St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-06-18
CANNOT Be CLOSED.
Decree Issuing an Injunction
Against Sunday Opening
Overruled.
The Decision Settles the
Vexed Question for All
Time.
Chief Justice Fuller Delivers
the Opinion to a Crowded
Court Room.
The United States Is Not IN
Possession of the
Fair.

CHICAGO, June H. Chief Justice
Fuller this morning overruled the de-
cision of the federal circuit court which
issued an injunction restraining the
directors from opening the fair on SUI
day. He decides for the United States
court of appeals, aud remands the suit
to the circuit court. The decision
means to certainty that the worlds
fair will be open on Sundays ana
settles the case for all time,
as an appeal would have to go to
the supreme court Of the United
States, which does not meet until Octo-
Der, when the fair will be ended. Every
seat was taken fully an hour before the
time announced when the court would
decide the case, and standing room was
soon exhausted. The crowd was so
dense that no one of the many feminine
sightseers in the corridors succeeded Ill
gaining entrance to the court room
Chief Justice Fuller, In rendering the
decision, spoke as follows:
'Deeming it desirable that this mat
ter should be disposed of at once. we
shall announce the result at which we
have arrived, postponing for want OF
time the full expression OF our views.
which will hereafter be given. The
appellees have submitted motion to
dismiss this appeal upon the grounds
that the jurisdiction of the circuit court
was In issue; that
The Question Involved
the construction or the application or
Al. Il %hn Init
and that the constitutionality of law
of the United States was drawn in ques-
ton therein; that, therefore, the appeal
for final decree would lie to the su
preme court of the United States and
not to this court, and hence this appeal,
which is from an interlocutory ORDER
cannot be maintained under sec
tion of the judiciary act OF March
S, 1891. We do not understand that
the power of the circuit court to deter
mine the case was denied, but that the
appellants contended that the united
States had not by its appeal made
case properly cOgnizable i'll a court OF
equity, the objection was to the want
of equity, and not the want of power.
The Jurisdiction of the circuit court was
therefore not In issue and within the
intent or meaning of the act so far as
the construction or application OF the
constitution of the United States
and the constitutionality of the
laws of the United States are
concerned. We are of the opinion that
the order we are called upon TO review
involved or drew in question neither
one nor the other, in the sense that the
action of the circuit court was invoked.
1.-The disposal of the proceedings, or
the disposition of the contention, rests
upon the ground as to whether the de-
cison had any reference TO the con-
Struction or application OF the constltu-
ton, or the validity OF
Acts of Congress
In respect of that instance. And the
conclusion upon which the order was
based was invoked at constructions OF
that character. The jurisdiction of this
court to review cannot be defeated at
the instance of the appellees, because
the constitutionality of the acts upon
which they rely might have been chal-
lenged by their adyersaries. The mo-
ton to dismiss is overruled. The ques-
ton to be determined is whether upon
this circuit preliminary injunctl0ns
should have been granted. Ihe
bill pleads that the defendants
are usurping unlawful authority over
the exposition and grounds, and in
on Sunday in contraventiOn of the acts
of notwithstanding such open
Ing would be doing great injury and
of grievons prejudice Of the common
public good ana to the welfare of the
people.' 1t is not contended that
any property interests OF the complain
ant will be injured by the threatened
action, nor is there any allegation
of appreciable injury or probable
loss by such action. But 1t is said that
the intervention of the court may be
rested upon the protection of the United
States in its possessing the grounds OF
the exposition for the purpose of pro-
tecting the United States in its posses
sion. The furnishing of the 100000
souvenir coins was condition upon
The Local Corporation
bv the United States, In addition to the
many millions it had already contrib
nted. the further sum of $2.500,000 and
the giving to the Cover nment OF salts
factory guaranty that it would provide
all additional sums necessary for the
complete construction of the work
prior to May l, 1898, and was subject to
TWO conditions, subsequent, namely:
the payment by the corporation of all
expense, cost and charges of the
great departments of the eXposi-
tion and the closing Of the exposition
on Sunday. In Yitw of the vast preyi-
Gus expenditure of the corporation, and
the extent of the obligations assumen
the right of all parties concerned and
the nature of these conditions, and the
conditions subsequent, we do not think
this a proper case for the rule in ques-
ton; nor can we concur III the PROPOSE
ton that the appropriation of the two
and a half millions amounted to a
charitable trust. upon certain condi-
tions warranted. The appropriation was
made for the purpose of aiding in defray-
ing the cost of the completion 6fthe work,
and to be paid over on vouchers for labor
done, material furnished, and services
performed in the prosecution of that
work. 1t was an appropriation for the
benefit of the local corporation to help
It out of
Its Financial Difficulty,
and TO enable 1t to complete its under
taking. and as such does not come under
the accepted definition of charitable
Gift for the benefit of an indefinite class
of persons. So far as the purpose of the
appropriation subsequently made is
concerned, thatpurpoSe had to be ac-
cCmplished before the money could be
paid over.
The decision of the court might in
terpOse to protect the United States in
its possession, but it is the local corpor-
alton that is in actual possession under
the law OF the state, and of the ordin-
ance OF the South park commissioners.
DEe possession is recognized by the acts