W. 882; Branson v. Bush, 251 U. S. 184, 64 L. ed. 218, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345, 31 L. ed. 763, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 921; Phillip Wagner v. Leser, 239 U. S. 207, 60 L. ed. 230, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist. 239 U. S. 254, 160 L. ed. 266, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58; Fallbrook Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 41 L. ed. 369, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 42 L. ed. 270, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 966; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 24 L. ed. 616.

The finding of the board of assessors and commissioners that the property of the railway company herein will be benefited as a matter of fact, and the approval of such finding by the highest court in Arkansas, are conclusive on this

court.

Fallbrook Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 41 L. ed. 369, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345, 31 L. ed. 763, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 921. Proper legal notice was given, as required by the statute.

Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 51 L. ed. 461, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Huling v. Kaw Valley R. & Improv. Co. 130 U. S. 559, 32 L. ed. 1045, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603; Winona & St. P. Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U. S. 526, 40 L. ed. 247, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 83; Paulsen v. Portland, 149 U. S. 30, 37 L. ed. 637, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 750.

The state can classify property for purposes of taxation.

40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6; Keeney v. New York, 222 U. S. 535, 56 L. ed. 305, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105. Plaintiffs in error have not been discriminated against unfairly.

Branson v. Bush, 251 U. S. 184, 64 L. ed. 218, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113; Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, 42 L. ed. 236, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Trimble v. Seattle, 231 U. S. 683, 58 L. ed. 435, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218; Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578, 32 L ed. 544, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192.

On due process of law see:

Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 24 L. ed. 616; Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233, 64 L. ed. 878, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 501; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657, 37 L. ed. 599, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales, 230 U. S. 161, 57 L. ed. 1437, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1003; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 47 L. ed. 70, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 20; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 43 L. ed. 443, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187; Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S. 480, 23 L. ed. 478; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462, 35 L. ed. 225, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 577; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 26 L. ed. 377; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 23 L. ed. 678.

Was the assessment of $67,900 worth of benefits on the railway property, under all the facts of this case, so arbitrary, unjust, capricious, and confiscatory as to deprive the railway company of its property without due process of law, as forbidden by the 14th Amendment?

F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 64 L. ed. 989, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 561; Watson v. State Comptroller, Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist. 254 U. S. 122, ante, 170, 41 Sup. Ct. 239 U. S. 262, 265, 60 L. ed. 273, 274, 36 Rep. 44; Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U. S. 81, Sup. Ct. Rep. 58; Goldsmith v. George 41 L. ed. 78, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1031; G. Prendergast Constr. Co. 252 U. S. 12, Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101, 43 64 L. ed. 427, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 274; EmL. ed. 91, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 805; Atchi-bree v. Kansas City & L. B. Road Dist. son, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 105, 43 L. ed. 913, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; American Sugar Ref. Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U. S. 89, 45 L. ed. 102, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 43; Memphis Gaslight Co. v. Taxing Dist. 109 U. S. 398, 27 L. ed. 976, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 205; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 33 L. ed. 892, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 59 L. ed. 265, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Branson v. Bush, 251 U. S. 184, 64 L. ed. 218, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 589, 42 L. ed. 288, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 966; Fallbrook Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 176, 41 L. ed. 394, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124,

240 U. S. 242, 60 L. ed. 624, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 317; Withnell v. Ruecking, Constr. Co. 249 Ú. S. 63, 63 L. ed. 479, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200; Hancock v. Muskogee, 250 U. S. 454, 63 L. ed. 1081, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 528; Branson v. Bush, supra; Mt. St. Mary's Cemetery Asso. v. Mullins, 248 U. S. 501, 63 L. ed. 383, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173; Phillip Wagner v. Leser, 239 U. S. 216, 60 L. ed. 236, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Wagner v. Covington, 251 U. S. 95, 64 L. ed. 157, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 94; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 59 L. ed. 265, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 64 L. ed. 445, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 226; American Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis, 250 U. S. 463, 63 L. ed. 1087, 39 Sup. Ct. Ren.

522; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 173 U. S. 613, 43 L. ed. 830, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78, 26 L. ed. 658; Fallbrook Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 176, 41 L. ed. 394, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; Southern P. Co. v. Bogert, 250 U. S. 483, 63 L. ed. 1099, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Collins Produce Co. 249 U. S. 186, 63 L. ed. 552, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Atty. Gen. 125 U. S. 530, 31 L. ed. 790, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 961.

The procedure was lawful under a valid statute, and the road district was validly organized pursuant thereto.

Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 64 L. ed. 421, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 256; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78, 26 L. ed. 658.

The railway company had proper legal notice, a chance to be heard on the question of amount of assessment of benefits, and the right of appeal.

ed. 230, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Withnell v. Ruecking Constr. Co. 249 U. S. 71, 63 L. ed. 484, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200.

The judgment of the road commissioners and assessors should be respected. Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 60 L. ed. 493, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 110 U. S. 354, 28 L. ed. 176, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 48; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Monroe County Road Improv. Dist. 137 Ark. 573, 209 S. W. 728; Rogers v. Highway Improv. Dist. 139 Ark. 325, 213 S. W. 749; Board of Improvement v. Southwestern Gas & E. Co. 121 Ark. 105, 180 S. W. 764; Oates v. Cypress Creek Drainage Dist. 135 Ark. 156, 205 S. W. 293; Alcorn v. Bliss-Cook Oak Co. 133 Ark. 125, 201 S. W. 797; Wilkinson v. Road Improv. Dist. 141 Ark. 168, 216 S. W. 304; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Conway County Bridge Dist. 142 Ark. 1, 218 S. W. 189; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Ft. Smith Embree v. Kansas City & L. B. Road & V. B. Bridge Dist. 113 Ark. 496, 168 Dist. 240 U. S. 242, 60 L. ed. 624, 36 S. W. 1066; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 317; Lent v. Tillson, 140 Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 197 U. S. U. S. 316, 35 L. ed. 419, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 433, 49 L. ed. 819, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 466; 835; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Nettles v. Hazelwood Road Improv. Dist. Backus, 154 U. S. 421, 38 L. ed. 1031,144 Ark. 632, 223 S. W. 399; Mattingly 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1114; Palmer v. Mc- v. District of Columbia, 97 U. S. 692, Mahon, 133 U. S. 660, 33 L. ed. 772, 10 24 L. ed. 1100; Hagar v. Reclamation Sup. Ct. Rep. 324; Walton v. Nevin, 128 | Dist. 111 U. S. 701, 28 L. ed. 569, 4 Sup. U. S. 578, 32 L. ed. 544, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. Ct. Rep. 663. 192; Fallbrook Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 41 L. ed. 369, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; Hagar Reclamation Dist. 111 U. S. 701, 28 L. ed. 569, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 42 L. ed. 270, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 966; Hibben v. Wells, F. & Co. v. Nevada, 248 U. S. Smith, 191 U. S. 310, 48 L. ed. 195, 24|165, 63 L. ed. 190, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 62; Sup. Ct. Rep. 88; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345, 31 L. ed. 763, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 921; Wells, F. & Co. v. Nevada, 248 U. S. 165, 63 L. ed. 190, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 62; Soliah v. Heskin, 222 U. S. 523, 56 L. ed. 294, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 103; Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 24 L. ed. 436; Turner v. Wade, 254 U. S. 64, ante, 134, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; Mt. St. Mary's Cemetery Asso. v. Mullins, 248 U. S. 501, 63 L. ed. 383, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 24 L. ed. 616; Londoner v. Denver, 210 U. S. 380, 52 L. ed. 1110, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 708. In the absence of clear proof to the contrary, the validity of the assessment on the railway property in this case is presumed.

Hines v. Road Improv. Dist. 145 Ark. 382, 224 S. W. 817; Mt. St. Mary's Cemetery Asso. v. Mullins, 248 U. S. 505, 63 L. ed. 383, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173; Phillip Wagner v. Leser, 239 U. S. 207, 60 L.

The assessment of the benefits and levy of a special tax thereon, on the railway property, does not violate the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 59 L. ed. 265, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Wisconsin & M. R. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 379, 48 L. ed. 229, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 107; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 254 U. S. 113, ante, 165, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 45; Atlantic & P. Teleg. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160, 47 L. ed. 995, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 817; Robbins v. Taxing Dist. 120 U. S. 489, 30 L. ed. 694, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 45, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Ficklen v. Taxing Dist. 145 U. S. 1, 36 L. ed. 601, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 79, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 810; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. ed. 1067; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 439, 38 L. ed. 1041, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 677, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1122; Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 41

L. ed. 683, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; Galves- | equal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and in ton, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. violation of the due process and equal S. 217, 52 L. ed. 1031, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. protection clauses of the 14th Amend638; Union Tank Line Co. v. Wright, ment. The state courts held to the con249 U. S. 275, 63 L. ed. 602, 39 Sup. Ct. trary, and in effect declared the statute Rep. 276; Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. providing for the road improvement disAdams, 155 U. S. 688, 39 L. ed. 311, 5 trict authorized the action taken by the Inters. Com. Rep. 1, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. board, and that, so construed, it was a 268, 360; Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. [660] valid enactment. 139 Ark. 424, Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 232, 21 L. ed. 215 S. W. 656, 217 S. W. 773. The valid 161; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. ity of the statute having been adequately Pennsylvania, 158 U. S. 431, 39 L. ed. challenged, the cause is properly here 1043, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 896; Kansas City, upon writ of error, and the petition for Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Botkin, 240 U. S. certiorari will be denied. 227, 60 L. ed. 617, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Pulaski County Bd. of Equalization Cases, 49 Ark. 533, 6 S. W. 1.

in the first, $12 per acre, second, $10, third, $8, fourth, $6, and fifth, $4. Town lots were likewise assessed without refining benefits from proposed improveerence to value or improvements at $10, ments. The assessors made estimates as $15, $20, and $25 each, according to lo- to farm lands and town lots according cation. A pipe line, telephone line, and to area and position, and wholly without telegraph line were severally assessed at regard to their value, improvements $2,500, $300, and $300 per mile, without thereon, or their present or prospective use. On the other hand, disregarding any designated basis. both area and position, they undertook to estimate benefits to the property of 256 U. S.

plaintiffs in error without disclosing any basis therefor, but apparently according to some vague speculation as to present worth and possible future increased receipts from freight and passengers [661] which would enhance its value, considered as a component part of the system.

for damages resulting from negligent delay in delivering a message while its telegraph system was, pursuant to the joint resolu proclamation of the President of July 22, tion of Congress of July 16, 1918, and the 1918, in the exclusive possession and control of the Federal government, and was being operated by the Postmaster General. Telegraphs liability - proclamation of President government operation.

Obviously, the railroad companies have not been treated like individual owners, and we think the discrimination 2. The provision in the proclamation so palpable and arbitrary as to amount of the President of July 22, 1918, taking to a denial of the equal protection of the over the telegraphs, that "until and except so far as said Postmaster General shall law. Benefits from local improvements from time to time by general or special must be estimated upon contiguous orders otherwise provide, the owners, manproperty according to some stand-agers, board of directors, receivers, officers, ard which will probably produce approx- and employees of the various telegraph and imately correct general results. To say telephone systems shall continue the operathat 9.7 miles of railroad in a purely tion thereof in the usual and ordinary farming section, treated as an aliquot the names of their respective companies, course of the business of said systems, in part of the whole system, will receive associations, organizations, owners, or man. benefits amounting to $67,900 from the ager, as the case may be," does not leave construction of 11.2 miles of gravel road the telegraph companies open to suit for seems wholly improbable, if not impos- damages resulting from negligent delay in sible. Classification, of course, is per- the transmission of a message while under missible, but we can find no adequate government control. This provision is in reason for what has been attempted in no way inconsistent with holding that the the present case. F. S. Royster Guano President took possession of and operated Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415, 64 from taking over the companies and operthe telegraph systems, as distinguished L. ed. 989, 990, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560. It is doubtful whether any very substantial appreciation in value of the railroad property within the district will result from the improvements; and very clearly it cannot be taxed upon some fanciful view of future earnings and distributed values, while all other property is assessed solely according to area and position. Railroad property may not be burdened for local improvements upon a basis so wholly different from that used for ascertaining the contribution demanded of individual owners as necessarily to produce manifest inequality. Equal protection of the law must be extended to all.

ating them.
Telegraphs
operation
General.

liability government order of Postmaster

3. The Postmaster General's order of August 1, 1918, that "until further notice the telegraph and telephone companies shall continue operation in the ordinary course of business through regular channels.

All officers, operators, and

will continue in the

employees
performance of their present duties, report-
ing to the same officers as heretofore and
on the same terms of employment," does
not leave the telegraph company open to
suit for damages resulting from negligent
delay in the transmission of a message
while under government control.
liability
Telegraphs
contract.

government

operation October 9, 1918, between the Postmaster 4. The provision in the contract of General and the Western Union Telegraph Company, that "the Postmaster General shall pay, or save the owner harmless from, all expenses incident to or growing out of the possession, operation and use of the property taken over during the period of Federal control. He shall also pay or save the owner harmless from all judgments or decrees that may be recovered or issued against, and all fines and penalties that may be imposed upon it by reason of any cause of action arising out of Federal con

Note.-On Federal control of public 8 A.L.R. 969; Spring v. American Teleg. utilities-see notes to Dantzler Lumber & Teleph. Co. 10 A.L.R. 956, and Co. v. Texas & P. R. Co. 4 A.L.R. 1680; Com. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 11 A.L.R. Peacock v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. 1450.

trol or anything done or omitted in the son, T. & S. F. R. Co. 258 Fed. 952; possession, operation, use or control of its Haubert v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 259 property during the period of Federal con- Fed. 361; Nash v. Southern P. Co. 260 trol, except judgments or decrees founded Fed. 280; State ex rel. Collins v. Cumberon obligations of the owner to the Postmaster General of the United States," land Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 120 Miss. 325, merely provides indemnity, and does not 81 So. 404, P.U.R.1919D, 340, 82 So. 311; make the company liable for damages re- State ex rel. Smith v. Burleson, 203 Ala. sulting from negligent delay in delivering 208, P.U.R.1919F, 1, 82 So. 458; Canidate a message while under government control. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 203 Ala. 675, 85 So. 10; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Wal[No. 293.] lace, Tex. Civ. App. —, 235 S. W. 282; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Glover, 17 Ala.

Argued October 20, 1920. Decided June 6, App. 374, 86 So. 154; Foster v. Western

1921.

U. Teleg. Co. 205 Mo. App. 1, 219 S. W. N WRIT of Certiorari to the Su-142 Ark. 304, 218 S. W. 833; Western 107; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Davis, ΟΝ preme Court of the State of South U. Teleg. Co. v. Conditt,-Tex. Civ. Carolina to review a judgment which App.-, 223 S. W. 234; Mitchell v. Cumaffirmed a judgment of the Court of berland Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 188 Ky. Common Pleas for Williamsburg Coun- 263, 10 A.L.R. 946, 221 S. W. 547. ty, in that state, against a telegraph company for damages resulting from negligent delay in delivering a message while under government control. versed.

See same case below, S. C. S. E. 516.

Re

107

The facts are stated in the opinion. Messers. Rush Taggart and Francis Raymond Stark argued the cause, and, with Messrs. P. A. Willcox, F. L. Willcox, and Henry E. Davis, filed a brief for petitioner:

During the period of Federal possession and control extending from August 1, 1918, to August 1, 1919, the United States was in the absolute, complete, and exclusive possession and control of the systems of the wire companies, and was operating them as governmental agencies.

The telegraph company having been. entirely eliminated from both the possession and operation of the property, and the United States being in absolute control and dominion, even though exercising such control through individuals who had been officers and agents of the company, but who had become agents of the United States, this suit is no more maintainable against it than it would be against any other outside or disinterested person.

Schumacker v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 106 Misc. 564, 175 N. Y. Supp. 84; North Dakota v. Northwestern Teleph. Exch. Co. U. S. Dist. Ct. N. D. - Fed. (not yet reported); Railroad Comrs. v. Burleson, P.U.R.1919E, 465, 255 Fed. 604; Canidate v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 203 Ala. 675, 85 So. 10; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Wallace, Tex. Civ. App. —, 235 S. W. 282; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Conditt, Tex. Civ. App. -, 223 S. W. 234; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Glover, 17 Ala. App. 374, 86 So. 154; Foster v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 205 Mo. App. 1, 219 S. W. 107; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Davis, 142 Ark. 304, 218 S. W. 833; Mitchell v. Cumberland Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 188 Ky. 263, 10 A.L.R. 946, 221 S. W. 547; Rutherford v. Union P. R. Co. 254 Fed. 880; Mardis v. Hines, 258 Fed. 945; Hatcher v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 258 Fed. 952; Haubert v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 259 Fed. 361; Nash v. Southern P. Co. 260 Fed. 280; West

Dakota Cent. Teleph. Co. v. South Dakota, 250 U. S. 163, 63 L. ed. 910, 4 A.L.R. 1623, P.U.R.1919D, 717, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507; Southwestern Teleg. & Teleph. Co. v. Houston, 256 Fed. 690; Northern P. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135, 63 L. ed. 897, P.U.R.1919D, 705, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 502, 18 N. C. C. A. 878; Burleson v. Dempey, 250 U. S. 191, 63 L. ed. 929, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511; Public Service Comrs. V. New England Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 232 Mass. 465, 4 A.L.R. 1662, P.U.R.1919D, 49, 122 N. E. 567; Macleod v. New England Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 250 U. S. 195, 63 L. ed. 934, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511; Kansas v. Bur-brook v. Director General, 263 Fed. 211; leson, 250 U. S. 188, 63 L. ed. 926, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep., 512; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360, 63 L. ed. 1030, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 512, 255 Fed. 99; Railroad Comrs. V. Burleson, P.U.R. 1919E, 465, 255 Fed. 604; Mardis v. Hines, 258 Fed. 945; Hatcher v. Atchi

Erie R. Co. v. Caldwell, 264 Fed. 917; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L. ed. 281; Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 20 L. ed. 287; Selective Draft Law Cases (Arver v. United States) 245 U. S. 366, 62 L. ed. 349, L.R.A.1918C, 361, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 159, Ann. Cas. 1918B.