The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-06-18
OPEN FAIR ON AL SUNDAYS.
yUE CORR SAYS THE UNITED STA TIES
CAN'T COMPEL 4 CLOSING.

Jnsgc- HUM and Allen of the Court or
Appeals, Decide Unanimously that Inas.
much ns the United states Cannot show
Injury They HIVE No Cause 10 Ask FOR
nm Injunction - Attorney-Geuerai oiney
Thinks There's Room for More Litigation.
C,uctGu Juno 1.-THE United States Court
n, Arrcsla to-day decided unanimously that
Tho Worlds Fair directors could keep the ex-
bIb,ion open on sundays. The ground OF the
decision was that tho United States was not in
actual control o! the enterprise. and that tho
I'n,tcd states had no case IN equity in asking
.oraninluncton on tho ground that no injury
or yrcn: had lceu shown as tho resultant OF
sunday oreninG. Chief Justice Fuller gave
tbe opinion und Judges Bum and Allen as
sentel.
Tho decision settles tho case for all time.
as an appeal will have to go to tho Supreme
Court If tho United States, which docs not
rect until october, when the Fair will BIO
oaici. livery seat was taken an hour before
thc t.inc announced whom tho court would de-
ciio the case. Chief Justice Fullor. in render
Ing the decision. spoke as follows:
"Dccmms it desirable that this matter
shoal bo disposed of Mt once. we shall an
nouncc tho result ut which wo have arrived.
postIonin; for want Of time the full expression
Of our viows. which will hereafter be given.
Thoarlc.irct have submitted n motion to dis
miss this aprcli uron tho grounds that tho
jurisdiction II tho Circuit Court was In issue:
that The 80 80 involved tho construction or APP
l.iclHOit W the Constitution OF the United
state. and that the consttutionality OF law
Of che United Statos was drawn in question
.ncrcn TINT therefore tho appeal for final
decree would lie to tho Supreme Court of tho
United states. and not to this court. and
hence this appeal. which is from mn in
ttr!,cGtory order. cannot be maintained
under section of the Judiciary act of March
.. 1851. Wo do not understand that the power
OF tho Circuit Court to determine the case was
denied but that the appellants commended that
the United Statcs had not by thcir appeal made
acasc properly cognzable in a court Of equity.
The objection was to tho want Of equity, and
not 10 the want uf power. Tho jurisdiction Of
tho Circuit Court was therefore not in issue;
and within tho intent or meaning OF tho
act 50 far MS tho construction or application Of
the Constitution of the United States and the
constltutionality OF tho laws OF the United
States arc concerned, wo are OF tho opinion
Tint the order We are called on TO rcview in
VOWED or drew in question neither ono nor tho
other in the sense that the action OF tho Cir
cut Court was invoked.
Tho disposal OF the proceedings or the dis
position OF tho contention rests upon tho
ground as to whether tho decision had any
reference to tho construction or application Of
the Constitution or the validity OF acts OF Con-
gress in resnect OF that instance. And the
conclusions upon which tho order was based
were invoked as constructions Of that chnrac
ter. The jurisdiction OF this court to review
cannot DO defeated at the instance OF the ap-
nall thn az oli ~ ~ ha
acts upon which they rely might have been
challenged by their adversarles. The motion
to"ismiss Is overruled.
The question to be determined Is
whether upon this circuit preliminary injunc-
ton should have been granted. The bill
pleads that the defendants are usurping un-
lawful authority over the Exposition and
grounds. and in virtue thereof assume to
open the gates on Sunday In contrsvention o..
the acts OF Observation-Disclosures such
orenlns would be of great injury and n
grevious prejudice to the common pu bile good
ind to the welfare Of the people OF the United
States 1t is not contended that any property
interests Of the complainant viii be injured
by the Threatened action. nor is there any al
OF Or bs
purpose OF protecting the United States In its
possession Of the grounds OF the Exposition.
coins was a Condition upon tho local cor
poration by the United States, In addition
t9tho many millions it had already coptrih-
lions and tho giving to the Government of a
satisfactory guarantee that 1t would prov do
ton " the Work i Prior 0 to May isa and Was
subject to two conditions SUBSEQUENT. namely.
@ by the Of al
the Exposition and the closing Of the EXPOSE
ton on sunday. In view of the vast previous
Of the obligations assumed the right OF ali par
ties concerned and the nature OF these cond-
tons. and tho conditions subsequent we do not
think this Il proper case for the rule In queS-
ton, nor can we concur in the proposition that
the appropriation of the two and half million
dollars amounted to u charitable trust. upon
certain conditions warranted.
,,. The appropriation was m, made Tor tho pIr,
s IL In tie ss % to
vouchers for labor done. material furnished:
and services performed In the prosecution OF
benefit Of the local corporation to help 1t out of
KS financial difficulty. ana to enable It to com:
eos Its nds9 tbn aa as does not
charitable gift for the benefit OF an Indefinite
class Of persons, SO far as the purpose OF the
tina, purpose hid to be accom- plished before
thy money could DO paid over.
op1"teSt the United STATES in its possession'
but 1t is the local corporation that Is In actual
Possession s under the law Of the State and OF
ers Tho possession 10 recognized by the acts
OF Congress AS essential to the construction
and ntstration OF the exposition by the cor
porati"n. In that construction the corporation
las invested sixteen millions OF dollars under
circumstances that preclude the view that
the United States have exclusive administra-
tinn and authority in the premises. It is per-
iectiy clear that Congress never Intended that
y should become responsible for the con-
ttruction OF any OF the buildings except Its
own. or fer the work provided Tor by the ap-
inroEriation;; However, it was intended that
NE EXPOSITION should receive the sanction OF
Inc Government. and In that sense, as re-
marked by Chief Justice Waite In the Phila-
aelphia case, he impressed by a national and
International character or course, tho Gov
ernment has a qualified possession. but we
NM nothing in this regard upon which to base
al intervention OF court OF equity on that
mound.
We cannot now discuss tho various oues-
u0ns necessary TO o considered, but which
vi! be treated OF In the opinion 10 10 fled 1t
IL sufficient to say that We cannot except this
tR from ne ordinary, rule, which to invoke
Suires sumo injury to property, whether actual
OF peISIe"uvo. some invasion OF prOpertv or
clvli rishts. some injury lrreparable in its mn.
lure. ana which cannot be redressed ut law
rms Is not such case, and the result ia W.
hereby refuse the order and tho Case 10 W. mo
~ rfh