The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1893-07-05
FAIR TO Open SUNDAYS.
FINAL DECISION BY THE
UNITED STATES COURT.


UNITED STATES COURT.
- ---.-. .-:--=.
Chief Justice Fuller and His Associ-
ates, Judges Bum and Allen, IMAM
imously Decide in Favor Of Open
Sundays az the Worlds Fair-The
Local Directory in Full Control.
The United States Court OF Appeals, sitting
at Chicago, decided unanimously that the
Worlds Fair directors could keep the exhibi-
tion open on Sundays. The ground OF the
decision was that the United States was not
in actual control Of the enterprise, and that
the United States had no case In equity in
asking for an Injunction on the ground that
no injury or wrong had been shown as the
resultant of Sunday opening. Chief Justice
Fuller gave the opinion and Judges Bum
and Allen assented. The decision settles the
case.for all time. as an appeal will have to go"
to the Supreme Court Of the United States,
which does not meet until October, when the
Fair will be ended. Every seat was taken an
hour before the time announced when the
court would decide the case. Chief Justice
Fuller. in rendering the decision, spoke as
follows:
"Deeming it desirable tina; this matter
should be disposed Of at once, we shall an
nounce 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 a motion to dis
miss this appeal upon the grounds that the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was In issue;
that the case involved the construction or a2-
plication of the Constitution OF the United
States, and that the constitutionality Of q law
OF the United States was drawn In question
therein that therefore the appeal for final
degree would lie to the Supreme Court ofthe
United States, and not to this court, and
hence this appeal, which Is from an interlo-
cutory order, cannot he maintained under
section 7 OF the Judiciary act OF March
8. 1891. We do not understand thatthe power
OF the Circuit Court to determine the case was
denied. but that the appellants contended that
the United States had not by their appeal made
q case properly cogniZable in court ofequlty.
The objection was to the want Of equity, and
MOTTO the want Of powers The Jurisdiction
OF the Circuit Court wss therefore not In is
sue /; and within the intent or meaning OF the
act so far az 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 on to
review involved or drew in question neither
one nor the other Ia 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 application
OF the Constitution or the validity OF acts OF
Congress In respect OF that instance. And
the conclusions upon which the order was
based were invoked rs constructions OF that
character. Tie 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 challenged by their adversarles. The
motion to dismiss Is overruled.
"The question to be determined is whether
upon this circuit preliminary injunction
should have been granted. The bill pleads
that the defendants are usurpinS unlawful
authority over the Exposition and grounds,
and in virtue thereof assume to open the
gates on Sunday in contrayention OF the acts
OF Congress-notwithstau such opening
would be of great injury and grevious
prejudice to the common public 5ocd and to
the welfare OF the people Of the United
States It is not contended that any
property interests OF the complainant
will be injured by the threatened action,
nor Is there any allegation Of irreparable
injury or probable loss by such action.
But 1t is said that the Intervention OF
the court may be rested upon the purpose
OF protecting the United States in its pos
session of the grounds OF the Exposition.
The furnishing Of the five million souvenir
coins was condition upon the local corpor-
alton by the United States. In addition to
the many millions 1t had already contributed
the further sum of two and q half millions
and the giving to the Government OF salts.
factory guarantee that it would provide ak
additional sums necessary for the completion
OF the work prior to May /, 1898, and was
subject otyo conditions subsequent, namely,
the payment by the corporation OF all cx-
pense, costs and charges OF the great depart
ments OF tha Exposition and the closing o:
the Exposition on Sunday. In view OF the
vast previous expenditure OF the corporation
and the extent OF the obligations assumed,
the right OF all parties concerned and the
nature OF the conditions subsequent, we do
not think this a proper case for the rule in
question. nor can We concur IN the PROPOSE
ton that the appropriation OF the two and
half million dollars amounted to charitable
trust, upon certain conditions warranted.
"The appropriation was made for the pur-
pose of aiding In defrayinS the cost OF the
completion Of the work and to be paid over
on vouchers for labor done. material furn-
ished, and services performed IN the prose-
ton for the benefit OF the local corporation
to help it out o. its financial difficulty. and
to enable it to couplet, its undertaking, and
as such does NOT coma under the accepted
definition OF 8 charitable gift for the benefit
of an indefinite class Of persons. SO far as
the purpose OF the appropriation subse-
qusntiy made is concerned that purpose had
to be accomplished before the money could
be paid over.
''The decision OF the court might interpcse
to protect the United States In its possession
but it is the local corporation that is In sc-
tual possession under the law Of the State
and OF the ordinance OF lhe South Park
Commissioners. The possession Is recoS-
nizsd by the acts Of Congress as essential to
the construction and administration OF
the Exposition by the corporation.
In that construction the corporation
has invested sixteen millions Of dollars under
circumstances that preclude the view that
the Unitsd States have exclusive administra-
ton and authority in the premises. 1t Is per-
fectly clear that Congress never intended that
1t should become responsible for the con-
struc.ion OF any Of the buildings cxcept its
own, OF for tho work provided for by the ap-
preparation. However, it ws5 intanda1 that
the Exposition should receive the sanction OF
the Government, and in that sense, as re-
marked by Chief Justice Waite in the Phila-
delphis case be impressed by National and
international character OF course, the Gov
ernment has qualified possession, but we
find nothing in this regard upon which to
base an Intervention OF q court OF eqnlty on
that ground. go.
"We cannot now discuss the various quas-
tions necessary to be considered, but wnieh
will be treated OF in the opinion to be filed. II
Is Sufficient to say that We cannot except tnis
case from the ordinary rule. which to invoke
the exercise Of jurisdiction In chancery, re-
quires som injury to property whether actual