Minersville Sch. Dist., Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940)
Case details
Citation
310 U.S. 586
Full caption
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. GOBITIS ET AL.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
June 3, 1940
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. GOBITIS ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
No. 690. Argued April 25, 1940.—Decided June 3, 1940.
Certiora ri , 309 U. S. 645, to review the affirmance of a decree (24 F. Supp. 271; opinion, 21 F. Supp. 581) which perpetually enjoined the above-named School District, the members of its board of education, and its superintendent of public schools, from continuing to enforce an order expelling from the public schools certain minors (suing in this case by their father as next friend) and from p. 587requiring them to salute the national flag as a condition to their right to attend.
Mr. Joseph W. Henderson, with whom Messrs. John B. McGurl, Thomas F. Mount, and George M. Brodhead, Jr. were on the brief, for petitioners.
The resolution of the School Board requiring pupils to salute the flag was lawfully adopted, and the expulsion of the children was within its power and authority.
The expulsion of the children did not violate any right under the Constitution of the United States. Leoles n . Landers, 302 U. S. 656; Hering v. State Board of Educar tion, 303 U. S. 624; Gabrielli v. Knickerbocker, 306 U. S. 621; Johnson v. Deerfield, 306 U. S. 621; Johnson v. Deerfield, 307 U. S. 650; Leoles v. Landers, 184 Ga. 580; Hering v. State Board of Education, 118 N. J. L. 566; Gabrielli v. Knickerbocker, 12 Cal. 2d 85; Johnson v. Deerfield, 25 F. Supp. 918; People v. Sandstrom, 279 N. Y. 523; Nicholls v. Mayor, 7 N. E. 2d 577; Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U. S. 245; Coale v. Pearson, 290 U. S. 597; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145; Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11; Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366; Shapiro v. Lyle, 30 F. 2d 971; United States v. Macintosh, 283 U. S. 605, 625.
The expulsion of the children did not violate any right under the Constitution of Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Lesher, 17 S. & R. (Pa.) 155,160; Wilkes-Barre v. Garabed, 11 Pa. Super. 355, 366; Commonwealth v. Herr, 229 Pa. 132, 141; Stevenson n . Hanyon, 7 Pa. Dist. Rep. 585; Pittsburgh v. Ruffner, 134 Pa. Super. 192, 198; Oaths of Allegiance in Public Schools, 25 Pa. Dist. & County Rep. 8.
The refusal of the children to salute the national flag at school exercises because they believed that to do so would violate the written law of Almighty God as contained in the Bible was not founded on a religious belief. Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 342.
The act of saluting the flag has no bearing on what a pupil may think of his Creator or what are his relations to his Creator. Nor is a pupil required to exhibit his religious sentiments in a particular “form of worship” when saluting the flag, because the ceremony is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a “form of worship.” Like the study of history or civics or the doing of any other act which might make a pupil more patriotic as well as teach him or her “loyalty to the State and National Government,” the salute has no religious implications. Nicholls v. Mayor, 7 N. E. 2d 577, 580; Leoles v. Landers, 184 Ga. 580, 587; Peoples v. Sandstrom, 279 N. Y. 523, 529.
The commandments of Jehovah, as set forth in the Bible, do not prohibit the saluting of a national flag but on the contrary approve of that practice.
The act of saluting the flag is only one of many ways in which a citizen may evidence his respect for the Government. Every citizen stands at attention, and the men remove their hats, when the national anthem is played; yet such action can not be called a religious ceremony. The same respect is shown the American flag when it passes in a parade; yet that is not a religious rite.
Though members of Jehovah’s Witnesses endeavor to extend religious implications to a ceremony purely patriotic in design, they do not accord to others the religious freedom which they demand for themselves, claiming that there is no limit to which they may go when they think they are worshipping God. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 126 Conn. 1; 310 U. S. 296.
The act of saluting the flag does not prevent a pupil, no matter what his religious belief may be, from acknowledging the spiritual sovereignty of Almighty God by rendering to God the things which are God’s. Hardwick v. Board of School Trustees, 54 Cal. App. 696, 712.
Messrs. Joseph F. Rutherford and George K. Gardner argued the cause, and with the former Mr. Hayden Covington was on the brief, for respondents.
586 Arguments for Respondents.
The rule compelling respondents to participate in the ceremony of saluting the flag and the act of its School Board in expelling them because they refrained, violate their rights guaranteed by Art. I, § 3, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The vital question is: Shall the creature man be free to exercise his conscientious belief in God and his obedience to the law of Almighty God, the Creator, or shall the creature man be compelled to obey the law or rule of the State, which law of the State, as the creature conscientiously believes, is in direct conflict with the law of Almighty God?
This Court has repeatedly held that the individual alone is privileged to determine what he shall or shall not believe. The law, therefore, does not attempt to settle differences of creeds and confessions, or to say that any point or doctrine is too absurd to be believed. That rule was laid down more than one hundred years ago by the Pennsylvania courts in Schriber v. Rapp, 5 Watts 351, 363.
As early as 1784 a like question was before the House of Delegates of the State of Virginia. Mr. Jefferson prepared a Bill: “For establishing religious freedom.” After defining religious freedom and reciting “that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,” it is declared “that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.” See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 162.
Will any court attempt to say that respondents mistakenly believe what is set forth in the twentieth chapter of Exodus in the Bible? The belief of respondents is not based upon conjecture or a myth. Respondents’ belief is based strictly upon the Bible. The minor respondents p. 590from their infancy have been taught by their father to rely upon the Bible.
The saluting of the flag of any earthly government by a person who has covenanted to do the will of God is a form of religion and constitutes idolatry.
The modern-day compulsory flag saluting as a daily exercise or ceremony in the public schools is clearly an experiment. The nation has existed for more than a century without any such enforced rule. To expel children from school and deny them the opportunity of an education because they refuse to violate their conscience, is wrong and is cruel and unusual punishment. “No cruel experiment on any living creature shall be permitted in any public school of this Commonwealth.” 24 Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1554.
“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding.” Mr. Justice Brandeis, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 479. See Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U. S. 103, 141.
The rule certainly abridges the privileges of the respondents and deprives them of liberty and property without due process of law. Cf. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535
Petitioners claim that the purpose of saluting the flag is to “Instill in the children patriotism and love of country.” But why limit that compulsory rule to teachers and pupils of the public schools? Why not require that same ceremony in all the schools? Why not apply the same rule to all officials of the Nation and State, from the President and the members of Congress down to the very least and humblest citizen? The general answer would be that the enforcement of such a rule is ridiculous and nonsensical. Chap. 14, “Patriotism of the Flag,” Moss, The Flag of the United States, Its History and Symbolism, pp. 85-86.
By leave of Court, briefs of amici curiae were filed on behalf of the Committee on the Bill of Rights, of the American Bar Association, consisting of Messrs. Douglas Arant, Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Grenville Clark, Osmer C. Fitts, Lloyd K. Garrison, George I. Haight, Monte M. Lemann, Ross L. Malone, Jr., Burton W. Musser, Joseph A. Padway, and Charles P. Taft; and by Messrs. George K. Gardner, Arthur Garfield Hays, Osmond K. Fraenkel, William G. Fennell, Jerome M. Britchey, and Alexander H. Frey, on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union,— urging affirmance.
Mr . Justic e Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court.
A grave responsibility confronts this Court whenever in course of litigation it must reconcile the conflicting claims of liberty and authority. But when the liberty invoked is liberty of conscience, and the authority is authority to safeguard the nation’s fellowship, judicial conscience is put to its severest test. Of such a nature is the present controversy.
Lillian Gobitis, aged twelve, and her brother William, aged ten, were expelled from the public schools of Minersville, Pennsylvania, for refusing to salute the national flag as part of a daily school exercise. The local Board of Education required both teachers and pupils to participate in this ceremony. The ceremony is a familiar one. The right hand is placed on the breast and the following pledge recited in unison: “I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” While the words are spoken, teachers and pupils extend their right hands in salute to the flag. The Gobitis family are affiliated with “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” for whom the Bible as the Word of God is the supreme authority. The chil- p. 592dren had been brought up conscientiously to believe that such a gesture of respect for the flag was forbidden by command of Scripture.1
The Gobitis children were of an age for which Pennsylvania makes school attendance compulsory. Thus they were denied a free education, and their parents had to put them into private schools. To be relieved of the financial burden thereby entailed, their father, on behalf of the children and in his own behalf, brought this suit. He sought to enjoin the authorities from continuing to exact participation in the flag-salute ceremony as a condition of his children’s attendance at the Minersville school. After trial of the issues, Judge Maris gave relief in the District Court, 24 F. Supp. 271, on the basis of a thoughtful opinion at a preliminary stage of the litigation, 21 F. Supp. 581; his decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 108 F. 2d 683. Since this decision ran counter to several per curiam dispositions of this Court,12 we granted certiorari to give the matter full reconsideration. 309 U. S. 645. By their able submissions, the Committee on the Bill of Rights of the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, as friends of the Court, have helped us to our conclusion.
We must decide whether the requirement of participation in such a ceremony, exacted from a child who refuses p. 593upon sincere religious grounds, infringes without due process of law the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
1
Reliance is especially placed on the following verses from Chapter 20 of Exodus: “3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. “4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: "5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: ...” 2 Leoles v. Landers, 302 U. 8. 656; Hering v. State Board of Education, 303 U. S. 624; GabrieUi v. Knickerbocker, 306 U. S. 621; Johnson v. Deerfield, 306 U. S. 621; 307 U. S. 650. Compare New York v. Sandstrom, 279 N. Y. 523; 18 N. E. 2d 840; Nicholls v. Mayor and School Committee of Lynn, 1 N, E, 2d 577 (Mass.).
Centuries of strife over the erection of particular dogmas as exclusive or all-comprehending faiths led to the inclusion of a guarantee for religious freedom in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, and the Fourteenth through its absorption of the First, sought to guard against repetition of those bitter religious struggles by prohibiting the establishment of a state religion and by securing to every sect the free exercise of its faith. So pervasive is the acceptance of this precious right that its scope is brought into question, as here, only when the conscience of individuals collides with the felt necessities of society.
Certainly the affirmative pursuit of one’s convictions about the ultimate mystery of the universe and man’s relation to it is placed beyond the reach of law. Government may not interfere with organized or individual expression of belief or disbelief. Propagation of belief— or even of disbelief—in the supernatural is protected, whether in church or chapel, mosque or synagogue, tabernacle or meeting-house. Likewise the Constitution assures generous immunity to the individual from imposition of penalties for offending, in the course of his own religious activities, the religious views of others, be they a minority or those who are dominant in government. Cantwell v. Connecticut, ante, p. 296.
But the manifold character of man’s relations may bring his conception of religious duty into conflict with the secular interests of his fellow-men. When does the constitutional guarantee compel exemption from doing what society thinks necessary for the promotion of some great common end, or from a penalty for conduct which appears dangerous to the general good? To state the
269631°—40------ 38
problem is to recall the truth that no single principle can answer all of life’s complexities. The right to freedom of religious belief, however dissident and however obnoxious to the cherished beliefs of others—even of a majority—is itself the denial of an absolute. But to affirm that the freedom to follow conscience has itself no limits in the life of a society would deny that very plurality of principles which, as a matter of history, underlies protection of religious toleration. Compare Mr. Justice Holmes in Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 355. Our present task, then, as so often the case with courts, is to reconcile two rights in order to prevent either from destroying the other. But, because in safeguarding conscience we are dealing with interests so subtle and so dear, every possible leeway should be given to the claims of religious faith.
In the judicial enforcement of religious freedom we are concerned with a historic concept. See Mr. Justice Cardozo in Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U. S. at 265. The religious liberty which the Constitution protects has never excluded legislation of general scope not directed against doctrinal loyalties of particular sects. Judicial nullification of legislation cannot be justified by attributing to the framers of the Bill of Rights views for which there is no historic warrant. Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.3 The mere possession of religious convictions
3 Compare II Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Ford ed.) p. 102; 3 Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, pp. 274, 307-308; 1 Rhode Island Colonial Records, pp. 378-80; 2 Id. pp. 5-6; Wiener, Roger Williams’ Contribution to Modem Thought, 28 Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, No. 1; Ernst, The Political Thought of Roger Williams, chap. VII; W. K. Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England, passim. See Commonwealth v. Herr, 229 Pa. 132; 78 A. 68.
3
So far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, it is within the province of the legislatures and school authorities of the several States to adopt appropriate means to evoke and foster a sentiment of national unity among the children in the public schools. P. 597.
which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities. The necessity for this adjustment has again and again been recognized. In a number of situations the exertion of political authority has been sustained, while basic considerations of religious freedom have been left inviolate. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145; Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333; Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366; Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U. S. 245. In all these cases the general laws in question, upheld in their application to those who refused obedience from religious conviction, were manifestations of specific powers of government deemed by the legislature essential to secure and maintain that orderly, tranquil, and free society without which religious toleration itself is unattainable. Nor does the freedom of speech assured by Due Process move in a more absolute circle of immunity than that enjoyed by religious freedom. Even if it were assumed that freedom of speech goes beyond the historic concept of full opportunity to utter and to disseminate views, however heretical or offensive to dominant opinion, and includes freedom from conveying what may be deemed an implied but rejected affirmation, the question remains whether school children, like the Gobitis children, must be excused from conduct required of all the other children in the promotion of national cohesion. We are dealing with an interest inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values. National unity is the basis of national security. To deny the legislature the right to select appropriate means for its attainment presents a totally different order of problem from that of the propriety of subordinating the possible ugliness of littered streets to the free expression of opinion through distribution of handbills. Compare Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147.
Situations like the present are phases of the profoundest problem confronting a democracy—the problem which Lincoln cast in memorable dilemma: “Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?” No mere textual reading or logical talisman can solve the dilemma. And when the issue demands judicial determination, it is not the personal notion of judges of what wise adjustment requires which must prevail.
Unlike the instances we have cited, the case before us is not concerned with an exertion of legislative power for the promotion of some specific need or interest of secular society—the protection of the family, the promotion of health, the common defense, the raising of public revenues to defray the cost of government. But all these specific activities of government presuppose the existence of an organized political society. The ultimate foundation of a free society is the binding tie of cohesive sentiment. Such a sentiment is fostered by all those agencies of the mind and spirit which may serve to gather up the traditions of a people, transmit them from generation to generation, and thereby create that continuity of a treasured common life which constitutes a civilization. “We live by symbols.” The flag is the symbol of our national unity, transcending all internal differences, however large, within the framework of the Constitution. This Court has had occasion to say that “. . . the flag is the symbol of the Nation’s power, the emblem of freedom in its truest, best sense. ... it signifies government resting on the consent of the governed; liberty regulated by law; the protection of the weak against the strong; security against the exercise of arbitrary power; and absolute safety for free institutions against foreign aggression.” Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U. S. 34, 43. And see p. 597United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. Co., 160 U. S. 668/
The case before us must be viewed as though the legislature of Pennsylvania had itself formally directed the flag-salute for the children of Minersville; had made no exemption for children whose parents were possessed of conscientious scruples like those of the Gobitis family; and had indicated its belief in the desirable ends to be secured by having its public school children share a common experience at those periods of development when their minds are supposedly receptive to its assimilation, by an exercise appropriate in time and place and setting, and one designed to evoke in them appreciation of the nation’s hopes and dreams, its sufferings and sacrifices. The precise issue, then, for us to decide is whether the legislatures of the various states and the authorities in a thousand counties and school districts of this country are barred from determining the appropriateness of various means to evoke that unifying sentiment without which there can ultimately be no liberties, civil or religious.5 To stigmatize legislative judgment in providing for this universal gesture of respect for the symbol of our national life in the setting of the common school as a lawless inroad on that freedom of conscience which the Constitution protects, would amount to no less than the pronouncement of pedagogical and psychological dogma in a field where courts possess no marked and certainly no p. 598controlling competence. The influences which help toward a common feeling for the common country are manifold. Some may seem harsh and others no doubt are foolish. Surely, however, the end is legitimate. And the effective means for its attainment are still so uncertain and so unauthenticated by science as to preclude us from putting the widely prevalent belief in flag-saluting beyond the pale of legislative power. It mocks reason and denies our whole history to find in the allowance of a requirement to salute our flag on fitting occasions the seeds of sanction for obeisance to a leader.
The wisdom of training children in patriotic impulses by those compulsions which necessarily pervade so much of the educational process is not for our independent judgment. Even were we convinced of the folly of such a measure, such belief would be no proof of its unconstitutionality. For ourselves, we might be tempted to say that the deepest patriotism is best engendered by giving unfettered scope to the most crochety beliefs. Perhaps it is best, even from the standpoint of those interests which ordinances like the one under review seek to promote, to give to the least popular sect leave from conformities like those here in issue. But the courtroom is not the arena for debating issues of educational policy. It is not our province to choose among competing considerations in the subtle process of securing effective loyalty to the traditional ideals of democracy, while respecting at the same time individual idiosyncracies among a people so diversified in racial origins and religious allegiances. So to hold would in effect make us the school board for the country. That authority has not been given to this Court, nor should we assume it.
We are dealing here with the formative period in the development of citizenship. Great diversity of psychological and ethical opinion exists among us concerning the best way to train children for their place in society. Be- p. 599cause of these differences and because of reluctance to permit a single, iron-cast system of education to be imposed upon a nation compounded of so many strains, we have held that, even though public education is one of our most cherished democratic institutions, the Bill of Rights bars a state from compelling all children to attend the public schools. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. But it is a very different thing for this Court to exercise censorship over the conviction of legislatures that a particular program or exercise will best promote in the minds of children who attend the common schools an attachment to the institutions of their country.
What the school authorities are really asserting is the right to awaken in the child’s mind considerations as to the significance of the flag contrary to those implanted by the parent. In such an attempt the state is normally at a disadvantage in competing with the parent’s authority, so long—and this is the vital aspect of religious toleration—as parents are unmolested in their right to counteract by their own persuasiveness the wisdom and rightness of those loyalties which the state’s educational system is seeking to promote. Except where the transgression of constitutional liberty is too plain for argument, personal freedom is best maintained—so long as the remedial channels of the democratic process remain open and unobstructed6—when it is ingrained in a people’s habits and not enforced against popular policy by the coercion of adjudicated law. That the flag-salute is an allowable portion of a school program for those who do not invoke conscientious scruples is surely not debatable. But for us to insist that, though the ceremony may be required, exceptional immunity must be
"In cases like Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353; Lovell n . Griffin, 303 U. S. 444; Hague v. C. I. 0., 307 U. S. 496, and Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, the Court was concerned with restrictions cutting off appropriate means through which, in a free society, the processes of popular rule may effectively function.
given to dissidents, is to maintain that there is no basis for a legislative judgment that such an exemption might introduce elements of difficulty into the school discipline, might cast doubts in the minds of the other children which would themselves weaken the effect of the exercise.
The preciousness of the family relation, the authority and independence which give dignity to parenthood, indeed the enjoyment of all freedom, presuppose the kind of ordered society which is summarized by our flag. A society which is dedicated to the preservation of these ultimate values of civilization may in self-protection utilize the educational process for inculcating those almost unconscious feelings which bind men together in a comprehending loyalty, whatever may be their lesser differences and difficulties. That is to say, the process may be utilized so long as men’s right to believe as they please, to win others to their way of belief, and their right to assemble in their chosen places of worship for the devotional ceremonies of their faith, are all fully respected.
Judicial review, itself a limitation on popular government, is a fundamental part of our constitutional scheme. But to the legislature no less than to courts is committed the guardianship of deeply-cherished liberties. See Missouri, K. cfc T. Ry. Co. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, 270. Where all the effective means of inducing political changes are left free from interference, education in the abandonment of foolish legislation is itself a training in liberty. To fight out the wise use of legislative authority in the forum of public opinion and before legislative assemblies rather than.to transfer such a contest to the judicial arena, serves to vindicate the self-confidence of a free people.7
Reversed.
’It is to be noted that the Congress has not entered the field of legislation here under consideration.
Mr . Justice Mc Reynolds concurs in the result.
Mr . Justice Stone , dissenting :
I think the judgment below should be affirmed.
Two youths, now fifteen and sixteen years of age, are by the judgment of this Court held liable to expulsion from the public schools and to denial of all publicly supported educational privileges because of their refusal to yield to the compulsion of a law which commands their participation in a school ceremony contrary to their religious convictions. They and their father are citizens and have not exhibited by any action or statement of opinion, any disloyalty to the Government of the United States. They are ready and willing to obey all its laws which do not conflict with what they sincerely believe to be the higher commandments of God. It is not doubted that these convictions are religious, that they are genuine, or that the refusal to yield to the compulsion of the law is in good faith and with all sincerity. It would be a denial of their faith as well as the teachings of most religions to say that children of their age could not have religious convictions.
The law which is thus sustained is unique in the history of Anglo-American legislation. It does more than suppress freedom of speech and more than prohibit the free exercise of religion, which concededly are forbidden by the First Amendment and are violations of the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth. For by this law the state seeks to coerce these children to express a sentiment which, as they interpret it, they do not entertain, and which violates their deepest religious convictions. It is not denied that such compulsion is a prohibited infringement of personal liberty, freedom of speech and religion, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, except in so far as it may be justified and supported as a proper exercise of the state’s power over public education. Since the state,
Stone , J., dissenting. 310U.S.
in competition with parents, may through teaching in the public schools indoctrinate the minds of the young, it is said that in aid of its undertaking to inspire loyalty and devotion to constituted authority and the flag which symbolizes it, it may coerce the pupil to make affirmation contrary to his belief and in violation of his religious faith. And, finally, it is said that since the Minersville School Board and others are of the opinion that the country will be better served by conformity than by the observance of religious liberty which the Constitution prescribes, the courts are not free to pass judgment on the Board’s choice.
Concededly the constitutional guaranties of personal liberty are not always absolutes. Government has a right to survive and powers conferred upon it are not necessarily set at naught by the express prohibitions of the Bill of Rights. It may make war and raise armies. To that end it may compel citizens to give military service, Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366, and subject them to military training despite their religious objections. Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U. S. 245. It may suppress religious practices dangerous to morals, and presumably those also which are inimical to public safety, health and good order. Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333. But it is a long step, and one which I am unable to take, to the position that government may, as a supposed educational measure and as a means of disciplining the young, compel public affirmations which violate their religious conscience.
The very fact that we have constitutional guaranties of civil liberties and the specificity of their command where freedom of speech and of religion are concerned require some accommodation of the powers which government normally exercises, when no question of civil liberty is involved, to the constitutional demand that those liberties be protected against the action of govern- p. 603ment itself. The state concededly has power to require and control the education of its citizens, but it cannot by a general law compelling attendance at public schools preclude attendance at a private school adequate in its instruction, where the parent seeks to secure for the child the benefits of religious instruction not provided by the public school. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. And only recently we have held that the state’s authority to control its public streets by generally applicable regulations is not an absolute to which free speech must yield, and cannot be made the medium of its suppression, Hague n . Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U. S. 496, 514, et seq., any more than can its authority to penalize littering of the streets by a general law be used to suppress the distribution of handbills as a means of communicating ideas to their recipients. Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147.
In these cases it was pointed out that where there are competing demands of the interests of government and of liberty under the Constitution, and where the performance of governmental functions is brought into conflict with specific constitutional restrictions, there must, when that is possible, be reasonable accommodation between them so as to preserve the essentials of both and that it is the function of courts to determine whether such accommodation is reasonably possible. In the cases just mentioned the Court was of opinion that there were ways enough to secure the legitimate state end without infringing the asserted immunity, or that the inconvenience caused by the inability to secure that end satisfactorily through other means, did not outweigh freedom of speech or religion. So here, even if we believe that such compulsions will contribute to national unity, there are other ways to teach loyalty and patriotism which are the sources of national unity, than by compelling the pupil to affirm that which he does not believe and by
Stone , J., dissenting. 310 U. S.
commanding a form of affirmance which violates his religious convictions. Without recourse to such compulsion the state is free to compel attendance at school and require teaching by instruction and study of all in our history and in the structure and organization of our government, including the guaranties of civil liberty which tend to inspire patriotism and love of country. I cannot say that government here is deprived of any interest or function which it is entitled to maintain at the expense of the protection of civil liberties by requiring it to resort to the alternatives which do not coerce an affirmation of belief.
The guaranties of civil liberty are but guaranties of freedom of the human mind and spirit and of reasonable freedom and opportunity to express them. They presuppose the right of the individual to hold such opinions as he will and to give them reasonably free expression, and his freedom, and that of the state as well, to teach and persuade others by the communication of ideas. The very essence of the liberty which they guaranty is the freedom of the individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall say, at least where the compulsion is to bear false witness to his religion. If these guaranties are to have any meaning they must, I think, be deemed to withhold from the state any authority to compel belief or the expression of it where that expression violates religious convictions, whatever may be the legislative view of the desirability of such compulsion.
History teaches us that there have been but few infringements of personal liberty by the state which have not been justified, as they are here, in the name of righteousness and the public good, and few which have not been directed, as they are now, at politically helpless minorities. The framers were not unaware that under the system which they created most governmental cur- p. 605586 Stone , J., dissenting.
tailments of personal liberty would have the support of a legislative judgment that the public interest would be better served by its curtailment than by its constitutional protection. I cannot conceive that in prescribing, as limitations upon the powers of government, the freedom of the mind and spirit secured by the explicit guaranties of freedom of speech and religion, they intended or rightly could have left any latitude for a legislative judgment that the compulsory expression of belief which violates religious convictions would better serve the public interest than their protection. The Constitution may well elicit expressions of loyalty to it and to the government which it created, but it does not command such expressions or otherwise give any indication that compulsory expressions of loyalty play any such part in our scheme of government as to override the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and religion. And while such expressions of loyalty, when voluntarily given, may promote national unity, it is quite another matter to say that their compulsory expression by children in violation of their own and their parents’ religious convictions can be regarded as playing so important a part in our national unity as to leave school boards free to exact it despite the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. The very terms of the Bill of Rights preclude, it seems to me, any reconciliation of such compulsions with the constitutional guaranties by a legislative declaration that they are more important to the public welfare than the Bill of Rights.
But even if this view be rejected and it is considered that there is some scope for the determination by legislatures whether the citizen shall be compelled to give public expression of such sentiments contrary to his religion, I am not persuaded that we should refrain from passing upon the legislative judgment “as long as the remedial
Stone , J., dissenting. 310U.S.
channels of the democratic process remain open and unobstructed.” This seems to me no less than the surrender of the constitutional protection of the liberty of small minorities to the popular will. We have previously pointed to the importance of a searching judicial inquiry into the legislative judgment in situations where prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may tend to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied on to protect minorities. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144,152, note 4. And until now we have not hesitated similarly to scrutinize legislation restricting the civil liberty of racial and religious minorities although no political process was affected. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U. S. 284. Here we have such a small minority entertaining in good faith a religious belief, which is such a departure from the usual course of human conduct, that most persons are disposed to regard it with little toleration or concern. In such circumstances careful scrutiny of legislative efforts to secure conformity of belief and opinion by a compulsory affirmation of the desired belief, is especially needful if civil rights are to receive any protection. Tested by this standard, I am not prepared to say that the right of this small and helpless minority, including children having a strong religious conviction, whether they understand its nature or not, to refrain from an expression obnoxious to their religion, is to be overborne by the interest of the state in maintaining discipline in the schools.
The Constitution expresses more than the conviction of the people that democratic processes must be preserved at all costs. It is also an expression of faith and a command that freedom of mind and spirit must be preserved, which government must obey, if it is to adhere to that justice and moderation without which no free govern- p. 607ment can exist. For this reason it would seem that legislation which operates to repress the religious freedom of small minorities, which is admittedly within the scope of the protection of the Bill of Rights, must at least be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as legislation which we have recently held to infringe the constitutional liberty of religious and racial minorities.
With such scrutiny I cannot say that the inconveniences which may attend some sensible adjustment of school discipline in order that the religious convictions of these children may be spared, presents a problem so momentous or pressing as to outweigh the freedom from compulsory violation of religious faith which has been thought worthy of constitutional protection.
(no text on this page in the source reporter)
DECISIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM APRIL
23,1940, THROUGH JUNE 3, 1940.*
No. 879. Loving et al ., a Copartner ship , v . Unite d States et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma. April 29, 1940. Per Curiam: The judgment is affirmed. McDonald v. Thompson, 305 U. S. 263, 266; United States v. Maher, 307 U. S. 148,153-154; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific R. Co., 222 U. S. 541, 547-548; Los Angeles Switching Case, 234 U. S. 294, 311-312. Messrs. Robert H. Ledbetter and E. P. Ledbetter for appellants. Reported below: 32 F. Supp. 464.
No. 881. Ohio ex rel . Jonak v . White et al ., Membe rs of the Industrial Comm iss ion of Ohio . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. April 29,1940. Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U. S. 230, 236; Holmes v. Conway, 241 U. S. 624, 631-632; Hardware Dealers Insurance Co. v. Glidden, 284 U. S. 151, 158; Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105; Radium Dial Co. v. Ryan, 308 U. S. 504. Mr. Lody Huml for appellant. Mr. Thomas J. Herbert for appellees. Reported below: 136 Ohio St. 213; 24 N. E. 2d 826.
No. —, original. Ex par te John A. Curtis . April 29, 1940. Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. —, original. Ex par te Railroad Commis si on of Texas et al . April 29, 1940. Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus denied.
No. 552. Murray , Receiver , et al . v . City of New York et al .; and
No. 558. Roberts , Recei ver , v . Murray , Receive r , et al . April 29,1940. The motion further to defer consideration of the petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is granted and consideration is deferred until October 7 next. The Chief Justic e took no part in the consideration and decision of this application. Reported below: 103 F. 2d 889.
No. 915. Southern Service Co ., Ltd ., v . County of Los Angele s et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of California. May 6, 1940. Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. (1) Graham & Foster v. Goodcell, 282 U. S. 409,429-430; Eitel v. Toman, 308 U. S. 505; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Toman, 308 U. S. 505. (2) Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 281 U. S. 146, 159; Railroad Co. v. Commissioners, 98 U. S. 541, 543-544; Chesebrough v. United. States, 192 U. S. 253,259-260. Messrs. W. Sumner Holbrook, Jr., Karl D. Loos, and Preston B. Kavanagh for appellant. Mr. W. B. McKesson for the County of Los Angeles; and Messrs. Ray L. Chesebro and Leon Thomas David for the City of Los Angeles, appellees. Reported below: 15 Cal. 2d 1; 97 P. 2d 963.
No. 921. Wynne et al . v . Texas . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Texas. May 6, 1940. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial p. 611federal question. Hodge v. Muscatine County, 196 U. S. 276. Mr. Sproesser Wynn for appellants. Reported below: 134 Texas 455; 113 S. W. 2d 325; 133 S. W. 2d 951.
No. 930. Railr oad Commis sion of Texas et al . v . Humble Oil & Refi ning Co . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas. May 6, 1940. Motion for stay. The enforcement of the injunction is stayed until action upon the statement as to jurisdiction. See p. 616.
No. —, original. Ex parte W. J. Meredi th et al . May 6, 1940. The motion for a temporary restraining order pending the motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus, presented to Mr . Just ice Frank - furt er and referred by him to the Court, is denied.
No. —, original. Ex parte R. L. Scott . May 6, 1940. Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus denied.
No. 943. Eavey Company et al . v . Departm ent of Treasury of India na et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Indiana. May 20, 1940. Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610; Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U. S. 169, 173; Carley & Hamilton v. Snook, 281 U. S. 66, 72-73; Arthur v. Indiana, 309 U. S. 630. Messrs. Lloyd D. Claycombe and Albert Stump for appellants. Messrs. Joseph W. Hutchinson and Rexell A. Boyd for appellees. Reported below: 24 N. E. 2d 268.
No. —, original. Ex parte Josep h Murphy . May 20, 1940. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. —, original. Ex parte W. J. Meredit h . May 20, 1940. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.
No. 813. Montgomer y Ward & Co. v. Duncan . May 20, 1940. Motion of the respondent to dismiss the writ of certiorari denied.
No. 1003. Shell ey v . United State s . May 20, 1940. Application denied. Rebecca Shelley, pro se.
No. 13, original. Pennsylvania v . New Jers ey et al . Argued April 22, 1940. Decided May 27, 1940. Per Curiam: As the questions sought to be presented in this suit by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been determined by the judgment of this Court in Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. Colburn, ante, p. 419, the complaint herein is dismissed without costs to either party. Mr. Wm. A. Schnader, with whom Mr. Claude T. Reno, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, was on the brief, for complainant. Mr. John W. Ockjord, Assistant Attorney General, for New Jersey; and Mr. Egbert Rosencrans and Mr. Robert B. Meyner, pro hoc vice, for John D. Colburn et al.,—defendants.
No. 459. H. Rouw Company v . Crivell a . Certiorari, 308 U. S. 544, to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Submitted February 8, 1940. Decided May 27, 1940. Per Curiam: In the light of Public, No. p. 613515, 76th Congress, Third Session, approved May 14,1940, and, it appearing that it was the intention of the Congress to make that Act applicable to the present case, and to other cases similarly situated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to hear the appeal from the award of the Secretary of Agriculture. Messrs. William L. Curtis and D. H. Howell submitted for petitioner. Messrs. Harry P. Daily and John P. Wood submitted for respondent. By leave of Court, Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Robert L. Stem, Robert K. McConnaughey, Mastin G. White, and Joseph 0. Parker filed a brief on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. Reported below: 105 F. 2d 434.
No. 822. State of Washington ex rel . Columbia Broadcasting Co . v . Superi or Court of the State of Washi ngton for King Count y et al . Certiorari, 309 U. S. 638, to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. May 27, 1940. Per Curiam: It appearing that the cause has become moot, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated and the cause is remanded for such proceedings as by that court may be deemed appropriate, without costs to either party in this Court. Florida n . Knott, 308 U. S. 507. Messrs. Cassius E. Gates and Godfrey Goldmark for petitioner. Reported below: 1 Wash. 2d 379; 96 P. 2d 248.
No. 998. Saenger Realty Corp . v . Gros jean , Collec - tor of Revenue . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Louisiana. May 27, 1940. Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a properly presented substantial federal question. (1) p. 614Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 117; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441,443. (2) Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 265 U. S. 30, 32; Lefjingwell v. Warren, 2 Black 599, 603; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U. S. 358, 362. Mr. Charles Rosen for appellant. Messrs. F. A. Blanche and E. Leland Richardson for appellee. Reported below: 194 La. 470; 193 So. 710.
No. —, original. Ex parte Roy Hulli g ; No. —, original. Ex parte Arthur R. Mc Cleary ; and No. —, original. Ex parte Harry Murray . May 27, 1940. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.
No. —, original. Ex parte Norman Baker . May 27, 1940. The motion for leave to file petition for writ’of habeas corpus is denied. The motion for leave to apply for a writ of certiorari is also denied.
No. —, original. United States ex rel . Geise lman v . Hunt , Warden . May 27, 1940. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, denied.
No. —. Lewis , Executri x , et al . v . Fontento , Col - lector . May 27, 1940. Application denied.
No. 15, original. Kansas v . Miss ouri . May 27, 1940. The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is granted p. 615and process is ordered to issue returnable September 1, next. Messrs. Jay S. Parker, Attorney General of Kansas, A. B. Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General, Clarence V. Beck, and Errett P. Scrivner for complainant.
No. 1001. Doyle v . City of St . Paul et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Minnesota. June 3, 1940. Per Curiam: The judgment is affirmed. Violet Trapping Co. n . Grace, 297 U. S. 119, 120; Ingraham v. Hanson, 297 U. S. 378, 381; Schenebeck v. McCrary, 298 U. S. 36, 37. Mr. Oscar Hallam for appellant. Mr. John W. McConneloug for appellees. Reported below: 206 Minn. 649; 289 N. W. 784.
No. 476. United States v . Northern Pacific Rail - way Co. et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Washington. June 3, 1940. This cause is set for reargument October 14, 1940. The Court desires to hear argument limited to the purpose, scope, and effect of the Act of June 25, 1929, the relief thereby afforded the parties, and the defenses made available to them; and to appellant’s assignments of errors 1-12 inc., 13 (insofar as it relates to failure to construct a line from Wallula, Washington, to Portland, Oregon), 19-27 inc., 29, 30, 32, 33, 36-40 inc., 42, 43, 52-54 inc.—particularly with reference to the bearing of the matters comprehended in these assignments upon the nature and extent of the relief accorded, and the defenses made available, to the parties respectively, by §§ 1, 2, 5, and 6 of said Act.
No. —, original. Ex parte Edmond C. Fletcher . June 3, 1940. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition denied.
No. —, original. Ex parte Robert H. Denton , Jr . «June 3, 1940. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. —, original. Ex parte Albert Smith . June 3, 1940. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.
No. 15, original. Kansas v . Miss ouri . June 3, 1940. Motion of E. A. Cole for leave to file a Bill of Intervention denied. Messrs. Jay S. Parker, Attorney General of Kansas, A. B. Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General, Clarence V. Beck, and Errett P. Scrivner for complainant. Mr. Robert Stone for E. A. Cole.
No. 785. Lowman v . Federal Land Bank of Louis - vill e et al . June 3, 1940. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing in this case granted. See post, p. 656.
No. 930. Railr oad Commis si on of Texas et al . v. Humble Oil & Refi ning Co . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas. June 3, 1940. In this case probable jursidiction is noted. The motion to advance is denied. The motion for stay is granted and the enforcement of the decree of the District Court is stayed pending the determination of the case by this. Court.
DECISIONS GRANTING CERTIORARI, FROM APRIL 23, 1940, THROUGH JUNE 3, 1940.
No. 907. Bernards et al . v . Johnso n et al . April 29, 1940. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, p. 617and petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, granted. Martin J. Bernards and Lena Bernards, pro se. Reported below: 103 F. 2d 567.
No. 843. Helvering , Commis sioner of Internal Revenue , v . Janney et al . April 29, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Mr . Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration and decision of this application. Attorney General Jackson for petitioner. Reported below: 103 F. 2d 564.
No. 847. Stern Brothers & Co. v. Helvering , Com - mis sioner of Internal Revenue . April 29, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Messrs. Arthur Mag and John H. McEvers for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 309.
No. 864. Federa l Communi cations Commis sion v . Columbia Broadca sti ng Syst em of Califo rnia , Inc . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted. Solicitor General Biddle and Mr. William J. Dempsey for petitioner. Mr. D. M. Patrick for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 737.
No. 865. Federal Communic ations Comm issi on v . Ass ociated Broadcaste rs . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted. Solicitor General Biddle and Mr. William J. Dempsey for petitioner. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 737.
No. 867. C. E. Stevens Co . et al . v . Fost er & Klei - ser Co. et al . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Messrs. H. B. Jones and Wheeler Grey for petitioners. Messrs. Herbert W. Clark and Stephens V. Carey for respondents. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 764.
Nos. 888 and 889. West et al . v . American Tele - phone & Telegraph Co . May 6, 1940. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Messrs. Orlin F. Goudy and H. L. Deibel for petitioners. Mr. William B. Cockley for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 347.
No. 901. Wright v . Union Central Life Insurance Co. et al . May 20, 1940. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, granted. Messrs. Samuel E. Cook and William Lemke for petitioner. Messrs. Arthur S. Lytton and Virgil D. Parish for respondents. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 359, 361.
No. 892. Wis consi n et al . v . J. C. Penney Co . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted. Mr. Harold H. Persons for p. 619petitioners. Messrs. W. H. Dannat Pell and G. Burgess Ela for respondent. Reported below: 233 Wis. 286 ; 289 N. W. 677.
No. 893. Wisconsin et al . v . F. W. Woolwo rth Co . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted. Mr. Harold H. Persons for petitioners. Messrs. Edward Cornell, Martin A. Schenck, Orrin G. Judd, and G. Burgess Ela for respondent. Reported below: 233 Wis. 305; 289 N. W. 685.
No. 894. Wisconsin et al . v . Minnes ota Mining & Manufac turing Co . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted. Mr. Harold H. Persons for petitioners. Messrs. Frederick J. Miller, John L. Connolly, and G. Burgess Ela for respondent. Reported below: 233 Wis. 306; 289 N. W. 686.
No. 895. Helvering , Commissi oner of Inter nal Revenue , v . Hamm el et al . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Biddle for petitioner. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 753.
No. 897. J. E. Rile y Investment Co . v . Commis - sio ner of Inter nal Revenue . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Messrs. Robert Ash and William J. Sebald for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, Joseph M. Jones, and Richard H. Demuth for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 655.
No. 868. Unite d States v . Falcone et al . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Solicitor ■ General Biddle for the United States. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 579.
No. 914. Mc Clain v . Commis sio ner of Internal
Revenue . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Mr. M. E. Kilpatrick for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 878.
No. 929. American Federa tio n of Labor et al . v .
Swing et al . May 20, 1940. Motion to use the certified record filed in No. 615 as a part of the record in this case, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois, granted. Messrs. Walter F. Dodd and Daniel D. Carmell for petitioners. Messrs. Samuel A. Rinella and Myer N. Rosengard for respondents. Reported below: 298 Ill. App. 13; 372 Ill. 91; 18 N. E. 2d 258; 22 N. E. 2d 857.
No. 946. Helver ing , Commis sio ner of Inter nal
Revenue , v . Thoms on . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Solicitor General Biddle for petitioner. Mr. T. F. Davis Haines for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 642.
No. 548. Neuberger v . Commis sioner of Internal
No. 353. Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicago , Local No . 753 et al . v . Meadowmoor Dairi es , Inc . See post, p. 655.
No. 953. Bowman v . Loperena et al . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Mr. L. A. Luce for petitioner. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 348.
No. 967. Ryan v . Empl oyers ’ Liabil ity Ass urance Corp ., Ltd . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Mr. M. Y. Yost for petitioner. Mr. John R. Kistner for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 690.
No. 977. Kloeb , Judge , v . Armour & Company . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Messrs. Percy R. Taylor and Nolan Boggs for petitioner. Messrs. Edward W. Kelsey, Jr. and Fred A. Smith for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 72.
No. 996. H. J. Heinz Co . v . National Labor Rela - ti ons Board . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Messrs. Earl F. Reed and Charles M. Thorp, Jr. for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle and Mr. Charles Fahy for respondent. Reported below 110 F. 2d 843.
No. 1005. Jackson , Attor ney Genera l of the Unite d State s , on behalf of the United States and p. 622as Success or to the Alien Prop erty Cust odian , v . Irv - ing Trus t Co ., Executor , et al . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Solicitor General Biddle for petitioner. Messrs. Leonard B. Smith, Selden Bacon, and Nathan L. Miller for respondents. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 714.
No. 1024. Gorin v . United States ; and
No. 1025. Sali ch v . Same . June 3, 1940. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Messrs. Isaac Pacht, Donald R. Richberg, Seth W. Richardson, and Harry Graham Balter for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. William W. Barron, George F. Kneip, Fred E. Strine, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 111 F. 2d 712.
No. 978. Mill iken et al . v . Meyer . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado granted. Messrs. Jean S. Breitenstein and Harold H. Healy for Milliken et al.; and Mr. Edward M. Freeman for Texas Production Co.,—petitioners. Mr. Fred S. Caldwell for respondent. Reported below: 105 Colo. 532; 100 P. 2d 151.
No. 962. Electro -Chemi cal Engraving Co ., Inc . v . Comm is si oner of Inter nal Revenue . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. B. S. Barron for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle for respondent. Reported below 110 F. 2d 614.
No. 992. Reconstruction Finance Corporati on et al . v. Pruden ce Securi ties Advisory Group et al . p. 623310 U. S. Decisions Granting Certiorari.
June 3, 1940. The motion to dispense with the further printing of the record is granted, and the petition is deemed properly filed in accordance with Rule 38. The petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is granted. Solicitor General Biddle and Messrs. Claude E. Hamilton, Jr., Charles M. McCarty, J. M. Richardson Lyeth, and Emery H. Sykes for petitioners. Mr. Percival E. Jackson for Prudence Securities Advisory Group et al.; Mr. Mark Hyman for Metz Committee et al.; and Mr. Grosvenor M. Calkins, pro se,—respondents. Reported below: 111 F. 2d 37.
No. 972. Times -Mirror Company et al . v . Supe rior Court of Calif ornia . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California granted. Messrs. T. B. Cosgrove and John N. Cramer for petitioners. Messrs. Wm. B. McKesson, Allen W. Ashburn, and Isaac Pacht for respondent. By leave of Court, briefs of amici curiae were filed by Mr. Elisha Hanson on behalf of American Newspaper Publishers Association; and by Mr. A. L. Wirin, Leo Gallagher, and Grover Johnson on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, Southern California Branch,—in support of the petition. Reported below: 15 Cal. 2d 99; 98 P. 2d 1029.
Nos. 993 and 994. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co. v. Step hens on , Admin is tratri x . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted, limited to the question whether the District Court properly disposed of the causes in view of Illinois Revised Statutes 1937, Chapter 70, § 2. Mr. Silas H. Strawn for petitioner. Mr. Ralph F. Potter for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 401.
Decisions Denying Certiorari. 310U.S.
DECISIONS DENYING CERTIORARI, FROM APRIL 23, 1940, THROUGH JUNE 3, 1940.
No. 854. Moon v . Union Central Life Insura nce Co. et al . April 29, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. Samuel E. Cook for petitioner. Messrs. Arthur S. Lytton and Virgil D. Parish for respondents. Reported below: 107 F. 2d 545.
No. 880. Harp in v . Johnston , Warden . April 29, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Harold, Harpin, pro se. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 434.
No. 916. Roberts on et al . v . Chroni ster et al . April 29, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Dora Robertson, prose. Reported below: 199 Ark. 373.
No. 805. Township of South Hacke nsa ck v . Fed - eral Depos it Insurance Corp . April 29,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Harry Lane for petitioner. Attoney General Jackson and Messrs. Warner W. Gardner, L. E. Birdzell, James M. Kane, and James D. Carpenter for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 327.
No. 808. Baxter v . Emory Universi ty et al . April 29, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit p. 625310U.S. Decisions Denying Certiorari.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Irving K. Baxter for petitioner. Reported below: 107 F. 2d 115.
No. 816. Carbon Silk Mill Co . v . Powell et al ., Trustee s of Vertex Hosi ery Mills , Inc . April 29, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Michael J. Evansha for petitioner. Mr. William E. Mikell, Jr. for respondents. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 474.
No. 841. Standard Oil Co . v . Zangerle , Auditor , et al . April 29, 1940, Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied. Mr. Isador Grossman for petitioner. Mr. Frederick W. Green for respondents. Reported below: 136 Ohio St. 212; 24 N. E. 2d 829.
No. 856. Norcor Company v . Schm itt . April 29, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Irving Breakstone for petitioner. Mr. Ralph M. Snyder for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 407.
No. 857. American Life Insurance Co . v . Hutch e - son . April 29, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. J. F. Finlay for petitioner. Mr. Chas. C. Moore for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 424.
No. 885. Railro ad Credit Corp . v . Southern Rail - way Co. April 29, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari
269631°—40------ 40
to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Palmer Pillans, D. Willard, Jr., Wm. J. Kane, and Alexis T. Gresham for petitioner. Messrs. S. R. Prince, Sidney S. Aiderman, and Henry L. Walker for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 66.
No. 821. Wright v . First Joint Stock Land Bank of Fort Wayne et al . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. Samuel E. Cook for petitioner. Messrs. Clyde J. Cover and John D. Shoaff for respondents. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 359.
No. 848. Crockett v . Johnston , Warden . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. William C. Crockett, pro se. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 444.
No. 937. Deatherage et al . v . Plummer , Warden , et al . May 6,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Thaddeus Deatherage and Louis Deatherage, pro se.
No. 964. Rhodes v . Iowa . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Iowa, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. F. E. Northup for petitioner. Reported below: 227 Iowa 332; 288 N. W. 98.
No. 871. Fisher et al . v . Commissi oner of Internal Revenue . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr . Justice Murph y took no part in the consideration and decision of this application. Mr. Benjamin E. Jaffe for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Arnold Raum and Maurice J. Mahoney for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 707.
No. 882. Fretwell v . Gill ett e Safety Razor Co . May 6, 1940. The motion to proceed on typewritten papers is granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Herbert J. Jacobi for petitioner. Mr. Henry R. Ashton for respondent. Reported below: 106 F. 2d 728.
No. 817. British -American Tobacco Co ., Ltd . v . United States . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, Joseph M. Hartfield, and Roy H. Callahan for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Mr. Paul A. Sweeney for the United States. Reported below: 89 Ct. Cis. 438.
No. 834. Colorado Serum Co . v . Commis sioner of Internal Revenue . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Messrs. Robert C. Foulston, George T. Buckingham, Paul E. Shorb, and H. Thomas Austem for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and F. E. Youngman for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 843.
Decisions Denying Certiorari. 310U.S.
No. 850. Southw ester n Serum Co . v . Comm is si oner of Internal Revenue . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Messrs. Robert C. Foulston, George T. Buckingham, Paul E. Shorb, and H. Thomas Austem for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and F. E. Youngman for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 843.
No. 842. National Federation of Railwa y Workers v. National Mediati on Board et al . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. James A. Cobb and Perry W. Howard for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Robert L. Stern and Thomas E. Harris for respondents. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 529.
No. 849. Hubbard v . Matson Navig atio n Co . et al . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, California, denied. Mr. George Olshausen for petitioner. Messrs. Herman Phleger, Maurice E. Harrison, and Gregory A. Harrison for respondents. Reported below: 34 Cal. App. 2d 475 ; 93 P. 2d 846.
No. 852. Orendorf et al . v . Fayette Farms , Inc . et al . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Laurence B. Finn for petitioners. Mr. Edward L. Bush for respondents. Reported below: 112 F. 2d 149.
No. 858. Barbour v . Commi ssione r of Internal Revenue . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari p. 629to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Prew Savoy for petitioner. Attorney General Jackson, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and Arnold Raum for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 660.
No. 859. Rebhuhn et al . v . Unite d States . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Arthur Garfield Hays for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. William W. Barron, George F. Kneip, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 512.
No. 860. Willi ams , Admi nis trator , v . United State s . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Guy L. Webb for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle and Messrs. Julius C. Martin, Wilbur C. Pickett, Young M. Smith, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 1023.
No. 866. Texas Natural Gas Utiliti es v . City of El Camp o et al . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, 1st Supreme Judicial District, of Texas, denied. Mr. Irl F. Kennedy for petitioner. Mr. Donald M. Duson for respondents. Reported.below: 135 S. W. 2d 133.
No. 869. Walton v . Sutton & Co., Inc . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia denied. Mr. George W. Reilly for petitioner. Messrs. Guy B. Hazelgrove and Ralph T. Catterall for respondent.
No. 878. Metrop olit an Life Insurance Co . v . United State s . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Harry Cole Bates for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attofney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and Arnold Raum for the United States. Reported below: 107 F. 2d 311.
No. 884. Good Coal Co . v . Nation al Labor Rela - tions Board . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Cleon. K. Calvert for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle and Messrs. Charles Fahy, Robert B. Watts, Laurence A. Knapp, and Owsley Vose for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 501.
No. 727. Morse v . Bragg . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. John H. Morse, pro se. Reported below: 71 App. D. C. 1; 107 F. 2d 648.
No. 951. Taggart v . Asrkhlkm . et al . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Grantham I. Taggart, pro se. Reported below: 107 F. 2d 720.
No. 970. Cook et al . v . Armour & Co. et al . May 6, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Isaiah Cook and Henrietta p. 631Harold, pro se. Reported below: 151 Kan. 487; 99 P. 2d 856.
No. 896. Mc Campbe ll v . Warric h Corp , et al . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. Lewis H. Barnes for petitioner. Messrs. Harold L. Reeve and Elmer M. Leesman for respondents. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 115.
No. 911. Spivey v . United State s . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. G. Ernest Jones for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. William W. Barron and B&nj. M. Parker for the United States. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 181.
No. 952. Malp uss v . Sanford , Warden . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Harry B. Malpuss, pro se. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 1019.
No. 944. Distr ict of Columbia v . Sweeney . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied in view of the fact that the tax is laid under a statute which has been repealed and the question is therefore not of public importance. Messrs. Elwood H. Seal, Vernon E. West, and Glenn Simmon for petitioner. Mr. James J. Sweeney, pro se. Reported below: 113 F. 2d 25.
No. 908. International Art Co . et al . v . Federal Trade Comm iss ion . May 20, 1940. Motion to use the record printed for the Circuit Court of Appeals granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Albert H. Fry for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Charles H. Weston, Richard H. Demuth, and W. T. Kelley for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 393.
No. 833. Brown stei n -Louis Co . v . Unite d States . May 20,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Mr. Don Marlin for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Mr. Paul A. Sweeney for the United States. Reported below: 90 Ct. Cis. 1.
No. 835. Harris Trust & Savings Bank et al . v . Unite d States . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Mr. Albert H. Veeder for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and Richard H. Demuth for the United States. Reported below: 90 Ct. Cis. 17; 29 F. Supp. 876.
No. 853. North Whittier Heights Citrus Ass n . v . Nation al Labor Rela tio ns Board . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Ivan G. Mc-Daniel for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle and Messrs. Warner W. Gardner, Charles Fahy, Robert B. Watts, Laurence A. Knapp, and Mortimer B. Wolf; and p. 633Ruth Weyand for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 76.
No. 863. New York Trust Co ., Trust ee , et al . v . New York , Susqueh anna & Western Railroad Co . et al .; and
No. 872. Woodruff et al ., Trustees , v . New York , Susquehanna & West ern Railroad Co ., Debt or , et al . May 20, 1940. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. J. Harlin O’Connell for petitioners in No. 863. Mr. Arthur A. Ballantine for Commercial Trust Co.; Mr. John M. Perry for Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.; and Mr. J. H. Harrison for National State Bank, respondents in No. 863. Mr. Wm. Clarke Mason for petitioners in No. 872. Mr. John M. Perry for Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.; and Mr. J. H. Harrison for National State Bank,—respondents in No. 872. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 988.
No. 877. American Insu ranc e Co . v . Gentile Bros . Co. May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Harry L. Thompson and J. Tweed McMullen for petitioner. Messrs. Hugh Akerman and William H. Dial for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 732.
No. 886. Maxw ell et al . v . Tarrant County Water Control & Impr ovement Distr ict Number One . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Clay Cooke, G. R. Lipscomb, George P. Barse, John F. Anderson, Lee Roy Stover, and William E. Allen for p. 634petitioners. Messrs. Sidney L. Samuels, William R. Watkins, and Mark McGee for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 604.
No. 887. Shaler Compa ny v . Rite -Way Products , Inc . et al . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. S. L. Wheeler for petitioner. Messrs. John B. Snowden, II, and Frank E. Liverance, Jr. for respondents. Reported below: 107 F. 2d 82.
No. 890. Benedum -Trees Oil Co . v . Davis et al .; and
No. 891. Same v . Sedman et al . May 20, 1940. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. J. W. Stone and Rufus S. Marriner for petitioner. Mr. Joe C. Thomason for respondents. Reported below: 107 F. 2d 981.
No. 898. Maryland Casualt y Co . v . Town of River Junction et al . May 20,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Francis M. Holt and Sam R. Marks for petitioner. Messrs. C. L. Waller and Millard Caldwell for respondents. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 278.
No. 899. Irving Lewis v . United States ; and
No. 900. Rose Lewis v . United States . May 20, 1940. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Messrs. Julian C. Ry er and Philip Lutz for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and p. 635Messrs. William W. Barron, Fred E. Strine, George F. Kneip, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 460.
No. 902. Morphy , Receiver , et al . v . Grand Inter - national Brothe rhood of Locomo tiv e Engineers et al . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Edwin W. Lawrence, Hersey Egginton, and George L. Shearer for petitioners. Messrs. Harold C. Heiss, William R. McFeeters, and Harold N. McLaughlin for respondents. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 576.
No. 903. Morphy , Receiver , et al . v . Burke . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Edwin W. Lawrence, Hersey Egginton, and George L. Shearer for petitioners. Messrs. Harold C. Heiss, William R. McFeeters, and Harold N. McLaughlin for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 572.
No. 909. Beard v . Sanfor d , Warden . May 20,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. James J. Laughlin and Ellis Klein for petitioner. Solicitor Gender cd Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. William W. Barron, George F. Kneip, arid W. Marvin Smith for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 527.
No. 933. Jeff erson Standard Life Insurance Co . v. De Long . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of cer- p. 636tiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Giles J. Patterson, Julius C. Smith, and C. R. Wharton for petitioner. Mr. Charles Cook Howell for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 585.
No. 920. Volunteer State Life Insurance Co . v . Helve ring , Comm is si oner of Internal Revenue . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. Vaughn Miller and Robert A. Littleton for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, Edward H. Horton, and Thomas E. Harris for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 879.
No. 910. Prenti ss v . Mutual Benefit Health & Acci dent Assoc iati on . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. T. Morton McDonald for petitioner. Mr. Edward H. Knight for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 1.
No. 912. Carl v . Ferrell . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Paul J. Sedgwick for petitioner. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 351.
No. 913. Carl v . Norri s . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Paul J. Sedgwick for petitioner. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 266.
No. 918. Cook v . United Stat es . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of p. 637Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. William R. Watkins for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, Maurice J. Mahoney, and Thomas E. Harris for the United States. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 804.
No. 919. Dickins on et al . v . Payne . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Hans v. Briesen for petitioners. Mr. Hugh C. Smith for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 52.
No. 923. Weir v . Comm is si oner of Internal Rev - enue . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Earl F. Reed for petitioner. Attorney General Jackson, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, Arnold Raum, and >8. Dee Hanson for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 996.
No. 924. Lehman et al . v . Commis sio ner of Inter - nal Revenue . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Edgar J. Bemheimer and Sidney J. Schwartz for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Mr. Sewall Key for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 99.
No. 925. Shool man v . Commiss ioner of Inter nal Revenue . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. David Stoneman for petitioner. Solicitor p. 638General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and A. F. Prescott for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 987.
No. 927. Webb -Crawf ord Co . et al . v . Federal Trade Commis sion . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Max Michael and Edgar Watkins for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Charles H. Weston and W. T. Kelley for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 268.
No. 928. Bakewel l v . Unite d States . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit denied. Paul Bakewell, Jr., pro se. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Mr. Harry LeRoy Jones for the United States. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 564.
No. 931. Jeff ers v . Illinois . May 20, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied. Mr. James W. Templeman for petitioner. Messrs. John E. Cassidy and Ivan J. Hutchens for respondent. Reported below: 372 Ill.-590; 25 N. E. 2d 35.
No. 934. Errington v . Hudsp eth , Warden . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Robert G. Errington, pro se. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 384.
No. 935. Wil li ams on , Trust ee , v . Colum bia Gas & Electric Corp . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr . Justice Dougla s took no part in the consideration or decision of this application. Mr. Arthur G. Logan for petitioner. Messrs. Douglas M. Moffat and Clarence A. Southerland for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 15.
No. 861. R. Hoe & Co., Inc . et al . v . Weis s et al . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Samuel E. Darby, Jr., Neil P. Cullom, and James J. Kennedy for petitioners. Mr. Thomas G. Haight for respondents. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 722.
No. 874. Genecov v . Wine , Receive r . May 27,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit denied. Mr. W. Edward Lee for petitioner. Messrs. H. M. Barney, Frank S. Quinn, and James D. Head for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 265.
Nos. 875 and 876. Roosth v . Wine , Recei ver . May 27, 1940. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. W. Edward Lee for petitioner. Messrs. H. M. Barney and Frank S. Quinn for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 265.
No. 883. Semino le Nation v . United States . May 27,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Messrs. Paul M. Niebell, Ernest L. p. 640Wilkinson, Frank J. Boudinot, John W. Cragun, and W. W. Pryor for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle for the United States. Reported below: 90 Ct. Cis. 151.
No. 904. Morgan et al . v . Sun Oil Co . et al . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Oliver J. Todd for petitioners. Messrs. Fred L. Williams and W. N. Foster for respondents. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 178.
No. 922. Equitable Life Ass urance Societ y v . Zo - lintakis et al . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Mr. Ernest D. Hurd for petitioner. Messrs. Calvin W. Rawlings and H. E. Wallace for respondents. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 902.
No. 932. Pitche r v . Metrop olit an Life Insurance Co . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Eberhard P. Deutsch for petitioner. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 621.
No. 936. Italiano et al . v . Yiawdk . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied. Mr. Kenneth I. McKay for petitioners. Mr. George Couper Gibbs, Attorney General of Florida, for respondent. Reported below: 141 Fla. 249; 193 So. 48.
No. 938. Pars ons et al . v . Childs et al ., Trustees . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Su- p. 641310U.S. Decisions Denying Certiorari.
preme Court of Missouri denied. Mr. Martin J. O’Donnell for petitioners. Messrs. Charles M. Blackmar, Samuel W. Sawyer, and Elliott H. Jones for respondents. Reported below: 136 S. W. 2d 327.
No. 942. Universal Dealers Co . v . Cromeli n , Trus - tee . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Wm. E. Richardson for petitioner. Mr. Francis C. Brooke for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 828.
No. 945. Eagle Trans port Co . et al . v . Unite d State s , as Owner of The Pocahon tas . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Robert S. Erskine for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Mr. Paul A. Sweeney for the United States. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 929; 111 id. 451.
No. 947. Bonet , Treasur er , v . Humacao Shipp ing Corp . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Messrs. William Cattron Rigby, George A. Malcolm, and Nathan R. Margold for petitioner. Mr. Earle T. Fiddler for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 157.
No. 948. Hewi tt v . United States . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Wendel W. McCanles for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. William W. Barron, George F. Kneip, Fred E. Strine, and W. Marvin
269631°—40------ 41
Smith for the United States. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 1. %
No. 949. Magnani v . Harnett , Comm is si oner of Motor Vehicl es , et al . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New York denied. Messrs. Samuel B. Wasserman and Roy P. Monahan for petitioner. Messrs. John J. Bennett, Attorney General of New York, and Henry Epstein, Solicitor General, for respondents. Reported below: 257 App. Div. 487; 282 N. Y. 619; 169 Misc. 697; 8 N. Y. S. 2d 447; 14 N. Y. S. 2d 107; 25 N. E. 2d 395.
No. 955. Aspr odites , Admini strat rix , v . Standard Fruit & Steamsh ip Co . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Samuel J. Tennant, Jr. for petitioner. Messrs. Geo. H. Terriberry and Jos. M. Rault for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 728.
No. 982. Westrup v . Illinois . May 27, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied. Mr. Charles P. R. Macaulay for petitioner. Mr. John E. Cassidy, Attorney General of Illinois, for respondent. Reported below: 372 Ill. 517; 25 N. E. 2d 16.
No. 1003. Shell ey v . Unite d States . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Rebecca Shelley, pro se.
No. 926. Mc Aff ee v . United State s . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Messrs. Robert I. Miller and Thomas M. David for petitioner. Reported below: 1-10 F. 2d 199.
No. 958. William s v . Sanford , Warden . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Robert Henry Williams, pro se. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 526.
No. 1028. Bradle y v . Simp son , Solici tor General ex rel . of Piedm ont Circuit , Georgia . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Messrs. J. D. Bradley and G. Seals Aiken for petitioner. Reported below: 189 Ga. 316; 6 S. E. 2d 424.
No. 1045. Moore v . Hudsp eth , Warden . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr . Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration and decision of this application. Otis B. Moore, pro se. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 386.
No. 1016. Wagner v . Unite d Stat es . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed p. 644further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr . Justi ce Dougla s took no part in the consideration and decision of this application. Mr. Wm. W. Flournoy for petitioner. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 595.
No. 959. Ameri can Medical Ass ociation et al . v . Unite d State s . June 3. 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Mr . Justice Murph y took no part in the consideration and decision of this application. Messrs. Edward M. Burke, Seth W. Richardson, Charles S. Baker, Adrien F. Busick, William E. Leahy, and John E. Laskey for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Charles H. Weston, John Henry Lewin, and Grant W. Kelleher for the United States. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 703.
No. 963. Wichi ta Royalty Co. et al . v . City Na - tional Bank of Wichi ta Falls et al . June 3, 1940. The motion to dispense with reprinting Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of the record is granted. The petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is denied. Messrs. Guy Rogers and Ray Bland for petitioners. Messrs. T. R. Boone and Leslie Humphrey for respondents. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 299.
No. 1015. Donah oe ’s Incorpor ated Prefe rred and Class A Stockholders ’ Protect ive Ass ociation et al . v. Donah oe ’s Incorporate d et al . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr . Just ice Dougla s took no part in the consideration and decision of this application. Mr. Samuel G. Wagner for petitioners. p. 645Messrs. William D. Donnelly and Charles S. Lynch for respondents. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 1012.
No. 873. Arabi Packin g Co. v. Commi ssi oner of In - ternal Revenue . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. H. W. Robinson for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, F. E. Youngman, and Richard H. Demuth for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 278.
No. 917. Rundi n v . Sells . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington denied. Elmer Rundin, pro se. Reported below: 1 Wash. 2d 332; 95 P. 2d 1023.
No. 939. United States ex rel . Tsevdos v . Reim er , Comm is si oner of Immigra tion . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. John S. Wise, Jr. for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. William W. Barron, George F. Kneip, and W. Marvin Smith for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 860.
No. 940. Sentinel Oil Co . v . Unit ed States . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Reuben G. Hunt for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and Lee A. Jackson for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 854.
No. 941. Ladinsky et al . v . United States . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. George C. Dyer for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle and Mr. Webster Spates for the United States. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 908.
No. 950. Arrow Distill eries , Inc . v . Alexande r , Admi nis trator . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Horace J. Donnelly, Jr. for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Robert L. Stern, Richard H. Demuth, Philip E. Buck, and Merton B. Tice for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 397.
No. 954. De Copp et et al . v . Comm is si oner of In - ternal Revenue . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Elden McFarland for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle,' Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and Arnold Raum; and Miss Helen R. Carloss for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 787.
No. 956. Ballar d v . Atchiso n , Topek a & Santa Fe Ry . Co. June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Walker Saulsbury for petitioner. Messrs. Ballinger Mills, Grady B. Ross, and Thornton Hardie for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 768; 109 id. 1012.
No. 960. Arn et al . v . Bradshaw Oil & Gas Co . et al . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to p. 647the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Homer Cummings and T. P. Gore for petitioners. Mr. A. F. Moss for respondents. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 125.
No. 965. Hughes , Trust ee , v. Lawy ers Trus t Co . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. John F. Hughes for petitioner. Mr. Richard L. Sullivan for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 792.
No. 966. Richter v . Pritchard , Trust ee . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. A. W. Richter for petitioner. Mr. Morris Karon.for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 459.
No. 968. Union Joint Stock Land Bank of Detr oit v. Eaton , Receive r . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied. Messrs. Ralph G. Martin, A. G. Masters, and Robert E. Gibbs for petitioner. Messrs. Will L. Gates and Edward E. Corn for respondent. Reported below: 136 Ohio St. 293 ; 25 N. E. 2d 345.
No. 969. Gay Union Corp ., Inc ., et al . v . Wallace , Secre tary of Agric ult ure . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. Leonard B. Levy, William C. Dufour, and John St. Paul, Jr.; and Miss Anna Judge Veters for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Hugh B. Cox, John S. L. Yost, W. Carroll Hunter, and Warner W. Gardner for respondent. Reported below: 112 F. 2d 192.
No. 971. Grain Belt Supp ly Co . v . Commis sioner of Internal Revenue . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. J. A. C. Kennedy, George T. Buckingham, Paul E. Shorb, and H. Thomas Austem for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle; Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and F. E. Youngman for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 490.
No. 974. United States ex rel . Bergdoll v . Drum , Comm andi ng Off icer , Unit ed States Army , et al . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. George R. Shields, Herman J. Galloway, Fred W. Shields, and Joseph C. Thomson for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. William W. Barron, Fred E. Strine, George F. Kneip, and W. Marvin Smith for respondents. Reported below: 107 F. 2d 897.
No. 983. Pietch v. United States . June 3, 1940, Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Messrs. Roy St. Lewis, John J. Sirica, and Paul Pinson for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. J. Albert Wall, William J. Connor, and M. Joseph Matan for the United States. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 817.
No. 985. Beidler v . Photos tat Corporation . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied, j Mr. Harold E. Stonebraker for petitioner. Reported below: 81 F. 2d 1015.
No. 988. Hartford Accid ent & Indemnity Co . v . Cardillo , Deputy Comm is si oner , et al . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Messrs. Paul A. Sweeney and Richard H. Demuth for respondents. Reported below: 112 F. 2d 11.
No. 989. Neijma nn -Endler , Inc . v . United States (Majestic Forwa rdin g & Shippi ng Co ., app eari ng as part ies in intere st ) . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Customs & Patent Appeals denied. Mr. John G. Lerch for petitioner. Mr. John Walsh for Majestic Forwarding & Shipping Co., respondent. Reported below: 27 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 306.
No. 997. Fidel ity -Banker s Trust Co ., Trust ee , et al . v. Helve ring , Comm is si oner of Internal Revenue . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Forrest Andrews for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and F. E. Youngman for respondent. Reported below: 113 F. 2d 14.
No. 973. Tennes see Consoli dated Coal Co. v. United States . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Mr. Geo. E. H. Goodner for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key and Arnold Raum for the United States. Reported below: 89 Ct. Cis. 542.
No. 976. Chann ell , Executri x , v . Sampson . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. Edward R. Hale for petitioner. Mr. James T. Connolly for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 754.
No. 980. Samuel E. Diesche r et ux . v . Commi s - si oner of Internal Revenue ; and
No. 981. August P. Dies cher et ux . v . Same . June 3, 1940. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Messrs. S. Leo Ruslander and Samuel Kaufman for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, and Carlton Fox for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 90.
No. 986. Portl and Oil Co . v . Comm is si oner of In - ternal Revenue . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. Malcolm Donald for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, and Berryman Green for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 479.
No. 1002. Pende r et al . v . Comm is si oner of Inter - nal Revenue . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Richard B. Barker for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, Maurice J. Mahoney, and Richard H. Demuth for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 477.
No. 1004. Meyer , Executrix , v . Commi ssi oner of Internal Revenue . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Henry M. Stevenson for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, and Carlton Fox for respondent. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 367.
No. 1006. Pandolf i et al . v . Unite d State s . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Nicholas T. Rogers and Jesse Climenko for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. William W. Barron, Fred E. Strine, George F. Kneip, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 736.
No. 1008. Brown Paper Mill Co ., Inc . v . National Labor Relat ions Board . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. W. A. Bolinger and L. J. Benckenstein for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle and Messrs. Thomas E. Harris, Charles Fahy, Robert B. Watts, Laurence A. Knapp, and Mortimer B. Wolf for respondent. Reported below: 108 F. 2d 867.
No. 1022. Coupe et al . v . United State s . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. Oliver Wendell Holmes Hughes and Fred W. McConnell for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. George F. Kneip and p. 652W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 113 F. 2d 145.
No. 1038. Toucht on v . City of Fort Pierce . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Harvey C. Crittenden for petitioner. Mr. Robert J. Pleus for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 370.
No. 1046. Bayer v . Unite d States . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Abraham Solomon for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant A t-torney General Rogge, and Messrs. George F. Kneip and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 111 F. 2d 649.
No. 975. International Tradin g Corp . v . Edis on et al . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Mr. D. F. McGowan for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Messrs. Paul A. Sweeney and Warner W. Gardner for respondents. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 825.
No. 984. Denton v . Lowden et al ., Trust ees . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Mitchel J. Henderson for petitioner. Messrs. Hale Houts and William S. Hogsett for respondents. Reported below: 110 F. 2d 274.
No. 990. Cumm er Sons Cypress Co . v . Atlanti c Coast Line Railr oad Co. June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Henry P. Adair and Clarence G. Ashby for petitioner. Messrs. Carl H. Davis, John B. Sutton, C. C. Howell, and Wm. Hart Sibley for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 623.
No. 991. Wils on Cypre ss Co. v. Atlanti c Coast Line Rail road Co . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Henry P. Adair and Clarence G. Ashby for petitioner. Messrs. Carl H. Davis, John B. Sutton, C. C. Howell, and Wm. Hart Sibley for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 623.
No. 999. Jane Holding Corp . v . Helv erin g , Commis - si oner of Internal Revenue . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. Daniel N. Kirby and Harry W. Kroeger for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, Carlton Fox, and Thomas E. Harris for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 933.
No. 1012. ZlNSMASTER BAKING Co . V. COMMISSIONER of Internal Revenue . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. W. R. Brown for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, F. E. Youngman, and Richard H. Demuth for respondent. Reported below: 109 F. 2d 738.
Rehearing Granted. 310 U. S.
No. 1019. Merca ntil e -Commer ce Bank & Trus t Co . et al . v . Helve ring , Commis sioner of Internal Rev - enue . June 3,1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Blatchford Downing for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewcdl Key, L. W. Post, and Thomas E. Harris for respondent. Reported below: 111 F. 2d 224.
No. 1057. Zis kin v. Unite d State s . June 3, 1940. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Max Ziskin, pro se. Reported below: 111 F. 2d 649.
CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, FROM APRIL 23, 1940, THROUGH JUNE 3, 1940.
No. 839. Trini ty Universal Insu ranc e Co. v. Cun - ningham , Executri x , et al . On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. May 20, 1940. Dismissed on motion of counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Hobert Price for petitioner. Mr. Mont. T. Prewitt for respondents. Reported below: 107 F. 2d 857.
PETITIONS FOR REHEARING GRANTED, FROM APRIL 23, 1940, THROUGH JUNE 3, 1940.
No. 417. New World Life Insurance Co . v . United State s . May 20, 1940. The petition for rehearing is granted, and the order denying certiorari, entered November 22, 1939, 308 U. S. 612, is vacated. The petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims is granted, lim- p. 655310 U. S. Rehearing Granted.
ited to the second question presented thereby. Mr. Walter E. Barton for petitioner.
No. 707. Republic Steel Corp . v . National Labor Relati ons Board et al . May 20,1940. The motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing is granted, and the petition for rehearing is also granted. The order denying certiorari, dated April 8, 1940, 309 U. S. 684, is vacated. The petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is granted, limited to the fourth question therein presented, which relates to the work relief provisions of the decree below: provided that this order shall not operate to suspend the remaining provisions of the decree. Messrs. Luther Day, Thomas F. Patton, Joseph W. Henderson, and Mortimer S. Gordon for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle and Messrs. Charles Fahy, Robert B. Watts, Laurence A. Knapp, and Mortimer B. Wolf, and Ruth Weyand for respondents. Messrs. Lee Pressman, Joseph Kovner and Anthony Wayne Smith for Steel Workers Organizing Committee, respondents.
No. 548. Neuberger v . Commis sioner of Internal Revenue . May 27, 1940. The petition for rehearing is granted, and the order denying certiorari, entered January 2, 1940, 308 U. S. 623, is vacated. The petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is granted, limited to the second and third questions thereby presented. Messrs. Joseph M. Proskauer and Wilbur H. Friedman for petitioner.
No. 353. Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicag o , Local 753, et al . v . Meado wm oor Dairi es , Inc . June 3, 1940. Motion for leave to file a second petition for re-
Rehearing Denied. 310 U. S.
hearing granted. The motion papers are treated as a petition for rehearing, and rehearing is granted. The order of October 23, 1939, denying certiorari, 308 U. S. 596, is vacated. The petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois is granted. Messrs. Joseph Padway and Abraham W. Brussell for petitioners. Messrs. Donald N. Schaffer and Edward M. Keating for respondent.
PETITIONS FOR REHEARING DENIED, FROM APRIL 23, 1940, THROUGH JUNE 3, 1940.
No. 712. Banner Machine Co . v . Routzahn , Col - lector of Internal Revenue . April 29, 1940. 309 U. S. 676.
No. 785. Lowman v . Federal Land Bank of Louis - ville et al . April 29, 1940. 309 U. S. 680; see also ante, p. 616.
No. 823. A. M. Klemm & Son v . City of Winter Haven et al . April 29, 1940. 309 U. S. 638.
No. 773. Mc Cann v . New York Stock Exchange et al . May 6, 1940. 309 U. S. 684.
No. 10, Original, October Term, 1935. Wyomin g v . Colorado . May 20, 1940. 309 U. S. 572.
No. 542. City of Yonker s v . Downe y , Recei ver ; Nos. 543 and 544. Condon , Mayor , et al . v . Same . May 20, 1940. 309 U. S. 590.
1
A state regulation requiring that pupils in the public schools, on pain of expulsion, participate in a daily ceremony of saluting the national flag, whilst reciting in unison a pledge of allegiance to it “and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”—held within the scope of legislative power, and consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, as applied to children brought up in, and entertaining, a conscientious religious belief that such obeisance to the flag is forbidden by the Bible and that the Bible, as the Word of God, is the supreme authority. P. 591.
2
Religious convictions do not relieve the individual from obedience to an otherwise valid general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. P. 594.
4
This Court can not exercise censorship over the conviction of legislatures that a particular program or exercise will best promote in the minds of children who attend the common schools an attachment to the institutions of their country, nor overrule the local judgment against granting exemptions from observance of such a program. P. 598. 108 F. 2d 683, reversed.
*
For the origin and history of the American flag, see 8 Journals of the Continental Congress, p. 464 ; 22 Id., pp. 338-40; Annals of Congress, 15th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 1, pp. 566 et seq.; Id., Vol. 2, pp. 1458 et seq.
8
Compare Balfour, Introduction to Bagehot’s English Constitution, p. XXII; Santayana, Character and Opinion in the United States, pp. 110-11.