The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation - BestLightNovel.com
You’re reading novel The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 57 online at BestLightNovel.com. Please use the follow button to get notification about the latest chapter next time when you visit BestLightNovel.com. Use F11 button to read novel in full-screen(PC only). Drop by anytime you want to read free – fast – latest novel. It’s great if you could leave a comment, share your opinion about the new chapters, new novel with others on the internet. We’ll do our best to bring you the finest, latest novel everyday. Enjoy
[942] 297 U.S. 431 (1936).
[943] 45 Stat 1084 (1929).
[944] 297 U.S. at 440. _See also_ Justice Cardozo's remarks in Baldwin _v._ Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 526-527 (1935).
[945] _Cf._ Plumley _v._ Ma.s.sachusetts, 155 U.S. 461 (1894); Savage _v._ Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912); Corn Products Refining Co. _v._ Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 (1919).
[946] Elkison _v._ Deliesseline, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4366 (1823).
[947] For interesting particulars _see_ 2 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, 84-87.
[948] 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 659.
[949] 2 Op. Atty. Gen. 426.
[950] 11 Pet. 102 (1837).
[951] Smith _v._ Turner (Pa.s.senger Cases), 7 How. 283 (1849).
[952] Crandall _v._ Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 (1868).
[953] 314 U.S. 160 (1941).
[954] Ibid. 172.
[955] Ibid. 173. Justice Cardozo's words, quoted by Justice Byrnes, occur in Baldwin _v._ Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 523 (1935). Justice Byrnes'
answer to another argument of the State, based on historical conceptions of the word "indigent," was, "poverty and immorality are not synonymous."
[956] _See_ especially Justice Douglas' forceful opinion. 314 U.S.
177-181.
[957] 161 U.S. 519 (1896).
[958] Hudson County Water Co. _v._ McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908).
[959] 221 U.S. 229 (1911).
[960] Ibid. 255-256.
[961] 262 U.S. 553 (1923).
[962] 237 U.S. 52 (1915).
[963] Ibid. 61.
[964] 258 U.S. 50, 61 (1922).
[965] 258 U.S. 50 (1922); 66 L. Ed. 458, Hd. 2.
[966] _See_ pp. 193-195.
[967] 291 U.S. 502 (1934); followed in Hegeman Farms Corp. _v._ Baldwin, 293 U.S. 163 (1934).
[968] 294 U.S. 511 (1935).
[969] Milk Control Bd. _v._ Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U.S. 346 (1939).
[970] Ibid. 352.
[971] Hood _v._ Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 535 (1949).
[972] Foster-Fountain Packing Co. _v._ Haydel, 278 U.S. 1 (1928).
[973] Ibid. 13.
[974] Toomer _v._ Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948). Other features of the South Carolina act were found to violate article IV, section 2. _See_ p.
690.
[975] Bayside Fish Flour Co. _v._ Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).
[976] Ibid. 426, citing Silz _v._ Hesterberg, 211 U.S. 31, 39 (1908).
[977] 34 Stat. 584 (1906).
[978] Chicago, I. & L.R. Co. _v._ United States, 219 U.S. 486 (1911).
[979] Southern R. Co. _v._ Reid, 222 U.S. 424 (1912); Southern R. Co.
_v._ Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99 (1912).
[980] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. _v._ Hardwick Farmers Elevator Co., 226 U.S. 426 (1913).
[981] St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. _v._ Edwards, 227 U.S. 265 (1913).
[982] Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. _v._ Greenwood Grocery Co., 227 U.S. 1 (1913).
In this case the severity of the regulation furnished additional reason for its disallowance.
[983] 226 U.S. 491 (1913). For the Court's reiteration of the formula governing such cases, _see_ ibid. 505-506. _See also_ Barrett _v._ New York, 232 U.S. 14 (1914); Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. _v._ Cramer, 232 U.S.
490 (1914); Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. _v._ Harold, 241 U.S. 371 (1916); Missouri P.R. Co. _v._ Porter, 273 U.S. 341 (1927). A year before the enactment of the Carmack Amendment the Court had held that the imposition by a State upon the initial or any connecting carrier of the duty of tracing the freight and informing the s.h.i.+pper in writing when, where, how, and by which carrier the freight was lost, damaged, or destroyed, and of giving the names of the parties and their official position, by whom the truth of the facts set out in the information could be established, was, when applied to interstate commerce, a violation of the commerce clause. Central of Georgia R. Co. _v._ Murphey, 196 U.S. 194, 202 (1905). The Court's opinion definitely invited Congress to deal with the subject, as it does in the Carmack Amendment.
[984] 35 Stat. 65 (1908); 36 Stat. 291 (1910).
[985] 34 Stat. 1415 (1907).
[986] 27 Stat. 531 (1893); 32 Stat. 943 (1903).
[987] Mondou _v._ New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. (Second Employers' Liability Cases), 223 U.S. 1 (1912); Southern R. Co. _v._ Railroad Com., 236 U.S.
439 (1915).
[988] Erie R. Co. _v._ New York, 233 U.S. 671 (1914).
