IMPORTS-Continued.

illustrations of prize fights for public exhibition, sustained.
Weber v. Freed. . .

See Commerce.

INCOME TAX. See Corporation Tax Act.

INDEMNITY BOND. See Bonds.

INDIANS:

Indians are wards of nation. Congress has plenary power
over tribal relations and property and restrictions as to alien-
ation of allotments, and act of April 21, 1902, removing re-
strictions on alienation of Choctaw allotments under act
of July 1, 1902, does not violate Fifth Amendment or impair
obligation of contracts with Choctaws and Chickasaws.
Williams v. Johnson. . . .

Quare, whether grantee of Indian can avail of right, if any,
to assert unconstitutionality of act of Congress affecting
rights of the Indians or whether such grantee can urge rights
of tribe to which grantor belongs. Id.

Congress in its plenary control of Indians has power to pass
act of June 25, 1910, vesting in Secretary of Interior de-
termination of heirs of allottee Indians dying within trust
period. Hallowell v. Commons ..

By passing act June 25, 1910, vesting power to determine
legal heirs allottee Indians in Secretary Interior, Congress
evinced change of public policy and its opinion as to better
manner of preserving rights of Indians. Id.

Since passage of act June 25, 1910, District Court without
jurisdiction of action to determine heirs of allottee Indian
dying during trust period. Id.

Congress by act of June 25, 1910, restored to Secretary of
Interior power taken from him by Acts 1901 and 1904 to
determine legal heirs of allottee Indians dying during re-
striction period. Id.

Under act June 25, 1910, Secretary of Interior has power to
ascertain legal heirs Omaha Indian dying during restriction
period of allotment under act August 7, 1882, and decision
final. Id.

Section 5, act of February 28, 1891, amending General Allot-
ment Act of February 8, 1887, had no effect on right of in-
heritance as to Creek Indians in Indian Territory, as that
territory was excepted. Porter v. Wilson ...

While not conclusive, construction of act of Congress rela-

PAGE

325

414

506

170

INDIANS-Continued.

tive to Indian allotments in course of actual administration
by Secretary of Interior is entitled to great weight and
should not be overruled without cogent reason. La Roque
v. United States.....

Nelson Act for allotments to Chippewas on White Earth
Indian Reservation contemplated only selections on part of
living Indians. There was no displacement of usual rule
that incidents of tribal membership and membership are
terminated by death. Id.

The fact that the Nelson Act provided for a census of the
Indians is not conclusive that the allotments were to be
made to all Indians included in the census. Id.

The act of April 23, 1904, limiting and defining authority of
Secretary of Interior in regard to cancelling patents for
trust allotments does not restrict or define power or jurisdic-
tion of court in that respect. Id.

Act of March 3, 1891, establishing six year limitation for ac-
tions by United States to annul patents is part of public land
laws and does not refer to suits to annul patents for Indian
allotments. Id.

Act of May 2, 1890, § 380, legalizing Indian marriages re-
lated only to those theretofore, and not to those thereafter
contracted. Porter v. Wilson.

INDIAN TERRITORY. See Indians.

INHERITANCE. See Escheats; Indians.

INJUNCTION:

Temporary injunction should not be granted under Jud.
Code, § 266, against enforcement of order of state railroad
commission unless bill and affidavits clearly show arbitrary
or confiscatory action and overcome presumption of rea-
sonableness. Phoenix Ry. v. Geary..

PAGE

62

170

277

Proper to grant where there are conflicting opinions of dif-
ferent Circuit Courts of Appeal in patent cases on question
of infringement and identity of patents. Fireball Tank Co. v.
Commercial Co...
156

Rights of telegraph company under Post Road Act which
would be violated by threatened arbitrary action of munic-
ipality, may be protected by equity, but injunction must
not prevent municipality from subjecting location and
operation of lines to reasonable regulations. Essex v. New
England Telephone Co..

313

INJUNCTION-Continued.

PAGE

Duty to resort to adequate remedies provided by state law
cannot be escaped by assuming even if resorted to wrong
would not have been righted. Mellon Co. v. McCafferty... 134
Failure to resort to existing administrative remedies under
State is a non-Federal ground sufficient to sustain judgment
of state court refusing injunction. Id.

See Jurisdiction.

INSTRUCTION TO JURY:

Burden of proof of assumption of risk by employé is on em-
ployer and unless evidence shows such assumption court
does not err in submitting question to jury. Kanawha Ry.
v. Kerse....

576

Employer not prejudiced by instructions given under state
law in regard to contributory negligence more favorable than
though given under Federal law and not therefore denied
Federal right. Chi., Rock Isld. & Pac. Ry. v. Wright....... 548
See Philippine

INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.

Islands.

INSURANCE:

Imposing taxes on premiums collected on life insurance
policies of residents of Kentucky in pursuance of statute of
that State after company ceased doing business unconstitu-
tional denial of due process of law. Provident Savings Ass'n
v. Kentucky. . . . .

State cannot continue to exact license tax on premiums on
lives of residents after company has withdrawn from State,
on premiums paid outside of State, as right to continue con-
tracts does not depend on consent of State. Id.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. See United States.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE:

1. What constitutes: Taking engine from one State to an-
other although only for repairs is interstate commerce.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. v. Wright. . . .

103

548

Car from another State merely delayed in State of destina-
tion and finally reaching destination not thereby withdrawn
from interstate commerce. Great Northern Ry. v. Otos.... 349
An employé distributing cars from interstate train and
clearing track for another interstate train engaged in inter-
state commerce. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Koennecke. ... 352

INTERSTATE COMMERCE-Continued.

The possibility that a local train might drop all cars and take
only local cars is too remote to withdraw a case under the
Employers' Liability Act from the jury. Id.

PAGE

Employé of an interstate carrier who is injured while moving
machinery in machine shop is not engaged in interstate
commerce. Shanks v. Del., Lack., & West. R. R.. .. .. .. .. 556
Under Act to Regulate Commerce as amended by the
Hepburn Act of 1906 transportation embraces all facilities
connected with shipment, including storage after arrival.
Cleveland & St. Louis Ry. v. Dettlebach....

Words "to ship" as used in § 240, Criminal Code, mean
continuous act and not mere act of shipment, and District
Court of district into which liquor is shipped has jurisdic-
tion of offense. United States v. Freeman....

588

.. 117

Prohibition in § 240, Criminal Code, against shipping in
interstate commerce packages of intoxicating liquor not
marked as prescribed is continuing act, performance of
which is begun when package is delivered to carrier and
completed when it reaches destination. Id.

2. Scope of Commerce Act: Effect of express contract made
for purpose of interstate commerce must be determined in
light of Act to Regulate Commerce. Cleveland & St. Louis
Ry. v. Dettlebach...

....

Anti-pass provision of the Hepburn Act of 1906 applies to
common carriers by railroad in interstate commerce with
respect to transportation within State as part of an inter-
state journey. N. Y. Central R. R. v. Gray...
While anti-pass provision of Hepburn Act operates upon
agreement made for exchange of transportation before pas-
sage of act for anything else than money and specific
performance cannot be required, interstate carrier is not
relieved from making adequate money compensation for
unpaid balance of contract for services fully performed be-
fore passage of act. Id.

3. Power of Congress over: Congress not to be denied exer-
cise of constitutional authority over interstate commerce
because necessary means have quality of police regulations.
Seven Cases &c. v. United States..

Shirley Amendment to Food and Drug Act, making mis-
branding include false and fraudulent statements as to cura-
tive power, within power of Congress to regulate interstate
commerce. Id.

Where injury was sustained while employé was engaged

588

583

510

INTERSTATE COMMERCE-Continued.

PAGE

in interstate commerce, responsibility of carrier governed
by Employers' Liability Act which is exclusive and sup-
ersedes state law; and it is error to submit case to jury
as though state law controlled. C., R. I. & P. Ry. v.
Wright..
548

Whether responsibility of interstate carrier as warehouse-
man of goods from another State not called for in 48
hours after arrival is measured by valuation in bill of lad-
ing, is Federal question. Cleveland & St. Louis Ry. v.
Dettlebach....
588

4. Power of States over: State may restrict foreign cor-
poration from doing business within State so long as in-
terstate commerce not burdened. Interstate Amusement
Co. v. Albert. . . . . . .

5. Burdens on and interference with: Tennessee statute re-
quiring foreign corporations to take specified steps before
maintaining action, not interference with interstate com-
merce. Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert. . . .

6. Reparation: Interstate carrier is not relieved from mak-
ing adequate money compensation for unpaid balance of
contract for services fully performed before the passage of
act.

N. Y. Central R. R. v. Gray....

560

560

.. 583

7. Tariffs: Valuation in bill of lading of goods shipped in
interstate commerce and limitation of carrier's liability made
for purpose of obtaining lower rate is, under Carmack
Amendment, valid and binding on shipper and applies to
carrier as such while goods are in transit and as warehouse-
man while holding goods after arrival. Cleveland & St.
Louis Ry. v. Dettlebach....
588

8. Generally: Criminal statute applicable alike to foreign and
interstate commerce will not be construed so as to render it
futile as to former, but it should be construed so as to reach
both classes. United States v. Freeman.

See Employers' Liability Act; Safety Appliance Act.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION:

Where the only questions are whether the carrier's rule as to
forfeiture of mileage books was applicable to the case and
was properly applied, this court is not concerned with
reasonableness of the rule which is a question for the Inter-
state Commerce Commission. Southern Railway v. Camp-

bell..

See Carriers.

117

99