Bristol news. [volume] (Bristol, Va. & Tenn.) 1867-189?, 1871-02-03

proof is necessary in. the case of trea-
son.
! That of Bank OF the United States.
in 1900, versus Deveaux, ct al. decided
that the act of Incorporation conferred
on the bauk no right TO sue in Federal
courts.
That of the United States versus
Judge Feters, in 1850, that the Legisla-
| tUre of a State cannot annuI the Judge
meDts or delermine the jurisdiction
of the courts of the United States.
That Fletcher versus Peek, in 1910,
| that legislature act impairing the OBJ
ligation of ad implied contract. is ir
contraventiOn of the Constitution of
the United States and that the Su-
| preme Court will not in an acti9n be-
tween individuals, upon private con-
tract enter into an inquiry of the cor
ruptiOn of the sovereign power of a
State.
That of Sturges versus Crow ings-
| HELD, in 1919, that State may pass
bankruptor insolvent laws, providing
such do not impair the obligation OF
contracts. ~
That of McCu!lech versus the State of
| Maryland, in 1919, that the act of 1915,
| Incorporating the Bank of the United
States, was a law made in pursuance
| of The Constitution and that laws
passed by.a State, taxing. retarding, or
| impeding the operation of COnstitu
tioml laws enacted 10y Congress, are
void and uncoHstitutiOnaL0 0hA
That of Owings versus Spnd, in 1920,
| that the Government established by
| the. Constitution of the United States,
! COMMENCED on the first Wednesday of
March, 1889.
That of COhens versus the State of
Virginia, in 1921, that the XIth
Amendment tosthe CONSTITUTION of the
United States IlOes not comprehend
| controversies between States, or be-
tween aState and foreign State; nor
does it bar the Federal Supreme Court
from jurisdiction in suits brought in
other courts by State against an indi-
vidual, which suit is appealed to the
Supreme Court.
That of Johnson and Graham's
Lease versus rMtIntOsh, in 1898, that
the indians cannot convey land in fee,
their right to the same being merely
that of occupancy, and subject to that
of the Government owing, be it State
or Federal.
That Of Gibbons versus Ogder, in
1924, that the words of the Constitu-
ton are 10 Ue construed in their natli-
raj sense.
That of Osborn, ct al, versus the
Bank of the United States, in 1924,
that (iOngIessi iliassauthority to give to
the circuit courts OF the United States,
original iurisdictioRain in any case to
which the appellate Jurisdiction ex-
tends.
That of Brown vefs, the State of
MaIS ,alid, in 1877. that the act of the
Legislature OfAIary land requiring inn
porters of foreign articles, before sell
ing the same, To take out ! .nse, is
unconstitutional.
hat OF American Insurance Com
pany versus Canter, in 1898, elected
the opinions that "The Constitution
conters absolutely on the Government
OF the Union the powers of making
war, and of making treaties cOnse-
quently, that Government possesses
The power of acquicing territory, Ell
ther 10y conquest or by treaty.
That OF Weston, ct dI, versus the
City of Charleston, in 1929, that a tax
on Government stock is Il tax on the
of the United States, hence uncons5itu-
| tional.
That of Craig, ct nj, versus the State
Of Missouri, in 1890, that the words
| ''t0 emit bills of credit, used in the
Constitution as limiting the power of
a state, convey To the mind the idea OF
issuing paper intended to circulate
through the community as money,
which paper is reddemable at future
| day, hence the act of the State of Mis-
souri,, in question, was uncorstitutlon-
al.
That of Providence Bank versus
| Billings and Pittman, in 1890, decided
| that an act of a State imposing a tax
on bodies corporate (other than one in
| cOrpOrated COnstitutiOnally by the
| Federal GOvernment), does not impair
the obligation of the contract created
by the charter granted a bank, unless
| it he so exp reSsed.
That of the Cherokee Nation versus
| the State of Georgia, in 1881, that an
| Indian tribe or nation, within the Uni
ted States, is not a foreign State, in the
sense used in the Constitution, and
cannot maintain an action in the
courts of the United States.
That Worcester versus the State Of
| Georgia. in 1892, that an Indian tribe
within the confines of q State, is a
community distinct from the State, in
which the laws of State can have no
force.
That of Barren versus the Mayor and
| City Council of Baltimore, in 1888, de-
| cided that the words of the fifth
| Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, "nor shall private
property be taken for public use with
out just compensation, does not APP
ply to tire iegisIatinn of the States, but
| imposes limits on the powers of the
! general Government only.n
Chief Justice Maashall died July
9Th, 1885, and was succeeded in Office
by Roger B. Taney, of Maryland.
| ITO RE CONTINUED I