Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

SUBJECT INDEX.

16

Page.
Statement...

1-16
Summary of the Bill.

1-2
Contentions of Appellant..

3
District Court's Statement of the Issues Tendered by the Pleading . 4
Holdings of the District Court...

4
Treaty Between United Statos and Great Britain

5-8
Migratory Bird Treaty Act....

9-13
Missouri laws.

13-15
Proclamation of Regulations under Migratory Bird Treaty Act..... 15-16
(All Italics in this Brief may be treated as ours)..
Specifications of Errur.

17
Argumeut.

18-95
Foreword

18-19
1. Right to Enjoin Federal Officor.

19-21
II. Federal and State Governments Distinct Sovereignties . 22-27
III. Whon United Colonies became Free and Independent

Statos, the Power to Control the Taking of Wild Game
Passed to tho States.

27-28
IV. Missouri, upon admission to the Union, became entitled

to and possessed of all Rights, Dominion and Sov-
oreignty of the Original States. .

28-30
V. The Ownership of Wild Game is that of the poople of the

Stato in their collective sovereign capacity: the State

holds the samo in trust for the Benefit of all its people.. 30-32
VI. Tho Power of the State over Wild Gamo is not limited

to this Trust for the Benefit of all the People; the
Power is inherent in the Stato by virtue of its Power
of Police ...

32-42
VII. The Act of Congress, March 4, 1913, which undertook

to take from the States their Power over Wild Game,
was hold unconstitutional. ..

42
VIII. An Act of Congress which attempts to do not only that

which Congress bas no Power to do, but also to do
that which is forbiddon to the entire Federal Govern-
ment under the Constitution, cannot be validated by a
Treaty. Treaties must be made subject to the right-
ful Powers of the Government concerned....

43-59
IX. The Federal Government is not only a Government of

Enumerated Powers, but also a Covornment to which
Certain Powers aro denied. Powors deniod aro not to
he impliod; oan only be obtained by Amendment. 59-64

(111)

IV

Page.

64-73

73-86

X. Among the Powers denied to the Federal Government

until seoured by Amondment are the Powers reserved
to the Statos rospectively or to the People. To do-
stroy these reserved Powers is to destroy the State and
change the Form of Governmont devised by the Con-
stitution. The control of Wild Game is within the

“reserved" Powers ...,
XI. A Treaty is not the Supreme Law of the Land; it oon-

sists of, first, the Constitution; socond, the Laws of
the United States made in pursuance thereof; and
third, all Treaties made under the Authority of the
United States. The general grant of Power to make
Troaties must yield to the specifio ruservation of

Rights reserved to the People. ...
XII. Cases usually cited in support of the Treaty-supremaoy

Thoory do not support that Claim.
XIII. The Treaty-supremaoy Theory in its ultimate Analysis

means that the Treaty-making Power POB889808 a
general negative upon all State Laws passed by the
States in the exercise of their reservod Powers. Tho
Troaty-making Department of the Covoromont oan
possegg no such Powor if the Constitution be today the

game that it was when adopted.. Conolusion.

Upon Principle and the Authority of this Court both the Treaty

and State Laws may be held intact, and only a Law of Con-
gross, not necessarily required by the Treaty and which, under
the Constitution, Congress had no Power to pass, be held un-

oonstitutional.
Solioitors and Counsel for Appellant..

86-92

92-95 96-97

97

CASES CITED.

30

Page. Abby Dodge v. United States, 223 U. S. 166.

32 Articles of Confederation, Art. II.

22 Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, (32 U. S. 243)

...60, 61 Beer Co. v. Massachussets, 97 U. S. 25...

.33, 37, 68 Behring Soa Arbitration, 32 Am. Law Reg. 901.

41 Broadnax v. Missouri, 219 U. S. 292....

33 Butler, Trouty Making Power, Vol. I, p. 64.

.43, 44, 49, 74, 82 Constitution of the United StatesAmendments I to X....

60 Amendinent X.

44 Article IX..

22, 23 Article X....

.22. 23 Calhoun, Works of, pp. 252, 249..

.43, 46, 47, 93, 95 Cantini v. Tillman, 54 led. 969..

.33, 43, 48 Cardwell v. Bridge Co., 113 U. S. 205.

28 Carey v. S. D., U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep., May Term, 1919

30 Chambers v. Church, 14 R. I. 398.

30 Charter of the Forests.

28 Cherokee Tobacco Case, 11 Wall. 616, 20 L. Ed. 227

.44, 54, 84 Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259...

87 City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102...

..33, 70 Cocke, William Archer, Constitutional History of the United States, p. 235...

. 44, 52, 74, 80 Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 20 L, Ed. 122.

22, 24, 27, 64, 71 Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53..

..33, 38 Compagnio v. Board, 186 U. S. 380, 51 La. Ann. 645, 25 So. Rep. 591..

.33, 43, 48, 69, 74, 81, 96 Congressional Record, 41, Part. 1, p. 299..

.43, 52, 74, 79 Cook v. Marshall, 196 U. S. 261.

33 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, (7 Ed.), p. 831.

.44, 69, 70 Cooley, The Forum ....

74, 75 Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law, p. 117

50 Cutler v. Dibblo, 2 llow. 366. .

33 Davis v, Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 217.

19 Declaration of Independence, Last Paragraph.

22 Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 241.

19 Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244.....

. 64, 65, 96 Duer, Loctures on Constitutional Jurisprudonce, of the United States, (2 Ed.), p. 228..

.43, 50, 74, 78 Elliott's Debates, Vol. III, pp. 504, 407.

.44, 53, 75, 85 Escanaba v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678..

28, 29, 34 Ex Parte Maier, 103 Cal. 476....

30 Ex Parto Young, 209 U. S. 162 ... Fairbank v. Unitod States, 181 U. 8. 283.

.60, 61 Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 803..

88

43

19

(V)

306

VI

20

33.

60,

61

Pago.
Foderalist, No. XLV (Ilallowell, 1852), pp. 145, 215..33, 43, 45, 46, 64
Fortilizing Co. v. Jlydo Park, 97 U. 8. 659, 24 I.. Ed. 1036

69
Fong Yue Ting, 149 U. 8. 698..
Fox v. United States, 94 U. S. 320..

87
Ft. Leavenworth v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525.

44
Geor v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519.

27, 30, 31, 33, 68
Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 409.

30
Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258.

.43, 47, 64, 65, 86, 87
George v. Pierce, 148 N. Y. Supp. 230..

. 43, 48, 64
Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L.. Ed. 23.

39
Glenwood Light & Water Co. v. Power Co., 239 U. S. 121.
Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. 697....

22, 25
Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449.

35
llamilton's Works..

.44, 74, 75
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251 (38 Sup. Ct. Rop. 529)..36, 64, 66
Haunenstein v. Lyndham, 100 U. S. 483....

89
Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580..

44
Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175.

.30, 67, 96
Hoko v. United States, 22 U. S. 322.

89
Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 243.
Holmos v. Jonnison, 14 Pot. 616, 10 L. Ed. 579..

39
Houso v. Mayes, 219 U. S. 270.

.33, 41
In re Deiningor, 108 Fed. 623.

30
In ro Rabrer, 140 U. S. 545....

.33, 34, 40
Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice, p. 110, note 3. .44, 52, 75, 84
Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. 8. 132.

44
Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46.

44, 57, 60
Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 19 L. Ed. 101.

..22, 25
Lane v. Watts, 234 U. S. 37. .

19
Liconse Cases, 5 How. 504, 12 L. Ed. 256...

..39, 69
Loan Association v. Topoka, 20 Wallace, 655.

. 43, 49, 74, 83
Magna Charta....

28
Magner v. People, 97 III. 320..

30
Magrudor v. Bell Fourche, 219 Fed. 72, 79.

19
Mancbostor v. Mass., 139 U. S. 240

30
Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 325..

.22, 26, 44
Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 410.

30
McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391.

31
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. d. 579

22, 24
Migratory Bird Treaty, Article VIII.......

97
Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. 8. 1.

44
Moore's Int. Law Dig., Vol. V, p. 168..

74, 80
Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15

44, 63
Noble v. Railroad, 147 U. 8. 165, 172.

19
North Am. Review, Benj. Harrison..

.74, 82
Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659, 24 L. Ed.
1036...
.........

69
Opinions of Attorney-Generals

.44, 55
Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheat. 453.

88
Parker v. People, 411 III. 581.

28
Passenger Cases, 7 How. 466, 12 L. Ed. 779.

40, 41, 42

..30,

VII

Pierce v.

33.

44

30

.20.

Page. Patsono v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 58 L. Ed. 544.

.30, 32 Prople v. Becker, 2.11 U, S. 556.

33 People v. (lerke, 5 Cal. 381.

43, 48, 64, 88 People v. Naglee, I Cal. 246.

44, 55, 74, 79 Permoli v. Municipality', 4.1 U. S. 589.

28 Phil. ('o. v. Stimpson, 22:3 U, S. 605.

19 State', 1:3 N. II. 5:36..

.33, 35, 37, 44, 64, 70 Plumlry v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461

33 Pollard v. Ilagall, 33 llow. 212......

28, 29 Prips v. ('ommonwealth, 10 let. 5:39, 10 L. Ed. 1000.

39 Rupert v. United States, 181 Fed. 87.

.30, 33 School Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. 8. 94.

19 Seneca Nation v. (hristie', 120 N. Y. 122. Sirmsson v. Bofor, i l'al. Rep. 250..

44, 54 Silz v. llesterberk, ?11 U. 8. 31. Smith v. Alabama, 1:21 U. S. 476.

33 Smith . Maryland, 18 llow. 71, 1.5 1.. Ed. 270..

30 South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 447, 50 L. Ed. 261, 26 S. C. 110..

19, 22, 23, 64, 71 State of licorgia v. ('opper ('o., 206 U. S. 230, 237.

20 State of Kansas v. State of Colorado, 185 U. S. 125

20 State of Missouri v. State of Illinois, 180 U. S. 208

21 Stato v. lleger, 194 Mo. 707...

34 Story, ('ommentaries on tho ('onstitution, Sec. 1508. .43, 50, 74, 83 Thayer, Cases on Constitutional Law, Vol. I. p. 373.

.43, 51 The Federalist, No. XIV (llallowell, 1852), pp. 145, 215...

33, 43, 45, 46, 64 Thorp v. Rutlanı, 27 Vt. 140.

33, 38 Thorp, Constitutional llistory, Vol. II, p. 199...

. 74, 83 Thurlow v. The Commonwealth (Passenger Cases) 5 How. 504, 12 L. Ed. 256...

40 Truax v. Raich, 239 V. S. 33, 37 (36 S. C. R. 7).

19, 67 Tucker on the Constitution, Vol. 11, p. 726.... 43, 48, 51, 63, 64 Tucker, Limitations, Treaty-making Power. 26, 64, 71, 72, 74,

76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 89 Tucker, adress, (teorgia Bar Association.

...89 Turner v. Williams, 1994 U. S. 279, 48 l.. Ed. 979.

22, 25 United States v. DeWitt, 9 Wall. 41, 19 L. Ed. 593. .37, 41, 66, 90 United States v. knight, 156 U. S. 13.

92 United States v. Lee, 100 U. S. 196.

19 United States v. M'Cullagh, 221 Fed. 288..

..30, 42, 68 United States v. Rhodes, I Abb. U. S. Rop. 43, Fedoral Cases, 16151..60, 62 United States v. Shau ver, 214 Fed. 154..

..30, 32, 42, 60, 62 Von Holst, Constitutional Law of the United States, p. 202..43, 51, 74, 77 Ward v. Race llorse, 163 U. S. 504.

.27, 28, 29, 67, 84 Ware v. Ilyllon, 3 Dallas, 199....

86 Williamelto, Oregon, v. llatch, 125 U. S. 1.

28 Willoughby, Constitution, Vol. I, p. 66

.

.22, 24 Withers v. Buckley, 61 U. S. 84.

28 Works of Calhoun, pp. 252, 249.

43, 46, 47, 93, 95

« ZurückWeiter »