under the Fifth Amendment; nor can an officer of a corporation 24. Self-incrimination; right of corporation defendant in suit under § 4965, Rev. Stat. A corporation defendant in a suit to enforce penalties under § 4965, Rev. Stat., for infringement of copyright is not entitled under the Fourth or Fifth Amendment to object to the admission of evidence of entries in its books produced under a subpoena duces tecum. (Wilson v. United States, ante, p. 361.) American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603. 25. Self-incrimination; right of officer of corporation having possession of and being called upon to produce its books. A subpoena duces tecum, which is suitably specific and properly limited in its scope, and calls for the production of documents which, as against their lawful owner to whom the writ is directed, the party procuring its issuance is entitled to have produced, does not violate the unreasonable search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment, and the constitutional privilege against testifying against himself cannot be raised for his personal benefit by an officer of the corporation having the documents in his possession. Wilson v. United States, 361. 26. Self-incrimination; protection to which physical custodian of incriminating documents entitled. Physical custody of incriminating documents does not protect the custodian against their compulsory production. The privilege which exists as to private papers cannot be maintained. Ib. 27. Self-incrimination; party in proceeding in criminal contempt entilled to protection. In criminal proceedings for contempt the party against whom the proceedings are instituted is entitled to the protection of the constitutional provisions against self-incrimination. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 418. 28. Self-incrimination; waiver of immunity by conduct on part of officer of corporation; quære as to. Quare whether if a privilege to refuse to produce documents of a corporation in response to a subpœna duces tecum does exist the per 3 son entitled to claim it may not waive it by his conduct. Dreier See CORPORATIONS, 4, 5, 8, 9. 29. States; equality of. The Constitution not only looks to an indestructible union of indestructible States, Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, but to a union of equal States as well. Coyle v. Oklahoma, 559. 30. States; admission into Union; power of Congress; equality of States. The power given to Congress by Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution is to admit new States to this Union, and relates only to such States as are equal to each other in power and dignity and competency to exert the residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the Federal Government. Ib. 31. States; duty of Congress to guarantee republican form of government; power of Congress in respect of. The constitutional duty of Congress of guaranteeing to each State a republican form of government does not import a power to impose upon a new State, as a condition to its admission to the Union, restrictions which render it unequal to the other States, such as limitations upon its power to locate or change its seat of government. Ib. 32. States; immunity from suit; application of Eleventh Amendment. With the exception named in the Constitution every State has abso lute immunity from suit; and the Eleventh Amendment applies not only where the State is actually named as a party but where the suit is really against it although nominally against one of its officers. Hopkins v. Clemson College, 636. 33. States; immunity from suit; public agents amenable for own torts. Immunity from suit is a high attribute of sovereignty and a prerogative of the State itself which cannot be availed of by public agents when sued for their own torts. Ib. 34. States; immunity from suit; suit to enjoin enforcement of void law not within. While the State as a sovereign is not subject to suit, cannot be enjoined, and the State's officers cannot be restrained from enforcing the State's laws or held liable for consequences of obedience thereto, a void law is neither a law or command but a nullity conferring no authority and affording no protection or immunity from suit. Ib. -| 35. States; immunity from suit; public corporations and political subdivisions not entitled. Neither public corporations nor political subdivisions are clothed with the immunity from suit which belongs to the State alone; and while they may be relieved from responsibility to a wider degree than individuals would be they must make the defense and cannot rely on immunity. Ib. 36. States; immunity from suit; who entitled to claim; application where State necessary party. In this case held that an agricultural college corporation was not such an agent of the State as to be immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit for damages caused by erection of a dyke and consequent overflow of plaintiff's property; but also held that as the dyke was on property belonging to the State, the State would be a necessary party to the suit in order to decree removal, and in the absence of consent to be sued the court had no jurisdiction to decree removal. Ib. 37. States; immunity from suit; application where State a necessary party. Although parties erecting a dyke on property belonging to the State may not, under the Eleventh Amendment, be immune from suit, the State is a necessary party to a suit to remove the dyke and it is beyond the jurisdiction of the court to make a decree to that effect. Ib. 38. Unreasonable searches and seizures; effect of report required by § 4 of Act to Regulate Commerce as. Under 4 of the Act to Regulate Commerce the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to require carriers to make reports regarding the hours of labor of such employés as are subject to the act of March 4, 1907, and the requirement of such reports does not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm., 612. See Supra, 25. CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. CONTEMPT OF COURT. Civil and criminal contempts differentiated. Civil and criminal contempts are essentially different and are gov erned by different rules of procedure. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 418. 2. Civil contempt; what amounts to; punishment for. A proceeding, instituted by an aggrieved party to punish the other party for contempt for affirmatively violating an injunction in the same action in which the injunction order was issued, and praying for damages and costs, is a civil proceeding in contempt, and is part of the main action, and the court cannot punish the contempt by imprisonment for a definite term; the only punishment is by fine measured by the pecuniary injury sustained. Ib. 3. Procedure and punishment for civil and criminal contempt at variance. There is a substantial variance between the procedure adopted and punishment imposed, when a punitive sentence appropriate only to a proceeding for criminal contempt is imposed in a proceeding in an equity action for the remedial relief of an injured party. Ib. 4. Effect of settlement of suit between parties on right of court to pursue violator of injunction issued therein. The fact that the party aggrieved by the violation of an injunction deprives himself, by settling the main case, of the right to pursue the violator for contempt does not prevent the court, whose order was violated, from instituting proceedings to vindicate its authority; and in this case the dismissal of the civil contempt proceeding is without prejudice to the power and right of the court whose injunction was violated to punish for contempt by proper proceedings. Ib. 5. Acting on suggestion of Circuit Court of Appeals not contempt of lower court. Where the Circuit Court has sustained the trade-mark but the Circuit Court of Appeals has suggested a form of label that the defendant might use, defendant should not be punished for contempt for using such a form. Baglin v. Cusenier Co., 580. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 27; CORPORATIONS, 6. Freedom to contract defined. CONTRACTS. Freedom to contract is the essence of freedom from undue restraint on the right to contract. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2-10; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 3; RESTRAINT OF TRADE. CONVEYANCES. See ASSIGNMENTS; INDIANS, 5, 6, 7. COPYRIGHTS. 1. Forfeiture for infringement prescribed by § 4965, Rev. Stat. The forfeiture for infringement of copyright prescribed by § 4965, Rev. Stat., is not only for every copy found in possession of the infringer, but in the alternative for every copy by him sold. American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603. 2. Actions for infringement; to what owner entitled under § 4965, Rev. Stat. Under § 4965, Rev. Stat., no penalty for infringement can be recovered with respect to prints, photographs, etc., except for sheets found in defendant's possession, and there cannot be two actions as to the same copies, one for replevin and the other for penalty; but with respect to paintings, statues and statuary an action can be brought for penalties on copies sold by the infringer and not included in those replevied in another action. Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co., 207 U. S. 375; Hills v. Hoover, 220 U. S. 334, distinguished. Ib. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 24. CORPORATIONS. 1. Power of State to limit use of property of. Whatever the general rights as to corporate property may be, a State, in granting a charter, may define and limit the use of property necessary to the exercise of the granted powers. Fifth Avenue Coach Co. v. New York, 467. 2. Duty to produce books and papers when required. A corporation is under a duty to produce records, books and papers in its possession when they may be properly required in the administration of justice. Wilson v. United States, 361. 3. Duty to respond to subpœna duces tecum; effect of §§ 877, 879, Rev. Stat., and Sixth Amendment. A corporation is not relieved from responding to a subpœna duces tecum or from producing the documents required by reason of the provisions of §§ 877 and 829, Rev. Stat., or those of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Ib. 4. Duty to submit books and papers on judicial process; right to resist on ground of self-incrimination. Under the visitatorial power of the State, and the authority of Con |