Opinion of the Court.

268 U.S.

portation Act, 1920, here involved (§ 310). So far as venue is concerned, there is no ambiguity in the words "any United States district court."

Congress has also made a few clearly expressed and carefully guarded exceptions to the general rule of jurisdiction in personam stated above. In one instance, the Credit Mobilier Act, March 3, 1873, c. 226, § 4, 17 Stat. 485, 509, it was provided that writs of subpoena to bring in parties defendant should run into any district. This broad power was to be exercised at the instance of the Attorney General in a single case in which, in order to give complete relief, it was necessary to join in one suit defendants living in different States. United States v. Union Pacific Railroad, 98 U. S. 569. Under similar circumstances, but only for the period of three years, authority was granted generally by Act of September 19, 1922, c. 345, 42 Stat. 849, to institute a civil suit by, or on behalf of, the United States, either in the district of the residence of one of the necessary defendants or in that in which the cause of action arose; and to serve the process upon a defendant in any district. The Sherman Act, July 2, 1890, c. 647, § 5, 26 Stat. 209, 210, provides that when "it shall appear to the court" in which a proceeding to restrain violations of the Act is pending " that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court" it may cause them to be summoned although they reside in some other district. The Clayton Act, October 15, 1914, c. 323, § 15, 38 Stat. 730, 737, contains a like provision. But no act has come to our attention in which such power has been conferred in a proceeding in a circuit or district court where a private citizen is

4

Even the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court is subject to the territorial limitation. Lathrop v. Drake, 91 U. S. 516, 517. Although the adjudication in one district brings the property of the bankrupt wherever situated into custodia legis (Lazarus v. Prentice, 234 U. S. 263), that court cannot issue an order upon a person in another

the sole defendant and where the plaintiff is at liberty to commence the suit in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or in which he can be found."

As the Railroad Labor Board is charged generally with the adjustment of disputes between carriers and their employees, it may prove desirable to hold hearings at any place within the United States; and power to do so was expressly conferred. The Board may demand answers or the production of documentary evidence from one who attends such a hearing. The contumacy of a witness district, not a party to the proceeding, to deliver it up. See Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co., 222 U. S. 300, 311-312; In re Geller, 216 Fed. 558; Progressive Building & Loan Co. v. Hall, 220 Fed. 45; In re United States Chrysotile Asbestos Co., 253 Fed. 294. Ancillary proceedings are brought in the other district. Babbit v. Dutcher, 216 U. S. 102. Resort is likewise had to ancillary proceedings to secure the evidence of a person living in another district. Elkus, Petitioner, 216 U. S. 115.

The Commerce Court created by Act of June 18, 1910, c. 309, 36 Stat. 539, could issue process through the United States. P. 541. Upon its repeal by Act of October 22, 1913, c. 32, 38 Stat. 208, 219, 220, it was provided that the process of the applicable district court might "run, be served, and be returnable anywhere in the United States"; but the venue of suits in the district courts was narrowly limited. See Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 245 U. S. 493; Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. United States, 249 U. S. 557, 563; Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co. v. United States, 263 U. S. 528, 535. Compare Vicksburg, etc. Ry. Co. v. Anderson-Tully Co., 236 U. S. 408; Graustein v. Rutland R. Co., 256 Fed. 409.

5 Under the Materialmen's Act, August 13, 1894, c. 280, 28 Stat. 278, as amended February 24, 1905, c. 778, 33 Stat. 811, the action. on the bond in the name of the United States must be brought in the district in which the contract was to be performed. This Court has held that jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants may be secured by service of process upon them in whatever district they may be found. United States v. Congress Construction Co., 222 U. S. 199, 203. Compare suits by a national bank against the Comptroller of the Currency. Judicial Code, § 49; First National Bank v. Williams, 252 U. S. 504, 509.

appearing before the Board in any designated place of hearing was thus one contingency for which it was necessary to make provision. Congress also granted to the Labor Board in explicit language the broad power of compelling a person to come from any place in the United States to any designated place of hearing to furnish evidence. The refusal of such person, who might be in any district in the United States, to comply with such a subpoena was obviously a second contingency to be provided for. Unrestricted liberty of venue in invoking the aid of a district court, referred to before, was clearly essential to the complete exercise of the Board's powers and the effective performance of its functions. Moreover, this unrestricted choice cannot subject to undue hardship any defendant actually found within the district in which the suit is brought. But no reason is suggested why Congress should have wished to compel every person summoned either to obey the Board's administrative order without question, or to litigate his right to refuse to do so in such district, however remote from his home or temporary residence, as the Board might select. The Interstate Commerce Commission which, throughout thirty-eight years, has dealt in many different ways with most of the railroads of the United States has never exercised, or asserted, or sought to secure for itself, such broad powers.

Compare Act of March 2, 1793, c. 22, § 6, 1 Stat. 333, 335; Rev. Stat. § 876, as amended by Act of September 19, 1922, c. 344, 42 Stat. 848: also Acts of February 10, 1891, c. 128, 26 Stat. 743; July 15, 1913, c. 6, § 5, 38 Stat. 103, 106; September 26, 1914, c. 311, § 9, 38 Stat. 717, 722; October 15, 1914, c. 323, § 13, 38 Stat. 730, 736; September 8, 1916, c. 463, § 706, 39 Stat. 756, 797; February 5, 1917, c. 29, § 16, 39 Stat. 874, 886; October 6, 1917, c. 105, 40 Stat. 398, 399; October 22, 1919, c. 80, § 105, 41 Stat. 297, 300; June 10, 1920, c. 285, § 4(g), 41 Stat. 1063, 1067; November 23, 1921, c. 136, § 1308, 42 Stat. 227, 310; September 21, 1922, c. 369, § 6 (b), 42 Stat. 998, 1002; June 2, 1924, c. 234, § 1004, 43 Stat. 253, 340; June 7, 1924, c. 320, § 8, 43 Stat. 607, 609.

We are of opinion that by the phrase "any District Court of the United States" Congress meant any such court "of competent jurisdiction." The phrase "any court" is frequently used in the federal statutes and has been interpreted under similar circumstances as meaning "any court of competent jurisdiction." By the general rule the jurisdiction of a district court in personam has been limited to the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or in which he can be found. It would be an extraordinary thing if, while guarding so carefully all departure from the general rule, Congress had conferred the exceptional power here invoked upon a board whose functions are purely advisory (Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Labor Board, 261 U. S. 72; Pennsylvania R. R. System Federation No. 90 v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 267 U. S. 203) and which enters the district court, not to enforce a substantive right, but in an auxiliary proceeding to secure evidence from one who may be a stranger to the matter with which the Board is dealing. We think it has made no such extension by § 310 of Transportation Act, 1920. It is not lightly to be assumed that Congress intended to depart from a long established policy. Panama Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 384; In re East River Towing Co., 266 U. S. 355, 367.

Reversed.

7 Rev. Stat. § 4284; Ex parte Slayton, 105 U. S. 451; In re Louisville & Cincinnati Packet Co., 223 Fed. 185; Rev. Stat. § 2103; United States v. Crawford, 47 Fed. 561. Compare Rev. Stat. § 1042; United States v. Mills, 11 App. D. C. 500, 504-507. The phrase has been used in other statutes in conferring the right to invoke judicial aid in compelling attendance as a witness. See statutes in note 6, supra.

EDWARDS, FORMER COLLECTOR, v. CUBA RAILROAD COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 324. Argued April 15, 1925.-Decided June 8, 1925. 1. The meaning of "income," as used in § 38 of the Corporation Excise Tax Law of 1909, held, in its application to the case, not distinguishable from the meaning of the same word in the Income Tax Law of 1913 and the Revenue Act of 1916. P. 631.

2. The Sixteenth Amendment, like other laws authorizing or imposing taxes, is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by its words. P. 631.

3. Money subsidies granted by the Cuban government to a railroad company of this country, to promote the construction of railroads in Cuba and in consideration also of reduced rates to the public as well as reduced rates and other privileges for the government, and which were fixed and paid proportionately to mileage actually constructed, and were used for capital expenditures by the company, though not entered on its books as in reduction of cost of construction,-held not income within the Sixteenth Amendment.

P. 632.

Affirmed.

ERROR to a judgment for plaintiff railroad in the District Court in an action to recover money paid as income and corporation excise taxes.

Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom the Solicitor General and Mr. Nelson T. Hartson were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Howard Mansfield, with whom Mr. Allen Evarts Foster was on the brief, for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation, owns and operates a railroad in Cuba. In March, 1917, it made return of its income for 1916; and, in due time, paid the tax assessed