Adair v. United States

ADAIR UNITED STATES. 161 S, . Syllabus. 208 U.

ADAIR v. UNITE STATES. D THE ERROR TO DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE OF KENTUCKY. DISTRICT

EASTERN Argued 29, 30, 1907. January 27, 293. October No. Decided 1908. against power Congress It is within the to make it a criminal offense commerce, engaged or the United States for a in interstate an carrier agent thereof, discharge employé simply or an because of his officer membership organization; provision in a labor and the to that effect 1, 1898, 424, concerning act June 30 Stat. interstate § right personal liberty, prop- an as as of carriers is invasion of well the erty, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to Constitution of the States, repugnant to United as therefore unenforceable decla- and person deprived liberty of that amendment that no shall be ration process property without due of law. rights liberty guaranteed by property and the Constitution While law, subject process against deprivation are to such without due good general as common welfare reasonable restrictions government—at least require, it is not within functions business, compel any person in the course of his of contract—to absence will, by, employ, employed An against or be another. his either employ right he will prescribe terms which employer has same will prescribe on which he sell employé those an has one to as equality arbitrary labor, legislation is an any which disturbs this liberty of unjustifiable contract. interference

' is_.within decided, make Qucere, power of whether it and not employer an United States either it a criminal offense n -- disregard, without commerce, employé, to or his in interstate or.excuse, valiii labor contract. the terms sufficient notice rules prescribe power is the power regulate interstate The prescribed governed, must but the rules must be which such commerce with, to, or connection real relation the.commerce have a and substantial membership regulated, relation does not exist and as that thg organization commerce with interstate in a labor the act connected, to in provision § above referred which he is com- 1, of interstate cannot sustained of June Congress, competency of merce and as such within commerce, great paramount, while regulate The by other secured fundamental in violation cannot be exerted Constitution- provisions.of the National (cid:127) VOL. CCVIII—11 TERM,

Argument for Plaintiff in Error. to, provision above referred 10 of the act of § June is sever- able, unconstitutionality may and its not provisions affect other provisions act of that section thereof. facts, which involve the constitutionality of 10 of § The the act of Congress, concerning carriers in (known Act), as the Erdman passed 1898, 1, June 424, c. Stat. are stated opinion. 30 Mr. D. Benjamin Warfield, with whom Mr. L. Stone Henry for brief, plaintiff error: If it affects commerce at all, is unconstitutional. 10 Section indirectly remotely, and.collaterally. obliquely, only so does meaning within the come of commerce A regulation Constitution, must be direct clause of the commerce incident, indirect, remote, merely and not substantial, of Con beyond 10 was Therefore arid collateral. § States, Co. v. United & Steel Addyston Pipe to enact. gress 578; United 171 U. S. States, v. United 211; S. Hopkins 175 U. v. Cali 1; Hooper 156 U. S. Knight Co., v. E. C. States U. S. 270, Williams v. 179 648, 654; Fears, U. 105 S. fornia, Kansas, v. 123 113; Mugler U. Illinois, Munn v. 94 S. 278; R. v. 161 U. S. Kentucky, L. & N. Co. See also U. S. 661. 465; v. Alling, 124 U. S. 93 Alabama, v. 677; Smith Sherlock U. S. 684 Smith, M. R. R. Co. v. 173 L. S. & S. 102; ' not rule prescribe does The act under consideration is laid No rule whatever down. or transportation. traffic (cid:127) is required which the carrier regulations no are There which it is to be failing obedience rendered conform, is a bold in civil or a criminal forum. attempt act liable ordinary life—of master servant- regulate relation of entirely state control. —one to be supposed within' hitherto if impairs, Fifth Amendment. Section 10 violates the not con destroy, property does fact valuable declared unconstitu tract. Similar have been state statutes S. W. v. 781; Gillespie State v. 31 Julow, Rep. People, tional. 1007; 58 N. E. ex rel. Zillmer v. Kreutzberg, State 90 Rep. 163 ADAIR v. UNITED STATES. ' Argument for Defendant Error. 77 N. E. Marcus, 1073; 1098; Rep. v. People N. W. Rep. 22 S. E. Ry. Co., 579; C. & N. Rep. v. Georgia Wallace N. E. Rep. R. v. 62 1036. See also Shaffer, York &c. Co. New 931; Brewster Fed. Pennsylvania Co., Rep. v. v. Shaver & 358; Hundley v. L. Co., Kentucky, Miller’s Sons & N. v. U. 162; Louisiana, 165 Kentucky, Allgeyer R. Co., 578; Oakes, Arthur Fed Rep. as class The clas legislation.

Section 10 unconstitutional to confer attempts priv The statute sification unreasonable. non union labor that are conferred ileges upon is imposed upon No. restraint whatever carriers union labor. or discriminating against non-union discharging with respect lawful it erriployés organ However laborers. under, labor unions or members of associations, ize and become which guarantees government, equal privileges form our competent law, Congress, it all before state in to make such an unreasonable classification as legislatures, us, whereby preferred union labor before as the statute Ry. Co., labor. Johnson v. 43 Minnesota, non-union against A. & 419; 8 L. R. Col. Fe Co. 223; C., Gulf, Ry. Santa v. S. v. 150; Baldwin, U. Robertson 165 275. Ellis, William R. Harr, The General and Mr. Attorney Special in for defendant Attorney General, to the error: Assistant act clear 10 of the has a and direct relation inter Section constitutionality Its not to determined commerce. state other considering separately provisions- by United, Evans in v. by Judge Scott, States done act, was as light the other provisions 431. Considered Rep. Fed. statute, entire pervades and 'the-purpose of the act once apparent. is at of 10 to interstate commerce the relation § parts all of its whole construing In statute statutes 34. Coxe, Cranch, Pennington taken together. are to be of interstate protection of the act manifest is’the purpose The n strikes, lockouts, the avoidance of foreign commerce and' usually assume. etc., interruptions which are the forms such ' TERM, 1907. Argument for in Defendant Error. 208 U.S. the act doubt removes on history point. this great railroad strike at Chicago the result It was See Senate 591, 55th 2d June-July, Rep. Ses- Cong., 55th 2d Cong., H. Session. sion; Rep. fact that such interruptions were not recognized apt the employés

assume unless were members proportions serious latter became it. of labor involved in organizations .the recognized the fact that discrimination Congress against also in a employés because membership organization their bring was calculated such disturbances.. For the pur- pose, therefore, preventing these interruptions, provided means for'the disputes arbitration the carriers and their employés through-the labor. organizations .which the latter belonged, against discrimination employés forbade organizations. because of their membership The relation of the inhibitions 10 to the general scheme § for the protection interstate embodied the act lockouts, interruption strikes, etc., is therefore apparent. has the authority constitutional so regulate the .carrier engaged inter- common state commerce as adequately protect safeguard interests of such commerce.

The right of individuals or to make corporations contracts and do at all business is times subservient to the Congress' to regulate commerce, and common car riers are subject greater private control individuals than their, by the State or (according business is local interstate), account of the public nature of such business. See v. United States Trans-Missouri 166 Freight Association, U. S. 290; United States v. Joint Association, 171 U. S. Traffic 505; Addyston Pipe Steel Co. v. S. States, United 175 U. 211; United States v. 197; Northern U. Co., Securities 193 S. , United States v. & U. S. 196 375. Co. Swift

When the interstate, the carrier the power the State to control conduct of its .business interest of the public health, safety of to the. subject convenience UNITED STATES.

ADAIR v. 165 Argument for Error. 208 U. S. Defendant paramount Congress subject, may over own. regulations by legislation all state Gib displace bons &c. v. 210; Ry. v. 9 Nashville Ogden, 1, Alabama, Wheat. 317; 128 U. 163 U. S. 96; Georgia, 299, S. v. New Hennington 165 Ry. New & Co. v. New U. S. York, York, Haven Hartford 628, v. U. S. 137. See also 631; Granger Reid 187 Colorado, & Louis Co. v. Cases, 113; Ry. 94 U. S. St. Wabash, Pacific v. 149 Illinois, Baugh, U. S. B. & O. R. R. Co. U. S. 557; 118 held that the act to Supreme Court has Although regu late commerce did not confer the Interstate Commerce fix &c. Cincinnati v. power rates, Railway Commission Interstate Interstate 184; Comm. Comm. Comm., Comm. U. in so 479, v. Cincinnati &c. 167 S. Railway, doing plainly authority over the recognized plenary matter. U. S. construing v. Southern 196 Co., 1, See Johnson Pacific showing act of March Con safety-appliance of liability the common law rules change gress may to common carriers master and servant respect n for the commerce; legislate protection also interstate carriers. of such common employés simply The cases above referred extend interstate by theretofore commerce land the enumerated principles commerce Court in reference to interstate Supreme plenary of railroads the Prior to the. construction water. of the United over the waters navigable power agencies instrumentalities States and the. and later cases firmly established, had been thereon v. 9 Ogden, Gibbons Wheat. regard.

confirm its 72; Waring 12 Pet. 5 Coombs, Clarke, v. v. 1; United States 240; 22 How. Gilman v. Phila Davenport, v. 441; Sinnot How. 557; Daniel 10 Ball, Bridge Wall. 713; Wall. 3 delphia, Escanaba v. 470; U. S. Company Co. v. States, United Hatch, Iron Co. v. Bridge 678; Williamette Chicago, Co., Boom Bellingham Bay 1; U. United States U. S. 211 TERM, 166 1907.

Opinion of the Court. 208 U. S. license, inspect right Congress cases affirm the These commerce the interstate engaged control vessels ex- to exercise States, United of the navigable waters of com- in the interest highways clusive control over such merce and thereon. ' liberty by of the carrier’s this statute. There is no invasion common engaged to control carriers Congress has right matter of of their the selection interstate necessary may far for the employés protection so in it, whether as persons engaged such commerce employés. shippers, passengers ‘rely decisions, Counsel certain that a State had holding authority legislation no enact discriminatiori forbidding against Gillespie members of labor employers organizations. 176; Julow, Missouri, v. The 188 State v. 129 People, Illinois, v. N. W. 1098. 163; Kreutzerberg (Wisconsin), Rep. State 90 Such The correctness these decisions be doubted. right. do not lawful employer statutes deprive in- They protect rights of the simply employés alleged employer of the employer. right vasion liberty of employés with the because is a interfere L. Davis v. Ohio J. they State, 342; are his service. See 11 Ohio Dec. Reprint, do with policy legisla-

The courts have nothing them as to the tion, only question being v. Joint over the United States Congress subject. Traffic Association, 171 U. This statute does not come S. 505. under in that case the case of “a exception possible intimated was the perversion principle” judge gross necessity for the legislation "proper and propriety Lochner v. New York, interstate commerce. protection U. S. 45, distinguished. discussed Mr. Justice Harlan delivered of the court. opinion constitutionality case of certain provisions This involves June Stat. c. -424, 370,- act of ADAIR UNITED STATES. Opinion of the Court. carriers

concerning commerce and their employés.

By the first section of the provided: act “That of this act shall provisions any common apply carrier or carriers and officers, their and agents, employés, mas- except ters of seamen, vessels and as defined in section 4612, Re- vised -of the United States, Statutes trans- portation or passengers property wholly by or railroad, partly by railroad and partly by water, for a continuous or from carriage shipment, one State or Territory of the United or "States, the District of Columbia, other any State or Territory of United or States, the District of Columbia, or in any place United States to an adjacent foreign any or from in country, the United place States through country to foreign any other- in place the United States. The term ‘railroad’ as used in this act shall include all bridges and used or ferries operated connection with any railroad, and also.all the road use by any corporation operating a railroad, whether- owned or under a operated contract, agreement or ‘ lease; and the term transportation’ 'shall include all instru- mentalities or of.shipment carriage. The term ‘employés’ as used this act shall include all persons actually engaged in any in train capacity operation train service of .any .and description, notwithstanding that the cars pon or in which are they employed may be held and operated by the carrier under lease or other contract: Provided, however, That this act shall be held to apply employés street rail- roads and shall apply only employés engaged .to railroad train service.' In every such case the carrier shall be responsi- ble for the acts and defaults of such employés the same man- ner if and the same extent said cars were owned it said employés directly employed by it, any provisions the contrary such lease or other contract shall be binding only as between the parties thereto shall not affect (cid:127) obligations of said carrier either to public or to private (cid:127) parties concerned.” TERM, 1907.

Opinion of the Court. relate sections 8th and 9th 7th, 5th, 6th, 4th, 2d, 3d,’ The controversies arbitration, of by means settlement, employ- or conditions labor, hours of wages, concerning to the provisions subject carrier arising ment or threaten seriously interrupt employés, act and pre- Those sections carrier. interrupt under may brought be which controversies mode in scribe the way in what the arbitrators arbitrators, cognizance sub- The first decisions. of cheir the effect designated, be shall “that no employé proviso, 3 contains a division § consent.” service without'his personal render compelled expenses to the compensation relates 11th section of the arbitrators. 1888,' 1, of October the act 12th section

By boards of arbitrators commis- creating c. 25 Stat. differences between and rail- controversies settling for sioners in engaged carriers inter- common and other corporations road or and property of persons transportation or territorial state repealed. was théir employés, prosecution present section, upon

The 10th words: is in these based, ' this act of provisions to the subject any employer “That who shall employer, óf such or receiver officer, agent, any seeking employment, or any person any employé, require agreement, to enter into an such employment, of- a condition a become or remain member not to verbal, or written either or shall or association, organization; corporation, any with loss or shall employé employment, unjustly any threaten because against any employé discriminate membership association, such labor or or who corporation, organization;' in a or any employé any shall require person seeking employment, condition of such contract employment, as a into a enter such or for shall whereby employment employé applicant charitable, social, fund for or bene- agree any to contribute’to for liability ficial such from employer legal release purposes; reason .of benefit received from any injury by any personal STATES. ADAIR UNITED Opinion of the Court. U. such, fund beyond proportion arising the benefit from contribution to such employer’s fund; Shall, or who after an having employé, discharged attempt or conspire prevent from such employé obtaining employment, shall, who after án quitting employé, attempt conspire prevent from employé obtaining employment, hereby declared guilty and, misdemeanor, upon conviction thereof court of the United States competent jurisdiction in which the district such offense was shall be committed, punished for each offense fine not less than one hundred dollars and more one than thousand dollars.-” maybe observed passing that while section makes it a crime the United against States to unjustly discriminate against an of an employé interstate carrier because of his being a member of a labor organization, does not make it a crime to unjustly discriminate' the carrier because his not of such being member an organization. present indictment was the District Court of the United Eastern States District of Kentucky against n Adair:,,- the defendant

The first count alleged “that at before the time herein- after named the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company , duly a railroad corporation, organized and existing by law and a common carrier the transportation wholly passengers property. by steam railroad for a carriage continuous shipment one State of the United States to another State of United States America, that of Kentucky from the State into say, is to the States of Ohio, and and from the of Tennessee, Indiana State Ohio into the of and was at Kentucky, State all times aforesaid and at the of time of the commission the offense hereinafter named, a common of an commerce, carrier- and employer, of subject to of certain act "provisions America, United 'An- entitled, States of Act concerning car- riers engaged in interstate commerce their and. employés,’ 1, 1898, corporation June and said was at approved TERM, U.

Opinion of the Court. railroad, and at the That Before corporation. timé a Street one offense hereinafter named of- of the commission time of said common employé and agent was William an' Adair master me- said times was at all and and employer, carrier ' in the district employér and of carrier chanió said common one stated the timé hereinafter at aforesaid; and before and (cid:127) and carrier of said common employé O. B. was an Coppage was at and as such aforesaid, employé in the'district employer in actually engaged capacity named all times hereinafter and train service operation of in train locomotive fireman of transportation carrier employer said common and aforesaid, and was an of employé .passengers property and actually said employer said common carrier and aforesaid, service whom and train transportation railroad and at the of com- .the of act time provisions applied, said said O. Coppage mission the offense hereinafter named B. known -was a certain labor organization, member' as a,s Adair of' he the said William -Firemen, Order Locomotive of said description well a more knew, particular then and there is to grand jurors members thereof organization and the unknown.” n William that count “that specific charge said common and Adair; said carrier agent employer and on and before the 15th- aforesaid, aforesaid, in the district as unlawfully unjustly did discriminate day O.ctober, 19(36, B. employé. aforesaid, then and against Coppage, O. said B. Coppage- there said O.' discharging employment j and employer, said common barrier because his member- did ship organization, thereby labor unjustly said discrimi- \ nate carrier employé. and employer common en- j gaged commercebecause his membership interstate' in a organization, contrary to the forms the statute such cases made, against provided, peace dignity States.” United - repeated The second count the general allegations of first count'as to the character Louisville i). STATES.

ADAIR UNITED Opinion Court. of-the 208 U. S. and the relations between Company

and Nashville Railroad Coppage. charged Adair and It “that and that corporation aforesaid and within in the district Adair, William said of said common employé court, agent of this jurisdiction aforesaid, day and before the 15th employer carrier and threaten said O. B. unlawfully Coppage,. did 1906, of October, loss because' his employment, with aforesaid, forms contrary to the organization, in said labor membership against provided, in such cases made and of the statute United dignity States.” peace insuffi- Adair demurred the indictment as The accused reviewing the demúrrer was overruled. After law, -cient but held the opinion, in an elaborate the court authorities, to be -Congress section of the act constitutional. tenth defendant and after pleaded guilty, Fed. .737. Rep. and a guilty returned of on the first count verdict was trial a a fine of that he to the United States pay rendered judgment as to the second count therefore, say nothing We shall, $100. of the indictment. charged the criminal offense appears thus con- the defendant was indictment

count being agent an effect, victed substance was, and sub- in interstate railroad company - he of June of the above act .the provisions ject mem- because from its service one discharged Coppage for such dis- ground other organization—no in a bership being alleged. charge the United' offense it a criminal make

May Congress it does— the act section of the tenth States—as full au- carrier, having of an interstate officer agent an em- discharge carrier, from the thority premises in a labor membership of his because simply from service ployé organization? been and haá importance, admittedly one

.This question has court And the deliberation. care examined with consistent judgment,- is in its which, a conclusion reached TERM; 1907. .Opinion of the Court. sus- of the Constitution and spirit the words and both as weE sound reason. tained of of the tenth section is whether the part first inquiry indictment count of the the first of 1898 upon the act which Con- of the Fifth to the Amendment' is repugnant was based liberty of no shall person deprived that declaring stitution be that In our opinion of law. process without due or property of the invasion is an mentioned, particular the section, guaranteed of of right property, as well as the liberty, personal the embraces liberty right' Such Amendment. by that of others of the labor contracts the'purchase to make right of for the sale to make contracts right the equally to the being subject labor; however, own each right, one’s its sub- no whatever contract, condition that fundamental which reasonable law, upon be sustained thé matter, can ject interests public inconsistent with the forbids as grounds, to the common order or as detrimental as hurtful to the public society, “in weE-ordered every that This court has good. said members, of its safety conserving with duty charged at liberty may, of his in respect of the individual rights subjected be great dangers, pressure under the times, as the regulations, reasonable to be enforced restraint, such v. Massa- Jacobson demand.” safety general public cited. With- there 11, and authorities chusetts, 29, rights would been what have out stopping consider had it been Amendment, under Fifth company the railroad case is sufficient this Congress, under the act indicted and as railroad agent company as say that of its de- of one' of the business for the conduct responsible right right—and was the defendant Adair’s partments, a right prop- also and was liberty, inhered in his personal as long so he could, did erty—to his as best he employer serve as injurious law forbidden nothing reasonably that was defendant right It was the pubEc interests. would Coppage which services terms prescribe to become or not, accepted, right Coppage it was the ADAIR v. UNITED STATES. Opinion of the Court. S.U. company upon the railroad terms chose, he an employé Torts, in his treatise on Cooley, p. 278, to him. Mr.

offered rights man’s civil every “It he be says: part well relations with any person business liberty left at refuse rests or is upon reason, refusal whomsoever, whether the dr malice. With his reasons whim, result of caprice, prejudice any have legal nor third concern. persons neither the public relations with one right also to have and, if is wrongfully he contracts, deprived whom can he make to redress.” by others, of this he entitled 45, U. in In York, Lochner New of a state enactment validity prescribing volved the certain and which bakeries, made it a maximum hours for employer, require for an permit misdemeanor given to work excess of a an establishment number in such general to day, right thé court said: “The make hours each of to his business is of the of part liberty in relation contract by the Fourteenth of protected Améndment the individual Allgeyer v. Louisiana, Constitution. 165. U. S. Federal the no any State can deprive .person Under that provision 578. , process without due law. or The liberty property of life,, labor is part”'of liberty to sell the protected or right purchase to are amendment, unless there circumstances which ex by this are, however,, powers, existing There right. clude the certain Union, in thé of each State somewhat vaguely the.sovereignty in the exact and limitation description powers, police termed powers, the courts. attempted have not been Those a more at without, attempt and at present, stated broadly morals and health, gen to limitation, safety, relate the specific welfare, held liberty are property Both and public. of the eral by. the may imposed gov conditions as on such reasonable of those and powers, State the exercise of the erning power the Fourteenth Amendment was with such conditions Kansas, re 623; v. 123 S. In Mugler designed to interfere. U. 86; 436; Christensen, U. U. S. Kemmler, Crowley In’ that every 62 Converse, In case re 4. TEIlM,- Opinion of the Court. before this where court, therefore, legislation comes of this is protection character concerned and’where the Federal question necessarily Constitution is arises: Is this sought, fair, appropriate police reasonable exercise power ar- unreasonable, unnecessary or it an State, the individual his right.of with the to bitrary interference into those contracts relation or enter personal liberty himto for may appropriate necessary seem to labor which Of course the family? liberty himself and support both includes it. The relating parties contract as the other to sell labor.” as much' to purchase one has case among was a that opinion difference Although there there was propositions, court as to certain the members of the is a there general proposition as disagreement no unreasonably interfered which cannot be liberty of„contract were of minority opinion by legislation. as the New statute referred York not shown as. the statute was and that regulation, require restraint imposed have unreasonable plainly palpably to the courts regarded by it should be contract, freedom of health State’s care as a valid exercise safety people. liberty prop rights While, already suggested, as with against deprivation Constitution by the erty guaranteed such reasonable restraints law, subject due process out require, welfare good general common ab government—at functions of least not within the any person parties—to compel of contract between the sence accept his will to in course his against any per personal compel services of or to another, retain for another. will, services son, his to perform personal as he his such terms right upon to sell labor person essence, right as the proper is, deems the same he which conditions purchaser upon labor prescribe So' will to sell accept offering such labor from the it. person right quit employer, the service employé ADAIR v. UNITED STATES. 17$ Opinion 208 the Court. reason, whatever the same as the fight of the employer,

for whatever reason, to dispense with the services of such It was employé. legal right of the defendant Adair— however unwise such a course might have been—to discharge Coppage of his because being a member a labor organiza tion, as it was the legal if Coppage, he saw'fit to do so —however unwise such a course on his part might have been— to quit the service in which he was engaged, because the de fendant employed some persons who were not members of a In organization. all such particulars the employer and the employé have equality of right, and any legislation that disturbs that equality an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract which no government can legally justify a free land. These views find support adjudged some cases, (cid:127) of which are cited the margin.1 Of if course, parties by fix contract period service, and prescribe the conditions upon the contract may be terminated, such contract would control the rights the parties as between themselves, any and for violation of those provisions party wronged would have his appropriate civil action. And it may be—but we no point express opinion—that in the case of a. labor contract between an employer .engaged his employé, could make it'a crime for either without party sufficient or just excuse or notice to dis n the terms of such contract or to regard perform it. refuse absence, however, In the valid contract the par their conduct towards controlling ties each other and fixing it cannot service, be, we that an period repeat, employer under to retain legal obligation, against will, an in his service than personal any more employé 1 257; Marcus, v. 185 N. Y. People National Protection Assn. v. Cum Jacobs, 207; mings, 315; Cohen, Julow, 170 N. Y. 183 N. Y. State v. 129 v. Missouri, 163; 179; Goodwill, v. 33 W. Va. v. 188 People, Gillespie State Illinois, Wisconsin, 176; 530; 114 Kreutzberg, Georgia, State v. Wallace v. Co., Georgia, 732; Hundley v. L. Ken Ry. Co., C. & N. & N. R. R. tucky, 162; Kentucky, 268; Co., v. Brewster Miller’s N. Y. &c. & Sons 414; Oakes, Rep. Schaffer, R. R. Co. Ohio St. v. 63 Fed. Arthur TERM, 1907.

Opinion of the Court. to remain in the will, personal his against be compelled; can facts the far as this record discloses So of another. service authority have the premises, seemed to defendant, who the for any in service particular keep Coppage to did agree mo- in such a to remain service agree nor time, Coppage did was to liberty quit The latter he chose. than 'at. longer ment And for his reason any leaving. assigning the service without to discretion, discharge at in his liberty, was the' defendant reason for so any doing. service without giving from .Coppage tpwards each of the parties and the the relations As conduct other a contract than genéral other not controlled services of employé the the one side accept on agreement side to render services the other a agreement general for the term fixed continuance being to the employer-^-no with the not, consistently could employment—Congress the United States make a crime Amendment, against Fifth his a member because of employé being to-discharge organization. labor authority make it crime

But is suggested carrier, authority an an interstate or officer agent having his principal, in the premises discharge because of member- carrier, simply from service in a be referred to the power can ship organization, without commerce,- regard regulate liberty property any question personal arising . no under the Fifth Amendment. This e can have ggestion discussion statute, unless bearing present stated, is within the just meaning Constitu- particular not, If it tion commerce States. among invoke .clearly then Government cannot the commerce clause indictment sustaining Constitution Adair.

Let us what commerce, inquire regulate is- given .Congress? court, question

This has'bwen this frequently propounded answer specific the answer has been—and no-more could1 ,177 STATES. ADAIR v. UNITED Opinion of the Court. the several among well have been given—that intercourse, trade, traffic, navigation, States comprehends and the transit transmission persons communication, every of commercial species by telegraph—indeed, messages but not to that com States, the several intercourse among “ is carried on between man . internal, which completely merce different of the same parts, State, in a man, between or affect extend to other States.” not does Stqte,-. commerce power interstate power regulate commerce must be which such governed.1 rules by prescribe has a discretion often said, Congress large as has been course, Of in of the means be employed or choice selection and such commerce, discretion is. that which is done is in where except be interfered Northern Securities Co. of the Constitution. violation plain and authorities there cited. 197, U. S. 193 States, United v. to Johnson v. 196 Railroad, we refer In this .connection which case arose under the. act on in relied 1, argument, U. S. 531, 27 Stat. c. 196. That act 2, 1893, of March of Congress in interstate commerce to their equip carriers engaged required with automatic Couplers' in such commerce cars used locomotives with wheel and their brakes, driving continuous that its was object its face But the act showed brakes. rail and travelers upon safety employes to promote its válidity upon sustained roads; ground and this court to. interstate commerce and had manifestly that reference commerce the interests of such to subserve was calculated held and travelers. It was to employés protection affording between the object connection substantial there was that and the means provided the act to be attained sought Liabil- to Employers’ So, object. regard accomplish 283; 1 Cases, 1; Passenger 7 How. v. Ogden, Almy 9 Wheat. Gibbons v. 169; v. Western Union Pensacola Tel. Co. Tel. California, How. 24 State of Kimball, 691; Western 1, 9, 12; County Mobile v. 102 U. S. Co., 96 U. S. Case, 347, 356; Lottery Pendleton, 188 U. S. Tel. Co. Union States, Employers’ S. Lia 193 U. 352; Co. v. Northern Securities 197; United Cases, bility U. S. 463. vol. covin—12 TERM, n

Opinion of the Court. U. decided at In Cases, present ity term. the authority.of case the court sustained- under Congress, interstate commerce, power regulate prescribe liability, rule of interstate carriers and its em- commerce, such interstate cases of plbyés personal in- received while by employes juries actually The decision on this point commerce. placed rule of that- character that a would have direct ref- ground of interstate commerce, erence to the conduct and would, within the therefore, competency to establish but States, for commerce not as to among internal to a Manifestly, any State. rule completely prescribed conduct of interstate for the order to commerce, be within under its competency com- regulate must real States, merce have some among substantial relation to or connection- with the commerce But regulated. or what connection is there possible logical between legal an in a labor employé’s the membership organization carry- on of interstate commerce? Such relation to ing a labor have, cannot in organization eye the law, itself any the commerce with which bearing upon connected his by labor and services. Labor associations, we are assume, for the organized general purpose improving or bettering conditions and the interests of conserving its members as wage-earners—an object entirely legitimate and to be commended rather than condemned. But surely those associations as labor have organizations to do with nothing interstate commerce as such. One who in the service engages of- an interstate carrier it must assumed, will, faithfully his perform duty, whether he be a member or not a member (cid:127) of a labor organization. His fitness for the position in which

he labors -and his in of his diligencé discharge duties cannot in law or sound reason depend any degree upon his being or not a member being of a labor It organization. cannot be assumed that his fitness is assured, his diligence increased, or that he is membership, less fit or less be- diligent STATES.

ADAIR UNITED Opinion of Court. Tí. a of such an not member organization. his being cause of or-, of- a a member man and not as labor émployé as who labors in the service an interstate carrier. ganization had its question said that origin it be provision Will ’ if that it did not on the' part Congress, the apprehension, for members labor more consideration organizations show of such who-were not members organiza^- for wage-earners than statute some shell provision if did hot insert in the tions, or ' of labor here in members one question, organizations as the interrupt impair or violent measures, illegal would, We will the States? of commerce among indulge freedom not them, nor make in whole or in any such conjectures, part, so consistently basis of our decision. We coiild do coordinate department due respect Govern- .the could, so without We not-do imputing ment. one class of with- wage-earners accord privileges

purpose another class it may be; held from wage-earners engaged, kind labor and same serving employer. same n of this assume, in our consideration case, Nor will we- will, in num- any of labor considerable members organizations for methods bers, accomplishing particular resort illegal in view. they have object for at the words of the statute the purpose alone

Looking -its scope effect, determining ascertaining n no there is such connection we hold validity, in -a membership organization make a crime against the United to authorize an interstate carrier em- discharge an agent States ' If part. such a membership of such because ployé ’ it why perceive is difficult to might exists carriers, interstate under require regulation, not, absolute by penalties, of its interstate the conduct to employ only who are not those organizations, of only members which could not be power of such organizations—a members of the United the Constitution under as existing recognized as that which liability criminal rule No such of States. TERM, 1907. McKenna, J., dissenting. 208 S.U. . referred can be sense, we have regarded, as, any just of interstate commerce. We need scarcely repeat court has more than what this once said, that the power commerce, regulate great paramount cannot be exerted violation of is, power fundamental secured other the Constitution. Gibbons right provisions 196; Lottery Case, Wheat. Ogden, It results, case, on the whole that the statute provision which defendant under be held to be- convicted must Fifth Amendment and as not embraced repugnant within nor' interstate com- regulate but under the merce, guise regulating interstate and as to this applied arbitrarily case it sanctions an illegal of the personal liberty invasion as well as the property of the defendant Adair.

We that since part add of the upon act of 1898 first count the indictment which alone based, upon convicted, the defendant- was severable from its other parts, as what been has said sufficient of the dispose present case, we are not called to consider upon other and independent act, such, for instance, as provisions. the provisions This arbitration. decision is therefore relating restricted validity to the question "the particular provision in act of crime Congress making United States a. interstate, an an officer of agent carrier to discharge from its service because a member of being labor organization.

The must judgment reversed, with directions to set aside yerdict judgment conviction, sustain- the demurrer to the indictment,, and dismiss the case.

It is so ordered. Moody Mr. Justice' did not participate the decision- of this cáse.

.Mr. Justice McKenna, dissenting. opinion the court proceeds somewhat narrow STATES.

ADAIR UNITED McKenna, J., dissenting, S.U. adequate prominence or does not give and either omits lines I are determinative of which, think,, the the considerations . The which the opinion, in the case. questions principle I understand that a labor is, it, is organization grounded commerce, has no connection with interstate logical legal and that has no or rela- dependence the fitness an employé & tion with his in such hence organization. membership on account of merely concluded that to restrain his .discharge the of the carrier liberty is an invasion of membership the by the Fifth Amendment of Constitution guaranteed if the United States. The conclusion is irresistible the proposi- abstractly it be viewed tions is deduced .as May they be so viewed? opinion as the views them. necessary to summary

A act understand the § the other of the act and provisions Detach that section from open condemnation. might n the carriers to whom The first section the act designates makes it the duty The section shall second apply. Commission and the Commerce Chairman of the Interstate between carriers Labor, dispute case Commissioner the business interrupt their which threatens employés and communication carriers, themselves put efforts “mediation controversy and use parties to for the .If then fail, provides the efforts conciliation." §3 named to be of a board of arbitration—one appointment the labor to which carrier, one organization two shall and the thus chosen select' employés belong, third. if the to different employés provision belong

There is a selection of the they shall concur arbitrator. organizations invested the board hearings; board to give is made witnesses, provision filing to summon the Circuit Court of United office of clerk’s award the controversy where Other district States for the arose.. of arbitration outlined, scheme thus sections complete the arbitrators proceedings as possible, as far make, OCTOBER TERM; 1907. McKenna, J., dissenting. them judicial, pending put restrictions on parties for violation of the damages restrictions.

Even from this outline be meager may the perceived justifi-' cation It and of prohibits force 10. by discrimination a § carrier commerce, employment under the hereafter circumstances mentioned the discharge “ from of employment of members- labor organizations because This the membership.” opinion condemns. The actions prohibited, it is are the asserted, part liberty of a carrier protected by the Constitution the United from States limita- tion or I observe the regulation. may that declaration is clear and by unembarrassed material to the benefit carrier from may exercise. reason exercised with or without rea- son, the business of the carrier'is of though concern. public This, and I bold then, the its elements into contention, bring relief to submit I to con- them what deem be stronger siderations, authority. based the by statute and sustained I for take opinion of the granted expressions which to are court, seem indicate that provisions 10§ because only their violation is are illegal criminal, made used and description hot as the essential emphasis, incidental ground to those objections provisions.

I may assume at the the liberty by outset guaranteed the Fifth a liberty Amendment is not free from all restraints this must be limitations, and so or not could government be beneficially many exercised in cases. Therefore judging of any which legislation imposes restraints or limitations inquiry must what is be, their and is the within purpose purpose one of the this powers government? principle Applying immediately to the present case about in the Without beating abstract, must be of the act of Con- inquiry whether 10§ has gress relation to induced act and purpose which w;as which enacted whether accomplish, and such purpose is in of interstate commerce and a mere restriction upon aid. the liberty of carriers have they whom or to employ please, they relations In there inquiry please. whom STATES.

ADAIE UNITED McKenna, S.U. J., dissenting. necessarily a definition interstate commerce involved I a concur with first, may what is of it. As to the regulation second, an immediate and opinion; guiding light de- by recently afforded Employers’ Liability Cases, In there was a cided, 207 U. those cases searching scrutiny of the and it was held to be com- powers Congress, a of the carrier to petent liability establish new rule of the relation a employés—in word, competent regulate relation remote com- servant, master apparently earnestly which the railroad merce, one urged court said: remote from commerce. To the contention the be “ we com- But not test the regulate solely abstractly subject broad considering merce of whether the relates, irrespective regula- On the con- tion in is one of interstate commerce. question matter merely is the regulated, the test of not trary, power directly one of interstate com- the is but whether regulation within the conferred Congress or is embraced grant merce the to execu- necessary all lawful means appropriate to use words, In other that to commerce.” tion of power regulate a of mere to the is not confined power regulation that the of or persons. movement goods decisions—examples, in our other examples

And there are rela- liberty of of contract and too, liberty forming of of in the present as decision (made conspicuous grounds tions of Con- the way power were case)—which compelled give States, United Company Securities Northern gress. as were made exactly the same definitions In case that as are pressed pressed were the same contentions

made here and was not’ railroad Company The Northern Securities here. limited to sell- were powers buying, corporate Its company. securities, and, it was and other bonds stock, ing holding commerce all it at such business was contended-, that to. power regulate. could not within the Congress be it had to, not yielded though support contention was Anti- application members this court. Asserting' TERM, 1907. McKenna, J., dissenting. 208 U. S. and the power Congress to such business Act of 1890 Trust n “that a sound construction court it,-the said regulate ‘with respect discretion to Congress Constitution allows large con it powers which the means clause] [the body into which enables execution, to be fers are carried most it, in the manner duties assigned perform-the high It was of this prin recognition to the people.’.” beneficial . As v. Joint declared United States that it was ciple Traffic of such contracts 571: “The sociation, prohibition 171 U. S. .of be may in judgment Congress fixing rates] [contracts of com necessities of proper of the reasonable one of such necessity propriety, merce, judge the. unless, gross perversion principle, in case a possible to for relief.”- The contentions of applied courts might There, as invoked the declaration-. here an parties the case of the liberty was between the railroads asserted opposition another and the power contract one was power pronounced paramount, That commerce. regulate to be as it seems now, and it was not perceived perceived, controlled provisions was subordinate and Nor was the relation' of Con Fifth Amendment. overlooked. to that gress amendment commented there whatever in And Gibbons v. nothing and reconciled. Case, or in which Lottery 9 Wheat. is to Ogden, the Contrary. may pass inspection From these considerations we to an as to

the statute of which a part, inquire its pur- § and if means relation pose, employs has to that and to interstate commerce. The provisions of purpose, explicit act-are a well coordinated present plan of their settlement between carriers and disputes employés, to arbitration and bringing disputes accommodation,- thereby strikes and the disorder prevent public and de- ’ that be rangement 'may consequent upon them. I submit no"worthier can attention purpose engage-legislative action, and, or be the object might legislative urged, STATES. ADAIR v. UNITED J., McKenna, dissenting. 208 should means not judgment the congressional attain which if condemned, arid it'con- limitation under rigid be brought in, as end, “gross perversion-of'the tribute degree which, the condition it was said of regulation, principle” Association, Joint supra, justify United States v. might Traffic to the courts. appeal are to be commended. We are labor associations told -and existence; yes, their not then May recognize Congress to be counted with in their conditions recognize (attempt use would it be to what Of framing legislation? con- compromise bodies of men to bring agreement you which move -if out of view -the influences troversies put them—maybe controls or 'the which binds fellowship them to make or wrongfully, and impels rightfully them—whether cause of all? And this practical-wisdom of one the the cause I not in say, speculation observed—observed, may of evils— evils, -experience uncertain provision but of a Na- to the dimensions which- approached an experience not be history overlooked, The should calamity. facts tional act involved in the present the course legislation. nor purport. 1888 of similar by one enacted case was preceded labor asso- act 1063. That did recognize c. 25 Stat. of such asso- the members ciations, distinguish or in its failed of carriers. It other employés and the ciations other cause defect its provisions whether purpose, avert rate, it did not At any only conjecture. we arid, as a followed, in 1894. Investigation at strike Chicago its’ Presumably finally passed. of 1898 was it, result of the act mischief to the remedy were addressed provisions was the judgment failed to or avert. of 1888 reach the act bé helped might the scheme of arbitration associations associations, Those it the by Engaging earners, in" every department of employés unified bodies an- aid to arbitration. be an obstacle unity this co.uld but how could it be made aid, to be made ari It was attempted and conciliation” the efforts if, an aid pending “mediation TERM, McKenna, J., dissenting. in 2 of dispute, provided act, provisions § other the. may arbitrarily be of the act disregarded,, which are of con- members in the to the How dispute? cern can it be an aid, may controversies which seriously how can or interrupt (I interrupt carriers threaten paraphrase the statute), be averted or words of the if composed the carrier prevent can on the conflict amicable settlement bring whim of mere I caprice? say the exercise mere whim or this is the which is liberty for caprice, attempted be vindi- as the Constitutional right cated carriers. itAnd may whim If in mere and caprice. be exercised ability, qualities faithful can be workmanship efficient found outside of associations, surely they may be found inside of them. theme, is an attractive but Liberty liberty which is exer- the. does not antipathy plead in sheer for cised strongly recognition. no here of the question There is carrier right to mingle “union” and “non-union” men. If his service there were, exist. In broader considerations such a might there for the be no discrimination “union” and no would discrimina- of an efficiency it. employé tion would be its of exercise. impulse ground whether stop conjecture I need not Congress could or It is limit such certain would right. Congress has not' of the act under done so provision consideration. Its decidedly are letter, purpose other spirit way. however, restraint, which should be imposes, noticed. The may not require carriers applicant employment or an not to become or remain a agree member of a labor . But this does not organization. constrain the employment he anybody, be what he may.

But it is it said cannot be supposed labor organizations “by will, or violent illegal measures, interrupt impair freedom and to so would commerce,” suppose be disrespect to a coordinate branch of Government and to impute “ it a : purpose accord to one class of wage-earners privileges withheld from another class wage-earners engaged, may n

ADAIR UNITED STATES. McKenna, J., dissenting. TJ. in the same kind of be, labor and the same serving employer.” Neither nor supposition and, disrespect necessary, they are no more than urged, invidious to impute a careless or deliberate or of Congress purposeless violation the Constitutional Besides, of'the carriers. the rights legisla n tion is to be by accounted for. It, makes a difference letter, between members of labor and other organizations- employés of If It carriers.- did not, not be for review. would here What did mean? Had it no Was it moved purpose? no cause? Was its mere wantonness and an legislation aimless- with the of meddling country?. commerce These answers in In re Debs, may find their questions 158 U. S. I have said that it is not necessary to that labor suppose will violate the organizations law, and it is not. Their power may effectively exercised'without violence or and illegality, it cannot be-disrespect to let a committee of the for it and tell the speak reason and Senate of its purposes legis- lation. The Committee on Education in its said of the report measure bill: “The under consideration may be called properly a arbitration voluntary bill, for its settle- having object of between disputes capital ment as labor, far as the transportation companies are concerned. The neces- interstate for the bill arises from sity the calamitous way results in the ill-considered strikes of from the arising tyranny .of capital demands of labor unjust or the whereby the organizations, country of the 'to a standstill brought and thousands with their wives helpless are con- employés, children, And, with starvation.” fronted said: concluding report, “ It is our this should it became a opinion bill, law, would minimum to a labor strikes which affect reduce com- therefore merce, and we recommend its passage.” With submitted report Secretary a létter Interstate Commerce Commission, expressed from, of that I body, formed, ex- judgment presume, perience problem. letter said: “With facforsin one side corporations employers and the organiza- TERM, 1907.

McKenna, J., dissenting. will other, as the there be measure railway tions employés force which will about surely bring of equality friendly relation, considera- requisites respect, the essential And “It been shown has again: and forebearance.” tion, where the asso- England before the commission to command the their respect enough ciations are strong seem employer relations employers there have learned the employers For most amicable. repre- one treating thoroughly convenience practical with isolated of workmen; body fragments sentative instead have learned the'limitations their the labor associations powers.” in error that “there is a marked defendant urged and a power regulate between a power

distinction corporation engaged affairs- an individual regulate be, asked, can it it is commerce,” and how his employés carrier selecting to a prevent of commerce whose him service those keep loyalty or to constraining if not their destroyed, by him is “seriously impaired, prior to their unions”? That the to power, regula allegiance to in interstate extends -commerce persons tion Liability Cases, settled decision. 207 U. Employers’ is in Mr. Moody’s and the cases Justice cited dissenting The points to no evil or hazard proposition opinion. other. constrain evil. Section does not of in employment workmen and no or competent gives protection encouragement disloyalty an in his work or deficiency If may either he be with duty. instantly discharged' guilty under the out statute. incurring penalty a Counsel also makes deal of the difference great between direct and indirect commerce, effect as- that is an indirect sert at best' and not within § n Many cited, to enact. eases are power Congress which, it is contention. I time insisted, sustain the cannot take already contention, review the cases. I have alluded to the too is much isolation to 10. say gives and it enough § STATES. v. UNITED ADAIR J., McKenna, dissenting. 20S U. a. and make effective to secure means is- of the part- section con- in the statute. The set forth arbitration of.

the-scheme Lia- by Employers’ answered completely tention, besides, séen, as we have that.case, In bility Cases, supra. liability a rule of to establish was exercised

of Congress in his received injuries for personal to his employés carrier liability or extent of such manifest that the kind It is service. or the transit of intercourse, persons nor neither traffic have wider liability may Indeed of things. carrying may factory; exist in a may than-to carriers. application direct or in commerce—its- a and in both farm, places, exist on this find And court yet be hard to or describe. influence might it to be within the power to pronounce did not hesitate “The it was said primary object,” to establish. act, of the Railroad, safety appliance Johnson safety public securing “was promote welfare rule of liability injuries and travelers.” The for employés in its influence on commerce and more round about even To of 10. contend otherwise seems much so as prohibition § A of the proportion -pro- to me to be an oversight things.- will vision of law which tend prevent prevent stoppage car of an entire railroad cer- every every system wheel as the has as direct influence on interstate commerce tainly or the rule of may coupled another, in which one car way It also seems to injuries employé. liability personal to contend to be an oversight proportions things me of arbitration policy in order to encourage in- and their disastrous prevent carriers employés of business, and even commerce,, terruption derangement to cannot restrain the welfare, evils the public greater a yet of an enforce employé, can, policy discharge railroads, reasonable prohibit unrestrained competition which between them as the rates at merchandise agreements And mark the contrast of what is shall carried.' prohibited. In the one it restraint, may be, whim—certainly case that affects the of an ability of nothing perform TERM, Í90 Holmes, J., dissenting. which is of material interest therefore, duties; nothing, carefully a consid- other case a restraint in the carrier; had as its motive material interests great which ered policy railroads, and, many, in the opinion and benefits to the way' such action be must it restricted, May give public. while the welfare, other, moved, may be, public intrenched antagonism, prejudice impregnably Constitution Fifth Amendment interest. public

I misunderstood. I would not be that there are grant rights have no material There which, can measure. are rights private when exercised or' business, be disturbed limited. With are not concerned. We dealing them.we are with exercised rights gwasi-public and therefore subject to control in interest of the public.

I think the should be affirmed. judgment Holmes, Me. Justice dissenting.

I also think that statute constitutional, and but for I the decision of brethren should have my felt clear pretty about it.

As we all there are know, labor special unions of men en- in the service of carriers. These unions gaged exercise a direct employment influence upon that business, upon the terms of such employment and the business itself. very Their existence directed specifically to the business, their is at least as intimate and important connection as that safety couplers, I and, should think, as the liability of master to servant, matters it is which, admitted, far as might they so regulate, concern commerce among States. I that it suppose hardly would be denied that some railroads relations of with unions of railroad employés are closely connected with enough justify legisla,- tion If so, Congress. legislation prevent the exclusion of such unions employment is sufficiently near. *.

ADAIR UNITED STATES. Holmes, J., dissenting.

208 Ü. The on this law is held ground particular bad is not much that it deals matters so with remote from commerce ' the., as interferes with States, that it among paramount secured the Fifth Amendment.' individual rights, The sec- tion interference with is, substance, limited very freedom not contract, require,the no more. does cárriers to em- them to any It does not forbid refuse to one. ploy employ one, for reason deem any they where the good, even fiction, wholesale, notion of a is a persons choice em- that it necessary upon principles ployment general might to control. section the moré simply prohibits proper or to to exact certain threaten party powerful undertakings, or dismissal certain unjustly-discriminate grounds against I" hardly suppose those can that already employed. lawfully may on which a contract be made end are grounds I than other terms. So turn to the less open whether can be employment question regulated general I to make I that think that contracts all. confess right at been derived from the word liberty will that has at to its has been extreme de- stretched amendments that sometimes re- may but be' they cisions; agree, there is .believed to an be, "Where is, generally strained.- for restraint Constitu- public ground policy important this court it, does not forbid whether agrees disagrees tion be doubted that to It cannot pre- the policy pursued. far foster its scheme so strikes, and, $s possible, vent important be deemed by Congress point arbitration, might to say Congress I that impossible might think of policy, would help think that'the provision question reasonably only But carry suppose policy along. deal a good union- tend to about complete bring were really effect I can deal with, as laborers of such railroad izing I quite the act. agree alone justify that would think object do, labor unions how much good the question-what that think differ,—I intelligent people one on which to them attribute advantages,. men laboring sometimes TERM, 1907. of the Case. Statement of capital disadvantages, to combinations many attribute a far and deeper wider conditions are due to economic really unwarranted if I pronounce kind—but could not for the best union was to foster strong should decide that of-the railroads men, but only not interest, country at large. THE STATE OF WEST v. COURT COUNTY

BRAXTON TAX COMMISSIONERS. THE STATE ex rel. VIRGINIA OF THE STATE OF OF APPEALS THE COURT TO SUPREME ERROR WEST VIRGINIA. 27, 14, 1908. January 1908. January Submitted Decided No. 124. naught subject that no State can set at generally, to the rule Speaking Constitution, regulation municipal National provisions of "the control, legislature determin- peculiarly within state corporations is- districts, taxing of taxation. body, and the limits taxing ing the unconstitutionality charge Notwithstanding plaintiff in error’s jurisdiction frivolous, give this court in order to statute state sustaining question the statute the of the state court review the action by adversely affected decision and one be raised in this court must Smith, Auditor, of an officialnature. personal and not whose interest is Indiana, U. 19X Virginia personal county has no interest the amount A court of West jurisdiction give levy it which-will this court review of'tax made highest court of that State determin- decision of the at its instance excessive, -though request ing levy the basis of for re- even that the county ground leaves the of the assessment view is the reduction obligations of its contracts. unable for lack of' funds to fulfill' (cid:127) 339, Virginia, 60 -West affirmed. constitu- 7 and of the West Virginia Sections article certain, county tion of 1872 authorities, except prohibit specified, ninety-five taxes in excess. cases,, levying from' $100 cents In per 1904 the valuation property valuation. (cid:127) in Braxton The state at County $2,799,604. legislature,

Case Details

Case Name: Adair v. United States

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Jan 27, 1908

Citation: 208 U.S. 161

Docket Number: 293

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS