The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1893-06-18
6 N nj e S,
Notes.

j
in the United States cOurtof appeals, this
morning overruled the decision OF the
federal circuit court restraining the d.
.ectors from opening the fair on sundays
and remanded the suit. The decision
means that the fair Will be kept open on
Sundays, and settles the case for all time,
AS an appeal would have to go TO the su-
prere court Of the United States, which
does not meet until October, when the
fair will be ended. Judges Bum and
Allen concurred.
Chief Justice Fuller, in rendering the
decision, said:
The appellees have submitted a motion
to dismiss this appeal upon the grounds
that the jurisdiction OF the circuit court
was in issue: that the case involved con-
struction or an application OF the con-
stitution of the United States, and that
the constitutionali:y of Il law OF the
United States was drawn IN question; that,
therefore, an appeal for final decree
would lie TO the supreme court or the
United States, and not to this court, and
hence hat this appeal. which Is from an
int erlocutory order. cannot be maintained
under section of the Judiciary act OF
March ;, 1895. We do not understand
that the power of the circuit court to de-
termne the cause was denied, but thaG
the appellants contended that the United
States had not by their appeal made the
case properly cognlZable In court OF
equity. The objection was TO the want OF
equity, ana nos to the want OF power The
jurisdiction of the circuit court was there
lore not in issue and within the intent or
meaning of the act SO far as the construc-
rion or application of the constitution OF
the United States and the constltutlonalty
of the laws of the United states are con-
cerDed. wes are Of the opinion that the
order we are called upon TO review lnvolv-
ed or drew in question neither the one nor
the other in the sense that the action OF
the circuit court was invoked. The
disposal of the proceedings or the
disposition of the contention rests upon
the ground as To whether the decision had
any reference to the construction or appil-
cation of the constitution or the validity
of the acts of congress IN respect 10 that
sinstance. The jurisdiction of this court TO
ireview cannot be donated at the instance
Of the appelees because the constitution
atty of the acts upon which they rely
might have been challenged by their adj
.versares. The motion TO dismiss Is over
ruled
The question to be determined is
whether upon this circuit the preliminary
INJUNCTION should have been granted. The
bill pleads that the defendants are usurp-
ing unlawful authority over the eXposl-
Iion and grounds, and, in virtue thereof,
assume to open the gates on Sunday, III
contravention of the acts of congress, not
withstanding such opening would be ''of
great injury and grevOus prejudice to
= The common public good ana 10 the wei
fare OF the people of the United States
1t is not contended that any property of
the complainants will be injured by the
threatened action, nor is there any ailega-
tion of irreparable injury or probable loss
by such action. But it's said that the ln-
tervention of the court may be rested
upon The protectionof the United States
in its possession of the grounds of the eX-
position for the purpose of protecting the
United States III its possession.
The furnishing of the 5000 900 souvenir
coins WAS conditioned upon the local cor
pOration's supplying. in addition 10 the
many millions ii hau already contributed,
The further sum of s, 500. 000, and giving
10 the government a satisfactory guaranty
that it would provide all additional sums
necessary for the complete construction OF
the work prior 10 May !, 1898, ana WAS
subject TO two conditions subsequent,
namely, the payment by the corporation o;
all expenses, costs aud charges of the great
departments of the exposition, and the
closing of the exposition on Sunday. In
view of the vast previous expenditure Of
the corporation and the extent of the obli-
cations assumed, the rights of all parties
concerned, and the nature of these condi-
IionS subsequent, we do not think this u
proper case for the rule in question.
Nor can we concur ia the proposition
that the appropriation of y, 500, eco
amounted to a cbari able trust upon
certain conditions The appropriation of
Sl,jaO. 600 WAS made for the purpose of aid
ing ini defrayng the cost OF the compile
non OF the work, and was 70 be paid over
on vouchers for labor done, material
furnished and services performed in the
prosecution of that work. Il was an APP
preparation for the benefit of the local cor
poration 10 help it ont of financial difficult
ty, and 10 enable it to complete the
undertaking, and as such does not come
under the accepted denultion of "A charit-
Rbe gift for the benefit of an indefinite
rlass OF persons. 80 far as the purpose of
the appropriation subsequently, made is
concerned. that purpose had'to be accom-
plished before the money could be paid
over
''Ihe decision of the court might inter.
pose TO protect the United States in lis
possession, but II is the local corporation
that Is IN actual possession, under the laws
ot the state and of the ordinance OF the
South Park commissioners. The possess
slog Is recognized 10y the acts of congress
as essential 10 the construction aud Hd-
mlnlstratlon OF the exposition by tie cor
poration. In that construction the cor
poration has invested Sl6,000 O00 under
circumstance that preclude the view that
Iration and authority in the premises. Il
L. perfectly clear that congress never In
tended that the government should be
come responsible for tue construction Of
any Of the buildings, except its own. or
Tor the work provided Tor by the appro-
p.lation.
However, 1t was Intended that the ex-
position should receive the sanction OF the
government. OF course the government
has qualified possession. but we tiud moth
IN thls regard upon which to base the iu-
terventlon OF a court of equity on that
ground. We cannot except this case from
The ordinary rule. which requires the eN-
ercise OF jurisdiction in chancery for some
INJURY 10 property, whether actual or
prospective, some Invasion OF property or
civil rights, some injury irrepara6.e in its
nature, and which cannot be redreSsed at
law. This is not such a case. and the
result Is that We hereby refuse the order.
and the case is remsnded for further pro.
ceedlngs not Inconsistent with these con.
ClusioDs" "
Judge Dunn aud Judge Allen concurred
in every point a. spoken by the chief
Justice.
WASHINGTON, june 1.-THE opinion OF
the court If appeals deciding that the
Worlds Columbian exposition msy be