The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-19

upon the question of jurisdiction in the
case where citizens of a State which is
party to the suit are joined with those OF
another State, the Chief Justice said:
''If, by virtue of subject matter, the case
comes within the judicial power of the
United States, it does not follow that If
comes within the original Jurisdiction OF
this court. Jurisdiction does not obtain
simply because the State is a party. 1t
was held at an early day that Congress
could either enlarge or restrict the original
Jurisdiction of this court, and no attempt
to do so is suggested here. What Congress
may have power to do in relation to the ju-
risdiction of the courts of the United
States is not in question, but whether,
where the constitution provides that
this court shall have an original juris-
diction in cases in which the State is
plaintiff and the citizens of another State
the defendant, that Jurisdiction can be
held to embrace a suit between State
and citizens of another State. We are of
the opinion that our original jurisdiction
can be held to embrace suit between the
State and the citizens of another State and
of the same State. We are of the opinion
our original jurisdiction cannot thus be
extended, and the bill must be dismissed
for want of parties who should be joined,
but cannot be without ousting jurisdic-
tom
Justice Harlan, in a dissenting opinion,
cited the boundary suit in Florida against
Georgia, in which the Acknowledgement
was allowed to file proofs for the United
States without making the Government a
TO ,,l
he contended that practically the same
course had been pursued in this case, the
city of Oakland having been allowed to file
briefs and documents to illustrate its
alleged title and to participate in the tax
ing of evidence.
The case has been fully heard upon its
merits, he continued, "as they involve the
rights of California and the Southern Pa
cific Company and the city of Oakland.
All these parties earnestly desire that we
proceed to final decree on its merits. If
any other party is interested in the result
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
cific might legally affect the claims OF
others, or that it could be pleaded in the
bar in any subsequent suit; therefore it
was difficult for him to understand why
the court should not exercise its obliga-
ton and decide the case between the State
and the corporation"
In conclusion Justice Harlan asked how
the State of California was to obtain Judi
cial determination of the controversy. The
effectiveness of such suit would depend
upon the ability of the State to bring the
Kentucky corporation into court, so it
would be bound by a final decree. Trainers
OF the constitution did not intend to sub
iect the State to the indignity of being
compelled to submit its controversies with
the citizens of other States to the court of
such other States.
Justice Field added few words of regret
that he could not settle the matter, as it
would bring so much trouble to the State.