The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 74

[1731] Honeyman _v._ Jacobs, 306 U.S. 539 (1939). _See also_ Gelfert _v._ National City Bank, 313 U.S. 221 (1941).

[1732] 313 U.S. at 233-234.

[1733] One reason for this is indicated in the following pa.s.sage from Justice Field's opinion for the Court in Paul _v._ Virginia, decided in 1869: "At the present day corporations are multiplied to an almost indefinite extent. There is scarcely a business pursued requiring the expenditure of large capital, or the union of large numbers, that is not carried on by corporations. It is not too much to say that the wealth and business of the country are to a great extent controlled by them." 8 Wall. 168, 181-182.

[1734] Wright, The Contract Clause, 91-100.

[1735] Perry _v._ United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935); Louisville Joint Stock Bank _v._ Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935). The Court has pointed out, what of course, is evident on a reading of the Const.i.tution, that the contract clause is a limitation on the powers of the States and not of the United States. Central P.R. Co. _v._ Gallatin (Sinking Fund Cases), 99 U.S. 700, 718 (1879). _See also_ Mitch.e.l.l _v._ Clark, 110 U.S. 633, 643 (1884); Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 529 (1871); Continental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. _v._ Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 294 U.S. 648 (1935); St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. _v._ Board of Water Commissioners, 168 U.S. 349, 372 (1897); Dubuque, S.C.R. Co. _v._ Richmond, 19 Wall. 584 (1874); New York _v._ United States, 257 U.S. 591 (1922). _Cf._ however, Hepburn _v._ Griswold, 8 Wall. 603, 623 (1870); and Central Pacific R.R. Co. _v._ Gallatin (Sinking Fund Cases), 99 U.S.

700, 737 (1879).

[1736] _See_, e.g., Neblett et al. _v._ Carpenter, et al., 305 U.S. 297 (1938); Asbury Hospital _v._ Ca.s.s County, 326 U.S. 207 (1945); Connecticut Mutual L. Ins. Co. _v._ Moore, 333 U.S. 541 (1948). For a notable case in which the obligations clause was mustered into service, by rather heroic logic, to do work that was afterwards put upon the due process clause, _see_ State Tax On Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300 (1873).

[1737] Hooven & Allison Co. _v._ Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 673 (1945).

[1738] Woodruff _v._ Parham, 8 Wall. 123 (1869).

[1739] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[1740] Ibid. 441.

[1741] May & Co. _v._ New Orleans, 178 U.S. 496, 502 (1900).

[1742] Ibid. 501; Gulf Fisheries Co. _v._ MacInerney, 276 U.S. 124 (1928); McGoldrick _v._ Gulf Oil Corp., 309 U.S. 414 (1940).

[1743] Low _v._ Austin, 13 Wall. 29 (1872); May & Co. _v._ New Orleans, 178 U.S. 496 (1900).

[1744] Hooven & Allison Co. _v._ Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 667 (1945).

[1745] Ibid. 664.

[1746] Canton R. Co. _v._ Rogan, 340 U.S. 511 (1951).

[1747] Brown _v._ Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 447 (1827).

[1748] Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. _v._ Alabama, 288 U.S. 218 (1933).

[1749] Low _v._ Austin, 13 Wall. 29, 33 (1872).

[1750] Cook _v._ Pennsylvania, 97 U.S. 566, 573, (1878).

[1751] Crew Levick Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 245 U.S. 292 (1917).

[1752] Cooley _v._ Board of Port Wardens, 12 How. 299, 313 (1851).

[1753] Waring _v._ Mobile, 8 Wall. 110, 122 (1869). _See also_ Pervear _v._ Ma.s.sachusetts, 5 Wall. 475, 478 (1867); Schollenberger _v._ Pennsylvania, 171 U.S. 1, 24 (1898).

[1754] Gulf Fisheries Co. _v._ MacInerney, 276 U.S. 124 (1928).

[1755] Nathan _v._ Louisiana, 8 How. 73, 81 (1850).

[1756] Mager _v._ Grima, 8 How. 490 (1850).

[1757] Brown _v._ Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 441 (1827); Hooven & Allison Co. _v._ Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945).

[1758] New York ex rel. Burke _v._ Wells, 208 U.S. 14 (1908).

[1759] Selliger _v._ Kentucky, 213 U.S. 200 (1909); _cf._ Almy _v._ California, 24 How. 169, 174 (1861).

[1760] Bowman _v._ Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 125 U.S. 465, 488 (1888).

[1761] 107 U.S. 38 (1883).

[1762] Ibid. 55.

[1763] Patapsco Guano Co. _v._ North Carolina Bd. of Agriculture, 171 U.S. 345, 301 (1898). For a discussion of the limitations on State power to pa.s.s inspection laws resulting from the commerce clause, _see_ pp.

183, 237.

[1764] Bowman _v._ Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 125 U.S. 465, 488-489 (1888).

[1765] Clyde Mallory Lines _v._ Alabama ex rel. State Docks Commission, 296 U.S. 261, 265 (1935); Cannon _v._ New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577, 581 (1874); Wheeling, P. & C. Transportation Co. _v._ Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273, 283 (1879).

[1766] Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. _v._ Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80 (1877); Parkersburg & Ohio River Transportation Co. _v._ Parkersburg, 107 U.S.

691 (1883); Ouachita Packet Co. _v._ Aiken, 121 U.S. 444 (1887).

[1767] Cooley _v._ Board of Port Wardens, 12 How. 299, 314 (1851); Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236 (1872); Inman Steamship Co. _v._ Tinker, 94 U.S. 238, 243 (1877); Northwestern Union Packet Co. _v._ St. Louis, 100 U.S. 423 (1880); Vicksburg _v._ Tobin, 100 U.S. 430 (1880); Cincinnati, P.B.S. & P. Packet Co. _v._ Catlettsburg, 105 U.S. 559 (1882).

[1768] Huse _v._ Glover, 119 U.S. 543, 549 (1886).

[1769] Southern S.S. Co. _v._ Portwardens, 6 Wall. 31 (1867).

[1770] Peete _v._ Morgan, 19 Wall. 581 (1874).

[1771] Morgan's L. & T.R. & S.S. Co. _v._ Board of Health, 118 U.S. 455, 462 (1886).

[1772] Wiggins Ferry Co. _v._ East St. Louis, 107 U.S. 365 (1883). _See also_ Gloucester Ferry Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 212 (1885); Philadelphia & S. Mail Steamship Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326, 338 (1887); Osborne _v._ Mobile, 16 Wall. 479, 481 (1873).

[1773] c.o.x _v._ Lott (State Tonnage Tax Cases), 12 Wall. 204, 217 (1871).

[1774] Luther _v._ Borden, 7 How. 1, 45 (1849).

[1775] Presser _v._ Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).

[1776] Poole _v._ Fleeger, 11 Pet 185, 209 (1837).

[1777] Hinderlider _v._ La Plata Co., 304 U.S. 92, 104 (1938).

[1778] Frankfurter and Landis, The Compact Clause of the Const.i.tution--A Study in Interstate Adjustments, 34 Yale Law Journal, 685, 691 (1925).

[1779] Article IX.