Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

WAR.

Trial by court-martial, see Courts-Mar- Property Custodian," to which the amendtial.

War excess profits tax, see Internal
Revenue, 18.

65: 1123

.

1. The requisition of a British ship in British waters by the British government for war use cannot be said to have been invalid for lack of a formal warrant, where, following the usual practice, never disapproved, the requisition order was communicated to the shipowner by a telegram, and the government treated the telegraphic order as effective by using the ship as a war transport for more than six months, and compensating the owner accordingly: Texas Co. v. Hogarth Shipping Corp. 256 U. S. 619, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612, Trading with enemy; enemy property. 2. The Trading with the Enemy Act, whether taken as originally enacted on October 6, 1917, or as thereafter amended by the Acts of March 28, 1918, November 4, 1918, July 11, 1919, and June 5, 1920, is strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the constitutional provision empowering Congress to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293,

65: 604

3. There can be no doubt that Congress has power to provide for an immediate seizure in war times of property supposed to belong to the enemy, as it could provide for an attachment or distraint, if adequate provision is made for a return in case of mistake. As it can authorize a seizure in

pais, it can authorize one through the help

of a court. Central Union Trust Co. v.

Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214,

65: 403

atory Act of November 4, 1918, added, after the requirements of transfer, the words, "or the same may be seized by the Alien Property Custodian, and all property thus acquired shall be held, administered and disposed of as elsewhere provided in this act," claim, for a return of the property and for provision being made in § 9 for immediate suit, in which case the property is to be retained in the custody of the Alien Property Custodian, or in the Treasury of the United States, to abide the result. Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214,

65: 403

provision of the Trading with the Enemy 6. The natural interpretation of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by the Act of November 4, 1918, that the sole relief and remedy of any person having any claim to any property transferred to the Alien Property Custodian, or required so to be, the terms of the act, is that it refers to the or seized by him, shall be that provided by the filing of a claim for a return of the remedies expressly provided by § 9, viz., property and the bringing of suit, and that Property required to be transferred, and not that the resort by the Custodian to the property seized, stand on the same footing, courts instead of to force opens to the person who has declined to obey the order of the statute, or who has prevented a seizure, statute evidently means to accomplish at a right by implication to delay what the once. Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214. 65: 403 Property Custodian under the Trading with 7. A proceeding brought by the Alien the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, § 17, to

obtain possession of property as being that of an alien enemy, gives nothing but the 4. A demand by the Alien Property Custodian under the Trading with the preliminary custody, such as would have Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, for the de-been gained by seizure, although the prop livery to him of property to which he is entitled, may be enforced by the Federal district courts under § 17 of that act, giv ing to those courts jurisdiction to make all such orders and decrees as may be necessary and proper to enforce the provisions of the act. Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214, 65: 403 5. The determination of the Alien Property Custodian that certain property

erty is to be conveyed to him, and by the amendatory Act of March 28, 1918, he is law trustee in respect of all property other vested with all the power of a commonthan money which has been or shall be, or which has been or shall be required to be, conveyed to him, and is given the power to sell and manage the same as though he were absolute owner, since this act did not vides for the immediate filing of a claim repeal 9 of the earlier act, which prois liable to seizure as being that of an alien enemy must, whether right or wrong. for a return of the property and the bringbe deemed conclusive in a possessory acing of suit, the property, in case of suit, tion brought by that officer to obtain im- to be retained in the custody of the Cusmediate possession, the President having todian or in the Treasury of the United delegated his authority to him under the States, to abide the result. Central Union Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6.Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. 1917, § 5. and the act providing in § 7 c Ct. Rep. 214, that. "if the President shall so require, any 8. A determination by the Alien Propmoney or other property owing or belonging erty Custodian that certain property is to or held for, by, on account of, or on enemy-owned must be regarded as the act behalf of, or for the benefit of an enemy of the President. within the meaning of or ally of an enemy not holding a license the Trading with the Enemy Act of October granted by the President hereunder, which 6, 1917, in view of the provision of § 5 the President after investigation shall de-of that act, authorizing the President to termine is so owing or so belongs, or is so exercise any of the powers with which he held, shall be conveyed, transferred, as- is invested by that act, respecting the signed, delivered or paid over to the Alien sequestration, custody, and disposal of

65: 403

enemy property through such officer or tion. Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 41 officers as he shall direct, and of the orders Sup. Ct. Rep. 293, 65: 604 of the President, committing to the Alien 13. A corporation not owning or having Property Custodian the administration of any interest in property seized and pro§ 7 c of the act, including the power to posed to be sold as enemy property under determine, after investigation, whether the Trading with the Enemy Act of October property was enemy-owned. Stoehr v. Wal- 6, 1917, is not in a position to criticize lace, 255 U. S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293, or attack the sale; and a stockholder suing in the right of the corporation is in no better position. Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293, 65: 604 Effect on constitutional guaranties. 14. 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 U. S. Const., 5th and 6th Amendments, as to delegating legislative power to courts and juries, penalizing indefinite acts, and depriving citizens of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations against them. United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. 255 U. S. 81, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298,

65: 604 9. Congress, in time of war, may authorize and provide for the seizure and sequestration, through executive channels, of property believed to be enemy-owned, if adequate provision be made for a return in case of mistake. Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293, 65: 604 10. Shares of stock standing in the name of one who is neither an enemy nor an ally of an enemy could, consistently with due process of law, be seized and required to be transferred to the Alien Property Custodian in virtue of a determination by that official in an ex parte administrative proceeding that they belonged to an alien enemy, conformably to the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, since such act distinctly reserves to any claimant who is neither an enemy nor an ally of an enemy, a right to assert and establish his claim by a suit in equity, unembarrassed by the precedent executive determination, and provides that, pending the suit, which the claimant may bring as promptly after the seizure as he chooses, the property is to be retained by the Alien Property Custodian to abide the result, and, if the claimant prevails, is forthwith to be returned to him. Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293, 65: 604

11. No such an interest in shares of stock in a domestic corporation, which were seized by the Alien Property Custodian under the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as the property of a German corporation, as entitles another domestic corporation in whose name the stock stands to demand that such shares be freed from the seizure, was given to the latter corporation by a pre-war contract between it and the German corporation, where such contract was not prompted by commercial motives, nor based on an estimate of mutual advantages, and was not intended as a genuine transaction, but was made to avoid inconvenience which otherwise might ensue from a state of war; the parties intending to leave the beneficial ownership in the German corporation, and not pass it to the domestic corporation. Stoehr v. Wallace. 255 U. S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293, 65: 604

to

65: 516

Tedrow v. A. T. Lewis & Son Dry Goods Co.

255 U. S. 98, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303, 65: 524 Kinnane v. Detroit Creamery Co. 255 U. S. 102, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304, 65: 531 C. A. Weed & Co. v. Lockwood, 255 U. S. 104, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305, 65: 532 G. S. Willard Co. v. Palmer, 255 U. S. 106, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305, 65: 534 Oglesby Grocery Co. v. United States, 255 U. S. 108, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 306, 65: 535 WAR DEPARTMENT.

Approval of obstruction to navigation, see Commerce, 6-9.

WAREHOUSEMEN.

Effect of placement and notice to con-
signee on carrier's liability for loss
of freight, see Carriers, 5.
Storage of intoxicating liquors, see In-
toxicating Liquors.

WARRANTS.

Search warrants, see Search and Seizure.

WASTE.

Wasting gas, see Gas.

WATERS.

Admiralty jurisdiction over, see Admiralty.

As state boundary, see Boundaries. Taking tide lands by condemnation proceedings, see Eminent Domain. Enjoining discharge of sewage into harbor, see Injunction, 5.

Right to wharf out, see Waters, 4, 10. Navigability.

Federal control of navigable waters and navigation, see Commerce, 4-10. Following decision of state court as to, see Courts, 27.

12. Treaty provisions which relate only to the rights of merchants of either country, residing in the other when war arises. are inapplicable to a controversy as whether the beneficial ownership of property seized and proposed to be sold under the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as the property of a German cor- 1. The fact that artificial obstructions poration, is in truth in an American cor- in a stream exist, capable of being abated poration under a pre-war contract between by due exercise of the public authority, such corporation and the German corpora- does not prevent the stream from being re

garded as navigable in law, if, supposing them to be abated, it be navigable in fact in its natural state. Economy Light & P. Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 113, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 409, 65: 847

2. The test of navigability of a river is whether it, in its natural state, is used or is capable of being used as a highway for commerce over which trade and travel is or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water. Navigability in the sense of the law is not destroyed because the watercourse is interrupted by occasional natural obstructions or portages, nor need the navigation be open at all seasons of the year or at all stages of the water. Economy Light & P. Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 113, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 409, 65: 847 Relative rights of state and United

States.

Federal control of navigable waters and

navigation, see Commerce, 4-10. 3. The right of the United States in the navigable waters within the several states is limited to the control thereof for purposes of navigation; and, subject to that right, each state became, upon its organization as a state, the owner of the navigable waters within its boundary and of the land under the same. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500

4. The establishment of pierhead lines by the United States in a navigable waterway did not create any riparian right to wharf out, as against the state. Such lines merely fixed the point beyond which piers might not extend, and the lines so fixed, although acted upon by the erection of piers, could be changed by the United States at any time. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500 Relative rights of public and individ

ual.

Following decision of state court as to riparian rights, see Courts, 28. 5. The state of Washington, being the absolute owner of the tidelands within its boundaries and of the waters over them, is free, in conveying such lands, either to grant with them rights in the adjoining water area, or completely to withhold such rights. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500

paired in so doing no right of the upland owners, whose land is thereby separated from all contact with the water. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500

[ocr errors]

8. A conveyance of tidelands from the state of Washington gives the grantee no rights of any sort beyond the boundaries of the grant. A right of access to the navigable channel over intervening land above or below low water must arise from a grant by the owner of the intervening property. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500 9. The rule of the Washington law that upland, tideland, or shore land, in its natural condition, is without appurtenant rights of any sort beyond the boundaries of the property, applies as well when the lands are filled tidelands abutting on a natural waterway deepened and confined. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500

10. The clearly defined policy of the state of Washington not to grant riparian rights in navigable waters prevents the Federal courts, in the absence of a decision of the highest state court to the contrary, from inferring an implied grant to the grantees of filled tidelands of a right of access over intervening property to the navigable channel, even conceding the truth of the assumption that such grants were made conformably to a development project, which was an artificial creation; that land was artificially made up to a bulkhead; that, at some distance beyond, a navigable channel was artificially created out of an unnavigable stream; that between the bulkhead and the channel are shoals which prevent full use of waterside lots in connection with navigation unless wharves are erected; that when the original grant was made no provision in the law authorized leasing those shoals for docking purposes, but, on the contrary, the whole waterway was reserved by statute forever from sale or lease; and that the plat by reference to which all lots were sold showed a pierhead line at the point of navigable water.. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Čo. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500

11. State officials had no power, under the law of Washington, to establish pierhead lines when platting tidelands. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500

6. Under the law of the state of Washington a conveyance by the state of uplands abutting upon a natural navigable waterway grants no right of any kind, either in land below high-water mark, or in, to, or over the water, except the limited preferential right conferred by statute upon the owner of the upland to purchase the shore P. 1199.

WHITE, EDWARD DOUGLASS.
In memoriam, see Appendix, IV. ante,

land if the state concludes to sell the same. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, WILLS. 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500

7. So complete is the absence of riparian or littoral rights in the owner of lands bordering on navigable waters in the state of Washington that the state may, subject to the superior rights of the United States, wholly divert a navigable stream and sell the river bed, and yet have im

Devise by Indian allottee, see Indians, 11, 20.

Powers given by, see Powers.

WITNESSES. Competency.

1. The rule that excludes the wife of an accused from testifying in his behalf in

the Federal courts applies although her | Classification.
evidence is offered simply to contradict the
testimony of particular witnesses for the
government, who testified to certain mat-
ters as having happened in her presence.
Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U. S.
189, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 98, (Annotated)

[blocks in formation]

2. An involuntary bankrupt does not, by filing schedules of assets and liabilities without objection, waive his constitutional privilege to refuse to answer questions respecting them that might tend to incriminate and degrade him. Arndstein v. MeCarthy, 254 U. S. 71, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 26,

65: 138 Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 379, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136, 65: 314

3. The constitutional protection against self-incrimination was not removed by the provision in § 7 of the Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898, that no testimony given by the bankrupt shall be offered in evidence against him in any criminal proceeding, since this provision could not and would not prevent the use of his testimony to search out other testimony to be used in evidence against him or his property. Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 26, (Annotated) 65: 138

WORDS AND PHRASES.

Maxims, see Maxims. Accrued. Cochran V. United States, 254 U. S. 387, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 166, 65:319 United States v. Woodward, 256 U. S. 632, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 615, 65: 1131

Adjacent.

Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Woodbury, 254 U. S. 357, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114, 65:301 Adverse. United States ex rel. Hall v. Payne, 254 U. S. 343, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 131, 65:295 Adverse claimant. Galbraith v. Vallely, 256 U. S. 46, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 415,

65:823 Any. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 610, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617, 65:1118 Bias. Berger v. United States, 255 U. S. 22, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 230, 65:481 Bolts. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. J. F. Hasty & Sons, 255 U. S. 252, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269, 65:614 Bona fide purchaser. Pere Marquette R. Co. v. J. F. French & Co. 254 U. S. 538, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 195, 65:391 Boycott. Duplex Printing Press Co. V. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172, 65:349 Capital. Merchants Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 386, 65:751 Chemical mixtures. United States V. Etna Explosives Co. 256 U. S. 402, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 513, 65:10131

Director General of Railroads v. Viscose Co. 254 U. S. 499, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151, 65:372 Conspiracy. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172, 65:349 Creditor. Pierce v. United States, 255 U. S. 398, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 365, 65: 697 Damnum absque injuria. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. v. Washburn Lignite Coal Co. 254 U. S. 370, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140, 65:310 Debt. Pierce v. United States, 255 U. S. 398, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 365, 65: 697 Deliver. Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co. 254 U. S. 88, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31, 65:151

Delivery. Pere Marquette R. Co. v. J. F. French & Co. 254 U. S. 538, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 195, 65:391 Dope. Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. 254 U. S. 143, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113, 65:189 Elections. Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 469, 65:913

Endeavor. United States v. Russell, 255 U. S. 138, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 260, 65: 553 End lines. Silver King Coalition Mines Co. v. Conkling Min. Co. 256 U. S. 18, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426,

Hoarding.

65:811

Fugitive from justice. Hogan v. O'Neill,
255 U. S. 52, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 222,
65:497
United States v. L. Cohen
Grocery Co. 256 U. S. 81, 41 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 298,
65:516
Imposed. Cochran v. United States, 254
U. S. 387, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 166, 65:319
Income. Merchants Loan & T. Co. v.
Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509, 41 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 386,

65:751

Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 527, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390, 65: 758 Invested capital. La Belle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 528, 65:998 Kept. Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co. 254 U. S. 88, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31,

Less.

[ocr errors]

65:151
Friedman v. United States, 255 U.
S. 468, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 380, 65:735
Mailable matter. United States ex rel.
Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co.
v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 41 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 352,
65:704
Mechanical mixtures. United States v.
Etna Explosives Co. 256 U. S. 402, 41
Sup. Ct. Rep. 513,
65:1013
Mixture. United States v. Etna Explo-
sives Co. 256 U. S. 402, 41 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 513,
65: 1013
Moneyed capital. Merchants Nat. Bank
v. Richmond, 256 U. S. 635, 41 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 619,
65:1135
More. Friedman v. United States, 255 C.
S. 468, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 380, 65:735
National banking associations. Ameri-

can Bank & T. Co. v. Federal Reserve
Bank, 256 U. S. 350, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep.
499,
65:983
1289

Navigability. Economy Light & Power
Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 113, 41
65:847
Sup. Ct. Rep. 409,
Net income. Merchants Loan & T. Co. v.
Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509, 41 Sup. Ct.
65:751
Rep. 386,
Necessaries. United States v. L. Cohen
Grocery Co. 254 U. S. 81, 41 Sup. Ct.
65:516
Rep. 298,
Nonmailable. United States ex rel. Mil-
waukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v.
Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 41 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 352,
65:704
Only. La Motte v. United States, 254 U.
S. 570, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304, 65:410
Peace. Kahn v. Anderson, 255 U. S. 1, 41
65:469
Sup. Ct. Rep. 224,
41 Sup.
65:475

Givens v. Zerbst, 255 U. S. 11,
Ct. Rep. 227,

Possess. Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit
Co. 254 U. S. 88, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31,

65:151 Prejudice. Berger v. United States, 255 U. S. 22, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 230, 65:481 Preparations. United States V. Etna Explosives Co. 256 U. S. 402, 41 Sup. 65:1013 Ct. Rep. 513,

Price.

United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. 255 U. S. 81, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, 65:516

65:891

Principal. Merchants Loan & T. Co. v.
Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509, 41 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 386,
65:751
Regular tariff rate. Atchison, T. & S. F.
R. Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 205,
41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456,
Regulation. Director General of Rail-
roads v. Viscose Co. 254 U. S. 499, 41
Sup. Ct. Rep. 151,
Right. American Bank & T. Co. v. Fed-
eral Reserve Bank, 256 U. S. 350, 41
Sup. Ct. Rep. 499,
65:983
Secondary boycott. Duplex Printing Press
Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 41 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 172,

65:372

Sympathetic strike. Duplex Printing
Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 41
65:349
Sup. Ct. Rep. 172,
Trains. United States v. Northern P. R.
Co. 254 U. S. 251, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 101,

65:249
Transfer trains. United States v. North-
ern P. R. Co. 254 U. S. 251, 41 Sup. Ct.
65:249
Rep. 101,
Transport. Street v. Lincoln Safe De-
posit Co. 254 U. S. 88, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep.
31,
65:151

[blocks in formation]

The return of a marshal that he

executed a writ by handing the same to a person described as freight agent of the cepted as conclusive that he was agent of defendant railway company should be acsuch company, as against the objection that the Federal government was, at the time the petition was filed, in control of the evidence that the person served was not railway company's line, where there is no such agent, and the suit is one upon a reparation order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the shipments for which reparation was allowed having been made prior to the taking over of the railroads by the government. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Strike. Duplex Printing Press Co. Co. v. Anderson-Tully Co. 256 U. S. 408, Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524,

Sell.

65:349

Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U. S. 189, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 98, 65:214 Side lines. Silver King Coalition Mines Co. v. Conkling Min. Co. 256 U. S. 18. 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426,

172,

65:811

V.

65:349

Surplus. St. Louis-San Francisco .. Co.

v. Middlekamp, 256 U. S. 226, 41 Sup. WRIT OF ERROR.
Ct. Rep. 489,
65:905 See Appeal and Error.

1290

65: 1020

254, 255, 256 U. S.

« ForrigeFortsett »