The V Amendment-(b) Jeopardy, etc. "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." "Everybody agrees that the principle in its origin was a rule forbidding a trial in a new and independent case where a man had already been tried once."2 Nevertheless there may be a second trial if the jury disagree,3 or if a verdict against the prisoner is set aside on his motion for error at the trial. But a prisoner in the Philippine Islands having been tried and acquitted by the court of the first instance, and upon appeal by the government, the finding of acquittal having been reversed by the appellate tribunal in the islands, and the prisoner sentenced to imprison law does not of itself control mere forms of procedure or require the following of any one course of action in all cases; the Amendment is complied with if, in each case, a procedure be adopted which is appropriate to the end sought: Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181. It is not necessary that the entire work of government be transacted in a courtroom, in the presence of judge and jury. Congress may grant to executive officers the power to exclude or expel aliens: The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86; U. S. v. Williams, 194 id. 279; cf. Wong Wing v. U. S., 163 id. 228; to exclude sub-standard proposed imports: Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470; and to refuse delivery of mail to persons seeking to defraud: Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497. Taxes and assessments may be levied, and property may be taken for public use, by special commissions; and the Constitution is complied with when the taxpayer or property-owner is given an opportunity for a hearing at some stage of the proceedings: Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548; Wilson v. Lambert, 168 id. 611; Wight v. Davidson, 181 id. 371. So also, Congress may, in the ordinary course of legislation, prohibit the making of contracts in restraint of interstate commerce without thereby depriving any citizen of his liberty without due process of law: A. P. & S. Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211. And Congress may impose an excise upon artificially coloured oleomargarine, although it does not tax butter which is artificially coloured, and although the effect of the tax is to suppress the manufacture of such oleomargarine: McCray v. U. S., 195 U. S. 27; Fuller, C. J., Brown and Peckham, JJ., dissenting. On congressional legislation, see also Mormon Church v. U. S., 136 U. S. 1. * Per Holmes, J., Kepner v. U. S., 195 U. S. 100, 134. 4 U. S. v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579. Hopt v. People, 104 U. S. 631, 635; Hopt v. Utah, 110 id. 574; 114 id. 488, 492; 120 id. 430, 442; U. S. v. Ball, 163 id. 662, 672. 5 ment, the Supreme Court held that the government's appeal twice put the prisoner in jeopardy. When a court imposes a fine and imprisonment as a punishment where the statute under which the prisoner was indicted conferred the power to punish by fine or imprisonment, and the fine has been paid, the court cannot modify its judg ment by thereafter imposing imprisonment alone, for the judgment of the court having been executed so as to be a full satisfaction of one of the alternative penalties, the power of the court as to that offense is ended, and a second judgment on the same verdict, is, under such circumstances, void for want of power, and the party must be discharged. So also where one of three defendants jointly indicted for murder has been acquitted and his associates have been convicted, upon a setting aside of the verdicts because of a defect in the indictment, the verdict of acquittal upon the merits is a bar to a second trial of the person acquitted; but the defendants who have availed themselves of the invalidity of the first indictment cannot, upon the granting of a new trial, claim that their lives are for a second time jeopardized. Moreover, a court may, when necessary, discharge a jury from giving a verdict and order a trial by another jury, and the defendant is not thereby twice put in jeopardy within the meaning of the Constitution.8 The V Amendment also declares, that no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself." In Brown v. Walker, it was held that this Kepner v. U. S., 195 U. S. 100; Holmes, White, and McKenna, JJ., senting. dis Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163; cf. Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540, 557; Carter v. McClaughry, 183 id. 365. 'U. S. v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662. Thompson v. U. S., 155 U. S. 271. See also Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 id. 71. 161 U. S. 591. provision does not protect a witness who refuses to answer a question when he is by law afforded absolute immunity, federal and state, for the offense to which the question relates. "The fact that the testimony may tend to degrade the witness in public estimation does not exempt him from the duty of disclosure. '"10 The provision that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation entitles a patentee to payment for the use of his invention,11 and it entitles a corporation to compensation for the taking of a franchise to exact tolls as well as for the value of the tangible property taken; 12 but payment need not be made until the actual possession of land has passed,13 benefits to the property left may be set off against damages for the property taken,14 and compensation for an indirect injury to property need not be made.15 Yet where, by the construction of a dam, the United States so floods lands belonging to an individual as to totally destroy its value, compensation must be rendered.16 Congress does not deprive a contestant of a pre-emption entry on public lands of his property by confirming the title of the original entryman, for during the pendency of the contest the contestant has no vested right.17 The VI Amendment. 113. The VI Amendment declares that, "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and 10 P. 605. Four justices dissented. "Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10. 12 M. N. Co. v. U. S., 148 U. S. 312. 18 Cherokee Nation v. S. K. Ry., 135 U. S. 641. 14 Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548. 15 Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141; Gibson v. U. S., 166 id. 269; Bedford v. U. S., 192 id. 217. 18 U. S. v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445; cf. Bedford v. U. S., 192 id. 217. 17 Emblen v. L. L. Co., 184 U. S. 660. district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "' 18 This Amendment, of course, applies only to criminal proceedings; 19 and the right to trial by jury may be waived by persons charged with minor offenses.20 When the crime has been committed within the territories Congress may designate the place of trial at any time previous to the trial.21 An indictment for sending obscene matter through the mail need not set forth the objectionable language in full.22 The requirement that the prisoner "be confronted with the witnesses against him" will not invalidate a conviction in a case where the witnesses are absent by the procurement of the prisoner, or where enough has been proven to throw on him the burden of showing, and he having full opportunity therefor, fails to show, that he has not been instrumental in concealing or keeping away the witnesses, and ground having been thus laid, evidence is admissible against him of that which the witnesses testified at a previous trial on the same issue between the United States and the prisoner.23 In the event of the death of witnesses for the prosecution, testimony given by those witnesses at a previous trial 19 18 This Amendment is a restraint upon the judicial action of the United States, and not of the states: Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321. U. S. v. Zucker, 161 U. S. 475; Ex parte Terry, 128 id. 289; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 id. 698; Wong Wing v. U. S., 163 id. 228; U. S. v. Williams, 194 id. 279. 20 Schick v. U. S., 195 U. S. 65. " Cook v. U. S., 138 U. S. 157. Harlan, J., dissented. See also Art. III, Sec. 2; supra, sec. 111. 22 Rosen v. U. S., 161 U. S. 29. on the same issue is admissible; 24 but their evidence is not admissible when their absence is due to negligence of the officers of the government.25 And in a trial for receiving stolen property, the record of the conviction of the thief cannot be admitted in evidence to prove the theft.26 The VII and VIII Amendments. 114. The VII Amendment declares, that, "in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." 27 This Amendment does not affect equity causes in the federal courts, for the determination by a court of equity, according to its own course and practice of issues of fact, does not impair the right of trial by jury, because that right does not extend to causes of equitable jurisdiction.28 Nor does this Amendment affect proceedings upon claims against the United States heard in the Court of Claims without the intervention of a jury, for the government being suable only by its own consent, may declare in what court it will be sued, and may prescribe the forms of pleading and rules of practice in that court, and such claims so prosecuted are not suits at common law.29 Nor does it affect proceedings before a commission created for the purpose of hearing and deciding upon claims against a territorial municipal corporation which have no legal obligation, but which have such equity as "This Amendment is a restraint upon the exercise of powers by the United States, but not by the states: Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90; Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 id. 294. "Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126; Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 446. But where a plaintiff has an appropriate remedy at law he cannot seek relief in a court of equity: Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146; Cates v. Allen, 149 id. 451. |