The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-03-20
The Oakland Water Front Case.

washington City. March BIN deciding
the Oakland water front case the chief
justice, after quoting various rulings OF
the court, said. sitting as a court Of
equity We cannot. in the light CT these
weli-settled principles, invoke constiera-
ton OF the question whether other per-
sons who have an interest In restricting
the demands OF the complainant are not
Indispensable parties, or at least so far
Necessary that the cause should not go
on in their absence Can the court proceed
to decide as between the state and the
Southern Pacific Company and do COM
plate and final justice without affecting
other persons not before the court, or
leaving the controversy In such condition
that It's final termination might he wholly
inconsistent with equity and good con-
science? We are constrained to conclude
that the city Of Oakland and the Oakland
Water Front Company are SO situated in
respect to this litigation that We ought
not TO proceed In their absence"
After quoting various opinions bearing
upon the question OF jurisdiction In the
case where citizens OF a state which Is a
party 90 suit are Joined with those OF
another state. the chief justice said: If
by virtue of the subject matter the case
comes within the judicial power of the
United States. IL does not follow that IL
comes Within the original jurisdiction of
this court. Jurisdiction does not obtain
simply because the state Is party II
was held al an early day that congress
could neither enlarge nor 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 iudrisdiction of courts of the
United States is not the question. but
whether. where the constitution provides
that this court shall have original juris-
diction in cases in which the state is
plaintiff and citizens OF another state de-
PENDANTS, that jurisdiction cannot be held
TO embrace a suit between state and
citizens of another state and OF the same
state. We are of the opinion that our
original jurisdiction cannot thus he ex-
tended. and the bill must be dismissed
for want OF parties who should he joined
hut cannot be without ousting jurisdic-
ton
Justice Harlan In a dissenting opinion
cited the boundary suit OF Florida against
Georgia. In which the attorney general vas
allowed 10 fiie process for the United
States without making the government a
party to the case I'm technical sense,
and contended that practically the same
course had been pursued In this case
the city Of Oakland having been allowed
10 file briefs and documents 10 illustrate
It's alleged title and participate IN taking
evidence. The case has been fully heard
upon Its merits" he continued LAS the
case involves the rights OF California and
the Southern Pacific Company and the
city Of Oakland. all these parties earnest
ly desire that We proceed to a final de-
cree on the merits. II any other party is
| Interested Ia the result of the case we
/ can hold the cause untu that party IL IL
50 wishes. can make proof Of such inter-
est and its nature. just as the city Of
Oakland has. The suggestion that the
Oakland Water Front Company has such
interest in this suit as would entitIe II 10
he heard comes from the court. not from
that company. nor from. any OF the par
ties before us" The court did not say
that n decree as between California and
the Southern Pacific might legally affect
the claims of the other or that II could
he pleaded In har in any subsequent suit
/ therefore IL was difficult for Harlan 10
understand why the court should not
exercise its obligation 20 decide the case
/ between the state and the corpora ton
the state Of California was 10 obtain iu-
dlclal determination of the controversy.
The effectiveness OF such a suit would
depend upon the ability Of the state 10
bring a Kentucky corporation into court
so that Il would he hound by final de-
cree. The trainers OF the constitution did
not intend 20 subject "a state 10 the indiE-
nifty Of being compelled 10 submit It's
controversies with citizens OF other states
to the court ,of such other states
Justice Field added a few words OF re-
greet that the court could not settle the
matter that would bring so much trouble
TO the state.