Century of Federal Judicature. power of Congress over the Indian tribes. That case established the doctrine that, while the government of the United States had theretofore recognized in the Indian tribes a state of semi-independence and pupilage, it has the right and authority to govern them by acts of Congress, instead of controlling them by treaties; this results from their being within the geographical limits of the United States, and from their necessary subjection to the laws which Congress may enact for their protection, and for the protection of the people with whom they come in contact. The States have no such power over them as long as they maintain their tribal relations. Although Justice Miller's fame rests upon his eminence as a constitutional lawyer, he bore his full share in the solution of the multi farious problems which came before the court; and in many subjects he made con tributions of great practical value. His judg ments in Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, and United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, giving to the official proceedings prelim inary to the issuance of land patents, in some respects, the conclusiveness of judgments and decrees, have contributed materially to the stability of land titles resting on United States patents. His opinion in Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall, i, with respect to the effect of a judg ment in tort as a bar; his review of admiralty jurisdiction in The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; Shanks v. Klein, 104 U. S. 18, on part nership, and Xicholls v. Easton, 91 U. S. 716, on bankruptcy, indicate the variety of his labors. His opinion in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, is one of the most elaborate ex positions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to be found in the books. Referring, in this case, to the fact that the novel and important ques tions involved had been held under advise ment for a year, he concluded with this quiet thrust: the court were "not uninfluenced by the hope that since the civil commotion, which evidently lay at the foundation of the trouble, has passed away, that charity, which
289
is so large an element in the faith of both parties, and which, by one of the apostles of that religion, is said to be the greatest of all the Christian virtues, would have brought about a reconciliation."1 'The following are Justice Miller's leading cases: Constitutional law : In general : Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 it. 603 (</»;.); In re Neagle, 135 U. S. I; United States v. Lee, 106 ib. 196; ex parte Yarbrough, no ib. 651; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35; Chicago, ftc. Railroad Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 614; Gaines?'. Thompson, 7 it. 347; United States -•. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378; tuck -: Colbath, 3 Wall. 334. Civil rights: Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168; Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 ib. 97; Kelly i Pittsburgh, 104 ib. 78; 1'umpelly z'. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166; Campbell -•. Holt, 115 U. S. 620; ex park Lange, 18 Wall. 165; Kring -'. Mis souri, 107 U. S. 221; ex parte Bain, 121 ib. I; Medley, Petitioner, 134 ib. 160; ex parte Garland, (,/iss.) Commerce clause: Fargo v. Michigan, 121 U.S. 230; Clinton Bridge case, Woolworth, 150; Reading Rail road Co.-1. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 284 (<//'«.); Chy Lung ?•. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275; Pound -•. Turck, 95 ib. 459; Packet Company?•. Catlettsburg, 105 ib. 559; Morgan Steamship Co. v. Board of Health, 118 ib. 455; W abash Railway Co. r. Illinois, 118 ib. 557. Contract clause : Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co., I Wall. 116; New Jersey;•. Yard, 95 U. S. 104; University v. People, 99 ib. 109; Biine v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 96 it. 627; Greenwood -•. Freight Co., 105 it. 13. Taxation : State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575; Woodruff i Parham, 8 Wall. 123; Headmoney Cases, 112 U. S. 580; Western Union Telegraph Co. -•. Massa chusetts, 125 ib. 530. General commercial law and public bonds : Gelpcke r. Dubuque, I Wall. 175 (diss.) Meyer v. Muscatine, it. 393 (diss.); Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 it. 202 (<//'«.); Butz v. Muscatine, 8 ib. 575 (</iss.~); Ilumbolt Township v. Long, 92 U. S. 642 (tliss.); Thompson r. Allen County. Relations with Indian tribes : United States r. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375; Gong-9hay-F.e, 130 ib. 343. Patents and copyright : United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315; United States v. Steffens, ioo;V'. 82; Mahn v. Harwood, I12/V>.354 (Jiss.) Trade Mark Cases, 100 ib. 91. Corporations : Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450; Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Oregonian Ry. Co., 130 ib. i. Land titles : Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61. Torts: Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall, i: Wooden Ware Co. v. United States, 106 U. S. 432. Admiralty and international law : The Hine v. Tre vor, 4 Wall. 555; Dow r. Johnson, too U. S. 158: United States v. 269% Bales of Cotton, Woolworth, 236; United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407. Miscellaneous: Watson r. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (ec clesiastical jurisdiction); Nicholls;•. Easton, 91 U.S. 716 (bankruptcy); Shanks p. Klein, 104 it. 18 (partnership); Memphis, etc. Railroad Co., v. Southern Express Co., 117 ib. i (common carriers); Gardner v. Collector, 6 Wall. 499 (statutes); Ker v. Illinois, (extradition).
