« ZurückWeiter »
risdiction, without reference to the amount , ions of this act," and that might embrace in controversy, over all controversies aris. all controversies arising between the in.
ing between the inhabitants of said na. habitants or the nations and tribes and utions or tribes and said railway company; the railway company, we do not regard
and the civil jurisdiction of said courts is the addition of these words as intended hereby extended within the limits of said to operate as a limitation of the controIndian Territory, without distinction as versies to those growing out of the con. to citizenship of the parties, so far as may struction of the road merely, since the sec. be necessary to carry out the provisions tion in terms applies to “all controverof this act."
sies.” It was contended on behalf of defend. It is true that, apart from jurisdiction ant, before Judge PARKER, holding the cir- over the subject-matter, a citizen of a tercuit court, that the last clause of this sec ritory cannot sue a citizen of a state in tion, to-wit, “so far as may be necessary the courts of the United States, nor an to carry out the provisions of this act,". Indian tribe or nation sue a state or its operated to limit the jurisdiction con: citizens, but the judicial power extends to ferred tosuch controversies as might arise all cases, in law and equity, arising under between the nations or inhabitants and the laws of the United States, and this the company, in respect of the construc case falls within that category, and theretion of the railroad, as pertaining to the fore the jurisdiction in question could be right of way, damages for land improve- conferred, as we hold that it was. ments or occupancy rights thereby injured The decision of the circuit court was or disturbed, etc.
right, and its judgment is affirmed. The circuit court held otherwise, and that the courts named in the section were
(144 U. S. 24) properly given jurisdiction over the suit,
UNITED STATES V. Wilson. because, as there was no remedy for a tort such as that in question at the place
(March 14, 1892.) where the same was committed, there
SALARY OF POSTMASTER. was no remedy anywhere, until given by
On the raising of a post-otice to the third the law under consideration, and that class the postmaster is entitled to the increased this constituted a right or privilege there salary from the first day of the quarter next folunder; and upon the further ground that, lowing the order of the postmaster general assignas the act conferred upon the corporation
ing the office to such class, and fixing his salary, the right to build and run its road through
(Act March 3, 1883, c. 142; 22 St. pp. 600, 602,)
and his rights cannot be affected by a subsethe Indian country, and to exercise the
quent order of the sixth auditor, or by the time ordinary powers incident thereto, this
of the issue of his commission from the president. rendered the suit one arising under the 26 Ct. Cl. 186, affirmed. Jan's of the United States. 40 Fed. Rep.
Appeal from the court of claims. That Briscoe was at the time mentioned Action bs William Wilson against the an inhabitant of the Chickasaw Nation, United States to recurer an alleged bal. where the property destroyed was, must ance of salary as a postmaster. Defendbe assumed. The answer did not specific ant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff. ally put this fact in issue, but denied any Affirmed. liability generally, and defendant request Asst. Atty. Gen. Parker, for the United ed the court to instruct the jury that Bris- | | States. Harvey Spalding, for appellee. coe was not an inhabitant, which the court refused to do, as there was evidence Mr. Justice LAMAR delivered the opinion tending to show that he was. This left of the court. the question as one of fact to the jury, This was an action in the court of and it was determined, in effect, in Bris- | claims by a late postmaster of Chadron, coe's favur by their verdict.
Neb., to recover an alleged balance of salAs the defendant acquired all its rights ary claimed to be due. in the matter of the construction and The material facts are these: Theclaim. operation of its road within the Indian ant wus a fourth-class postmaster, duly Territory onder and by virtue of a law of appointed and qualified, at Chadron, Neb., the United States, enacted by congress in from July 1, 1885, to January 25, 1887.
the exercise of its power over the terri When be was first appointed, the salary stories, controversies arising by reason of of the office was $1,000 a year; and it con
the exercise of its powers therein were nec. tinued at that figure until October 1, 1886, essarily controversies arising under the when, by an order of the postmaster genJaws of the United States, and, this being eral, issued a few days previously, the 80, it was competeut for congress to give office was assigned to the third class, and the enumerated courts jurisdiction over the salary was increased to $1,600 a year. not only controversies immediately relat Although the office*was thus advanced in* ing to or growing out of the construction rank, and the salary attached to it inof the road, but over all controversies be. | creased, and the claimant continued to tween the nations, and tribes or the in- discharge the dutics of it, he was not comhabitants thereof, through whose terri missioned by the president a third-class tory the railroad miglt be constructed, postmaster until January 25, 1887; and, and the company.
under an order of the sixth auditor, dated And as the civil jurisdiction of these November 16, 1886, he was not perinitted courts was extended within the limits of to enjoy the benefits of the increased salthe territory, without distinction as to ary until he was commissioned a thirdthe citizenship of the parties, "80 far as class postmaster, but continued to draw may be pecessary to carry out the provis. a salary from October 1, 1886, to January
the foreign country in which such port 1815, and May 31, 1830, to declare the rewas situated, and should upon the pas. peal, as to any foreign nation, of the sev. sage of the act, “and from time to time eral acts imposing duties on the tonnage thereafter, as often as it may become nec of ships and vessels, and on goods, wares, essary by reason of changes in the laws of and merchandise imported into the Uniteri the foreign countries above mentioned, States, when he should be “satisfied” that indicate by proclamation the ports to the discriminating duties of such foreign which such suspension shall apply, and nations, “so far as they operate to the the rate or ratez of tonnage duty, if any, disadvantage of the United States," had to be collected undersuch suspension." 23 been abolished; by the act of March 6, St. p. 57. In execution of that act Presi. 1866, to declare the provisions of the act dents Arthur and Cleveland issued procla forbidding the importation into this counmations suspending the collection of du- | try of neat cattle and the hides of neat ties on goods arriving from certain desig cattle, to be inoperative, “whenever in his nated ports. 23 St. 811, 842, 811.
judgment" their importation “may be • It would seem to be unnecessary to made without danger of the introduction make further reference to acts of congress or spread of contagious or infectious disto show that the authority conferred ease among the cattle of the United upon tbe president by the third section of States,"—must be regarded as unwar. the act of October 1, 1890, is not an entire- ranted by the constitution, if the contenly new feature in the legislation of con. tion of the appellants, in respect to the gress, but has the sanction of many prec third section of the act of October 1, 1890, edents in legislation. While some of these be sustained. precedents are stronger than others, in That congress cannot delegate legisla. their application to the case before us, tive power to the president is a principle they all show that, in the judgment of the universally recognized as vital to the inlegislative branch of the government, it is tegrity and maintenance of the system of often desirable, if not essential, for the government ordained by the constitution. protection of the interests of our people The act of October 1, 1890, in the partic. against the unfriendly or discriminating ular under consideration, is not inconsist. regulations established by foreign govern- ent with that principle. It does not, in ments, in the interest of their people, to any real sense, invest the president with in vest the president with large discretion the power of legislation. For the purpose in matters arising out of the execution of of securing reciprocal trade with countries statutes relating to trade and commerce producing and exporting sugar, molasses, with other nations. If the decision in the coffee, tea, and hides, congress itself decase of The Aurora had never been ren. termined that the provisions of the act of dered, the practical construction of the October 1, 1890, permitting the free introconstitution, as given by so many acts of duction of such articles, should be suscongress, and embracing almost the en. pended as to any country producing and tire period of our national existence, exporting them that inposed exactions should not be overruled, unless upon a and duties on the agricultural and other conviction that such legislation was clear-products of the United States, which the ly incompatible with the supreme law of president deemed, that is, which he found the land. Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299, to be, reciprocally unequal and unreason. 309; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 351; able. Congress itself prescribed, in ad. Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299, vance, the duties to be levied, collected, 315; Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. and paid on sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, 53, 57, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 279; The Laura, 114 or hides, produced by or exported from U. S. 411, 416, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 881.
sucb designated*country while the suspen. The authoriiy given to the president by sion lasted. Nothing involving the expe. the act of June 4, 1794, to lay an embargo | diency or tbe just operation of such legislaon all ships and vessels in the ports of the tion was left to the determination of the United States, “ whenever, in his opinion, president. The words“ he may deem,” in the public safety shall so require," and un the third section, of course implied that der regulations to be continued or revoked the president would examine the commer“whenever he shall think proper;" by the cial regulations of other countries produc. act of February 9, 1799, to remit and disc ing and exporting sugar, molasses, coffee, continue, for the time being, the restraints tea, and hides, and form a judgment as to and prohibitions which congress had pre whether they were reciprocally equal and scribed with respect to commercial inter- reasonable, or the contrary, in their effect course with the French republic, "if he upon American products. But when he shall deem it expedient and consistent ascertained the fact that duties and exwith the interest of the United States, actions reciprocally unequal and unreaand “to revoke such order whenever, in sonable were imposed upon the agriculthis opinion, the interest of the United ural or other products of the United States shall require;” by the act of De States by a country producing and excember 19, 1806, to suspend, for a named porting sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, or time, the operation of the non-importa- | hides, it became his duty to issue a proc. tion act of the same year, “if in his judg. lama tion declaring the suspension, as to ment the public interest should *require that country, which congress bad deter1t;” by the act of May 1, 1810, to revive a mined should ccur. He had no discreformer act, as to Great Britain or France, tion in the premises except in respect to if either country had not, by a named day, the duration of the suspension so ordered. 80 revoked or modified its edicts as vot But that related only to the enforcement "to violate the neutral commerce of the of the policy established by congrens. As United States;" by the acts of March 3, the suspension was absolutely required
postmaster be affected by any subsequent , in the Memphis, Carthage & Nortb western order of the sixth auditor, as was ato | Railroad Company, a corporation of Mis. tempted to be done in this case; for, as souri, upon a judgment recovered by the already stated, his duty and authority in plaintiff against the corporation. The the premises ceased when he made his re defendant answered, denying that he was port of the business transactions of the a stockholder, and a verring that the order office to the postmaster general. The or judginent against him was void for whole theory of the act of 1883 is that want of jurisdiction of his person. The every postmaster shall receive a salary present case was submitted, a jury being dependent upon and regulated by the duly waived in writing, to the court, amount of business done at his office. which found the following facts: The intent of the statute in this respect, The plaintiff's judgment against the corappears so plain upon a careful reading | poration was recovered in the state court of it that it is difficult to elucidate it by on April 2, 1883, for $72,799.38 and interest. argument or illustration. The mere state. Upon that judgment, executions against ment of its terms is the best argument in the corporation were issued to the sheriffs favor of the conclusion we have reached. of the severalcounties in Missouri through
The judgment of the court of claims which it had built its road, and were rewas correct, and it is a rfirmed.
turned unsatisfied; and the corporation
was then, and has been ever since, insolv. (144 U. S. 41)
ent. On July 9, 1883, the plaintiff filed a WILSON V. SELIGMAN.
motion in the same court for an order (March 14, 1892.)
that execution for the amount of that
judgment issue against the defendant as JUDGMENT AGAINST CORPORATION - LIABILITY OF
the alleged holder of stock in the corporaSTOCKHOLDERS-PERSONAL NOTICE.
tion on which more than the amount of Under Rev. St. Mo. 1879, $ 736, authorizing
the judgment against the corporation execution on a judgment against a corporation to
was still unpaid. Notice of this motion be issued against a stockholder to the amount of the unpaid balance of his stock, upon order of
was served on him personally at his domcourt made “after sufficient notice in writing to icile in New York, and was posted in the the person sought to be charged," and upon funda clerk's office of the state court. No notice mental principles of jurisprudence, an alleged | was served on him within the state of stockholder of a Missouri corporation, not served Missouri, and he never was a citizen or a with process within the state upon the original
resident of this state. At the hearing of writ in an action against the corporation in the state court, is entitled to legal notice and trial
| the motion, on December 3, 1883, the deof the issue whether he is a stockholder, before
fendant did not appear; and ihe court enhe can be charged with personal liability as such; | tered an order finding that he was a stockand personal service of the notice within the ju holder as alleged, and was liable to exerisdiction of the court is essential to support an or cution for the amount of the judgment der or judgment ascertaining and establishing such
against the corporation, and granting liability, unless he has voluntarily appeared or
the motion and ordering execution to otherwise waived his right to such service. 36
issue against him accordingly. This was Fed. Rep. 154, affirmed.
the order or judgment upon which the In error to the circuit court of the United present action was brought. States for the eastern district of Missouri. Upon these facts the court below gave
Action by William C. Wilson against judgment for the defendant. 36 Fed. Rep. Jesse Seligman upon a judgment. Plaintiff 154. The plaintiff sued out this writ of brings error from a judgment for defend error. ant. Affirmed.
James S. Botsford, for plaintiff in error. *STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE GRAY. James O. Broadhead and John O'Day, for This was an action brought by Wilson, | defendant in error. a citizen of Missouri, against Seligman, a citizen of New York, in the circuit court of Mr. Justice Gray, after statiog the case the city of St. Louis, and duly removed by as above, delivered the opinion of the the defendapt into the circuit court of the court. United States. The action was upon an The statute of Missouri under which order or judgnient of the state court un these proceedings were had authorizes der section 736 of the Revised Statutes of execution upon a judgment against a corMissouri of 1879, (which is copied in the poration to be ordered against any of its margin,') by which execution was award- stockholders only to the extent of the ined against the defendant as a stockholder paid balance of their stock, and “upon
motion in open court, after sufficient noIf any execution shall have been issued against tice in writing to the person sought to be any corporation, and there cannot be found any charged." Gen. St. Mo. 1865, c. 62, § 11; property or effects whereon to levy the same, then Rev. St. 1879, 8 736: Rev. St. 1889, $ 2517. such execution may be issued against any of the
Each person sought to be charged as a stockholders to the extent of the amount of the unpaid balance of such stock by him or her owned:
stockholder is thus given the right, before provided, always, that no execution shall is. | execution can be awarded against him on sue against any stockholder except upon an order a judgment against the corporation, to of the court in which the action, suit, or other written notice and judicial investigation proceedings shall have been brought or instituted,
of the questions whether he is a stockmade upon motion in open court, after sufficient
holder, and, if he is, how much remains notice in writing to the persons sought to be charged; and, upon such motion, such court may
unpaid on his stock. Although the stat. order execution to issue accordingly: and pro.
| ute does not define the course of proceedvided, further, that no stockholder shall be indi. ing or the kind of notice otherwise than vidually liable in any amount over and above the
by directing that the proceeding shall be amount of stock owned.
summary, upon motion and "after uffi
other-as when the two things provided legislative power can be delegated by are necessary parts of one system-that congress to any other department of the the whole act will fall with the invalidity government, executive or judicial, is an of one clause. When there is no such axiom in constitutional law, and is uni. connection and dependency, the act will versally recognized as a principle essenstand, though different parts of it are re- tial to the integrity and maintenance of jected.” It cannot be said to be evident the system of government ordained by the that the provisions imposing duties on constitution. The legislative power must imported articles are so connected with remain in the organ wbere it is lodged by or dependent upon those giving bounties that instrument. We think that the secupon the production of sugars in this tion in question does delegate legislative country that the former would not have power to the executive department, aud been adopted except in connection with also commits to that department matters the latter. Undoubtedly, the object of the belonging to the treaty-making power, act was not only to raise revenue for the in violation of paragraph 2 of the second support of the government, but to so ex section of article 2 of the constitution. It ert the power of laying and collecting reads thus: taxes and duties as to encourage domes. “Sec. 3. That with a view to secure tic manufactures and industries of differ- reciprocal trade with countries producent kinds, upon the success of which, the ing the following articles, and for this promoters of the act claimed, materially purpose, on and after the first day of depended the national prosperity and the January, eighteen hundred and ninety-se national safety. But it cannot be as. *two, whenever and so often as the presi." Bimed, nor can it be made tu appear from dent shall be satisfied that the governthe act, that the provisions imposing du. ment of any country producing and ex. ties on imported articles would not have porting sugars, inolasses, coffee, tea, and been adopted except in connection with hides, raw and uncured, or any of such the clause giving bounties on the produc- | articles, imposes duties or other esactions tion of sugar in this country. These upon the agricultural or other products different parts of the act, in respect to their of the United States, which in view of operation, have legal connection the free introduction of such sugar, mowhatever with each other. They are en lasses, coffee, tea, and hides into the tirely separable in their nature, and, in United States he may deem to be recipro. law, are wholly independent of each other. cally unequal and unreasonable, he shall One relates to the imposition of duties have the power, and it shall be his duty, upon imported articles; the other, to the to suspend, by prolamation to that effect, appropriation of money from the treasury the provisions of this act relating to the for bounties on articles produced in this free introduction of such sugar, molasses, country. While, in a general sense, both coffee, tea, and hides, the production of may be said to be parts of a system, such country, for such time as he shall neither the words nor the general scope deem just, and in sucb case, and during of the act justifies the belief that congress such suspension, duties shall be levied, intended they should operate as a whole, collected, and paid upon sugar, molasses. and not separately for the purpose of ac coffee, tea, and hides, the product of or complishing the objects for which they exported from such designated country, were respectively designed. Unless it be as follows, namely." 26 St. p. 612. impossible to avoid it, a general revenue We do not think that legislation of this statute should never be declared inopera- | character is sustained by any decision of tive in all its parts because a particular this court, or by precedents in con. part relating to a distinct subject may be grensional legislation numerous enough invalid. A different rule might be dis- | to be properly considered as the practice ustrous to the financial operations of the of the government. One of the instances government, and produce the utmost referred to, as legislation analogous to confusion in the business of the entire this section, is that embodied in the acts country.
of congress of 1809 and 1810, known as the We perceive no error in the judgments “Non-Intercourse Acts, pronounced by below, and each is affirmed.
this court to be valid in the case of The
Aurora, 7 Cranch, 353. The act of March 1, Mr. Justice LAMAR, with whom con 1809, forbidding any importation after curred Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, dissent. May 20, 1809, from Great Britain or ing.
France, provided that “the president of The chief justice and myself concur in the United States be, and he bereby is, the judgment just announced. But the authorized, in case either France or Great proposition maintained in the opinion, | Britain shall 80 revoke or modify her that the third section, known as the edicts as that they shall cease to violate “Reciprocity Provision,” is valid and con. the neutral commerce of the United States, stitutional legislation, does not command to declare the same by proclamation.' our assent, and we desire to state very after which, the trade suspended by that briefly the ground of our dissent from it. act and the act laying an embargo could We think that this particular provision is be renewed with the nation 80 doing. 2 repugnant to the first section of the first St. p. 528, § 11. That act having expired, article of the constitution of the United congress on the 1st of May, 1810, passed States, which provides that “all legis. an act (2 St. p. 60.5, § 4) which enacted lative powers herein granted shall be vest " that in case either Great Britain or ed in a congress of the United States, France shull, before the 3d day of March wbich shall consist of a senate and house next, so revoke or modify her edicts as of representatives. That no part of this that they shall cease to violate tbe
neutral commerce of the United States, | None of these legislative precedents, save which fact the president of the United the one above referred to, have, as yet, States shall declare by proclamation, undergone review by tbis court or been and if the other nation shall not, within sustained by its decision. Anù if there be three months thereafter, so revoke or any congressional legislation which may modify her edicts in like manner, the be construed as delegating to the presirestrictions of the embargo act “shall, dent the power to suspend any law exfrom and after the expiration of three empting any importations from duty, or months from the date of the proclamation to reimpose revenue duties on them, upon aforesaid, be revived, and lave full force his own judgment as to what constitutes and effect, so far as relates to
the in the revenue policy of other countries a nation thus refusing or neglecting to fair and reasonable reciprocity, such legmodify her edicts in the manner aforesaid. islative precedents cannot avail as au. And the restrictions imposed by this act thority against a clear and undoubted wball, from the date of such proclama- | principle of the constitution. We say tion, cease and be discontinued in rela revenue policy," because tbe phrase tion to the nation revoking or modifying 'agricultural or other products of the ber decrees in the manner aforesaid.
United States” is comprehensive, and emThese enactments, in our opinion, trans braces our manufacturing and mining as ferred no legislative power to the presi well as agricultural products, all of which dent. The legislation was purely con interests are thus intrusted tw the discretingent. It provided for an ascertain tion of the president, in the adjustment of nient by the president of an event in the trade relations with other countries, upon future,- an event defined in the act and a basis of reciprocity. directed to be evidenced by his proclama While, however, we cannot agree to the tion. It also prescribed the consequences proposition that this particular section is which were to follow upon that procla. valid and constitutional, we do not remation. Such proclamation was wholly | gard it as such an essential part of the in the nature of an executive act, a pre tariff act as to invalidate all its other proscribed mode of ascertainment, which in visions; and we therefore concur in the volved no exercise by the president of judgment of this court affirming the judg. what belonged to the law-making power. ments of the court below in the several The supreme will of congress would have
cases. been enforced whether the event provided
(144 U. S. 1) for had or had not happened, either in the
UNITED STATES V. BALLIN et al. continuance of the restrictions on the one hand, or, on the other, in their sus
(February 29, 1892.) pension.
CONGRESS-RULES OF THE HOUSE-COUNTING QUOBut the purpose and effect of the section
RUM-JOURNAL-CUSTOMS DUTIES. now under consideration are radically
1. Rule 15 of the house of representatives of different. It does not, as was provided
the fifty-first congress, providing that the names in the statutes of 1809 and 1810, intrust
of members present who do not vote may be en.
tered on the journal and counted in determining the president with the ascertainment of a
the presence of a quorum, does not infringe any fact therein defined upon which the law is
constitutional or fundamental right, and is a to go into operation. It goes further valid exercise of the power of the house to deterthan that, and deputes to the president mine the rules of its proceedings. the power to suspend another section in 2. In the federal house of representatives, the same act whenever “he may deem”
when a quorum is present, the votes of a major. the action of any foreign nation producity of the quorum are sufficient to pass a bill. ing and exporting the articles named in
3. On a reference to the journal of the fed
eral house of representatives to ascertain wheth. that section to be "reciprocally unequal er a duly-authenticated law was passed in the and unreasonable;” and it further de. presence of a quorum and by the necessary numputes to him the power to continue that ber of votes, (assuming, but not deciding, that suspension, and to impose revenue duties such reference may be made,) the court is bound on the articles named, "for such time as
to assume that the journal speaks the truth, and he may deem just.” This certainly ex
cannot receive oral evidence to impeach its cor. stends to the executive the exercise of those discretionary powers which tbe constitu- claring that “the secretary of the treasury be,
4. Act Cong. May 9, 1890, (26 St. p. 105,) de. tion has vested in the law-making depart and he hereby is, authorized and directed to clasment. It unquestionably vests in the sify as woolen cloths all imports of worsted president the power to regulate our com cloths,” etc., does not require that the secretary merce with all foreign nations which pro
in person shall make the classification, but only duce sugar, tea, coffee, molasses, hides, or
that it shall be done in the usual manner by the any of such articles; and to impose
customs department, of which the secretary is
ibe responsible head. revenue duties upon them for a length of time limited solely by his discretion,
45 Fed. Rep. 170, reversed. whenever he deems the revenue system or Appeal from the circuit court of the policy of any nation in which those arti: United States for the southern district of cles are produced reciprocally unequal New York. und unreasonable in its operation upon Petition by Ballin, Joseph & Co. to rethe products of this country.
view the decision of the board of general These features of this section are, in appraisers affirming the action of the col. our opinion, in palpable violation of the lector of New York in classifying certain constitution of the United States, and imported worsteds as “woolen cloths.” serve to distinguish it from the legislative Their decision was reversed in the circuit precedents which are relied upon to sus court, (45 Fed. Rep. 170,) and the United tain it, as the practice of the government. States appeals. Reversed.