Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-03-21

Smith v. Kansas city Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180 (1921)
This was a direct appeal to review a decree of the district court dismissing a bill brought by a shareholder to enjoin a trust company from investing its money in bonds of Federal and Joint Stock Land Banks. The case is stated in the opinion, infra, p. 195.

Page 255 U. S. 195

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

A bill was filed in the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri by a shareholder in the Kansas City Title & Trust Company to enjoin the company, its officers, agents, and employees from investing the funds of the company in farm loan bonds issued by Federal Land Banks or Joint-Stock Land Banks under authority of the Federal Farm Loan Act of July 17, 1916, 39 Stat. 360, as amended by Act Jan. 18, 1918, 40 Stat. 431.

The relief was sought on the ground that these acts were beyond the constitutional power of Congress. The bill avers that the board of directors of the company are

Page 255 U. S. 196

about to invest its funds in the bonds to the amount of ,000 in each of the classes described, and will do so unless enjoined by the court in this action. The bill avers the formation of twelve Federal Land Banks and twenty-one Joint-Stock Land Banks under the provisions of the act.

As to the Federal Land Banks, it is averred that each of them has loaned upon farm lands large amounts secured by mortgage, and, after depositing the same with the Farm Loan Registrar, has executed and issued collateral trust obligations, called "farm loan bonds," secured by the depositing of an equivalent amount of farm mortgages and notes, and that each of said Federal Land Banks has sold, and is continuing to offer for sale, large amounts of said farm loan bonds. The bill also avers that various persons in different parts of the United States have organized twenty-one Joint-Stock Land Banks the capital stock of which is subscribed for and owned by private persons; that the Joint-Stock Land Banks have deposited notes and mortgages with the Farm Loan Registrar, and issued an equivalent amount of collateral trust obligations called "farm loan bonds," which have been sold and will be continued to be offered for sale to investors in large amounts in the markets of the country. A statement is given of the amount of deposits by the Secretary of the Treasury with the Federal Land Banks, for which the banks have issued their certificates of indebtedness bearing interest at 2% per annum. It is averred that, on September 30, 1919, Federal Land Banks owned United States bonds of the par value of ,230,805, and the Joint-Stock Land Banks owned like bonds of the par value of ,287,503 on August 31, 1919; that, pursuant to the provisions of the act, the Secretary of the Treasury has invested ,892,130 of the public funds in the capital stock of the Federal Land Banks, and that, on July 1, 1919, the Secretary of the Treasury, on behalf of the United States, held ,265,809 of the capital stock of the Federal Land Banks;

Page 255 U. S. 197

that, pursuant to the provisions of § 32 of the act as amended, the Secretary of the Treasury has purchased farm loan bonds issued by the Federal Land Banks of the par value of 9,775,000; that, up to September 30, 1919, bonds have been issued under the act by the Federal Land Banks to the amount of 5,600,000, of which about 5,000,000 are held in the Treasury of the United States purchased under the authority of the amendment of January 19, 1918; that up to September 30, 1919, 27 Joint-Stock Land Banks have been incorporated under the act, having an aggregate capital of ,000,000, all of which has been subscribed, and ,450,000 paid in; that bonds have been issued by Joint-Stock Land Banks to the amount of ,000,000, which are now in the hands of the public; that the Secretary of the Treasury, up to the time of the filing of the bill, has not designated any of the Federal Land Banks nor the Joint-Stock Land Banks as depositaries of public money, nor, except as stated later in the bill, has he employed them or any of them as financial agents of the government, nor have they or any of them performed any duties as depositaries of public money, nor have they or any of them accepted any deposits or engaged in any banking business. The bill avers that, during the summer of 1918, the Federal Land Banks at Wichita, St. Paul, and Spokane were designated as financial agents of the government for making seed grain loans to farmers in drought-stricken sections, the President having at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture set aside ,000,000 for that purpose out of the 0,000,000 war funds. The three banks mentioned made upwards of 15,000 loans of that character, aggregating a sum upwards of ,500,000, and are now engaged in collecting these loans, all of which are secured by crop liens; that these banks act in that capacity without compensation, receiving only the actual expenses incurred.

Section 27 of the act provides that farm loan bonds

Page 255 U. S. 198

issued under the provisions of the act by Federal Land Banks or Joint-Stock Land Banks shall be a lawful investment for all fiduciary and trust funds, and may be accepted as security for all public deposits. The bill avers that the defendant Trust Company is authorized to buy, invest in, and sell government, state, and municipal and other bonds, but it cannot buy, invest in, or sell any such bonds, papers, stocks, or securities which are not authorized to be issued by a valid law or which are not investment securities, but that nevertheless it is about to invest in farm loan bonds; that the Trust Company has been induced to direct its officers to make the investment by reason of its reliance upon the provisions of the Farm Loan Acts, especially §§ 21, 26 and 27, by which the farm loan bonds are declared to be instrumentalities of the government of the United States, and as such, with the income derived therefrom, are declared to be exempt from federal, state, municipal, and local taxation, and are further declared to be lawful investments for all fiduciary and trust funds. The bill further avers that the acts by which it is attempted to authorize the bonds are wholly illegal, void, and unconstitutional, and of no effect, because unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States.

The bill prays that the acts of Congress authorizing the creation of the banks, especially §§ 26 and 27 thereof, shall be adjudged and decreed to be unconstitutional, void, and of no effect, and that the issuance of the farm loan bonds, and the taxation exemption feature thereof, shall be adjudged and decreed to be invalid.

The First Joint-Stock Land Bank of Chicago and the Federal Land Bank of Wichita, Kansas, were allowed to intervene and became parties defendant to the suit. The Kansas City Title & Trust Company filed a motion to dismiss in the nature of a general demurrer, and, upon hearing, the district court entered a decree dismissing the bill. From this decree appeal was taken to this Court.

Page 255 U. S. 199

No objection is made to the federal jurisdiction, either original or appellate, by the parties to this suit, but that question will be first examined. The company is authorized to invest its funds in legal securities only. The attack upon the proposed investment in the bonds described is because of the alleged unconstitutionality of the acts of Congress undertaking to organize the banks and authorize the issue of the bonds. No other reason is set forth in the bill as a ground of objection to the proposed investment by the board of directors acting in the company's behalf. As diversity of citizenship is lacking, the jurisdiction of the district court depends upon whether the cause of action set forth arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Judicial Code, § 24.

The general rule is that, where it appears from the bill or statement of the plaintiff that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that such federal claim is not merely colorable, and rests upon a reasonable foundation, the district court has jurisdiction under this provision.

At an early date, considering the grant of constitutional power to confer jurisdiction upon the federal courts, Chief Justice Marshall said:

"A case in law or equity consists of the right of the one party as well as of the other, and may truly be said to arise under the Constitution or a law of the United States whenever its correct decision depends upon the construction of either,"

Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 19 U. S. 379, and again when

"the title or right set up by the party may be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or law of the United States and sustained by the opposite construction."

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 822. These definitions were quoted and approved in Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, 611, citing Gold Washing Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199, 201; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; White v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 307; Railroad Company v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135, 139.

Page 255 U. S. 200

This characterization of a suit arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States has been followed in many decisions of this and other federal courts. See Macon Grocery Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line, 215 U. S. 501, 506-507; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 569, paragraph 3. The principle was applied in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Co., 240 U. S. 1, in which a shareholder filed a bill to enjoin the defendant corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913. In that case, while there was diversity of citizenship, a direct appeal to this Court was sustained because of the constitutional questions raised in the bill, which had been dismissed by the court below. The repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States, as well as grounds of equitable jurisdiction were set forth in the bill, and the right to come here on direct appeal was sustained because of the averments based upon constitutional objections to the act. Reference was made to Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, where a similar shareholder's right to sue was maintained, and a direct appeal to this Court from a decree of the circuit court was held to be authorized.

In the Brushaber case, the Chief Justice, speaking for the Court, said:

"The right to prevent the corporation from returning and paying the tax was based upon many averments as to the repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States, of the peculiar relation of the corporation to the stockholders and their particular interests resulting from many of the administrative provisions of the assailed act, of the confusion, wrong, and multiplicity of suits and the absence of all means of redress which would result if the corporation paid the tax and complied with the act in other respects without protest, as it was alleged it was its intention to do. To put out of the way a question of jurisdiction, we at once say that, in view of these averments and

Page 255 U. S. 201

the ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, sustaining the right of a stockholder to sue to restrain a corporation under proper averments from voluntarily paying a tax charged to be unconstitutional on the ground that to permit such a suit did not violate the prohibitions of § 3224, Rev.Stats., against enjoining the enforcement of taxes, we are of opinion that the contention here made that there was no jurisdiction of the cause, since to entertain it would violate the provisions of the Revised Statutes referred to, is without merit. . . ."

"Aside from averments as to citizenship and residence, recitals as to the provisions of the statute and statements as to the business of the corporation contained in the first ten paragraphs of the bill advanced to sustain jurisdiction, the bill alleged twenty-one constitutional objections specified in that number of paragraphs or subdivisions. As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the Sixteenth Amendment under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted."

The jurisdiction of this Court is to be determined upon the principles laid down in the cases referred to. In the instant case, the averments of the bill show that the directors were proceeding to make the investments in view of the act authorizing the bonds about to be purchased, maintaining that the act authorizing them was constitutional, and the bonds valid and desirable investments. The objecting shareholder avers in the bill that the securities were issued under an unconstitutional law, and hence of no validity. It is therefore apparent that the controversy concerns the constitutional validity of an act of Congress which is directly drawn in question. The decision depends upon the determination of this issue.

The general allegations as to the interest of the shareholder, and his right to have an injunction to prevent the purchase of the alleged unconstitutional securities by misapplication

Page 255 U. S. 202

of the funds of the corporation, gives jurisdiction under the principles settled in Pollock v. Trust Company and Brushaber v. Union Pacific Company, supra. We are therefore of the opinion that the district court had jurisdiction under the averments of the bill and that a direct appeal to this Court upon constitutional grounds is authorized.

We come to examine the questions presented by the attack upon the constitutionality of the legislation in question. The Federal Farm Loan Act is too lengthy to set out in full. It is entitled:

"An act to provide capital for agricultural development, to create standard forms of investment based upon farm mortgage, to equalize rates of interest upon farm loans, to furnish a market for United States bonds, to create government depositaries and financial agents for the United States, and for other purposes."

The administration of the act is placed under the direction and control of a Federal Farm Loan Bureau, established at the seat of government in the Treasury Department under the general supervision of the Federal Loan Board, consisting of the Secretary of the Treasury and four members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The United States is divided into twelve districts for the purpose of establishing Federal Land Banks. Each of the banks must have a subscribed capital of not less than 0,000, divided into shares of .00 each, which may be subscribed for by any individual, firm or corporation, or by the government of any state, or of the United States. No dividends shall be paid on the stock owned by the United States, but all other stock shall share in dividend distributions without preference. The Federal Farm Loan Board is to designate five directors who shall temporarily manage the affairs of each Federal Land Bank, and who shall prepare an organization certificate, which, when approved by the Federal Farm Loan Board and filed with the Farm Loan Commissioner,

Page 255 U. S. 203

shall operate to create the bank a body corporate. The Federal Farm Loan Board is required to open books of subscription for the capital stock of each Federal Land Bank, and if, within thirty days thereafter, any part of the minimum capitalization of 0,000 of any such bank shall remain unsubscribed, it is made the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to subscribe the balance on behalf of the United States.

The amendment of January 18, 1918, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase bonds issued by Federal Land Banks, and provides that the temporary organization of any such bank shall be continued so long as any farm loan bonds shall be held by the Treasury, and until the subscription to stock in such bank by National Farm Loan Associations shall equal the amount of the stock held by the United States government. When these conditions are complied with, a permanent organization is to take over the management of the bank, consisting of a board of directors composed of nine members, three of whom shall be known as district directors and shall be appointed by the Farm Loan Board, who shall represent the public interest, six of whom to be known as local directors, shall be chosen by and be representative of national farm loan associations.

Federal Land Banks are empowered to invest their funds in the purchase of qualified first mortgages on farm lands situated within the Federal Land Bank district within which they are organized or acting. Loans on farm mortgages are to be made to cooperative borrowers through the organization of corporations known as National Farm Loan Associations, by persons desiring to borrow money on farm mortgage security under the terms of the act. Ten or more natural persons, who are the owners of or are about to become the owners of farm land qualified as security for mortgage loans, and who desire to borrow money on farm mortgage security, may unite to form a National Farm

Page 255 U. S. 204

Loan Association. The manner of forming these associations, and the qualifications for membership, are set out in the act.

A loan desired by each such person must be for not more than ,000 nor less than 0, and the aggregate of the desired loans not less than ,000. The application for loan must be accompanied by subscriptions to stock of a Federal Land Bank equal to 5% of the aggregate sum desired on the mortgage loan. Provision is made for appraisal of the land and report to the Federal Farm Loan Board. No persons but borrowers on farm loan mortgages shall be members or shareholders of National Farm Loan Associations.

Shareholders in Farm Loan Associations are made individually responsible for the debts of the association to the extent of the amount of the stock owned by them respectively, in addition to the amount paid in and represented by their shares.

When any National Farm Loan Association shall desire to secure for any member a loan on first mortgage from the Federal Land Bank in its district, it must subscribe to the capital stock of the Federal Land Bank to an amount of five percent of such loan, which capital stock shall be held by the Federal Land Bank as collateral security for the payment of the loan, the association shall be paid any dividends accruing and payable on the capital stock while it is outstanding. Such stock may, in the discretion of the directors and with the approval of the Federal Farm Loan Board, be paid off at par and retired, and shall be so retired upon the full payment of the mortgage loan. In such event, the National Farm Loan Association must pay off at par and retire the corresponding shares of its stock which were issued when the Land Bank stock so retired was issued, but it is further provided that the capital stock of the Land Bank shall not be reduced to less than five percent of the principal of the outstanding farm

Page 255 U. S. 205

loan bonds issued by it. The shares in National Farm Loan Associations shall be of the par value of each.

At least 25% of that part of the capital of any Federal Land Bank for which stock is outstanding in the name of National Farm Loan Associations must be held in quick assets. Not less than 5% of such capital must be invested in United States government bonds.

The loans which Federal Land Banks may make upon first mortgages on farm lands are provided for in § 12 of the act. By § 13, these banks are empowered, subject to the provisions of the act, to issue and sell farm loan bonds of the kind described in the act, and to invest funds in their possession in qualified first mortgages on farm lands, to receive and to deposit in trust with the Farm Loan registrar, to be held by him as collateral security for farm loan bonds, first mortgages upon farm lands, and, with the approval of the Farm Loan Board, to issue and to sell their bonds secured by the deposit of first mortgages on qualified farm lands as collateral in conformity with the provisions of § 18 of the act. By the amendment of January 18, 1918, the Secretary of the Treasury was empowered during the years 1918 and 1919 to purchase farm loan bonds issued by Federal Land Banks to an amount not exceeding 0,000,000 each year, and any Federal Land Bank was authorized at any time to repurchase at par and accrued interest, for the purpose of redemption or resale, any of the bonds so purchased from it and held in the United States Treasury.

It is also provided that the bonds of any Federal Land Bank so purchased and held in the Treasury one year after the termination of the pending war shall, upon thirty days' notice from the Secretary of the Treasury, be redeemed and repurchased by such bank at par and accrued interest. By § 15, it is provided that, whenever, after the act shall have been in effect for one year, it shall appear to the Federal Farm Loan Board that National Farm Loan

Page 255 U. S. 206

Associations have not been formed and are not likely to be formed, in any locality because of peculiar local conditions, the board may, in its discretion, authorize Federal Land Banks to make loans on farm lands through agents approved by the board, on the terms and conditions and subject to the restrictions prescribed in that section.

The act also authorizes the incorporation of Joint-Stock Land Banks, with capital provided by private subscription. They are organized by not less than ten natural persons, and are subject to the requirements of the provisions of § 4 of the act so far as applicable. The board of directors shall consist of not less than five members. Each shareholder shall have the same voting privileges as the holders of shares in National Banking Associations, and shall be held individually responsible, equally and ratably, and not one for another, for all contracts, debts, and engagements of such bank to the extent of the amount of stock owned by them at the par value thereof, in addition to the amount paid in and represented by their shares. The Joint-Stock Land Bank is authorized to do business when capital stock to the amount of 0,000 has been subscribed, and one-half paid in cash, the balance remaining subject to call by the board of directors, the charter to be issued by the Federal Farm Loan Board. No bonds shall be issued until the capital stock is entirely paid up. Except as otherwise provided, Joint-Stock Land Banks shall have the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions and conditions imposed on Federal Land Banks by the act, so far as such conditions or restrictions are applicable.

Federal Land Banks may issue Farm Loan Bonds up to twenty times their capital and surplus. Joint-Stock Land Banks are limited to the issue of Farm Loan Bonds not in excess of fifteen times the amount of their capital and surplus. Joint-Stock Land Banks can only loan on first mortgages upon land in the state where located, or in a state

Page 255 U. S. 207

contiguous thereto. No loan on mortgage may be made by any bank at a rate exceeding 6% per annum exclusive of amortization payments. Joint-Stock Land Banks shall in no case charge a rate of interest on farm loans which shall exceed by more than 1% the rate established by the last series of farm loan bonds issued by them, which rate shall not exceed 5% per annum.

Provisions for the issue of farm loan bonds secured by first mortgages on farm lands or United States bonds, as collateral, are made for Federal Land Banks and Joint-Stock Land Banks; in each case, the issue is made subject to the approval of the Federal Farm Loan Board. The farm loan mortgages or United States bonds which constitute the collateral security for the bonds must be deposited with the Farm Loan Registrar.

Section 26 of the act provides as follows:

"That every Federal Land Bank and every National Farm Loan Association, including the capital and reserve or surplus therein and the income derived therefrom, shall be exempt from federal, state, municipal, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate held, purchased, or taken by said bank or association under the provisions of section eleven and section thirteen of this act. First mortgages executed to Federal Land Banks, or to Joint-Stock Land Banks and farm loan bonds issued under the provisions of this act shall be deemed and held to be instrumentalities of the government of the United States, and as such they and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from federal, state, municipal, and local taxation."

"Nothing herein shall prevent the shares in any Joint-Stock Land Bank from being included in the valuation of the personal property of the owner or holder of such shares in assessing taxes imposed by authority of the state within which the bank is located, but such assessment and taxation shall be in manner and subject to the conditions and limitations contained in section fifty-two

Page 255 U. S. 208

hundred and nineteen of the Revised Statutes with reference to the shares of national banking associations."

"Nothing herein shall be construed to exempt the real property of Federal and Joint-Stock Land Banks and National Farm Loan Associations from either state, county or municipal taxes to the same extent, according to its value, as other real property is taxed."

Since the decision of the great cases of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, and Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, it is no longer an open question that Congress may establish banks for national purposes, only a small part of the capital of which is held by the government and a majority of the ownership in which is represented by shares of capital stock privately owned and held, the principal business of such banks being private banking conducted with the usual methods of such business. While the express power to create a bank or incorporate one is not found in the Constitution, the Court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, found authority so to do in the broad general powers conferred by the Constitution upon the Congress to levy and collect taxes, to borrow money, to regulate commerce, to pay the public debts, to declare and conduct war, to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy, etc. Congress, it was held, had authority to use such means as were deemed appropriate to exercise the great powers of the government by virtue of Article I, § 8, cl. 18, of the Constitution, granting to Congress the right to make all laws necessary and proper to make the grant effectual. In First National Bank v. Union Trust Co., 244 U. S. 416, 419, the Chief Justice, speaking for the court, after reviewing McCulloch v. Maryland and Osborn v. Bank, and considering the power given to Congress to pass laws to make the specific powers granted effectual, said:

"In terms, it was pointed out that this broad authority

Page 255 U. S. 209

was not stereotyped as of any particular time, but endured, thus furnishing a perpetual and living sanction to the legislative authority within the limits of a just discretion, enabling it to take into consideration the changing wants and demands of society and to adopt provisions appropriate to meet every situation which it was deemed required to be provided for."

That the formation of the bank was required in the judgment of the Congress for the fiscal operations of the government was a principal consideration upon which Chief Justice Marshall rested the authority to create the bank, and for that purpose being an appropriate measure in the judgment of the Congress, it was held not to be within the authority of the Court to question the conclusion reached by the legislative branch of the government.

Upon the authority of McCulloch v. Maryland and Osborn v. Bank, the national banking system was established, and upon them this Court has rested the constitutionality of the legislation establishing such banks. Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 33-34.

Congress has seen fit in § 6 of the act to make both classes of banks, when designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, depositaries of public money, except receipts from customs, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and has authorized their employment as financial agents of the government, and the banks are required to perform such reasonable duties as depositaries of public moneys and financial agents as may be required of them. The Secretary of the Treasury shall require of the Federal Land Banks and the Joint-Stock Land Banks thus designated satisfactory security, by the deposit of United States bonds or otherwise, for the safekeeping and prompt payment of the public money deposited with them, and

Page 255 U. S. 210

for the faithful performance of their duties as the financial agents of the government.

Section 6 also provides that no government funds deposited under the provisions of the section shall be invested in mortgage loans or farm loan bonds.

It is said that the power to designate these banks as such depositaries has not been exercised by the government, and that the Federal Land Banks have acted as federal agents only in the case of loans of money for seed purposes made in the summer of 1918 to which we have already referred. But the existence of the power under the Constitution is not determined by the extent of the exercise of the authority conferred under it. Congress declared it necessary to create these fiscal agencies and to make them authorized depositaries of public money. Its power to do so is no longer open to question.

But, it is urged, the attempt to create these federal agencies and to make these banks fiscal agents and public depositaries of the government is but a pretext. But nothing is better settled by the decisions of this Court than that, when Congress acts within the limits of its constitutional authority, it is not the province of the judicial branch of the government to question its motives. Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 75 U. S. 541; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27; Flint v. Stone-Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 147, 220 U. S. 153, 220 U. S. 156, and cases cited.

That Congress has seen fit, in making of these banks fiscal agencies and depositaries of public moneys, to grant to them banking powers of a limited character in no wise detracts from the authority of Congress to use them for the governmental purposes named if it sees fit to do so. A bank may be organized with or without the authority to issue currency. It may be authorized to receive deposits in only a limited way. Speaking generally, a bank is a moneyed institution to facilitate the borrowing, lending and caring for money. But, whether

Page 255 U. S. 211

technically banks or not, these organizations may serve the governmental purposes declared by Congress in their creation. Furthermore, these institutions are organized to serve as a market for United States Bonds. Not less than 5% of the capital of the Federal Land Banks, for which stock is outstanding to Farm Loan Associations is required to be invested in United States bonds. Both kinds of banks are empowered to buy and sell United States bonds.

In First National Bank v. Trust Co., supra, this Court sustained the power of Congress to enable a national bank to transact business, which, by itself considered, might be beyond the power of Congress to authorize. In that case, it was held to be within the authority of Congress to permit national banks to exercise, by permission of the Federal Reserve Board, when not in contravention of local law, the office of trustee, executor, administrator, or registrar of stocks or bonds.

We therefore conclude that the creation of these banks, and the grant of authority to them to act for the government as depositaries of public moneys and purchasers of government bonds, brings them within the creative power of Congress although they may be intended, in connection with other privileges and duties, to facilitate the making of loans upon farm security at low rates of interest. This does not destroy the validity on these enactments any more than the general banking powers destroyed the authority of Congress to create the United States Bank, or the authority given to national banks to carry on additional activities destroyed the authority of Congress to create those institutions.

In the brief filed upon reargument, counsel for the appellant seem to admit the power of Congress to appropriate money for the direct purposes named, and in that brief they say: "Tax exemption is the real issue sought to be settled here." Deciding, as we do, that these institutions

Page 255 U. S. 212

have been created by Congress within the exercise of its legitimate authority, we think the power to make the securities here involved tax exempt necessarily follows. This principle was settled in McCulloch v. Maryland and Osborn v. Bank, supra.

That the federal government can, if it sees fit to do so, exempt such securities from taxation seems obvious upon the clearest principles. But it is said to be an invasion of state authority to extend the tax exemption so as to restrain the power of the state. Of a similar contention made in McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall uttered his often quoted statement:

"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied."

4 Wheat. 17 U. S. 431.

The same principle has been recognized in the National Bank cases, declaring the power of the states to tax the property and franchises of national banks only to the extent authorized by the laws of Congress. Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, involved the validity of a franchise tax in Kentucky on national banks. In that case, this Court declared ( 173 U. S. 668-669) that the states were wholly without power to levy any tax directly or indirectly upon national banks, their property, assets, or franchises except so far as the permissive legislation of Congress allowed such taxation, and the Court declared that the right granted to tax the real estate of such banks, and the shares in the names of the shareholders, constituted the extent of the permission given by Congress, and any tax beyond these was declared to be void.

Page 255 U. S. 213

In Farmers' Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U. S. 516, this Court held that a state may not tax bonds issued by the municipality of a territory; that to tax such bonds as property in the hands of the holder is, in the last analysis, an imposition upon the right of a municipality to issue them.

The exercise of such taxing power by the states might be so used as to hamper and destroy the exercise of authority conferred by Congress, and this justifies the exemption. If the states can tax these bonds, they may destroy the means provided for obtaining the necessary funds for the future operation of the banks. With the wisdom and policy of this legislation we have nothing to do. Ours is only the function of ascertaining whether Congress, in the creation of the banks and in exempting these securities from taxation, federal and state, has acted within the limits of its constitutional authority. For the reasons stated, we think the contention of the government, and of the appellees, that these banks are constitutionally organized and the securities here involved legally exempted from taxation, must be sustained.

It follows that the decree of the district court is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.

No doubt it is desirable that the question raised in this case should be set at rest, but that can be done by the Courts of the United States only within the limits of the jurisdiction conferred upon them by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. As this suit was brought by a citizen of Missouri against a Missouri corporation, the

Page 255 U. S. 214

single ground upon which the jurisdiction of the district court can be maintained is that the suit "arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States" within the meaning of § 24 of the Judicial Code. I am of opinion that this case does not arise in that way, and therefore that the bill should have been dismissed.

It is evident that the cause of action arises not under any law of the United States, but wholly under Missouri law. The defendant is a Missouri corporation, and the right claimed is that of a stockholder to prevent the directors from doing an act -- that is, making an investment -- alleged to be contrary to their duty. But the scope of their duty depends upon the charter of their corporation and other laws of Missouri. If those laws had authorized the investment in terms, the plaintiff would have had no case, and this seems to me to make manifest what I am unable to deem even debatable -- that, as I have said, the cause of action arises wholly under Missouri law. If the Missouri law authorizes or forbids the investment according to the determination of this Court upon a point under the Constitution or Acts of Congress, still that point is material only because the Missouri law saw fit to make it so. The whole foundation of the duty is Missouri law, which, at its sole will, incorporated the other law as it might incorporate a document. The other law or document depends for its relevance and effect not on its own force, but upon the law that took it up, so I repeat once more -- the cause of action arises wholly from the law of the state.

But it seems to me that a suit cannot be said to arise under any other law than that which creates the cause of action. It may be enough that the law relied upon creates a part of the cause of action, although not the whole, as held in Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 819-823, which perhaps is all that is meant by the less guarded expressions in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 19 U. S. 379. I am content to assume this to be so, although the Osborn case

Page 255 U. S. 215

has been criticized and regretted. But the law must create at least a part of the cause of action by its own force, for it is the suit, not a question in the suit, that must arise under the law of the United States. The mere adoption by a state law of a United States law as a criterion or test, when the law of the United States has no force ex proprio vigore, does not cause a case under the state law to be also a case under the law of the United States, and so it has been decided by this Court again and again. Miller v. Swann, 150 U. S. 132, 136-137; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 237 U. S. 300, 303. See also Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 505, 508-509.

I find nothing contrary to my views in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 10. It seems to me plain that the objection that I am considering was not before the mind of the Court or the subject of any of its observations, if open. I am confirmed, in my view, of that case by the fact that, in the next volume of reports is a decision, reached not without discussion and with but a single dissent, that "a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action." That was the ratio decidendi of American Wells Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U. S. 257, 260. I know of no decisions to the contrary, and see no reason for overruling it now.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS concurs in this dissent. In view of our opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction, we express no judgment on the merits.

Luther E. Gibson Memorial Freeway

 * 1) REDIRECT Interstate 680 (California)

Martin Luther King Jr. Highway

 * 1) REDIRECT U.S. Route 395 in Nevada

Oran K. Gragson Expressway

 * 1) REDIRECT Interstate 515

No Intermission
"No Intermission" is a live recording of song and commentary by cabaret artist Sandra Bernhard. Available for purchase at her 2007/2008 New Year's Eve program at San Francisco's Castro Theater and subsequently through limited versions available from her own website, the disc includes musical numbers such as "Shit! Damn! Motherfucker!" and "Who Knew?!," a track from Sandra's album Excuses for Bad Behavior (Part One). The audio is a clear, soundboard recording and the disc's contents are presented throughout one track, running 70 minutes.

Jammin' Me
Mike Campell wrote a musical number and presented it to Tom Petty during a demo. But it wasn't until the Heartbreakers toured with Bob Dylan, perfoming as his backing band, did Petty add any lyrical structure to the music Campell had written. Dylan and Petty collaborated by finding lyrics from looking for words in newspaper articles and on television.

HollywoodChicago.com
HollywoodChicago.com is a daily arts and entertainment publication that is listed in Google News, on Rotten Tomatoes and linked from hundreds of independent publications around the Web.

Andre_Leal
Andre Leal (born in May 16, 1978) is a brazilian cartoonist who mixes comics´ characters with real people in his works. Through the participation of his friend Fernanda Breta as recurrent protagonist, which curiously is confused with a fictitious character, he has histories published in diverse publications, also in awardee Front, in Jornal Atarde and Correio da Bahia (both periodical paper-news of the state of Bahia).

Heath v. Alabama
Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985) is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of dual sovereignty, the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing a crime to which he had already plead guilty in another state.

Background
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due rocess of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. U.S. Const. amend. V.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, were originally interpreted as binding only on the Federal government; for example, the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, expressly beings with the words, "Congress shall make no law . . . ." It was not until the passage of the Fourteenth  Amendment, section 1 of which says, in part, that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" that any serious consideration was given to the proposition that the Bill of Rights is binding on the states. ''Cf. Twining v. New Jersey'', 211 U.S. 78 (1908). Since then, the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have gradually evolved so as to include most state actions within the scope of the Bill of Rights. See, e.g. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18(1967)); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368 (1931).

The clause "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb," U.S. Const. amend. V, means that the government cannot re-prosecute somebody for a crime of which he or she has been found "not guilty"; likewise, the government cannot appeal against a verdict of acquittal. Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962); see also United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 464 (1977).

In Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), the Supreme Court held because of the Fourteenth Amendment, the state governments must also respect the prohibition against double jeopardy. However, each U.S. state has long been considered to have its own sovereignty, which it shares with the U.S. federal government. ''See [http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentx U.S. Const. amend. X]''. Thus, the question of whether more than one state can punish the same individual for the same set of actions was left open.

Facts and procedural history
In 1981, the defendant, Larry Gene Heath, traveled from Alabama to Georgia, where he met with two other individuals whom he had hired to kill his wife Rebecca. They returned with him to his house and, after he left the scene, they killed his wife. He was arrested later that year and, on February 10, 1982, plead guilty in a Georgia court to the crime of murder, ad was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Subsequently, a grand jury in Alabama, his state of residence, indicted him for the crime of murder during a kidnaping, and he entered a plea of "autrefois convict and former jeopardy under the Alabama and United States Constitutions," by which he stated that he was not eligible to be punished in Alabama because a Georgia court had already convicted and sentenced him for the same crime, and that the crime had, in fact, not taken place in Alabama. Heath, 474 U.S. at 85. The prosecutor argued, however, that because the defendant's wife had been kidnaped in Alabama, the murder "may be punished" there. Id. On January 12, 1983, a jury in the Alabama court convicted Heath of "murder during a kidnaping in the first degree," a capital offense, Id.  He was sentenced to death, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this decision on direct appeal. The Alabama Supreme Court, after granting certiorari, affirmed the decision of the lower court as well. Ex parte Heath, 455 So.2d 905 (1984).

The United States Supreme Court then granted certiorari to determine whether the conviction of Heath violated the precedent that had been set by an earlier case, Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977), in which the Court had held that one cannot be punished consecutively for two different offenses if the proof of both offenses is identical.

The decision of the Court
Writing for a 7-2 majority, Justice O'Connor ruled that "the dual sovereignty doctrine . . . compels the conclusion that successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause." 474 U.S. at 88. "The dual sovereignty doctrine," she explained, "is founded on the common-law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government. When a defendant in a single act violates the 'peace and dignity' of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct 'offences.' United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922)."

When somebody commits a crime against the laws of two different states, then to determine whether the the states constitute two different sovereigns or just one, one must consider whether the state governments "draw their authority to punish the offender from distinct sources of power." Heath, 474 U.S. at 88. Answering the question, Justice O'Connor wrote that the "powers" of state governments "to undertake criminal prosecutions derive from separate and independent sources of power and authority originally belonging to them before admission to the Union and preserved to them by the Tenth Amendment." Id. at 89; ''cf. U.S. v. Wheeler'', 435 U.S. 313 (1978) (applying the doctrine of dual sovereignty to the internal affairs of Native American tribes). There was one case, Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U.S. 315 (1909), that seemed to demonstrate an exception to the dual-sovereignty exception to the Fifth Amendment double-jeopardy rule, but the majority found the holding in Nielsen v. Oregon to be inapplicable in the present case. Heath, 474 U.S. at 91 (majority). But see Justice Marshall's dissent, 474 U.S. at 100.

The majority opinion concluded that by violating the laws of two different states, the defendant committed separate offenses against each state; for this reason, the Constitutional prohibition on prosecuting or convicting somebody "for the same offense" did not apply. Thus the Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, affirmed the defendant's conviction.

Justice Marshall's dissent
Justice Marshall, in a minority opinion, sought to distinguish between the long-held principle that the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit the U.S. federal government and the state governments from separately prosecuting the same individual for the same illegal act, and the majority holding that two separate state governments can do likewise.

In his dissent, he explains that the "dual sovereignty" exception to the double jeopardy clause was designed specifically "to accommodate complementary state and federal concerns within our system of concurrent territorial jurisdictions." Heath, 474 U.S. at 95 (Marshall & Brennan, JJ., dissenting).

Furthermore, even if the reasoning of the majority was correct, the dual sovereignty doctrine must "not [be used to] legitimate the collusion between Georgia and Alabama in this case to ensure that petitioner is executed for his crime." Id. Specifically, in this case the defendant plead guilty in Georgia for the express purpose of avoiding the death penalty; then, he was put on trial in Alabama by a jury in a town where the crime was notorious, and where 75 of 82 prospective jurors were aware that Heath had already plead guilty in Georgia. The judge, rather than exclude the jurors who knew that the defendant had already plead guilty, simply asked them if they would be able to "put aside their knowledge of the prior guilty plea in order to give petitioner a fair trial in Alabama." Id. at 96. It strains credibility that the jurors could remain impartial in spite of their knowledge of the guilty plea. Id. at 97. Furthermore, given that the jurors had this knowledge, defense counsel "could do little but attempt to elicit information from prosecution witnesses tending to show that the crime was committed exclusively in Georgia", id.; any argument tending to show actual innocence would likely be disbelieved by the jury, in spite of the fact that the guilty plea in Georgia was part of a plea bargain, and some defendants, to avoid execution, may plead guilty without actually being guilty. ''Cf. North Carolina v. Alford'', 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

Justice Marshall also comments that it would, without question, have been unconstitutional if the State of Georgia had decided to re-prosecute Heath on a capital charge because of its dissatisfaction with the life sentence that he had already received. "The only difference between this case and such a hypothetical volte-face by Georgia is that here Alabama, not Georgia, was offended by the notion that petitioner might not forfeit his life in punishment for his crime. The only reason the Court gives for permitting Alabama to go forward is that Georgia and Alabama are separate sovereigns." Heath, 474 U.S. at 97-98 (Marshall & Brennan, JJ., dissenting). He then goes on to criticize the majority for its "restrictive" interpretation of the word "offence." Id. at 98.

The only reasons why there needs to be a dual-sovereignty exception to the Fifth Amendment prohibition of double jeopardy, argues Marshall, are that

"were a prosecution by a State, however zealously pursued, allowed to preclude further prosecution by the Federal Government for the same crime, an entire range of national interests could be frustrated"

and that

Conversely, because "the States under our federal system have the principal responsibility for defining and prosecuting crimes," Abbate v. United States, supra, at 195, it would be inappropriate - in the absence of a specific congressional intent to pre-empt state action pursuant to the Supremacy Clause - to allow a federal prosecution to preclude state authorities from vindicating "the historic right and obligation of the States to maintain peace and order within their confines," Bartkus v. Illinois, supra, at 137.

Heath, 474 U.S. at 99 (Marshall & Brennan, JJ., dissenting). No such "interests" need to be protected when two different states are seeking to prosecute the same offense, and so the underlying reasons behind the "dual-sovereignty" exception to the prohibition against double jeopardy do not apply. Indeed, in 1909 the Supreme Court had held that in case of an incident that occurs on territory subject to the "'the one first acquiring jurisdiction of the person may prosecute the offense, and its judgment is a finality in both States, so that one convicted or acquitted in the courts of the one State cannot be prosecuted for the same offense in the courts of the other' Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U.S. 315, 320 (1909)," Id. at 100. (The majority decision of the Court stated that the holding of Nielsen v. Oregon was applicable only to a unique set of circumstances. Heath, 474 U.S. at 91.  In Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U.S. 315 (1909), two States jointly had jurisdiction over the river that separates them from each other, and one state had prosecuted somebody for an act that was specifically permitted under the laws of the other, and the Court reversed the conviction.)

Finally, Justice Marshall points out that "Even where the power of two sovereigns to pursue separate prosecutions for the same crime has been undisputed, this Court has barred both governments from combining to do what each could not constitutionally do on its own." 474 U.S. at 102. In this case, the prosecutions in Alabama and Georgia were so inextricably linked that it was as if they were acting together as a single governmental entity. Furthermore, the interests of justice, according to Marshall, were frustrated by having the defendant plead guilty to a crime in Georgia to avoid the death penalty, only to have the guilty plea prevent him from mounting a meaningful defense to capital charges in Alabama. For these reasons, in the interests "of fundamental fairness," Justice Marshall voted against the majority decision.

Justice Brennan's dissent
Justice Brennan joined Justice Marshall in his dissent, but also wrote a separate statement (in which Justice Marshall joined), in which he indicated that the "interests" mentioned by Justice Marshall, which would justify allowing Federal and State prosecutions for the same illegal act, are not of a nature that would justify any other exception to the rule that one may not be prosecuted more than once for the same offense.

Effects of the decision
This decision is one of several that upholds the idea that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid the U.S. federal government and a state government, or the governments of more than one state, from prosecuting the same individual separately for the same illegal act.

Bristow Middle School
Bristow rules.

Next Technologies
Next Technologies is a leading information technology consulting and services provider, providing end-to-end solutions for diversified clients from varied industry. We have been a pioneer in adopting technology to ensure enhanced customer choice, convenience and satisfaction. We deliver flexible and affordable Software solutions and Web solutions that enable many companies worldwide to have the exact business solutions they need. We have the experience in business operations, Business Strategy, Internet Applications, Mobile applications and Enterprise Resource Planning. This capability has enabled us to become a valued business partner with a host of leading domestic and international companies. We are able to balance product development efforts and project duration to your business needs.

Located in the Southern part on India, we cater to clients from almost all the service sectors like, Hospitals, Energy Generating units like the Government Boards, Telecoms etc in India and around the Gulf. We employ a large pool of software engineers coming from different backgrounds who transform the human ideas in to cyber solutions in the most dynamic and creative way possible in the best optimum time.

Next - The IT company

Next is committed to understand client needs and provide comprehensive solutions that are in sync with latest technologies. Our clients include companies and organizations from various sectors like banking, share market, manufacturing, retail etc. The Development team uses tools like Visual Studio.NET, JAVA, ASP, JSP, PHP, XML, Visual Basic, SQL Server, My Sql apart from other RDMS in the development process. NEXT Technologies offer services in the development of Web Applications, and e-com portals and non-web based business solutions.

Corporate Profile

Next Technologies is a young IT company with a mature outlook. We believe in empowering business and organizations by harnessing new generation’s technologies through innovative and strategic planning. At Next, we focus on evolving top-notch solutions to enable our clients to optimize their resources and stay ahead in today’s world of cutthroat competition. Our clients include competition. Our clients include companies and organizations from various sectors like banking manufacturing, retail etc.

Vision

At Next, we constantly strive to stretch the limits, explore new vistas and take on new challenges. Innovative and strategic planning underpins our work ethos and through all this we seek to accomplish our mission that of being leading players in the IT industry and earning a distinct name as providers or world class software solutions and web enabled applications that are customer oriented, cost effective and time bound.

Quality Drive

Central to all our endeavors, is unflinching adherence to quality checks. The entire operation from conception and design to implementation is subject to high-level quality checks.

The Team - Next Technologies

The prime asset of Next is its people. They are a team of young, motivated and dynamic professionals who thrive on challenge. Their unmatched expertise and extensive experience give to Next services, the seal of excellence.

Next Business Solutions

We develop e-com enabled portals in additions to website and web pages. The company also proved consultancy in developing business models for non e-com site. We undertake software projects of client/server and Internet enabled applications using best of the development tools/Operating System and servers.

Benifites Of next

•	High responsiveness •	Skilled and organized personnel •	Solid experience in projects of different complexity and scope •	Mature software development process •	On-time and within budget delivery •	Cost-competitive custom software programming services

Services Of Next

•	Software Development •	Web Application Development •	Palm Device Applications •	Software Testing •	CMS Solutions •	E Commerce Solutions •	M Commerce Solutions •	Embedded System Solutions •	Web Portal Solutions •	Data Warehousing Solutions •	Web Hosting •	Web Designing •	Outsourcing Solutions •	Flash Presentation

Declined. I'm sorry, but your article appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. If you still feel that this subject is appropriate for Wikipedia, please rewrite your proposed article in the form of an encyclopedia entry. Encyclopedia entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of published, verifiable sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the item being discussed. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

Chlorovoltaic
Essentially, Chlorovoltaics are similar to photovoltaics ,however Chlorovoltaics have the added capability of absorbtion and stabilization of greenhouse gas. Chlorovoltaic Technology could be the Industry that provides balance, as the counterweight to Industrialization and it's subsequent byproduct of Pollutants accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere. Among the various pollutants carbon (CO2 specifically) seems to present the biggest threat to the stability of Earth's biosphere. Carbon intake or "scrubbing" is carbon specific, however one could easily foresee surface membranes capable of scrubbing other harmful elements as well.

Description
Phatact.com 1 is a website created in 2007 that has games, videos, a newspaper known as the Phatact.com Times that lets users send in their own content, and a chat service. Phatact videos are very popular on Youtube 2. Phatact.com is currently ranked in the 1,000,000 ratings on Alexa 3.

Suma Wholefoods
Suma is a large wholefood wholesaler based in Elland near Halifax (UK). It specialises in vegetarian, fairly traded, organic, ethical and natural products.

It is also one of the largest workers co-operatives in the UK with more than 100 members. It is wholly owned and managed by its workforce.

Frank Jackson (outlaw)
Frank Jackson (c. June 18, 1856–1930?) was a 19th century cowboy and later outlaw who became a close associate of bank robber Sam Bass while a member of his gang during its final years. He was the sole surviving member of the gang after being ambushed at Round Rock, Texas in July 1878.

Biography
Born Llano County, Texas, Jackson was orphaned at a young age and, by 1874, he was working as a tinner for Jim Murphy in Denton, Texas when he became aquatinted with Sam Bass. Two years later, Jackson killed horse thief Henry Goodall. The following year, Jackson reluctantly joined Bass and his gang in a number of bank robberies holding up a stage near Fort Worth on December 22 and again on January 28, 1878. Within several weeks, Jackson and the others began robbing trains stopping a Houston & Texas Central express near Allen, Texas on February 22 and near Hutchins, Texas on March 18. Over the course of the year, he became a close associate of Bass and, at one point, was saved the life of Jim Murphy.

Leaving Denton, Texas in July, Jackson and the others were camped outside Round Rock, Texas several days later preparing to rob the local bank the following morning. One of the gang members, Jim Murphy, informed the authorities of the robbery and the area was by then under heavy surveillance by local police. On July 19, Jackson and the others rode into town to take a look at the bank one last time. Murphy slipped away making an excuse of buying corn for the horses while he continued with Seaborn Barnes and Bass to buy some tobacco to the Koppel general store.

While in the store, the three were approached by deputy sheriff Ellis Grimes and Morris Moore. When Grimes put his hand on Barnes and asked if he were armed, the outlaws panicked turning around and gunning both men down. Forced to fight their way through Texas Rangers and local residents, they managed to get to their horses but not before Seaborn Barnes was killed by Texas Ranger Dick Ware and Bass being shot several times by Texas Ranger George Harell. Bass managed to ride only a hundred yards before falling off and Jackson went back to rescue him. Although escaping their pursuers as night approached, Bass was unable to ride and Jackson bandaged Bass's wounds and left him under a tree outside of town. Bass was picked up by a posse the next morning but refused to reveal any information about Jackson and died the next day.

According to Murphy in a letter to Texas Ranger John B. Jones, he was contacted by Jackson soon after the incident at Round Rock. He asked, if he were to surrender himself, for a reprieve in exchange for hunting down former gang member and wanted outlaw Henry Underwood. However, Murphy apparently lost contact with Jackson and the deal never went any further. Although Jackson was reportedly seen in Denton County for a brief time, claims of his whereabouts placed him in various places including Texas, New Mexico, California and, according to Sheriff Charlie Siringo, as far away as Montana. Jackson's whereabouts have since been unrecorded however, as late as 1927, attempts had been made to convince authorities in Williamson County to drop the criminal charges against him for the murders of the two deputy sheriffs in Round Rock.

Stadsdel
Stadsdel is a Swedish form of city district, comparable to the German Stadtbezirk, i.e. an administrative unit within a larger city. In Sweden, the cities of Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö comprise city districts.

City districts are responsible for kindergartens, schools, and geriatric care within their geographical areas, as well as local cultural and recreational activities.

Stadsdel is frequently incorrectly translated as Borough. City District is however the official English language translation, as is evident from various official documents from the official homepages of the cities mentioned above.

Tony Sulli
Tony Sir is a teacher (Part Time) of Computer Science and Application at KAV High School (Dum Dum Park, Kolkata, India). He is known for his unorthodox, elementary teaching techniques and enabling even ordnary students of very high exam scores. His image lead in several ORKUT Communities and other pages. He is a gifted talent with micro-processor devides such computers and mobile phones.

Declined. We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please provide reputable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed both to establish the verifiability of the submission as well as its notability. Yngvarr (c) 12:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

International Conference on Machine Learning
International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) is a worldwide international conference on machine learning research and applications supported by International Machine Learning Society (IMLS). It is considered as one of the leading conferences in the machine learning and artificial intelligence area. It began in 1980 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. Since 1987 it was held annually and is holding its 22nd conference up to 2008 (the 2008 ICML will be held in Helsinki, Finland on July 5-9).

Hamilton Test Systems
Hamtilton Test Systems (HTS) was formed in the mid-1970's as a wholly owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (UTC, then United Aircraft Corp.) and placed under the operating control of Hamilton Standard, a division of UTC. HTS was intended to leverage Hamilton Standard's engineering, controls and manufacturing expertise with products and services for the automotive industry as well as other non-aerospace industries.

HTS designed, manufactured and installed test equipment for companies including Ford Motor Co., Cummins, Combustion Engineering and Saudi Aramco as well as products that it marketed and sold to end using businesses. HTS products included permanently installed engine test equipment (Ford and Cummins) and standalone testers (Ford Sensor System, Autosense and several automotive emissions analyzers). In addition, the company designed, manufactured and, in Arizona, California and Connecticut, operated centralized, state-sponsored auto emissions testing and certification programs. In 1980 HTS won a sole source contract to design, manufacture, sell and service standalone state emissions inspection test equipment to be sold to individual service stations in the 9 county metropolitan New York City area. A separate subsidiary, Hamilton Test Systems New York, was established to operate the program, the first major decentralized emissions inspection program in the United States.

Hamilton Test Systems was sold to Georgetown Partners in December 1990, who renamed it Envirotest. It is now part of the ESP Remote Sensing company.

Roy V. Aragon
Roy V. Aragon (born October 31, 1968) is an Ilokano writer (he writes in Iloko and also in Filipino). He is an award-winning fictionist and poet.

He is a native of Mabasa, Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya.

Works

 * Short Stories: "Garami, Bislak, Bamban ken Padeppa," "Mijar Vadil, Mannurat: Taga-Dupax" "Ang Baliw ng Bayan ng Sili"

Awards

 * Palanca Awards
 * Talaang Ginto-Gantimpalang Collantes
 * Gov. Roque Ablan Awards for Iloko Literature (GRAAFIL)
 * Reynald F. Antonio Awards for Iloko Literature (RFAAFIL)

Felix Enriquez Alcala
Felix Enriquez Alcala (born 1951, Bakersfield, CA) is an American television and film director, cinematographer and producer.

Biography: Alcala's first major break came in 1991 when he guest directed on an episode of ABC's short lived but popular drama Homefront. Since then he has guest directed on a vast number of series including CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, ER and House.

Directing Credits
 * Homefront
 * Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman
 * NYPD Blue
 * ER
 * Sliders
 * Space: Above and Beyond
 * Fire Down Below
 * Justice League of America
 * John Doe
 * Taken
 * The Guardian
 * CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
 * CSI: Miami
 * The Shield
 * Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
 * The Unit
 * House M.D.
 * Battlestar Galactica
 * Battlestar Galactica: Razor - TV movie
 * Criminal Minds

Declined. We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please provide reputable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed both to establish the verifiability of the submission as well as its notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

Biography
David Gillon (19/02/1988) was born in Newcastle and raised in the town of Wallsend. He developed an interest in athletics at a young age and by the age of 13 he was running regularly for Wallsend Harriers. Soon he took an interest in creative writing and developed this talent further during middle school, this led to his epic poem "Suffering" being published in a book featuring young writers from all over the North East. After graduating from high school he started at Northumbria University where, in his first year, he helped create the short film Fyreon, following this he acted as a director and cameraman on the film first fight. David currently resides in Jesmond with his four roommates.

J. Hayman
James Hayman is an American television producer, director and cinematographer. He is married to Annie Potts. His credits include Judging Amy, Ugly Betty, Joan of Arcadia, Kingpin, Jake and The Fatman, The Sopranos, Any Day Now, ER, Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Huff, House M.D., The Client, Murder One, Texasville, Northern Exposure, Moon Over Miami, Law & Order, Harts of The West, C-16: FBI, Dangerous Minds, One West Waikiki, Iron & Silk, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Her Deadly Rival, The Stranger Within, To Have and To Hold, and Class of '96. He has been nominated for two Emmy Awards, and a DGA Award. Links:, ,

Article created. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Thisisborin9 talk/contribs 01:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ghetto Extraordinary
Ghetto Extraordinary is Killer Mike's third album, released on internet for free download on January 4th 2008. The album features previously released material, as My Chrome, a song with former labelmate Big Boi, as well as new songs. The album was originally supposed to be Killer Mike's second album, with a release planned before I Pledge Allegiance to the Grind. Because of label issues the album was shelved, before Killer Mike decided to allow it for free downloading in early 2008.

Track Listing
Declined. We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please provide reputable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed both to establish the verifiability of the submission as well as its notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

Danny Rhymes
Danny Rhymes (aka Matt Bixel), born August 1972 in Texas ), is an American male porn star.

Rhymes has appeared in over 60 supposedly reality porn films as Milf Cruiser, Big Sausage Pizza, TeenHitchhiker and Eurobridetryouts. He has also been appeared in many porn movies as 10 Man Cum Slam #1, Becoming Georgia Adair: Self Portrait and Boob Bangers. He has also appeared in many gay porn films as Danny Rhymes, performing in both top and bottom roles. Films such as "The Apprentice 2: Dark Heart", "The Bachelor" "Mirage", "Man of the Year" (with Jason Adonis), "Warehouse of Sex", "Country Bares", "Haunted House On Sex Hill", "Trophy Case", and "Don Juan: Sins of The Flesh" as well as others. In addition to his appearances on film, he has performed both solo and with partners on a variety of gay websites under numerous names.

Recently, he has retired from doing gay porn, other than solo work, citing females lack of desire to work with him afterwards as the reason.

Covers
Men (December 2002) [2] (July/Aug 2003) Unzipped (August 2002, April 2004) Blueboy (September 2003) Indulge (#084) Inside Porn (Winter 2002)

GRB 080319B
GRB 080319B is a Gamma ray burst that was detected by NASA's Swift satellite on March 19, 2008. The burst was observed in the Bootës constellation and is believed to have originated in a galaxy seven billion light years away. Due to the enormous amount of energy released in the burst, GRB 080319B might have been visible to the naked eye, making it the "record for long-distance sight by the naked eye, at least in the present universe."

Why should I be sad
Why should i be sad is a song of Britney Spears's new album Blackout. It is the closet thing ot a ballad on the album and is also one of th ebest fuckin songs evr

Coca
The article shows other uses than just for soda. ArcAngel (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Redirect- Coca-Cola
 * style="text-align:center;" | This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

Michael Finlay Normand
Movies:

* Leon the Pig Farmer

Michael Finlay Normand (b. Nov. 21, 1958) is a filmmaker from Glasgow, Scotland. He is best known for co-writing, with Gary Sinyor, the 1992 film, "Leon the Pig Farmer." He also wrote and co-directed the 1996 film, "Dirty Laundry." His film career stalled after the release of "Dirty Laundry" when allegations surfaced connecting him with a child pornography ring based in Belgium. He lives in London.

Declined. We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please provide reputable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed both to establish the verifiability of the submission as well as its notability. Yngvarr (c) 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

EUREKA
EUREKA IS A CITY, IN THE STATE OF ALASKA.

Glass Roots
Glass Roots is a small privately owned buisness in the heart of rural Western New York Batavia to be exact. They specialize in glass tobacco acceceries. A customer oriented buisness, where your needs are catered. If you don't see something that you like they will make you a custom piece. The options are unlimited. Most of the pipes are handblown on site. A rare find nowadays. As far as costoms go the sky is the limit, if you can dream it then they can creat it. All colors that exist in the glass world today are readily available and more are created everyday. Though fully stocked with Western New Yorks highest quality and affordable Smoking Vessels they are not limited to just that. They have a very large array of hemp accessaries including cloathing, footware, and backpacks, bracelets and necklaces to belts, dog leashes and frisbees. That's right hemp frisbees. Not impressed with any of that? Stock up on some of thier hemp twine and make anything your heart desires. Upon entering the store you will be swept off your feet with the pungent odor of Wild Berry Incents and thier 43+ different scents, and for all you long time scent burners Nag Champa is also always in stock. After treating your nose your ears are next browse thier wide selection of cd's, cassets and of course vynals. Yours eyes of coarse are next, there is hardly anything as beuatifull as the variety of handblown beads whether for neclaces or dreadlocks there are none as fine as those at Glass Roots. Don't forget to check out thier wide variety of novelty items, from stash safes, door beads, and hand made candles to tie die tshirts, digital scales, and amazing tapestries.

bubdude
Bubdude is a name I came up with myself. It is a name for my friend who calls himself "bub". He is very weird. But he is my friend. He is very cool.

Stuff about him
His name is...no I will not give his name out!! He is my friend. He is kinda short. He is cool.

Ellen Stewart
Ellen Stewart was a fictional television character on CBS Daytime's As The World Turns from 1956 to 1995 (39 years). She was created by Irna Phillips.

Actor History: Wendy Drew (Original cast member; April 2, 1956 to Fall 1960); Patricia Bruder (December 1960-1995; 1998)

Children: Dan Stewart (with Tim Cole; Deceased), Dr. Carol Ann Stewart Ward (with David Stewart), Dawn Stewart (with David Stewart), Paul Stewart (stepson; deceased)

Relatives
 * James T. Lowell Jr. (Father; Deceased)
 * Claire English (Mother; Deceased)
 * Judge James T. Lowell (Grandfather; Deceased)
 * Alice Lowell (Grandmother; deceased)
 * Steve English (Uncle; deceased)
 * Betsy Stewart Andropoulos (Granddaughter)
 * Emily Stewart (Granddaughter)
 * Maria Ward (Granddaughter)
 * Lowell Ward (Grandson)
 * Nancy Ward (Granddaughter)
 * Gregory Ward (Grandson)
 * Danielle Andropoulos (Great-granddaughter)
 * Alison Stewart (Great-granddaughter)
 * Daniel Hughes (Great-grandson)
 * Jennifer Ryan (Great-granddaughter; deceased)

Declined. We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please provide reputable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed both to establish the verifiability of the submission as well as its notability. Thisisborin9 talk/contribs 01:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

United States Bill of Rights
(See step 2 of Featured article review.)

Comment: This article contains an Unreferencedsection template, which has been present for over a year now. If no references can be provided to support the unreferenced material, then the unreferenced material should be deleted to prevent copyright violation, and the article reclassified from Featured Article to good article.

Aerospace Freeway
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color:#A0FFA0" | This request for creation has been accepted. Please do not modify it. ''This request for creation has been reviewed. The reviewer comments appear below the article text.''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |


 * 1) REDIRECT California State Route 14

Roxanne Sparks Karate Champion
Roxanne Sparks is a resident of Hoquiam, Washington. As of this writing (2008) she is currently 11 years old. Although she is young, she has accomplish more than many will in a lifetime. At the tender age of 4 she started her training in Karate at the Morningstar Dojo in Aberdeen, Washington guided by the renown 8th degree Black Belt John Kraemer. She excelled early in her training and started National level competitions at the age of five, securing her first 3 AAU Junior Olympic Gold medals and 3 IMAC National Championships that same year. So notable was her accomplishment that soon there after she was featured in the "Faces in the Crowd" column in Sports Illustrated magazine. Her success continued and she soon became a the feature story of many news broadcasts on KOMO and KING television in Seattle. By the age of 9 she had earned her Black Belt in Shim Ru Ren and had accumulated 13 National Level Karate Championships and 11 AAU Junior Olympic medals 6 of which were Gold. In 2006 she was permanently enshrined on the City of Aberdeen's "Walk of Fame" with a bronze star. The star sits among other notable resident's stars such as John Madden, Kurt Cobain and Noble Prize winner George H. Hitchings.

Sodomy Chef
Sodomy Chef is a term of endearment passed down by those who have earned it. It is a slightly higher honor than being named Iron Chef.

Past Sodomy Chefs
Frugal Gourmet Long Dong McGong Paul "The Butcher" Ronald McDonald The Lunch Lady

JabbaWockeeZ
JabbaWockeez is a premier dance crew originiating from San Diego, California. The group gained fame on MTV's hit dance show, America's Best Dance Crew. The six-member crew is known for their trademark masks and impressive dance moves. JabbaWockeeZ will square off with Status Quo in the season finale on March 27.

Mohan Maharshi
Mohan Maharishi is a well known theatre personality in India.He was one of the most famous alumini of the National school of drama and later served the school as the director of the school. A well known playwright and thinker, Maharishi has written several revolutionary hindi plays such as "Einstien" "Raja Ki Rasoi" and "Saanp Seedhi". Maharishi also served as the Dean of University Instructions at Punjab University, Chandigarh and was the head of the Indian theatre department of the Punjab University as well. After living in Chandigharh for several years, Maharishi has recently moved back to New Delhi. Maharishi is known for his simplistic yet theatrically sound and heartwarming productions and is widely regarded as one of the best directors Indian theatre has ever produced.

U.S. Route 60 in California

 * 1) REDIRECT U.S. Route 60

Martin Lurther King, Jr.

 * Redirect- DMLKJ


 * Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Declined. There is already a Martin Luther King, Jr. page. This page is for requesting a new article, not redirecting an old one. Thisisborin9 talk/contribs 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wellas
Mary K. Wells (b. 19??, d. 2000) was an American television writer and actress. She acted on Return To Peyton Place, The Secret Storm, The Brighter Day, As The World Turns, Here Come The Waves, The Searching Wind, George Abbott's Three Men On A Horse, Any Wednesday (with Sandy Dennis), and Edward Albee's Everything In The Garden, The Edge of Night (as Louise Grimsley Capice; Ray McDonnell played her husband), Big Town (played Lorelei Kilbourne) and Love of Life.

She wrote for All My Children from 1973-1993. She was nominated for 14 Daytime Emmys and won twice (1985 & 1988).

Links:, , , , ,

Article created. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }