Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:33:28.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Increased Control of State Activities by the Federal Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Robert Bruce Scott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has been well said that “The question of the relation of the states to the federal government is the cardinal question of our constitutional system. At every turn of our national development we have been brought face to face with it, and no definition either of statesmen or of judges has ever quieted or decided it. It cannot, indeed, be settled by the opinion of any one generation, because it is a question of growth, and every successive stage of our political and economic development gives it a new aspect, makes it a new question.”

The current discussion provoked by the apparently increasing frequency with which the federal judiciary interferes with the enforcement of the legislative will of the states aptly emphasizes the force of this conclusion. Within late years the federal courts have interposed in numerous cases involving state activities and have asserted the power to control such activities under various circumstances. A brief enumeration of some of the most recent instances of this exercise of power will best indicate the frequency and apparent freedom with which it has been resorted to. Thus it has been held that state boards and commissions, attorneys general and prosecuting attorneys may be enjoined from putting into effect a schedule of railroad rates or gas, telegraph or stockyards rates. alleged to be invalid as working a deprivation of property without due process of law or as otherwise violating the federal constitution.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , August 1909 , pp. 347 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1909

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wilson, Woodrow: Constitutional Government in the United States, p. 173.Google Scholar

2 Smyth v. Ames (1898), 169 U. S. 466; Prout v. Starr (1902), 188 U. S. 537; Reagan v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. (1894), 154 U. S. 362; Clyde v. Riehmond & D. R. Co. (1893), 57 Fed. 436; Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Devy (1888), 35 Fed. 866; Poor v. I. C. Ry. Co. (1907), 155 Fed. 226; Perkins v. No. Pac. Ry. Co. (1907), 155 Fed. 445; R. R. Comsn. of La. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (1906), 144 Fed. 68; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Hadley (1908), 161 Fed. 419; Miss. R. R. Comsn. v. I. C. R. R. Co. (1906), 203 U. S. 335; Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co. v. R. R. Comsn. of Ala. (1908), 161 Fed. 925; So. Ry. Co. v. McNeill (1907), 155 Fed. 772.

3 Haverhill Gas Light Co. v. Barker et al. (1901), 119 Fed. 694; Cons. Gas Co. v. City of N. Y. (1907), 157 Fed. 849; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. (1908), 162 Fed. 954.

4 W. U. Tel. Co. v. Mygatt (1899), 98 Fed. 335.

5 Cotting v. Kansas City Stockyards Co. (1897), 79 Fed. 679.

6 So. Ry. Co. v. Greensboro Ice & Coal Co. (1904), 134 Fed. 82.

7 Univ. of South v. the Jetton (1907), 155 Fed. 182; Taylor v. L. & N. R. Co. (1898), 88 Fed. 350.

8 C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Swanger (1908), 157 Fed. 783; Metro. L. Ins. Co. v. McNall (1897), 81 Fed. 888; C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ludwig (1907), 156 Fed. 152; Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Boyle (1897), 82 Fed. 705.

9 Iron Mt. R. Co. v. City of Memphis (1899), 96 Fed. 113; Defiance Water Co. v. City of Defiance (1898), 90 Fed. 753.

10 Scott v. Donald (1897), 165 U. S. 107. See also Minneapolis Brewing Co. v. McGilvary (1900), 104 Fed. 258.

11 Graham v. Folsom, 200 U. S. 248. (1906).

12 Cong. Record, 60th Cong. 1st sess., p. 133.

13 December 3, 1907.

14 209 U. S. 123.

15 For a diametrically opposite view see State v. So. R. Co. (N. C. 1907), 59 S. E. 570.

16 See address of Guthrie, William D. in Proceedings of New York State Bar Association, 1908.Google Scholar

17 Number 81.

18 3 Elliott's, Debates, 533.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., 555.

20 4, Ibid., 491.

21 3, Ibid., 573.

22 2 Dall. 419.

23 Goodnow, , Comparative Administrative Law, II, 149.Google Scholar

24 United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196.

25 Book I, pp. 243–4.

26 United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, 205.

27 Langford v. U. S., 101 U. S. 341, 343.

28 Feather v. Queen (1865), 6 B. & S. Q. B. 257, 297.

29 Goodnow, , Principles of the Administrative Law of the United States, 420Google Scholaret seq.

30 Number 80.

31 1 Cranch, 177.

32 22 Cyc. 884; State v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440.

33 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat., 264, 414.

34 9 Wheat., 738.

35 1 Pet. 110, 124.

36 123 U. S. 443.

37 Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466; Reagan v. Co., 154 U. S. 362; Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537; In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58; Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204; Gunter v. Atl. Coast Line, 200 U. S. 273.

38 140 U. S., 1, 9.

39 29 Cyc. 1441.

40 In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 444, 507.

41 Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1.

42 114 U. S. 270, 288.

43 See Harvard Law Review, 20:246; 21: 527. Columbia Law Review, 7: 609–11.

44 Proceedings of New York State Bar Association, 1908, p. 220.

45 Virginia Coupon Cases. …Allen v. B. & O. R. R., 114 U. S. 311; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107; Mechem, Public Officers, §995.

46 188 U. S. 537, 543.

47 209 U. S. 211, 226.

48 209 U. S. 150.

49 209 U. S. 182.

50 172 U. S. 516.

51 209 U. S. 123.

52 189 U. S. 218.

53 195 U. S. 223.

54 169 U. S. 466.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.