The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1904-04-14

circuit court could not have taken
jurisdiction if only the State statutes
had been involved. Taking up the
federal law and analyzing it's provis-
ions, he said it was clear that the case
did not belong to any of the classes
provided for by it.
''It ISL he said, mot criminal
proceeding, not suit in equity in the
name of the United States to restrain
violations of the antitrust act, nor a
proceeding in the name of the United
States for the forfeiture of property.
nor an action by any person or cor
poration for the recovery of three fold
damages for injury done to business
or property by some other person or
corporation"
The contention that the case involved
proprietary interests of the State was
not allowed to influence the opinion.
On that point the court said in part:
'T'he injury on account of which the
present suit was brought is at most
only remote and indirect: such an in
jury as would come alike, although
in different degrees, to every individ-
ual owner of property in state by
reason of the suppression in violation
OF the act Of congress, of free compe-
tition between interstate carriers en-
gagged in business in such state. If
Minnesota may, by an original suit in
it's name, invoke the jurisdiction of
the circuit court because alone of al
legged remote and Indirect injury to it's
property interests arising from the
mere absence of free competition in
trade and commerce as carried on by
interstate carriers within it's limits
then every state upon like grounds
may maintain in it's name in a circuit
court of the United States, a suit
against interstate carriers engaged in
business within their respective
limits.''
The court also refused to hold that
Mlnnesota's dignity or rights as
State would be affected under Article
" of the federal constitution by per-
hitting the stock of corporations of
that State to be held by an outside
corporation like the Securities com
pany. Justice Harlan said the court
did not think that the article of the
constitution had any bearing what
ever on the question, adding:
" 1t only prescribes rule by which
courts, federal and state, are, to be
guided when a question raises in the.
progress of a pending suit as to the
faith and credit to be given by the
court to the public acts, records and
Judicial proceedings of state other
than that in which the court is sit
ting.'
He said in conclusion: ':For the
reasons stated we are of the opinion
that the suit does MOTTO use the
words of the act of 1S75-really and
substantially involve a dispute or
controversy within the jurisdiction of
the circuit court for the purpose of a
final decree. That being the case, the
circuit court, following the mandate.
of the statute, should not have pro-
ceeded therein, but should have re-
manded the case to the State court.
The decree of the circuit court is
reversed; and the case is sent back,
with directions that it be remanded to
the State court.''
The opinion of the court was unani-
nous.
In view of the recent merger decis-
ion of the supreme court, which put the
merger out of commission, the case
will probably be dropped. though the
State authorities may take the case
up to determine the validity of the
State law forbidding the consolida-
ton of parallel and competing lines of
railroad.
All Like the Map.
The Union map of Mile Laos