ceedings must be brought within three years after the defendant landed in the United States. This is done under sections 20 and 21 of the immigration act of 1907, and no appeal is allowed in such a case, but the deportation must be confirmed by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor.20

It is only within a recent date that Chinese laborers have been included within this power of deportation by the executive department. Formerly they could only be deported through an order of a United States commissioner. If the Department of Commerce and Labor now seeks their deportation in the same manner through the Department of Justice, then, in case the commissioner orders them deported, they have the right of appeal to the district court of the same district. The government, however, has no appeal if the commissioner decides in favor of the alleged alien.21

104. Suits under anti-trust laws.-Under the Sherman anti-trust law the district court may restrain violations of the statute, make temporary restraining orders, seize any property owned under contract or by any combination or pursuant to any conspiracy in violation of the statute, and enforce its forfeiture; also entertain suits by any person injured in his business or property by any violation of the act.22 Such suits should be brought in the district where any plaintiff may reside,23 and summons may be served throughout the United States on other 20 34 Stats. at Large, p. 904.

21 Judicial Code § 25; 33 Stats. at Large, p. 428.

22 26 Stats. at Large, p. 209.

23 Judicial Code, § 51.

parties.24 Suits for seizures of property must be in the district where the property is situated or into which it is taken.25 Damage suits should be brought in the district where the defendant resides or the corporation defendant is organized, subject to waiver as to the proper place of trial.26 The district court may also restrain violations of the act against combinations and conspiracies in respect to the trade in any property imported from a foreign country.27 Property engaged in any such combination may be forfeited and condemned in the district court in the manner above described.28 Any person injured in his business or property by any such combination may also sue in the district court as above indicated.2

29

105. Suits relating to Indian allotment of land. -Under the Indian treaties and acts of Congress, persons of Indian blood or descent are entitled to allotments of land formerly belonging to the tribe, generally located on some Indian reservation. The district court has jurisdiction to entertain suits of ejectment and to quiet title in respect to such allotted lands. Such suits may be brought in the district where the land is located, without respect to the amount in controversy.30 Such cases go on appeal to the proper court of appeals, and may be thence taken to the Supreme Court of the United States.31

24 26 Stats. at Large, p. 209.

25 Judicial Code, § 45.

26 Judicial Code, § 51

27 37 Stats. at Large, p. 657.

28 Same.

29 28 Stats. at Large, p. 570.

30 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 24.

31 Judicial Code, §§ 128, 241.

In

32

all such trials between an Indian and a white person the burden of proof is on the latter. All suits affecting allotted lands in the eastern district of Oklahoma may be appealed from the circuit court of appeals of the eighth circuit to the Supreme Court.3 106. Partition suits where the United States is an owner in common.-Suits in equity may be brought in the district court by any tenant in common or joint tenant for the partition of land where the United States is a co-tenant, without regard to the amount in controversy, and to be in the district where the land is situated.38 Such cases go on appeal to the court of appeals, and thence to the Supreme Court, where the property is worth more than $1,000.34

107. Jurisdiction of Wyoming district court over Yellowstone Park.-The Yellowstone Park, situated within the states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, constitutes part of the judicial district of Wyoming, and the district court of that state has jurisdiction over offenses committed within the Yellowstone Park.35 Offenders in the Park are subject to the penal laws of Wyoming whenever no punishment is prescribed by the federal law.36 The protection of animals, birds, fish and objects of interest in the Park is under the jurisdiction of a United States commissioner, from whom an appeal may be taken to the Wyoming district court.37

32 36 Stats. at Large, p. 837.

33 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 25.

34 Judicial Code, § 238.

35 28 Stats. at Large, p. 73; Judicial Code, § 115.

36 28 Stats. at Large, p. 73.

108. Jurisdiction over the Hot Springs reservation, Arkansas.-This reservation is part of the eastern judicial district of Arkansas.38 Offenses in the reservation are punishable by the laws of the United States, unless they are silent, and in other cases under the municipal ordinances of the city of Hot Springs or the laws of Arkansas.39 United States commissioners are given jurisdiction in substantially the same manner as in the case of the Yellowstone Park, with preliminary jurisdiction in criminal cases.40

109. Suits against states.—By the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution it is provided that the federal judicial power shall not be construed to extend to any suit at law or in equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by aliens. At common law a sovereignty could not be sued without its consent, and the states are sovereign within this principle. The state may, however, waive the privilege.12 Suits between a state and the United States can be only in the Supreme Court,43 and may be against the United States if it has consented to be sued. Suits between states must be in the Supreme Court.45 A common instance of such suits is one to

41

44

88 33 Stats. at Large, p. 187.

39 Same.

40 Same.

41 New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76, 2 Sup. Ct. 176, 27 L. Ed. 656.

42 Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527 (U. S.), 15 L. Ed. 991.

43 United States v. North Carolina, 136 U. S. 211, 10 Sup. Ct. 920, 34 L. Ed. 336.

44 Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373, 22 Sup. Ct. 650, 46 L. Ed. 954. 45 U. S. Rev. Stats., § 687. Judicial Code, § 233.

46

determine disputed state boundaries.* Suits between states may also be maintained to enforce the contracts of the defendant state, even when such contracts have been assigned to the plaintiff by individuals, if the assignment vests an absolute title.47

49

Exceedingly difficult questions have come up in suits against state officers, and the decisions are not entirely harmonious or satisfactory. If a suit against a state officer is really one against the state, it is prohibited by the eleventh amendment. The perplexing question is when is such a suit against the state, and when not? There is no jurisdiction of suits against such an officer to enforce a state contract,48 to enforce a lien on state property by foreclosure and sale, or to recover the proceeds of property sold by a state.50 Where the suit is against an individual by name, the objection that a state is really the defendant is one going to the merits and not to the jurisdiction, and must be presented by plea or answer or it is waived.51 The objection is also waived if an authorized state officer appears for his state, and submits its rights to decision.52 Upon the question as to when a suit against a state officer is a suit against the state itself, the decisions are reviewed by Mr. Justice Peckham and by the late Justice Harlan,

46 Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U. S. 359, 12 Sup. Ct. 396, 36 L. Ed. 186. 47 See case in note 41.

48 Ex parte Ayers, 123 U. S. 43, 8 Sup. Ct. 164, 31 L. Ed. 216.

40 Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. Co., 109 U. S. 446, 3 Sup. Ct. 292, 609, 27 L. Ed. 992.

50 Ex parte Madrazzo, 7 Pet. 627 (U. S.), 8 L. Ed. 808.

51 Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (U. S.), 6 L. Ed. 204; Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28, 21 Sup. Ct. 251, 45 L. Ed. 410. 52 Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200 U. S. 273, 26 Sup. Ct. 252, 50 L. Ed. 477.