Slike strani
PDF
ePub

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR,

Washington D. C., June 5, 1957, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: At the time of the hearings on S. 863 last year you requested a compilation of digest material on the principal cases bearing on the issues raised in connection with the so-called Barrett bill, S. 863. That work has now been completed and I am enclosing it for your information and use.

I hope the information will be helpful. The cases digested are those which played the most prominent part in the committee discussions of S. 863. No conclusions have been drawn in connection with the compilation of this material, and every effort has been made to be as objective as possible in its preparation. Sincerely yours,

ELMER F. BENNETT, Solicitor.

[ocr errors]

CONTENTS

[blocks in formation]

A. Commerce in general:

1. In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545 (1890)
2. Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U. S. 119 (1905) -
3. Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland R. Co., 242 U. S. 311

(1917)--
4. Kentucky Whip and Collar Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.,

299 U. S. 334 (1937)---

5. Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408 (1946). B. Navigation:

1. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, 12 How.

299 (1851)
2. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. F. P. C., 328 U. S. 152

(1946) -
3. F. P. C. v. Oregon, 349 U. S. 435 (1955)
4. U. S. v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53 (1913)
5. U. S. v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725 (1950)
6. F. P. C. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Co., 347 U. S. 239 (1954).

7. U. S. v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U. S. 222 (1956) -C. Water rights:

1. California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295

U. S. 142 (1935)
2. Ickes v. Fox, 300 U. S. 82 (1937)---

3. U. S. v. Rio Grande Irrigation Company, 174 U. S. 690 (1899)-D. Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction:

1. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U, S. 149 (1920)

2. State of Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U. S. 219 (1924) E. Claims of the United States to unappropriated water:

1. Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589 (1945)

2. Alabama v. Težas et al., 347 U. S. 272 (1954). F. Prospective adoption by Congress of State laws.

1. U. S. v. Sharpnack, 355 U. S. 286 (1958).

10 11 13 14 16 17

18 20 22

25 25

26 29 29 29

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

DIGEST OF CERTAIN SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PERTINENT TO THE PROPOSED WESTERN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT (S. 863) AND STATEFEDERAL WATER PROBLEMS

These briefs are prepared in response to a request by Senator Anderson. They attempt to state succinctly the factual situation and quote the text of the Supreme Court decisions pertinent to the issues raised.

The decisions selected are largely those which Elmer F. Bennett cited, or had reference to, in his discussion of legal principles before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in connection with S. 863, 84th Congress.

The selection covers an expanse of historical development as well as constitutional law. The cases are grouped in order to emphasize basic constitutional powers and principles.

(S. 863 is printed on p. 33 of the appendix.)

A. COMMERCE IN GENERAL

1. In re Rahrer (140 U. S. 545 (1890)) presents a constitutional law problem of harmonizing the exercise by à State of its general police powers for the protection of the health, morals, and safety of its people, and the power of Congress to regulate commerce under the commerce clause (Constitution, art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3).

In the exercise of its police power, Kansas had prohibited in its constitution the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes. This prohibition was enforced by State statutory law carrying penalties.

On August 8, 1890, the Wilson Act, which had been passed by Congress, was approved by the President. It provided that intoxicating liquors, upon arrival in a State should be subject to the operation of its laws to the same extent as liquors produced in that State, whether those liquors were in the original package or otherwise.

On August 9, 1890, Charles Rahrer, an agent for a Kansas City, Mo., liquor firm made some sales in Topeka, Kans., of interstate liquor contrary to this law. He was arrested but a writ of habeas corpus was obtained from the circuit court of the United States and the case went to the Supreme Court on appeal.

On State police power, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller said:

* * * [I]t is not to be doubted that the power to make the ordinary regulations of police remains with the individual States, and cannot be assumed by the National Government * * * (p. 555).

1

20267-58

2

« PrejšnjaNaprej »