The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1900-05-06
Brief Filed in Support of Demurrer
by the Drainage Ditch
Trustees.
COURT TO ACT THIS MONTH.
Defendants Maintain That the Sun
is Partly Criminal and That
supreme Bench Has Not
Original Jurisdiction.
The Republic Bureau.

Irh ~. ami Pennsylvania Ave-.
Washington. May THE attorneys for
the State Of Illinois and the Sanitary DIS
trict Of Chicago to-day filed in the Supreme
Court their final brief In answer to the
State of Missouri. and the case now awaits
the decision of the court upon the demurrer
10 jurisdiction raised by the defendant. II
is expected that the court Will rule upon
this point during the present term, which
viii expire the latter part Of this month.
The defendants contend that the SUI
rreme Court has not turisiiction; that the
State of Missouri Is not entitled TO equitable
relief, and in any event is barred from seek
ing relief because of unreasonable delay in
instttuting proceedings. and also that a suit
must be a civil controversy in order to
bring 1t before the Supreme Court. They
assert that all proceedings for the suppress
sion Of nuisances are criminal or quasi
criminal. and that such suits are not In the
enumerated causes which can be brought
originally in the SUPP eme Court.
They rely especially upon the recent de-
cision in the case Of the Ohio III Company
VI. the State of Indiana, which. they say,
s~ustains them fully. In this case the State
OF Indiana, through its Attorney General.
filed a complaint In the Circuit Court of
Madison County in hat State against the
Ohio Oil Company. 4 corporation organized
under the laws of Ohio, and hence a citizen
Of that State. IL was authorized to carry
on its business in Indiana. That State had
passed an act in 1893, making it unlawful
to allow or permit the flow of gas OF oil
from any well to escape in the open air
without being confred within the well for a
longer period than two days next after the
49,. 49, III -Ian ya.-A ha., rfrt.rl IN cfrrk
well.
Defendants Plea.
/ The defendants say:
"A section Of the act provided that any
person violating the provisions Of the act
should be liable to a penalty Of saa for
each and every such violation.
THE State of Indiana, through its At
torney General, fled Il bill Of complaint as
| stated. praying for a temporary injunction
and upon final hearing the injunction ce
| made perpetual. The case was then ap-
pealed TO the Supreme Court OF Indiana
! AMI by that court II was affirmed. The
| case was brought to the Supreme Court Of
| the United States upon the alleged ground
\ that by the Judgment OF the Indiana courts
| the defendant. the Ohio Oil Company. was
deprived OF It's property without due proc
esS of law. Nowhere in the case was the
question Of jurisdiction raised. 1t was con-
! coded that the suit was Instituted In the
HsAENA go
this court.
Now, If the contention of complainant
is correct, the State of Indiana might have
brought that suit in the Supreme Ccur. of
| the United States, invoking its original jur-
\ isdiction. the defendant being q citizen OF
the State of Ohio. In fact. the right OF In
diana to invoke the original jurisdiction Of
this court in that case - just as cledr
and no more so than Is the right OF the
State of Missouri to invoke the original
jurisdiction Of this court in the case at
bar. The acts Of the defendant corporation
were made unlawful by the Indiana stat
ute. which prescribes penalties In the shape
Of fines for It's violation, but there was no
suggestion In the Indiana statute of IN"
right Of the State TO entoin in equity I .
unlawful acts mentioned In the STATUTE
The Indiana case. although In form a. suit
In equity. was quasf-criminal In It's char
acter for the reason that II was based
upon or grew out of "a criminal Statute
OF that State.
so IL is with the case al bar: although
in form q suit In equity. the right to main
tain the suit Is based upon the criminal
laws of the State of Missouri. which pro-
vide for the suppression OF nuisances. 1t
would not be contendPd that the Indiana
case above mentioned could have been
brcuhgt in this court as a court OF original
Jurisdiction, and Tor the same reason IL
cannot be contended thar the case at bar
Is tustihabie In this court"
The brief reasserts that Missouri has not
shown grounds for equitable relief. and
also has been negligent. and must bcing
suit in a court Of law. not of equity.