Cases - 1883 term

Brown v. Houston

Thu, 03 Apr 1884 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Houston

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Waite Court (1882-1887)

Decided By

Waite Court (1882-1887)

Opinion

114 U.S. 622 (1885)

Argued

Thursday, April 3, 1884

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1885

Facts of the Case

A Louisiana law assessed an annual tax on goods which remained stored on flat boats prior to sale. Brown, a representative of a Pennsylvania coal mining company, refused to pay the tax on a load of coal which had been shipped to an agent in New Orleans.

Question

Did the Louisiana law violate the Constitution by posing an improper restriction on interstate commerce?

Conclusion

No. The Court found that the Louisiana law did not violate the Constitution. Justice Bradley reasoned that since the law imposed a tax upon merchandise which had "already arrived at its destination," merchandise which was effectively "a commodity in the market of New Orleans," it was not offensive to the Commerce Clause. It was not a regulation on goods which were "in a state of transit." Furthermore, the law did not discriminate against foreign producers because it applied to all goods within the state, not exempting products which had been made locally.

Hurtado v. California

Tue, 22 Jan 1884 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Street Corner

Front St and I St. Sacramento CA 95814

Sacramento, CA 95814

United States

38° 35' 4.5528" N, 121° 30' 17.91" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Petitioner

Hurtado

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Waite Court (1882-1887)

Decided By

Waite Court (1882-1887)

Opinion

110 U.S. 516 (1884)

Argued

Tuesday, January 22, 1884

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1884

Facts of the Case

The State of California tried and convicted Hurtado on an information for murder. An information is a written set of accusations made by a prosecutor. Hurtado maintained that California denied him an indictment by a grand jury. A grand jury indictment is based on majority vote of the grand jurors on presentation by the prosecutor.

Question

Does a state criminal proceeding based on an information rather than a grand jury indictment violate the 14th Amendment's due process clause?

Conclusion

No, this was not a violation of due process. Any legal proceeding that protects liberty and justice is due process. The majority opinion, authored by Matthews, reasoned that the Constitution cannot be locked into static conceptions bound by time and place. The Court also took the position that nothing in the Constitution is superfluous. Since the Fifth Amendment contains both a guarantee of grand jury proceedings and a guarantee of due process, the latter cannot embrace the former.

Ex parte Crow Dog

jgoldman — Mon, 26 Nov 1883 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Great Sioux Reservation SD

United States

44° 31' 12" N, 101° 59' 9.96" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Petitioner

Crow Dog

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Waite Court (1882-1887)

Decided By

Waite Court (1882-1887)

Opinion

109 U.S. 556 (1883)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1883

Decided

Monday, December 17, 1883

Advocates

A. J. Plowman (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Samuel F. Phillips (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

In August, 1881, a Native American named Kan-gi-Shun-ca (Crow Dog, in English) shot and killed another Native American on the Great Sioux Reservation in present-day South Dakota. The Sioux tribal government convicted Crow Dog and, applying traditional Sioux law, ordered him to pay restitution to the victim's family. The government of the Dakota Territory also charged Crow Dog with murder, and, after being found guilty, Crow Dog was sentenced to death. Crow Dog appealed for a writ of habeas corpus, and argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction, pointing to an 1834 act that specifically excluded crimes committed by one Native American on another from federal jurisdiction. The government argued that an 1868 treaty with the Sioux that required the tribe surrender criminals to United States superseded the earlier statute.

Question

Did federal law grant the Dakota Territory court jurisdiction over the murder for which Crow Dog was convicted?

Conclusion

No. In a 9-0 decision authored by Justice Stanley Matthews, the Court concluded that Congress had not granted federal courts jurisdiction over the murder of one Native American by another. The Court interpreted the 1868 treaty's stipulation that criminals be surrendered to the federal government in context, and, given that the treaty was made between two parties, "the party of whites and their allies" and "tribe of Indians," concluded the provision did not conflict with or repeal the 1834 law. Justice Matthews' opinion goes on to note that, while the law is clearly conflicted on the question because the 1834 law was never expressly repealed, there was no "positive repugnancy between the provisions of the new laws and those of the old" that would entail an implied repeal.

Ex parte Yarbrough

jgoldman — Wed, 23 Jan 1884 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Petitioner

Dilmus, James, Jasper, and Neal Yarbrough

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Waite Court (1882-1887)

Decided By

Waite Court (1882-1887)

Opinion

110 U.S. 651 (1884)

Argued

January 23-24, 1884

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1884

Facts of the Case

The Enforcement Act of 1870, which targeted the violence caused by the Ku Klux Klan in the post-Civil War South, prohibited the use of violence or intimidation to prevent African-Americans from voting. In 1883, eight Georgia men, including Dilmus, James, Jasper, and Neal Yarbrough, were charged under the Enforcement Act with intimidating Berry Saunders, an African-American, to prevent him from voting in the 1882 congressional election. The eight were convicted and sentenced to two years in prison. Following their conviction, the eight men filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus on the ground that Congress had no authority to pass the Enforcement Act.

Question

Did Congress have the authority to pass the Enforcement Act of 1870?

Conclusion

Yes. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, the Court concluded that the federal government "must have the power to protect the elections on which its existence depends from violence and corruption." After noting that the implied powers of the Constitution are "as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed," Justice Miller wrote that the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, in conjunction with Article I, Section 4, which provides that "Congress may at any time make or alter" regulations regarding the "times, places, and manner of holding elections," granted Congress the necessary authority to pass the Enforcement Act. Additionally, the Court found additional defense of Congress' authority in the enforcement provision of the Fifteenth Amendment. The Court determined that "this fifteenth article of amendment does…substantially confer on the negro the right to vote, and Congress has the power to protect and enforce that right."