The record-union., 1895-03-19
Opinion in the Case Rendered by
the U. s. Supreme Court.
THE BILL IN EQUITY DISMISSED
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
Rumor That United States Supreme
Justice Jackson VIII Resign From
the Bench in the Fall, on Account
of ul-HeaIth-PresIden Cleveland
Passes the Fifty-Eighth Year of His
Special 10 the RECoRD-UNIoN.


WASHINGTO March 1S.-Chief Justice
Fuller to-day delivered an opinion dis
missing the bill in equity brought by the
State Of California VS.. the Southern Pa
cific Railroad Company, involving the
ownership of the Oakland waterfront,
for want of original jurisdiction.
This disposition OF the case was made
necessary by the conclusion reached by
the court that az there were parties inter-
ested in the disposition of it, such as the
town of Oakland and the Waterfront
Company, who do not appear as parties
to the present suit. it was not equitable
to finally adiudicate the case unless those
interests were represented in the suit.
Justice Fuller stated that while rights to
the town and Waterfront Company
would not be technically determined,
they would be effectually passed upon.
With the matter placed in this light the
next question to be decided was whether
the Supreme Court had original iurisdic-
ton. The decision first was to the effect
that 1t did not have such jurisdiction, and
IN reaching this conclusion the opinion
was discussed at some length
While there was some reason for doubt
was of the opinion that The Constitution
had meant TO be explicit i'll its contirma-
ton OF the original jurisdiction, and as
the provision was not made for COM
Dlnauon Of the citizens of the State at in
terest with those OF another State, the
inference was that in such cases the Su-
preme Court could only exercise an ap-
pellat8 and not an original Jurisdiction,
Referrlng to question of interest to
other parties who do not appear in the
case, the Chief Justice, after quoting
various rulings Of the court, said Sit
ting as court of equity, we cannot, in
the light of these well-settled principles.
invoke consideration OF the question
whether other persons who have not an
immediate interest in restricting the de-
mands OF The complainant are not indis-
pensabIe parties, or, at least, so far neces-
sary that the case should not go on in
their absence. Nor can the court proceed
TO decree as between the State and the
Southern Pac tic Company and do COM
plete and hnal Justice without affecting
other persons not before the court, or
leaving the controversy in such a condi-
ton that its final termination might be
wholly inconsistent with equity and
good conscience. We are constrained to
conclude that as the city of Oakland
and the Oakland Water Front Company
are SO situated in respect to this litigation.
Alter quoting various opinions bearing
upon the question of jurisdiction in the
case where citizens OF State which is
party to the suit are joined with those OF
another State, the Chief Justice said:
'lt, by virtue Of subject matter, the
case comes within the judicial power of
the United States, 1t does not follow that
It comes within the original jurisdiction
of this court. Jurisdiction does not OBJ
tain simply because the State is a party.
1t was held at an early day that Congress
could either enlarge or restrict the orig
inal jurisdiction of this court, and no at
tempt to do so is suggested here. What
Congress may have power to do in rela-
ton to the jurisdiction OF the courts OF the
l nlted States IS not in question, but
whether, where the Constitution provides
that this court snail have an original
jurisdiction in cases in which the State is
plain TIT and the citizens OF another State
the defendant, that jurisdiction can be
held to embrace suit between State
and citizens OF another State aud of the
same State. We are of the opinion that
our original jurisdiction can be held to
EN- brace suit between the State and the
citizens of another State. We are of
opinion our original jurisdiction cannot
thus be extended and the bill must he
dismissed for want OF parties who should
be Joined but cannot be without Gus ing
Jurisdiction"
Justice Harlan in dissenting opinion.
cited the boundary suit in Florida against
Georgia, in which the Attorney General
was allowed to file proofs for the United
States without making the Government
q party to the case in technical sense.
and be contended that practically the
same course had been pursued in this
case, the city of Oakland having been al
lowed to file briefs and documents to il
lustrate its alleged title and to participate
in the taking OF evidence.
The case has been fully heard upon
its merits," he continued, "as they in
volve the rights of California and the
Southern Pacific Company and the city
of Oakland. All these parties earnestly
desire that we proceed 10 final decree on
its merits. If any other party is inter-
ested in the results Of the case we can
hold cause until That party, if it so
wishes, can make proof of such interest
and its nature, just as the city of Oakland
has done"
The court did not say that the decree as
between California and the Southern Pa
citic might legally affect the claims or
others, or that it could be pleaded in the
bar OF any subsequent suit; therefore, it
was difficult for him to understand WHY
the court should not exercise its obliga-
tion and decide the case between the State
and the corporation.
In conclusion Justice Harlan asked
how the State of California was to obtain
Judicial determination OF the controversy.
lhe effectiveness OF such suit would de-
pend upon the ability of the State to bring
the Kentucky corporation into the court.
80 it would be bound by final decree.
Trainers of the Constitution did not in
tend TO ubject the State to the indignitv of
being compelled to submit its controver-
sizes with the citizens OF other States to the
court of such other States.
Justice Field added few words of re-
gret that he could not settle the matter.
as that would bring SO much trouble to
the State.
RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE.
Postal Employees Combine to Bring