St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-06-09
Decision in the Injunction
Case Against the Fair
Officials.
s--.-s
Five Judges Decided That
the Restraining Order
Should Issue.
Each Of These Came to This
Conclusion on Diverg-
ing Grounds.
The Officials Will Take an
Appeal From the De-
! ciSiOn.

CHICAGO, June S.-Judges Woodds
and jenkins, of the federal bench,
ordered today that an injunction be is
sued restraining the officials OF the
worlds fair from opening the gates OF
Jackson park on Sunday. Judge Gross
cup dlssented, and, in his findings, re-
commended that the injunction be not
granted. For the first time, probably,
in the history of United States district
courts, bench of three judges failed
to arrive at majority finding, each of
the two judges who granted the injunc-
tion taking action on widely diverging
grounds, and the dissenting judge diff
fering radically from both.
Prominent lawyers and citizens inter-
ested on both sides of the question
crowded the federal court room today
wien Judges Woods, jenkins and
Closeup filed slowly in and seated
themselves upon the bench. Judge
Woods spoke first and said that the
court would pass upon the motion for
aB injunction made by the United
States against the Worlds Columbian
Exposition Company to compel 1T to
close the gates on Sunday. He an
nounced that he and his associates
Entertained Different Views
on certain important points. and each
Judge would formulate his ideas in an
individual opinion. The jurist then read
his own opinion, in which he concluded
that Jackson park was lawfully devoted
for exposition purposes and that the in
junction should be granted as prayed
for. He found that the exposition had
intact been turned over to the federal
government by the local corporation,
and that its control was therefore as alb
solute as its control of the federal
building in which he was speaking.
He held that the Sunday closing cOndi-
ton and the souvenir coin grant did not
constitute contract, and the Sunday
rE1e, having once been passed by the
directory and approved by the national
commission, the directory had no au-
thOrity to reconsider it. lie held that
congress had perfect right to withhold
that portion of the souvenir coins
which it retained, and that the
people. had no right of entry into
the park because they had handed
the governance of entry over to the
federal authorities when they voted the
issue of s., 900, 900 bonds for the purpose
of the exposition. lie also held that
congress did not limit the amount OF
money to be expended on the fair. but
that the local corporation was liable for
every dollar of it. He found that be-
cause the exposition had been rendered
to and accepted by the government,
therefore the government
Had a Standing i'm Equity.
So far as the case before Judge Stern
isiconcerned, he held that it was no bar
to the proceedings because sit is in
admissible to say that the government
must in comfy yield to the state court
to take such control as would cover even
tine existence of the enterprise"
Judge jenkins. after rcciting all the
early history of the fair, took the
ground that the government had only a
qualified possession Of the exposition,
but said the case did not hinge on that
question. He held that the Sunday
closing condition was not question of
creed or religious belief. but matter OF
scientific research; that man required
one day in the week for rest,
and that this has been recOg-
nized by the United States almost
ever since their formation. He claimed
that the resolution of the directory to
pay back the money received out of the
souvenir appropriation was no tenderI at
all, and denied that the state court mad
any right whatever to take jurisdiction
OF the case brought for an injunction to
compel the directory to open the fair on
Sunday. He concluded by recommend
ing that the injunction should issue.
Judge Grosscup said that the commits
sioners had jurisdiction over the ex-
hibits. the awarding of prizes. and also
a right to modify, but not to make rules.
He did not look upon the S2,500.00 or
any of the donations as gift, but as a
contract between the United States and
the local corporation. If the commission
had charge OF the exposition,a as claimed,
it was the~first instance in which he had
ever known of the donor making him.
self a donation. In his opinion the
government
Gave the Money
for the purpose Of protecting its ma
tional honor. and in his opinion it was
a contract for that purpose. By the act
of. March, 1898, the government decided
tosSeize a portion of the donation, and
the act could be construed only as an
withholding of the appro-
BY its terms the corporation
was under no obligation to carry out its
provisions. The judge did not believe
that the corporation was to be held to
have accepted the contract by it's ac-
ceptance of the money. 1t did not know
of the construction which was put upon
the act, and was not in position to
make an election. The plea of estoppel
could not be maintained when the party
who brought the plea was responsible
for the acts thatIed up to the making of
The plea. On these grounds he dis
agreed from the conclusions OF the
other judges.
Attorney Walker said that the de-
PENDANT corporation desired to appeal
from the decree. He asked that the
court accept bond to operate as a
the appeal to be heard in
The appellate court. There was danger
Of a conflict of Jurisdiction between the
state and federal courts, and this
was all the more reason that
IN appeal should be granted. Tomorrow
morning was set for hearing Walker on
,he motion. President Higinbotham de-
,lined to express any opinion at present,
Is did also Director General Davis.
Palmer, of the national com
said:
81 don't think there is anything to be
laid now. No doubt the openers will
appeal. The decision, | admit, is sur
prise."
z
A Royal Betrothal.
pppr,r lima Q-Tha Rorlin Tapp-