public service commission acting under authority of such an act, is depriving it of its property without due compensation, by requiring it to perform public service at a rate so unremunerative as to cause practical confiscation.2 The District Court has jurisdiction where a public service corporation complains that a municipality, acting under the authority of State legislation, is taking steps which impair the obligation of a contract validly entered into with it at some previous time.3 It will serve no good purpose to give further illustrations of this particular class of questions. The one distinction. already mentioned must be kept steadily in mind; viz, that where one seeks redress for the breach of some prohibition which the Constitution imposes upon the States, he must show that the act of which he complains is being done under color of State law, but where he is being deprived of some positive privilege or immunity conferred upon him by the Constitution, it is immaterial whether the State is or is not involved. 180. Cases Arising Under a Law of the United States. There are many cases which arise under some act of Congress. Thus, any suit which seeks to assert a right given by the Interstate Commerce Act, is clearly one arising under the laws of the United States.1 The liability of the stockholders of a national bank, which has gone into liquidation, to the creditors of the bank is one which is created by the laws of the United States; a suit by a creditor to enforce such liability is therefore a suit arising under them. 181. Suits Upon Official Bonds of Officers of the United States or Upon Bonds Taken in the Course of Judicial Proceedings in the United States Courts.In a series of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held 2 Willcox vs. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19. 1 Macon Grocery Co. vs. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 215 U. S. 501. 2 Wyman vs. Wallace, 201 U. S. 230. that suits by private individuals upon the official bonds of United States marshals or clerks of Courts are cases arising under the laws of the United States.1 It is clear that the Federal Courts have jurisdiction of suits brought upon supersedeas, injunction or attachment bonds taken in proceedings before them.2 182. Suits Against United States Officers for Acts Done Under Color of Their Office.-When a United States officer is sued for something which he did under color of his official duties, the case is one which arises under the laws of the United States. Thus, when suit is brought against a United States Marshal for seizing goods under an execution from a United States Court, the case so arises,1 at least, if the declaration shows upon its face that when the defendant did that for which he is sued he was acting or claiming to act in his official capacity.2 183. Whenever a Federal Corporation is a Party the Case Arises Under the Laws of the United States.Whenever a corporation created by Federal law is a party to an action, the case arises under a law of the United States. It was so ruled many years ago1 and is still the unquestioned law. 184. Statutory Exception of National Banks.—Congress has declared that national banks shall, for purposes of actions by or against them, be held to be citizens of the States in which they are respectively located. Suits by or against a national bank cannot be brought in the Federal Courts unless they could have been brought by or against it had it been a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State in which it is located.1 2 1 Howard vs. United States, 184 U. S. 676. Lamb vs. Ewing, 54 Fed. 269; Leslie vs. Brown, 90 Fed. 171. 'Bock vs. Perkins, 139 U'. S. 628. 2 Sonnentheil vs. Moerlein Brewing Co., 172 U. S. 404. 1Osborn vs. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738. 1 Judicial Code, sec. 24, par. 16. It should be borne in mind, however, that this legislation does not apply to receivers of such banks. They may, because they are officers of the United States, sue in the Federal Courts irrespective of the amount in controversy. In the Circuit Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania a receiver of a national bank brought suit for about $60.2 185. Cases Arising Under a Treaty of the United States. To give jurisdiction to the Courts of the United States on the ground that the case is one arising under a treaty of the United States, plaintiff's right, as stated by him, must depend upon the construction or application of some provision of the treaty. There have been a few instances in which it has been asserted that such a case existed. In scarcely any of them have the Courts held that it did. Thus, for illustration, a plaintiff claimed that he had succeeded. to the rights of one who had obtained a valid grant of land from the Spanish Governor of Louisiana and that by the treaty with France by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, the latter bound itself to respect the grants theretofore made by the Spanish or French Governments, and that the defendants were in wrongful possession of the land and would not surrender it. The Supreme Court said that there was involved no question as to the construction of the treaty or its application. The only question in the case even remotely connected with the treaty was one of fact as to whether the plaintiff's ancestor had ever received a grant which under the laws and regulations of the province of Louisiana was valid when it was made. Such inquiry raised no question under the treaty.1 1 186. Cases involving a Federal Question and Not Dependent Upon the Amount in Controversy.—There are twenty-four paragraphs of section 24 devoted to an enumeration of cases arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States or in which the national or Murray vs. Chambers, 151 Fed. 142. Muse vs. Arlington Hotel Co., 168 U. S. 430. official character of some of the parties involved brings the controversy within the constitutional grant of judicial power to the United States. In none of these does the jurisdiction of the District Court in anywise depend upon the amount in controversy. It will not be necessary here to say a great deal about any of them. 187. Subjects Already Discussed. The criminal, penal and quasi-penal jurisdiction of the District Court as conferred by paragraphs 2, 3 and 9 has already been sufficiently discussed, as has the power to hear and determine claims against the United States given by paragraph 20, and the right, exclusive of the State Courts and concurrent with the Supreme Court, to take cognizance of suits against consuls and vice-consuls granted by paragraph 18. 188. Subjects Not to Be Here Discussed.-The admiralty, patent, copyright, trade-mark and bankruptcy jurisdiction as conferred by paragraphs 3, 7 and 19 can be most profitably studied in connection with the substantive law of those topics. 189. Cases Under the Revenue and Postal Laws.Two of the paragraphs of this section, viz, 5 and 6, give jurisdiction over cases arising under the internal revenue, the customs and the postal laws. Closely related to these is the grant of jurisdiction contained in paragraph 10 over suits by assignees of debentures for draw-backs of duty against previous holders of such debentures. By section 80 of the Act to Regulate the Collection of Duties on Imports and Tonnage, it was provided that an importer of dutiable goods might under regulations therein prescribed receive a debenture for the amount of draw-back to which he might become entitled upon the re-export of such goods. Such debentures were often used by the holder for the purpose of raising money. If any question arose upon 1 March 2, 1799, 1 Stat. 687. such assignment, it was desirable that the case should be tried in the United States Court. I do not find reference by any of the annotators of the statutes to a decision under this grant of jurisdiction. It is probably, therefore, of small practical importance. 190. Cases Concerning Government Interest in Land. -The 21st and 25th paragraphs are intended to give to the United States Courts jurisdiction of some cases in which the United States is concerned as a landlord. The 21st paragraph refers to suits to restrain the unlawful enclosure of public lands. As the United States will in all such cases be the complainant, the special grant of jurisdiction would be unnecessary except that the paragraph also provides that service of process may be had upon any agent or employee having charge or control of the enclosure. The 25th paragraph gives the District Court jurisdiction of any suit brought by a co-tenant of the United States for a partition of lands held in joint tenancy or tenancy in common, and grants a like privilege to the United States. Such suit must be brought in the district in which the land lies. 191. Jurisdiction for the Protection of Aliens and Indians. The 17th paragraph gives jurisdiction of a suit by an alien for a tort in violation of the law of nations or of a treaty of the United States, and the 24th of all actions, suits or proceedings involving the right of anyone with Indian blood to an allotment of land under law or treaty. 192. Jurisdiction for the Protection of the Privilege and Immunities of Citizens of the United States.Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 give the District Courts power to take cognizance of suits authorized by Federal law to protect or vindicate the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States. Only one portion of these statutes antedate the Civil War, and that is the part of paragraph 11, which authorizes the District Court to take jurisdiction of |