct. 469, 58 L. ed. 788.

Hours of service of employes of railroad companies, consideration of the federal statute enacting penalties when employes of railroad companies are kept on duty beyond the time fixed by the statute. Missouri etc. R. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 112, 34 Sup. Ct. 26, 58 L. ed. 144.

The act of congress of September, 1916, commonly known as the Adamson Act, fixing eight hours as a day's labor for employes of railroad common carriers engaged in interstate commerce, and providing that such an eight-hour day shall be the basis for computing the wages of such employes is held to be within the power of congress and constitutional. Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 37 Sup. Ct. 298, 61 L. ed. 755.

States can not enact statutes prescribing arbitrary rules or conditions for the qualifications of railroad employes which will exclude from service qualified persons. Smith v. State of Texas, 233 U. S. 630, 34 Sup. Ct. 681, 58 L. ed. 1129.

Coal mining, power of states to regulate the operation of coal mines, and the Indiana statute on the subject of wash houses is held valid. Booth v. State of Indiana, 237 U. S. 391, 35 Sup. Ct. 617, 59 L. ed. 1011.

Validity of state laws requiring motor vehicles using highways to be registered and to pay a license tax. Hendrick v. State of Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 35 Sup. Ct. 140, 59 L. ed. 385.

The statute regulating the sale of merchandise in bulk is not in violation of the equal privileges and immunities provision of the federal Constitution. Hirth

Krause Co. v. Cohen, 177 Ind. 1, 97 N. E. 1; Rich v. Callahan Co., 179 Ind. 509, 101 N. E. 810.

The state statute prohibiting the sending of claims against citizens of the state to other states for collection is not a denial of the equal privilege and immunity clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Markley v. Murphy, 180 Ind. 4, 102 N. E. 376.

A statute regulating the liability of employers for injuries to employes that applies to employers who employ a designated number of persons only, is not a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Vandalia R. Co. v. Stillwell, 181 Ind. 267, 104 N. E. 289; Vivian Collieries Co. v. Cahall, 184 Ind. 473, 110 N. E. 672. A statute which requires railroad companies to destroy weeds that grow upon their lands is not a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Anderson, 182 Ind. 140, 105 N. E. 49.

A statute which requires transient merchants to take out licenses and pay taxes does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. Harding etc. Co. v. Cushman, 183 Ind. 218, 108 N. E. 865.

State statutes allowing attorney fees in suits to collect claims against insurance companies do not deny the equal protection of the laws. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 34 Sup. Ct. 874, 58 L. ed. 1245.

The statute providing for the survival of a cause of action where a judgment has been recovered for personal injuries and the plaintiff dies after the judgment is reversed on appeal, does not deny to persons the equal protection of the laws. Cincinnati etc. R. Co. v. McCullom, 183 Ind. 556, 109 N. E. 206.

The concerted action of the members of a labor union in quitting their employment in order to unionize the shop in which they were working, and establishing pickets to persuade other employes from taking their places, is not violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as depriving persons of life or liberty without due process of law or denying equal protection of law. Shaughnessey v. Jordan, 184 Ind. 499, 111 N. E. 622.

See note to U. S. Const., art. 1, section 10.

Burns' Stat. 1914, section 537, providing for punishment by contempt for failure to attend and testify, is not violative of the due process clause. Kwiatkowski v. Putzhaven, Ind. 126 N. E. 3.

Burns' Ann. Stat. 1914, sections 3920b-3928h are not in violation of this amendment. Jackson v. Mauck, Ind., 126 N. E. 857.

Tax assessment statute providing for notice of court proceedings by publication only is due process. Temperly v. City of Indianapolis, Ind. 127 N. E. 149.

-

See notes to Stat., sections 61610, 10052t3. The depriving of property complained of not being the action of the state the Fourteenth Amendment can have no application. Jones v. Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Co., 245 U. S. 328, 38 Sup. Ct. 121, 62 L. ed. 325.

The question whether the purpose of a taking of property is a public one is judicial but the necessity and the proper extent of a taking is a legislative question. Sears v. City of Akron, 246 U. S. 242, 38 Sup. Ct. 245, 62 L. ed. 688.

The right to contract outside for insurance on property within a state can not be taken away by state legislation. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U. S. 357, 38 Sup. Ct. 337, 62 L. ed. 772.

The state has a wide discretion in the classification of property for taxation though it must rest on real differences and may not be arbitrary. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. State of Wisconsin, 247 U. S. 132, 38 Sup. Ct. 444, 62 L. ed. 1025.