vinced, if possible, that State courts had a right to inquire, through habeas corpus, into the detention of a citizen held merely by a Federal official, without the sentence of a court. To deny such powers to a State court, he said, "is to deny the right to protect the citizen by habeas corpus against arbitrary imprisonment in a large class of cases."
But the majority's holding in Tarble's case was the exception in this period, not the rule. Time after time, in major cases, States' rights prevailed. In Thomson vs. Union Pacific, the Court upheld the right of States to tax a railroad built with Federal funds.222 In Osborne vs. Mobile, the Court approved a State license tax on express companies doing business partly outside a State.223 When a woman in Illinois contended that she had a right, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to practice law in State courts, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of Illinois to legislate on such matters for itself.224 When a murderer in California was sentenced to death on proceedings that stemmed from an information instead of an indictment, the Court held this was the exclusive business of California.225 Similarly, Pennsylvania was upheld in a law suppressing the manufacture of oleomargarine;226 Iowa and Kansas were upheld in State liquor laws,227 and Mississippi was affirmed in a State act creating a railroad commission.228 Why should the States have interposed? Their high place was repeatedly affirmed.
BUT THE most significant cases in this period, of course, were those in which the Supreme Court construed the newly imposed Reconstruction Amendments. And of these, the most vital to the cause of States' rights was the Court's ruling of 1873 in the famed