The Washington times., 1902-01-18

An examination of precedents By whicl,
| to guess what the Supreme Court will do
with the application of the State OF Min
| nesota for leave to file bill against tho
| Great Northern and Northern Pacific
Railroad Companies and the Northern Sc
curities Company to be heard on the 27th
| instant does not greatly illumine the sit
| uation.
The cases wherein original jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court has been invoked
| by State are too rare for the basis of
| an assertion that the practice OF the court
| in like cases is settled, and one on all
fours with the Minnesota case is not on
| the books.
| A Case ON Record.
The principal case on record IS that of
| the State of Pennsylvania vs. The Wheel
ing and Belmont Bridge Company. This
corporation was chartered by the old
State of Virginia in the early '40s to
| build bridge over the Ohio River from
| Wheeling to Belmont, Ohio When the
work of construction was begun il was
seen that the plan provided no draw, and
| Pennsylvania filed bill in the clerks
| in recess, praying for an injunction
| against the completion of the structure.
1t was alleged that the bridge would
| constitute menace and obstruction to
| navigation, and as such iniure certain
commerce of citizens of Pennsylvania
from which the State drew a revenue, and
hence the proposed bridge would damage
the State itself There was no leave to
file in this case, but the bill was accepted
nv nd ~ n
junction prayed for was issued.
Bridge Declared IA Post Route.
But it availed naught for the relief of
Pennsylvania. The bridge was declared
to be a post route by act of Congress,
and ii proceeded to completion.
The Northern Pacific Company was de-
fcndant in another proceeding instituted
as an original case in the Supreme Court,
but before action the complainant. the
State of Wisconsin dismissed it. Wis
consin, by the late Senator Beck, OF Ken
lucky. sought TO enjoin the city of Du-
iuth and the railroad company from pro-
ceeding with the construction of a canal
across the northern end of the land-spit
in front of the city known as Minnesota
Point.
It's construction tended to minimize the
Oh superior CITY. WIS, at tHe
southern end of the spit. opposite which
had previously been the only entrance to
the waters west of the point The ground
upon which the suit was based was that
the improvements irterfered with the
flow of the waters ofSthe river St Louis,
and as it was the boundary between Min
nesota and Wisconsin, one State alone
or its creatures could not legally inter
fere with the waters therof.
The Motion Denied.
But the late Senator C. X. Davis, for
the city of Duluth. was able TO show that
Congress had taken hold OF the improve
ment, whereupon the motion for an in
junction was denied.
In 1877 the Supreme Court laid down tho
rule by which it would be governed in
hearing applications for leave to file
bill of complaint. The State of Georgia
asked leave to file bill for an injunction
to restrain Secretary Stanton, General
Grant and others from executing the re-
construction acts passed for that State.
The State Of Mississippi made like
application, naming President Johnson
and Gen. Z. O. C. Ord In this latter case,
inasmuch as the President was named
the court directed that notice be given
him Of the application before receiving it,
so that, If he desired, he might instruct
the Attorney General to oppose the mo-
tion at the first stage. This was DONE
and the court refused TO grant the leave
asked.
President Must be Notified.
The Georgia case came up again. the
bill having been amended in the hope to
avoid the objections raised on the first
application. and Senator Matt Carpenter
enquired if he would ne permitted to OPP
pose the granting OF the motion upon its
presentation. The court gave its reasons
for requiring preliminary notice when
the President was involved, as an act of
courtesy to him; but it saw reason for
making an exception of the Georgia case
to the rule, which was that motions for
leave to file are heard ex parte.
And in conclusion, Chief Justice Chase
announced
The practice now observed may be re-
garded as that which will hereafter be
adopted in all cases of original jurisdic-
ton
Ii was this rule which led Attorney
General Douglas of Minnesota to say to
Chief Justice Fuller on the 9th instant
that he had not given notice TO the de-
fendant corporations of his intention to
ask leave to file the bill and the rule
to which the court ordered last Monday
that an exception be made in this case.