permit the trains of the claimant to proceed upon their journey, aris- 7. On a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Secretary of State to com- 8. Section 3737 of the Revised Statutes respecting the transfer of con- CONFLICT OF LAW. See JURISDICTION, A, 6; B, 9; E. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW A. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES. 1. The State Board of Equalization of California having included in their 2. Franchises conferred by Congress cannot, without its permission, be 3. Congress has authority, in the exercise of its power to regulate com- 4. The Statute of Missouri which, as construed by the Supreme Court of 5. The statute of Kansas of 1874, c. 93, § 1, p. 143, Comp. Laws Kansas, chat such receipts were derived from interstate commerce, but is other- 8. The decisions of this court respecting the taxation of telegraph com- 9. The provision in article 3 of the Constitution of the United States that 11. A person accused of a conspiracy to prevent another person from pur- 14. Telegraphic communications are commerce, as well as in the nature of 15. A general license tax on a telegraph company affects its entire 16. The property of a telegraph company, situated within a State, may be taxed by the State as all other property is taxed; but its business of an interstate character cannot be thus taxed. lb. 17. The Western Union Telegraph Company established an office in the city of Mobile, Alabama, and was required to pay a license tax under a city ordinance, which imposed an annual license tax of $225 on all telegraph companies, and the agent of the company was fined for the non-payment of this tax: in an action to recover the fine, he pleaded the charter and nature of occupation of the company, and its acceptance of the act of Congress of July 24th, 1866, and the fact that its business consisted in transmitting messages to all parts of the United States, as well as in Alabama: Held, a good defence. Ib. 18. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was not designed to interfere with the exercise of the police power by the State for the protection of health, the prevention of fraud, and the preservation of the public morals. Powell v. Pennsylvania, 678. 19. The prohibition of the manufacture out of oleaginous substances, or out of any compound thereof other than that produced from unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, of an article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk; or the prohibition upon the manufacture of any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese, or upon the selling or offering for sale, or having in possession with intent to sell, the same, as an article of food, is a lawful exercise by the State of the power to protect, by police regulations, the public health. Ib. 20. Whether the manufacture of oleomargarine, or imitation butter, of the kind described in the act of the legislature of Pennsylvania of May 21, 1885, (Laws of Penn. of 1885, p. 22, No. 25,) is, or may be, conducted in such a way, or with such skill and secrecy, as to baffle ordinary inspection, or whether it involves such danger to the public health as to require, for the protection of the people, the entire suppression of the business, rather than its regulation in such manner as to permit the manufacture and sale of articles of that class that do not contain noxious ingredients, are' questions of fact and of public policy, which belong to the legislative department to determine. Ib. 21. The Statute of Pennsylvania of May 21, 1885, "for the protection of the public health, and to prevent adulteration of dairy products and fraud in the sale thereof" neither denies to persons within the jurisdiction of the State the equal protection of the laws; nor deprives persons of their property without that compensation required by law; and is not repugnant in these respects to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. lb. 22. No mode is provided by the Constitution and laws of the United States by which a person, unlawfully abducted from one State to another, and held in the latter State upon process of law for an offence against the State, can be restored to the State from which he was abducted. Mahon v. Justice, 700. 23. There is no comity between the States by which a person held upon an indictment for a criminal offence in one State can be turned over to the authorities of another State, although abducted from the lat ter. Ib. 24. A, being indicted in Kentucky for felony, escaped to West Virginia. While the governor of West Virginia was considering an application from the governor of Kentucky for his surrender as a fugitive from justice, he was forcibly abducted to Kentucky, and when there was seized by the Kentucky authorities under legal process, and put in jail and held to answer the indictment. Held, that he was not entitled to be discharged from custody under a writ of habeas corpus from the Circuit Court of the United States. Ib. 25. The authority of Congress to protect the poll books which contain the vote for a member of Congress, from the danger which might arise from the exposure of these papers to the chance of falsification or other tampering, is beyond question, and this danger is not removed because the purpose of the conspirators was to falsify the returns as to state officers found in the same poll books and certificates, and not those of the member of Congress. In re Coy, 731. See COSTS; INDICTMENT; JURISDICTION, A, 4; B. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF A STATE. By the constitution of California two modes of assessment for taxation are prescribed: one, by a state board of equalization; the other, by county boards and local assessors. All property is directed to be assessed in the county, city, etc., in which it is situated, except that the franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails, and rolling-stock of any railroad operated in more than one county, are to be assessed by the state board, and apportioned to the several counties, etc. By an act of the legislature the state board is required to include in their assessment steamers engaged in transporting passengers and freights across waters which divide a railroad. This act was held by the Supreme Court of California, in San Francisco v. Central Pacific Railroad Co., 63 Cal. 469, to be contrary to the constitution, and steamboats were held to be assessable by the county board, and not by the state board. This court, following that decision, and that of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U. S. 394, holds that the assessment of the steamers of a railroad company by the state board is in violation of the constitution of California, and void; and, being inseparably blended with the other property assessed, it makes the whole assessment void. California v. Central Pacific Railroad Co., 1. |