Page United States v. G. Falk & Brother (204 39 191 634 628 386 6 404 788 791 783 United States, Goat & Sheepskin Import United States, Red Bird v. (203 U. S. 76) 794 Page Virginia v. West Virginia (206 U. S. 290) 732 Walker, Bacon v. (204 U. S. 311)... 289 293 .... 363 29 Weeks, International Trust Co. v. (203 U. West, United States ex rel., v. Hitchcock 388 782 423 West Virginia, St. Mary's Franco-Ameri- 732 434 793 781 367 White v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (205 U. S. 546) 381 United States v. State of Michigan (203 U. 792 White v. The Philadelphia (205 U. S. 546) 792 White Star Min. Co. v. Hultberg (205 U. S. 540).. White Star Min. Co. of Illinois, Anderson 794 794 141 794 United States ex rel. Taylor v. Taft (203 U. S. 461)... 148 United States ex rel. West V. Hitchcock (205 U. S. 80). 423 381 246 681 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wightman v. State of Connecticut (203 U. Whitfield v. Etna Life Ins. Co. of Hart- 578 ... 21 782 Vickers, Wilson on behalf of Territory of Arizona v. (203 U. S. 581).. 779 Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co. (206 U. S. 496).... 762 Vicksburg Waterworks Co., City of Vicks burg v. (206 U. S. 496).. 762 Victor Talking Machine Co., Leeds & Cat Wilcox v. Treat (205 U. S. 33). 434 788 795 559 lin Co. v. (206 U. S. 563). 796 Vietor v. Levi (203 U. S. 596). 784 William W. Bierce, Limited, v. Hutchins 524 Page Page Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Fulton (205 U. S. 60)... 412 243 246 Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Agricultural 246 College v. Irvine (206 U. S. 278)...... 613 787 246 Yates v. Bailey (206 U. S. 181)... Wyoming Agricultural College, State of Wyoming ex rel., v. Irvine (206 U. S. 278) 613 646 233 246 Yates v. Bank of Staplehurst (206 U. S. 181) 646 Wilson, Bachtel v. (204 U. S. 36). W. M. Laird Co., Frederick L. Grant Shoe Woods & Sons v. Carl (203 U. S. 358).. Wright, Buster v. (203 U. S. 599). Wright, Stewart v. (203 U. S. 590). 99 777 777 Zell v. Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for Eastern District of Virginia (203 U. S. 577)... 777 Wymore, Myers v. (205 U. S. 551). 794 Zell v. Leigh (204 U. S. 669). 785 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. (203 U. S. 38) OCTOBER TERM, 1906. TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO EX REL., pute, where the validity of a treaty or statE. J. MCLEAN & COMPANY, Appt. ute of, or authority exercised under, the United States is involved. ν. COMPANY. DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD Commerce duties on imports or exports. 4. Only articles imported from, or expurview of U. S. Const. art. 1, § 10, forbidding any state, without the consent of Congress to lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports except what may be abso lutely necessary for executing its inspection Evidence-judicial notice. Appeal from territorial supreme court-ported to, foreign countries, are within the Federal question. 1. A controversy as to the constitutional right of a territorial legislature to pass a specified law under the broad legislative power conferred by U. S. Rev. Stat. 1851, involves the validity of an authority exercised under the United States within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. at L. 443, chap. 355, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 572), § 2, defining the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States over the supreme courts of the territories.* Appeal from territorial supreme court amount in dispute. 2. Some sum or value must be in dispute in order to sustain the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court over the supreme courts of the territories which is conferred by the act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. at L. 443, chap. 355, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 572), § 2, without regard to the sum or value in dispute, in cases involving the validity of a treaty or statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States.† Appeal from territorial supreme court amount in dispute. 3. A suit in which the matter in dispute is the right of consignors to have a consignment shipped by a common carrier to its destination involves a valuable right, measurable in money, and therefore satisfies the requirements of the act of March 3, 1885, conferring upon the Supreme Court of the United States appellate jurisdiction over the supreme courts of the territories without regard to the sum or value in dis *Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Courts, § 1032. tEd. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Courts, § 1032. 27 S.C.-1. laws. 5. Judicial notice will be taken by the Supreme Court of the United States of the fact that, in the territory of New Mexico and in other similar parts of the West, cattle are required to be branded in order to identify their ownership, and that they run at large in great stretches of country, with no other means of determining their separate ownership than by the brand or marks upon them. Commerce-territorial tion law. regulation-inspec 6. The prohibition against the receipt by common carriers for transportation beyond the limits of the territory of hides which do not bear the evidence of inspection required by N. M. act of March 19, 1901, is does not-there being no congressional legisa valid exercise of the police power, and different provision-violate the commerce lation covering the subject and making a clause of the Federal Constitution, although hides not offered for transportation are not required to be inspected after thirty days in slaughterhouses, and not at all outside of the slaughterhouses, and although the incidental effect of the statute may be to levy a tax upon this class of property. Commerce-territorial tion fee. legislation-inspec 7. The amount of the fee imposed by N. Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Courts, § 1032. Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 10, Cent. Dig. Commerce, §§ 7, 24, 61. M. act of March 19, 1901, for the inspection, lowed from any judgment or decree of the of hides offered for transportation beyond supreme court of a territory unless the matthe limits of the territory, does not render ter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds that statute-if otherwise valid-repugnant the sum of $5,000. Section 2 of the act to the commerce clause of the Federal Con- makes exception to the application of § 1 stitution, where it is not so unreasonable and disproportionate to the services rendered as to challenge the good faith of the law. [No. 18.] as to the sum in dispute, in cases wherein is involved the validity of a treaty or statute of or authority exercised under the United States, and in all such cases an appeal Argued March 14, 15, 1906. Decided Octo- or writ of error will lie without regard to the sum or value in dispute. ber 15, 1906. Confessedly, $5,000 is not involved; and in order to be appealable to this court the case must involve the validity of an authority exercised under the United States, and also be a controversy in which some sum or value is involved. This court, in the case of United States v. Lynch, 137 U. S. 280285, 34 L. ed. 700-702, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114-116, laid down the test of the right to appeal under the statute in the following terms: "The validity of a statute, or the validity of an authority, is drawn in question when the existence or constitutionality or legality of such statute or authority is denied, and the denial forms the subject of direct inCamp-quiry." See same case below (N. M.) 78 Pac. 74. The facts are stated in the opinion. Messrs. William B. Childers and T. B. Catron for appellant. Messrs. Charles A. Spiess, A. C. bell, and D. J. Leahey for appellee. Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the judgment of the supreme court of New Mexico, affirming the judgment of the district court of Santa Fe county, sustaining a motion to quash an alternative writ of mandamus issued on the relation of E. J. McLean & Company against the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company. From the allegations of the writ it appears that the relators, the appellants here, had delivered to the railroad company at Santa Fe, New Mexico, a bale of hides consigned to Denver, Colorado, a point on the line of the defendant's railroad. The railroad company refused to receive and ship the hides for the reason that they did not bear the evidence of inspection required by the act of the legislature of New Mexico, approved March 19, 1901, which act, to be more fully noticed hereafter, made it an offense for any railroad company to receive hides for shipment beyond the limits of the territory which had not been inspected within the requirements of the law. An objection is made to the jurisdiction of this court upon the ground that the case is not appealable under the act of Congress of March 3, 1885. 23 Stat. at L. 443, chap. 355 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 572). Section 1 of the act provides, in substance, that no appeal or writ of error shall be al The right to legislate in the territories is conferred, under constitutional authority," by the Congress of the United States, and the passage of a territorial law is the exertion of an authority exercised under the United States. While this act was passed in pursuance of the authority given by the United States to the territorial legislature, it is contended by the relators below, appellants here, that it violates the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore invalid, although it is an attempted exercise of power conferred by Congress upon the territory. The objection of the relator to the law raises a controversy as to the right of the legislature to pass it under the broad power of legislation conferred by Congress upon the territory. In other words, the validity of an authority exercised under the United States in the passage and enforcement of this law is directly challenged, and the case does involve the validity of an authority exercised under the power derived from the United States. It is not a case merely involving the construction of a legislative act of the territory, as was the fact in Snow v. United States, 118 U. S 346, 30 L. ed. 207, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1059. The power to pass the act at all, in view of the requirements of the Constitution of the United States, is the subject-matter of controversy, and brings the case in this aspect within the 2d section of the act. Is there any sum or value in dispute in this case! While the act does not prescribe the amount, some sum or value must be in to the effect of this law upon interstate dispute. Albright v. New Mexico, 200 U. commerce, and it is urged that it is in violaS. 9, 50 L. ed. 346, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 210. tion of the Constitution, because it underThe matter in dispute is the right to have takes to regulate interstate commerce, and the goods which were tendered for shipment | lays upon it a tax not within the power of transported to their destination. As a the local legislature to exact. It has been common carrier, the railroad was bound to receive and transport the goods. Its refusal so to do was based upon the statute in question because of the noninspection of the goods tendered. The relators claimed the right to have their goods transported because the statute was null and void, being an unconstitutional enactment. The controversy, therefore, relates to the right of the appellants to have their goods transported by the railroad company to the place of destination. We think this was a valuable right, measurable in money. At common law, a cause of action arose from the refusal of a common carrier to transport goods duly tendered for carriage. Ordinarily, the measure of damages in such case is the difference between the value of the goods at the point of tender and their value at their proposed destination, less the cost of carriage. We are of the opinion that this controversy involves a money value within the meaning of the statute, and the motion to dismiss the appeal will be overruled. too frequently decided by this court to re- state commerce. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613-635, 42 L. ed. 878885, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133, 42 L. Passing to the merits of the controversy, Congress has conferred legislative power upon the territory to an extent not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1851. It is contended that the act under considered. 688, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; Pennsylvania ation contravenes that part of article 1, R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477, 48 L. ed. 10, of the Constitution of the United 268, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 132. The principle States, which reads: "No state shall, with- decided in these cases is that a state or out the consent of the Congress, lay any territory has the right to legislate for the imposts or duties on imports or exports, safety and welfare of its people, and that except what may be absolutely necessary for this right is not taken from it because of executing its inspection laws." And also the exclusive right of Congress to regulate that part of the 8th section of article 1 of interstate commerce, except in cases where the Constitution of the United States, which the attempted exercise of authority by the gives to Congress the power to regulate com- legislature is in conflict with an act of merce with foreign nations, and among the Congress, or is an attempt to regulate instates, and with the Indian tribes. In Patapsco Guano Co. As to the objection predicated on 10 v. Board of Agriculture, supra, it was diof article 1, that section can have no ap-rectly recognized that the state might pass plication to the present case, as that provi- inspection laws for the protection of its sion directly applies only to articles im- people against fraudulent practices and for ported or exported to foreign countries. the suppression of frauds, although such Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, legislation had an effect upon interstate 171 U. S. 345-350, 43 L. ed. 191-193, 18 commerce. Sup. Ct. Rep. 862, and cases cited. Moreover, that paragraph of the Constitution expressly reserves the right of the states to pass inspection laws, and if this law is of that character it does not run counter to this requirement of the Constitution. The question principally argued is as terstate commerce. The same principle was recognized in Neilson v. Garza, 2 Woods, 287, Fed. Cas. No. 10,091,-a case decided by Mr. Justice Bradley on the circuit and quoted from at length with approval by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in the Patapsco Case. Applying the principles recognized in these cases to the case at bar, does the act? |