The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1904-04-13
JURISDICTION ON
THE OHIO RIVER
An interesting Decision Important %
Cairo Ey the United statss
Supreme Court.

dict,on Of Illinois, indiana and Obi
upon the Ohio rive. has bcan Discus
5 "A ey eclc,s and lawyers, lroI um'
to time, cinca ;ha admission ef thoG,
states into The Union. KlRUcky!
claim over the river has amount 2,
we'll nigh to mat 81 exclusive jurls
diction Ii is well knowu Chat thC
boundary linz bctg en- Kentucky ant
~ hree Jatc3 mentioned is the
Inc Of lo8- water mark On orr side Of
the river but it has at5ays been
claimed that these states possessed
certain iorisdieuonal rights on thC
river ly virtue Of The tlth ec- in Of
he act ot December 1874 1852 Of
the state If Virginia whioa proyid
ed for the organization Of the dis,
.rict or tate OF Kentucky This soc
ton viii he given fur,Acr along
( Now for the first time after the
I lapse of llG years since Kentucky
was admitted into the Union and l02
years since Ohio was admitted. the
supreme court of the United slaacs
has rendered a decision on this sub,
joct. which. while not covering the
whole question of jurisdiction on the
river. goes far toward giving these
three states the rights contemplated
by the Virginia act just mentioned
The case 10 which ! refer is chat
of Wedding and Altering against
Meyler decided by the SIT
preme court on the 2Sri Of February.
Wedding and Altering hal sued
Nj yler in the superior cour; Of Van
derberg county Indiana. The sum
mons was served on Meyler while or
steamboat anchored to the Indiana
shore. judgement was RENDERED
against him. and not being paid.
transcript OF the same was taken tc
Kentucky and suit brought thereon
agains. Meyler in Che Warren coanty
circuit court
MEYERS defense vas that he li3
not appear in me suit and hat the
Indiana judgement against him was
void. because the service Of the sum
mons upon him was made within TIE
boundary line of the sta,c Of Ken
tucky, and that, therefore, the Indiana
court was without Jurisdiction The
iury found in his favor as to the
place Of service upon him.
The plaintiff. however, notvith-
standing this finding of .he jary
moved for judgment on their Indiana
Judgment, ana the Kentucky circuit
court held in their favor and gave
hem judgment
Meyler appealed to the court Of
appeals at Frankfort, anl thGt court
the Judgment Of ;he circuit
eourt and directed it to enter iudg
ment on the verdict. In favor OF M5y
Ter and against Wedding and Ahler
ing.
From this holding of the c0ur. Of
appeals, Wedding and Altering took
the case to the supreme court of the
United states.
The case was argued orally Jan
uary IA, and Is, and on the 23rd OF
February the court. Justice Holmes
writing the opinion. rendered 2 unla
imous decision reversing the iudg
mart Of the court of appeals and sus
tanning the judgment entered by tbs
Warren county circuit court.
This decision is an interesting and
an important one. The supreme
court and the two Kentucky courts
accepted the finding of the jury that
jh> service of the summons on Meylr
was on the Kentucky side of low water
mark. Hence. II would have made ne
difference had the simmons been
served on him anywhere else on the
river, no matter how near the Ken
tucty shore.
The decision discusses the Virginia
act Of December Gosh, 1874. cedng t
tho general government. the north |
west territory; also, the act of Eir
ginia of December 18th, 1889. above |
mentioned. and also the act Of con
gregs Of February 4th, 1891. admit !
ing Kentucky inio the Union.
The decision is based on, and the |
whole controversy has bozn abou.
section II. Of said act of Vir
glnia of 1889 Tia; section reads as
follows:
The use and navigation Of the
river Ohio so far as the territory Of /
the proposed state, or the rritory /
which shall remain within the limits
IF this commonwealth. lies thereon,
shall be free and common to the
Of the United States, and the
respective jurisdiction Of the common
wealth and Of the proposed safe on
he river as aforesaid, shall be con
current only with the stats which
may possess the opposite shores Of
he said river"
As above remarked. the decision
does not extend to or setile all cues
ions of Jurisdiction on the Ohio river
but il goes far in securing to Ohio,