St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-12-15

in which the Injunction was ordered,
and that, though possessed Of such ju-
risdictiOn, the court lacked organic
power to make the particular order IN
question.
If the injunction was, for any reason,
totally invalid, no violation or disregard
of 1t could constitute punishable COM
tempt, but If the court acquired juris-
dlctlon and did not exceed Its powers In
the particular case, no irregularlty or
error In the procedure or in the order
itself could Justify disObecience of the
writ.
Was the case one of which the court
had Jurisdiction, no question is made or
could be made in proceeding for con-
tempt OIL the Snfficiency of the petition
Tor the injunction in respect to matters
of retOrmand averment merely. The
question here, therefore, is whether the
case presented by the petition was of
class which. in federal circuit court,
admits of the remedy by Injunction.
Without going into the details or aver
ment. the charges made against the de-
PENDANTS was that they were
Engaged iii a Conspiracy
to hinder and interrupt interstate coms
merce and the carriage of the mails
upon the railroads centerlng in Chicago
by means and in manner to constitute,
within the recognized definitions, a pub
lie nuisance.
"A nuisance is anything that unlaw-
1ullY WOrketh hurt, inconvenience or
damage" 8 Biackstone's Commen-
tarleS, 2l6. "A public nuisance is such
an Inconvenience or troublesome of
tense as annOYS the whole community
In general and not merely some par
ticular person." BlackstOne's Com
meHtarieS, l66 As defined in Wood on
NulSances, page IS, "a public nuisance
Is Violation Of public right either by
a direct encrOachment upon public
rights or property. or by doing some act
which tends to common injury, or by
0mlttlng sUme act which the common
good requires, and which it is the duty
OF person to do, and the omission to dc
which results lnjuriously 10 the pub-
lic."
form of public Nuisance of which
c0gniZance has been taken by the courts
OF equity in Eugland and in this cOunt
try Is called purpresture, which is dea
nned to ba IAN encroachment upon
lands or rights and easements incident
thereto belonging to the public, and ia
which the public have a right Of access
OF enjoyment. and eucrOachment upon
naylgable streams"
"Ihe remedy for a purpresture, Sims
ply, is by information i'll equity al the
suit OF the attorney general or Othef
proper officer Wood on Nulsances,
pages lO7-117: People vs.. Vanderbilt. 2a
n. u, 1876; New Orleans vs.. United
States, 10 Pet Omitted States), 6G2; At
torney General VS.. Forbes, \. Y.
and c. A. 213.
In Kerr Oh IpiunctiOns, page 395, it is
said: There Is a wide difference be-
tween a purpresture and a nuisance
Although they may co-eXi>t. either may
exist without the other. If Inc act cOm-
pIalhed OF be purUreSture IL may De
restrained at the suit of the attorney
general, whether it be nuisance or not,
Being an tnCrOacnmeut Oh the soil or
sovereign, like treSpass on the soil of al
individual. it will support an action
irrespective OF any damage which may
accrue. But to constitute public nui-
Sance, damage TO the public right of
navigation or other puDlic right must
be shown to exist. If the act cOm-
planned OF be mere purpresture with
out being at the same time nuisance,
the court will usually direct an inquiry
to be made whether it is more benencial
to the crown 10 abate the purpresture
or 10 suffer the erection to remain and
be arrested. But if the purpreSture be
also public nuisance this cannot be
done, tor the crown cannot sanction
public nuisance
Accordingly il is contended, and nu
merOus cases and text writer's are cited
to show that equity
Has Jurisdiction
to restrain public nuiSanceS upon bill or
information hled by the attorney gem
eral on behalf of the people. The SUI
preme court of the United States has
spoken OH the subject. In the case of
The Mayor of Georgetown VS.. The Alex
andrla Canal Company, II Peters, 81 9S,
where an injunction was sought against
ObStructing the navigation OF the POtO-
mac river, the court said: Besides this
remedy at law it is now settled that a
court of equity may take Jurisdiction in
cases of public nuisance by an infOrma-
ton filed by the attorney general"
Whilst. therefore. it is admitted by all
that it is cOnfeSsedly one of deiicacy,
and accordingly the instances where il
Is exercised are rare, yet 1t may be eXs
erclSed in those cases In which there Is
Imminent danger of irreparable mis-.
chief before the tardineSs of the law
can reach it.
But while the jurisdiction Of the Eng
lish high court Of chancery and of the
equity courts of the several states Of
the Union is not understood to be dis
puted by counsel for the defendant,they
lation by congress comforting the au.
thoritY, the federal courts can do nothing
for the protection of The highways
on the interstate commerce, whether
upon land or water.
In reply to this position Of the de-
Tense, reference iS made to the act tc
regulate commerce, as amended by the
act of March 2, 1875 United StateG
Statutes, S55--and it is cnntended that
e.. So 2 yi-i.N - 81
passed in exercise Of the power cons
ferred on congress by the constitution
Ito regulate commerce." among the
several stateS," the national control has
been extended over the channels and
agencies of interstate commerce, includ.
ing railways as we'll as naVigablC
waters; ana that out of this legislation,
whatever had been the rule before, has
arisen by necessary implication the
jurisdiction Of the federal courts. in ace
cOrdauCe with the principles of equity,
to protect that commerce against lnters
ference or obstruction.
The right of the federal government
to obtain the injunction is also asserted
upon the ground of property right in
the mails. That the nation owns ths
mail bags is, of course, beyond dispute,
and that it pays large sums annually fOt
the carrying OF the mails upon the rail-
roads is well understood. In Searight
VS. Stokes, How. l51, where the Ques-
ton WAS whether vehicles carrying the
mails were laden with the property of
the United States." and therefore ex-
empt from toll OH the Cumberland road
in Pennsylvania, the supreme court
said: The United States has, un-
questionably, a
Property In the Mails.
"They are not mere common carriers,
but a government performing a high
official duty III holding and guarding its
OWN property, as we'll as that OF its cit
lZenS committed to its care; for a very
large portion of the letters and pack
ages conveyed on this road, especially
during the session of congress, consists
Of communications to or from the offices