Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

253

Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. Texas v. Chiles, 7 Wall. 700

80, 400 90

673 | Thayer v. Hedges, 22 Ind. 282 265 Springer v. U. S. 586 165, 230, 233

23 Ind. 141

265 Spring Valley W. W. v. Schottler, Thompson v. Alger, 12 Met. 428 348 110 U. S. 347

476

v. Pacific R. R. 9 Wall. St. Louis v. Ferry Co. 11 Wall.

579 423

216 Tie Loy, In re, 26 Fed Rep. 311 674 State v. Ah Chew, 16 Nev. 50 182 Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123 v. Boswell, 7 Cr. L. Mag.

323, 673 743

675 Tioga R. R. v. Blossburg & Corv. Cummings, 36 Mo. 263 439 ving R. R. 20 Wall. 137

660 v. Furbush, 72 Me. 493 665 Toledo Bank v. Bond, 1 Ohio St. v. Garesche, 36 Mo. 256 439 655

449, 462, 470 v. Holmes, 38 N. H. 225

454 Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454 v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 210 194

484 v. Moore, 5 Ohio St. 444 471 Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82 v. Paul, 5 R. I. 185 427

321, 356 v. Scott, 27 Mo. 464 665 Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 1. Walruff, 26 Fed. Rep. 178 674

U. S. 635 166 State Freight Tax Cases, 15 Wall.

v. Parkersburg,
232
318, 324, 325, 672

107 U. S. 691 State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U.

317 S. 575

238

v. Wheeling, 99 State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds,

U. S. 273 260, 15 Wall. 300 190, 246

325 State Tax on Railway Gross Re Tucker v, Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527 483 ceipts, 15 Wall. 284

325, 326 Turner ». Maryland, 107 U. S. 38 324 State. Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Turnpike Co. v. Stare, 3 Wall. Wall. 204

260, 317
210

474 Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 6 Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 504 Wall. 31

309 Stocking v. Hunt, 3 Denio, 274 508 Síockwell v. U. S. 3 Cliff. 284 668 U. S. v. Amsden, 10 Biss. 283 202, 214 Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust

v. Bennett, 16 Blackf. 338 355 Co. 116 U. S. 307

666 v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 446 365, 639 v. Illinois Cent. R. R. 116

v. Coolridge, 1 Wheat. 415 639 U. S. 347

666

v. Corrie, I Brunner's Coll. v. Miss. 101 U. S. 814 480, 658

Cases, 686

558 659 v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 v. New Orleans & North

195, 205, 206, 208 7 eastern R. R. 116 U. S.

v. Distillery No 28, 6 Biss.
352

666
483

668 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100

v. Furlong, 5 Wheat. 134 365 U. S. 303

196
v. Gale, 109 U. S. 65

138 Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 188 187 v. Germaine, 39 U. S. 503 542 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat.

v. Grush, 5 Mas, 290

365 122 341, 342, 490, 497, 509 v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343

370 Sue, The, 22 Fed. Rep. 843 194

v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629 Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. I

638

195, 199, 202, 204, 214

v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385 451 Taft v. Adams, 3 Gray, 126 447 v. Holmes, 5 Wheat. 412 365 Tavlor ». Root, 4 Keves, 344 442

v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32 639 Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S.

v. Hughes, 12 Blatch. 553 668 460

320, 324 v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513 167 Tennessee r. Davis, 100 U. S. 257

v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128 583 629

v. Le Baron, 19 How. 74 540 v. Pullman S. C. Co.

v. Lee, 106 U S. 196

635, 671 117 U. S. 51

672 v. Marigold, 9 How. 560
v. Sneed, 96 U. S. 69
521

360, 369 Terret v. Tavlor, 9 Cranch, 43 445 5. Mason, 6 Biss. 350 668 Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628 509 v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96 450

664, 670

U. S. v. Mobile, 4 Woods, 536 530 | Wan Yin, In re, 10 Sawy. 532 675 v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159 639 Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. i

194 v. Osborne, 6 Sawy. 406 172

v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 v. Railroad Co. 17 Wall. 322 244

174, 261, 322, 662 v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214 195, 202, Warner v. People, 2 Den, 272 417

205, 209, 212 Warren v. Paul, 22 Ind. 276 239 v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28 Washington University v. Rouse, 208 8 Wall. 439

475 v. Ross, 1 Gallis. 624 365 Watkins, Ex parte, 3 Pet. 193 6:9 v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153 362 Watson v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 88 423, 494 v. Three Tons of Coal, 6

v. Tarpley, 18 How. 517 638 Biss. 379

668 Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 314 323, v. Tod, 25 Fed. Rep. 815 674

665 v. Villate, 2 Dall. 370 339 Webster v. Cooper, 14 How. 504 637 v. Waddell, 112 U. S. 76 212, Weil v. Calhoun, 25 Fed. Rep. 865 670

673, 674 v. Washington, 4 Woods, Wells, Er parte, 18 How.307 575,578 349

195, 199 Wells, Fargo & Co. v. N. P. R'y v. White, 27 Fed. Rep. 200 674 Co. 23 Fed. Rep. 469

328 v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 573, 575, Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275

581

284, 313, 322, 323, 662, 665, 672 v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76 364 Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 U. S., Bank of, v. Deveaux, 5

248, 249 Cranch, 61

639 West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 459 662 Ilow. 507

450, 497, 658 University v. People, 99 U.S. 309 West Wisconsin Railway v. Bd.

480 of Supervisors, 93 U. S. 595 483 Utica v. Churchill, 33 N. Y. 161 251 Wheeling Br. Case, 18 How. 421

315, 330 Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 647 573 221, 252

442, 475, 479 Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 Wiggins Ferry Co. v. E:1st St. V. S. 151 671 Louis, 107 U, S. 365

325, 326, 672 Vance r. Vance, 108 U. S. 514 510 Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176 479 Van Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall.

v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72 671 53.)

670 Wil. & W. R. R. v. King, 91 U. Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2

S. 3

660 Dall, 304

99 Wilson, Ex parle, 114 U. S. 417 Van Husen v. Kanouse, 13 Mich.

160, 192, 670, 674 303

265

v. Blackbird Creek Co. 2 Van Rensselaer r. Snyder, 3 Kern.

Pet. 245

287 299

508

v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572 Vanzant v. Waddell, 2 Yerg. 260 427

299 Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533 Winona &c. R. R. v. Blake, 94

233, 234
U, S. 880

476 Virginia, Er parte, 100 U. S. 339197, Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 639

673 Wise r. Rogers, 24 Gratt. 169 526, 662 Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 V. S. Woart v. Winnick, 3 N. H. 473 426 269

635 Wo Lee ». Ilopkins, 118 U. S. Virgiuia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313 356

673 197, 207 Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U. S. Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy,

358

528, 539 4 Wall. 533

524, 528 Wong Yung Quy, In re, 6 Sawy. 442

329 Wade r. Richmond, 18 Gratt. 583 486 Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 M. & W. Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall.

838

451 314

520 Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123 322, Wallace r. Trustees, 84 N. C. 164 539

663, 672 Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S.

v. Parham, 8 Wall. 125 261 446

665, 672

v. Trapball, 10 How. 190 Walsh v. Farrand, 13 Mass. 19 499

464

527,

Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 88 | Yarbrough, Ex parte, 110 U. S. Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. S. 791 638 652

137, 212 Wurto v. Hoagland, 114 U. S. 606 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 193 356

673 Wynehammer v. People, 3 Kern. 425

164 | Ziebold, In re, 23 Fed. Rep. 792 187

[ocr errors][merged small]

$1. The systematic juridical writers among the Romans, whose works formed the basis of the compilations made by Justinian, separated the entire positive jurisprudence into two grand and opposed departments: the Public Law, and the Private Law (jus publicum, jus privatum). The Digest thus states the division : 1 “Hujus studii (juris] duæ sunt positiones ; publicum et privatum. Publicum jus est quod ad statum rei Romanæ spectat; privatum, quod ad singuloruin utilitatem: sunt enim quædam publice utilia, quædam privatim.” Most of the modern jurists of Europe make the same classification. Mr. John Austin, the profoundest writer on general jurisprudence which England has produced, rejects this division as useless and even perplexing. Before Austin, Blackstone, in his Commentaries, had suppressed this separation of departments, and had treated most of those matters which are generally ranged under the head of Public Law, as parts of the law pertaining to persons. There can be no doubt that Blackstone's method has the merit of simplicity when the object is to present either an outline, or a complete detailed statement, of the positive rules which make up the entire internal or municipal jurisprudence of a particular nation. But when it is designed to present simply some portion of this whole, the division made by the Roman jurists, and followed by a majority of the moderns, is not only convenient and natural but necessary.

$2. Assuming, therefore, the department of Public Law as opposed to that of Private Law, we inouire what portion of

1 Dig. Lib. 1. tit. 1, $ 2.

the entire body of a positive national jurisprudence does it embrace; in other words, what does a study of Public Law involve. Here we shall discover a marked diversity among theoretical writers. Austin says:1 “Public Law, in its strict and definite signification, is confined to that portion of law which is concerned with political conditions; that is to say, with the powers, rights, duties, capacities, and incapacities, which are peculiar to political superiors, supreme and subordi. nate." The Roman writers, in addition to the subject of political conditions, included also that of criminal law. Savigny, certainly one of the ablest and most exhaustive of modern writers, describes Public Law as containing those rules which establish the various political conditions or status, those which define crimes and apportion their punishments, and those which regulate civil as well as criminal procedure. The ideas which lie at the basis of this classification are, that the state directly interferes, through its officials and in its organic capacity, with criminal and civil procedure, and that crimes affect the state as a body politic in a higher and more important sense than they do the private individuals whose rights may have been infringed upon by the oftender, so that the punishment of the crime is intrinsically a public duty and a public act.

§ 3. The analysis of Falck is theoretically more accurate and practically more convenient than any of the preceding, and I shall adopt it as setting forth the proper bounds of Public Law, and the fundamental doctrines upon which the idea of the state and of a law for the state is based.3

§ 4. The members of a civil society are divided, in respect to the manner in which they are subjected to laws, into those who command and those who obey; and upon this division rests the distinction of Public Law and Private Law. In strictness, every individual person, in so far as he obeys, is, in

1 Lectures on Jurisprudence, Vol. 2, p. 435, Lect. XLIV. 2 Traité de Droit Romain, Vol. 1, chap. ii. $ 9.

3 See Cours d'Introduction Générale a l'Étude du Droit, par N. Falck, (Juristiche Encyklopädie), chap. 1, $$ 26, 40, 41. The sections 4-12 in the text are substantially taken from Falck, with some omissions, and not a little amplification.

« AnteriorContinuar »