Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/220/290.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 13:09:40+00:00

Document:
OKALAHOMA EX REL. WEST v. GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO.
Messrs. Charles West and E. G. Spilman for complainant.
The state of Oklahoma, by the present suit, invokes the original jurisdiction of this court for its protection against certain acts, alleged to have been done or threat end to be done by the respective defendants in derogation of its rights as a state. The case has been heard upon demurrers filed by the several defendants. Some of the demurrers proceed upon the specific ground that this court cannot take jurisdiction of the cause, while others add the general ground that the bill does not show any facts entitling the state to the relief sought by the bill.
As the case involves some questions of a grave character, it is proper to set forth with some fullness the grounds upon which the state bases its claim for relief.
The bill also alleged that, by ordinance irrevocable, Oklahoma had accepted the terms and conditions of the act of June 16th, 1906, including the provision relating to intoxicating liquors; and thereby the state was obligated in place of the United States, so far as the Power was lodged in it, to carry out the treaty and agreements made with the said Indian tribes against the introduction, sale, or in any manner the furnishing, of intoxicating liquors in what was formerly the Indian territory; but that defendants, in violation of the law and the rights of said Indian tribes therein, and to the injury of the state of Oklahoma and its inhabitants, have, since November 16th, 1907, and up to this time, continuously violated all said provisions against furnishing, carrying, and conveying beer, ale, [220 U.S. 290, 293] wine, and intoxicating liquors into Indian territory; that such violation of law deeply injures and irreparably destroys the good citizenship and property of the state and its inhabitants, and the defendants threaten to continue the same unless restrained; and that in continuing so to do, the defendants and each of them have committed acts that amount to the surrender and abandonment of their corporate right to be engaged and doing business in interstate commerce between the states, and against such acts the plaintiff has no adequate remedy according to the course of the common law.
The bill further shows that the state, through its Constitutional Convention, submitted to the popular vote the question of adopting a provision prohibiting the manufacture, bater, sale, giving away, or otherwise furnishing [220 U.S. 290, 294] intoxicating liquors in the state, and the result was the approval by the electors of a constitutional provision of that kind, which has been in force since November 16th, 1907; that, pursuant to that constitutional provision, the legislature of the state, on March 24th, 1908 (Okla. Laws 1907-08, p. 594), passed a general statute, establishing a state agency and local agencies for the sale of intoxicating liquors for certain purposes, and prohibiting the manufacture, sale, barter, giving away, or otherwise furnishing intoxicating liquors, except as provided in the act; that by the terms of said act (art. 3, 2), it was provided that 'the payment of the special tax required of liquor dealers by the United States by any person within this state, except the local agents of said state by said act, should constitute prima facie evidence of an intention to violate the provisions of said act;' and that the defendants, each and all of them, had due notice in writing from the state, by its constituted authorities, of the provisions of the act of Congress, and of the Constitution and laws of Oklahoma, referred to herein.
It should be here stated that the above Oklahoma statute of March 24th, 1908, prescribed various penalties of fine and imprisonment for violations of its provisions.
That in addition thereto, under the terms of said chapter 69 of the Session Laws of 1907-1908, of Oklahoma, as therein provided, the state of Oklahoma, for the benefit of its citizens, undertook to furnish intoxicating liquor to all persons in said state wherever a sale of the same was by the law authorized, for reason of necessary use of the same for preservation, or health, or like purposes, and that, under the laws of the state of Oklahoma, the state of Oklahoma was the sole and only person authorized to sell liquors in said state; that the state is pecuniarily interested in the sale of said liquors, and irreparably injured by said importation by defendants to the persons named in said list who had paid the special tax required by the United States of liquor dealers, in that the said importa- [220 U.S. 290, 296] tion to the said persons named on said list, being for the purpose of a resale of such importations in said state, operated to the injury to the exclusive right to the sale of intoxicating liquors in said state, claimed and exercised by the state of Oklahoma.
The relief asked is that the defendants be severally enjoined and restrained from further introducing, conveying, and furnishing intoxicating liquors, including ale, wine, and beer in any form, at any place, at any time, and in any manner in the state within the limits of what was formerly the Indian territory, including the Osage Reservation, and other parts of the state that existed as Indian reservations on the 1st day of January, 1900; that the several defendants be further enjoined from carrying, conveying, delivering, and furnishing intoxicating liquors, including ale, wine, and beer, in any form and in any place, at any time or in any manner, in the state, to any or all of the persons who have paid the special as being persons who have paid the special tax required by the United States of liquor dealers; and that, in default of obedience to the order of injunction prayed for, the corporate rights of the defendants to do a business in interstate commerce with persons in Oklahoma be forfeited.
Such is the case made by the bill, and we come now to consider the controlling questions presented by it.
It is manifest that the object of this suit by the state is, by means of an injunction issued by this court, to prevent the defendant companies from violating the penal or criminal laws of Oklahoma. It is, therefore, in its essence, [220 U.S. 290, 298] a suit to enforce those laws. But of such a suit this court cannot take original cognizance, although the suit is in form of a civil nature. The Constitution, after enumerating, in the first clause of 2 of article 3, the cases, in law and equity, as well as the controversies, to which the judicial power of the United States shall extend, provides that 'in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction,'-in all the other cases enumerated in the article, the court to have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and facts, with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.
The words 'in which a state shall be party,' literally construed, would embrace original suits of a civil nature brought by a state in this court to enforce a judgment rendered for a violation of its penal or criminal laws. But it has been adjudged, upon full consideration, that that result was inadmissible under the Constitution. This will appear from an examination of the opinion and judgment in Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. 127 U.S. 265, 267 , 290 S., 293, 32 L. ed. 239, 243, 244, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1370. That was an original action brought in this court by the state of Wisconsin against the Pelican Insurance Company of Louisiana, to recover the amount of a judgment rendered in a Wisconsin court against that company for certain penalties incurred by it for violating the laws of that state relating to the business of fire insurance companies. The question was distinctly presented whether the state could invoke the original jurisdiction of this court, to enforce the collection of such judgment. It was argued in that case that the suit was simply an action of debt, founded upon a contract of record, to wit, a judgment, and was therefore to be regarded only as a civil suit, as distinguished from a criminal prosecution. But that view was overruled. The court said that notwithstanding the comprehensive words of [220 U.S. 290, 299] the Constitution, 'the mere fact that a state is the plaintiff is not a conclusive test that the controversy is one in which this court is authorized to grant relief against another state or her citizens.' After an examination of the authorities it was further said, the court speaking by Mr. Justice Gray: 'The rule that the courts of no country execute the penal laws of another applies not only to prosecutions and sentences for crimes and misdemeanors, but to all suits in favor of the state for the recovery of pecuniary penalties for any violation of statutes for the protection of its revenue or other municipal laws, and to all judgments for such penalties. If this were not so, all that would be necessary to give ubiquitous effect to a penal law would be to put the claim for a penalty into the shape of a judgment. Wharton, Confl. L. 833; Westlake, International Law, 1st ed. 388; Piggott, Foreign Judgm. 209, 210.' Further: 'From the first organization of the courts of the United States, nearly a century ago, it has always been assumed that the original jurisdiction of this court over controversies between a state and citizens of another state, or of a foreign country, does not extend to a suit by a state to recover penalties for a breach of her own municipal law. . . . The real nature of the case is not affected by the forms provided by the law of the state for the punishment of the offense. It is immaterial whether, by the law of Wisconsin, the prosecution must be by indictment or by action, or whether, under that law, a judgment there obtained for the penalty might be enforced by execution, by scire facias, or by a new suit. In whatever form the state pursues her right to punish the offense against her sovereignty, every step of the proceeding tends to one end,-the compelling the offender to pay a pecuniary fine by way of punishment for the offense. This court, therefore, cannot entertain an original action to compel the defendant to pay to the state of Wisconsin a sum of money in satisfac- [220 U.S. 290, 300] tion of the judgment for that fine. The original jurisdiction of this court is conferred by the Constitution, without limit of the amount in controversy, and Congress has never imposed (if, indeed, it could impose) any such limit. If this court has original jurisdiction of the present case, it must follow that any action upon a judgment obtained by a state in her own courts against a citizen of another state, for the recovery of any sum of money, however small, by way of a fine for any offense, however petty, against her laws, could be brought in the first instance in the Supreme Court of the United States. That cannot have been the intention of the Convention in framing, or of the people in adopting, the Federal Constitution.' The principles announced in Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. supra, have been recognized in many subsequent cases. (Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. United States). Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 , 39 S. L. ed. 231, 232, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192; California v. Southern P. Co. 157 U.S. 229, 259 , 39 S. L. ed. 683, 694, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 591; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 232 , 45 S. L. ed. 497, 509, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 331; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co. 184 U.S. 199, 234 , 235 S., 46 L. ed. 499, 512, 515, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 308; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 83 , 51 S. L. ed. 956, 968, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 655.
Those principles must, in our opinion, determine the present case adversely to the state. Although the state does not ask for judgment against the defendant railroad company for the penalties prescribed by the Oklahoma statutes for violations of its provisions, she yet seeks the aid of this court to enforce a statute one of whose controlling objects is to impose punishment in order to effectuate a public policy touching a particular subject relating to the public welfare. The statute, viewed as a whole, is to be deemed a penal statute. The present suit, although in form one of a civil nature is, in its essential character, one to enforce by injunction regulations prescribed by a state for violations of one of its penal statutes, and is therefore one of which this court cannot take original cognizance at the instance of the state.
But there is another ground which is equally fatal to the [220 U.S. 290, 301] claim that this court may give the relief asked by an original suit brought by the state. In the provisions of the Constitution relating to the judicial power of the courts of the United States, it is provided, as we have seen, that 'in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.' In Oklahoma v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. No. 13, Original, just decided [ 220 U.S. 277 , 55 L. ed . --, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 434], it was held that a state could not invoke the original jurisdiction of the court, by suit on its behalf, where the primary purposes of the suit was to protect its citizens generally, against the violation of its laws by the corporations or persons sued; that the above words, 'those in which a state shall be party,' were not to be so interpreted as to embrace suits of that kind. We need not repeat what was said in the other case. Without stopping to consider other questions discussed by learned counsel, we hold, for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, as well as because this suit is, in its essence and mainly, one to enforce a penal statute of a state, that the bill must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.