 | 1921 - 682 páginas
...January 16, 1919. That the Secretary of State did not proclaim its ratification until January 29, 1919, is not material, for the date of its consummation, and not that on which it is proclaimed controls." U. S1. Su. Ct. Adv. Op. (1921) No. 15, p. 611— Dillon v. Gloss. WORDS "CONCURRENT POWER" CONSTRUED... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court, John Chandler Bancroft Davis, Henry Putzel, Henry C. Lind, Frank D. Wagner - 1922 - 830 páginas
...16, 1919.* That the Secretary of State did not proclaim its ratification until January 29, 1919, J is not material, for the date of its consummation,...the petitioner is concerned went into effect January 1 Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 328; MeCvIloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407. * Sen. Doc.,... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court, John Chandler Bancroft Davis, Henry Putzel, Henry C. Lind, Frank D. Wagner - 1922 - 840 páginas
...16, 1919.2 That the Secretary of State did not proclaim its ratification until January 29, 1919, * is not material, for the date of its consummation,...the petitioner is concerned went into effect January 1 Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 326; McCuUoch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407. > Sen. Doc.,... | |
 | Arthur Walker Blakemore - 1923 - 860 páginas
...and the fact that the Secretary of State did not proclaim its ratification until January 29, 1919, is not material for the date of its consummation and not that on which it is proclaimed controls. Dillon v. Gloss, 256 US 368, 65 L. Ed. 994. This result was reached in only one of the lower Courts... | |
 | United States. Patent Office - 1944 - 924 páginas
...January 16, 1919. That the Secretary of State did not proclaim its ratification until January 29, 1919, is not material, for the date of its consummation,...gone into effect at the time is not well grounded. Under appellant's theory the amendment would not have gone into effect until January 17th, but the... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Judiciary - 1968 - 260 páginas
...January 1C, 1919.4 That the Secretary of State did not proclaim its ratification until January 29. 1919,8 is not material, for the date of its consummation,...which the petitioner is concerned went into effect 1 See Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat, 304, 324-325; McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheat. 316, 402-404;... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - 1979 - 790 páginas
...1C. 1919.'3 That the Secretary of State did not proclaim its ratification until January 29, 1019," is not material, for the date of its consummation,...act with which the petitioner is concerned went into cfftH-t Januar}' 16. 1!)20. [377] His alleged offense and his arrest wore on the following day: so... | |
| |
... Eighteenth Amendment should go into effect, and the latter by its own terms was to go into effect one year after being ratified. Its ratification, of which we take judicial notice, was consummated January 16, 1919. That the Secretary of State did... 