Opinion of the Court.

upland mentioned in the petition, and bounded on the west by the meander line of Elliott Bay. But this is not so stated in the petition, and whatever might be inferred as to the character and source of his ownership, it cannot reasonably be held that relator by this allegation specially set up or claimed a title, right, privilege or immunity under the Constitution, or a statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States in this behalf. In other words, the ground of our jurisdiction cannot be rested upon the denial by the state court of a right claimed by plaintiff in error, in respect to his ownership, under an act of Congress. But it is contended that the contemplated action of the Harbor Line Commissioners would be in violation of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, as amounting to a deprivation of property without due process of law; and also that it would be in conflict with the act of Congress, entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction, repair and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," approved September 19, 1890. 26 Stat. 426, 454,

c. 907.

Section 7 of that act declares that it shall not be lawful to build any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, dam, weir, breakwater, bulk-head, jetty or structure of any kind outside of established harbor lines, or in any navigable waters of the United States where no harbor lines are or may be established, without the permission of the Secretary of War, in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, navigable river or other waters of the United States, in such manner as shall obstruct or impair navigation, commerce or anchorage in said waters; and by section 12, in amendment of section 12 of the river and harbor act of August 11, 1888, the Secretary of War was authorized to cause harbor lines to be established when essential to the preservation and protection of harbors, beyond which no piers, wharves, bulk-heads or other works should be extended or deposits made, except under such regulations as might be prescribed from time to time by him. Penalties are denounced for the violation of either of these sections. We do not understand that any conflict of jurisdiction over the regulation of the

Opinion of the Court.

harbor of Seattle will be precipitated by what the defendants propose to do, or that relator could sustain his invocation of judicial interference on such a theory. If the location and establishment of harbor lines by these commissioners is actually in violation of the laws of the United States, their vindication may properly be left to the general government. It is obvious that the decision of the state court in this regard was not against any title or right of relator arising under a statute of the United States.

This brings us to consider whether the contemplated proceedings would deprive Yesler of his property without due process of law. The contention seems to be that a part of his improvements are included in the strip which the constitution of Washington forbids the State from selling, or granting or relinquishing its rights over, and that, therefore, the location and establishment of the harbor lines as proposed would amount to a taking of his property without compensation. The harbor line is the line beyond which wharves and other structures cannot be extended, and a map is exhibited by counsel which shows an inner line, delineating the inner boundary of the strip referred to. This inner line, which is six hundred feet distant from the harbor line, happens to cross the outer end of relator's wharf, but the harbor line is several hundred feet away.

By the 16th section of Article I of the constitution of Washington no private property can be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. The similar limitation upon the power of the general government, expressed in the Fifth Amendment, is to be read with the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibiting the States from depriving any person of property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The amendment undoubtedly forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty or property, and secures equal protection to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their rights. Assuming our jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a State tribunal upholding a law authorizing the taking of private property without compensation, to be un

Opinion of the Court.

questionable, (Kaukauna Co. v. Green Bay Co., 142 U. S. 254, 269,) we cannot accede to the position that the action of the Harbor Line Commissioners, in locating the harbor line and filing the plat, would take any of relator's property, or so injuriously affect it as to come within the constitutional inhibition. The filing of maps of definite location in the exercise of the power of eminent domain furnishes no analogy. The design of the state law is to prohibit the encroachment by private individuals and corporations on navigable waters, and to secure a uniform water front; and it does not appear from relator's application that the defendants have threatened in any manner to disturb him in his possession, nor that that which is proposed to be done tends to produce that effect. Whatever his rights, they remained the same after as before, and the proceedings, as the Supreme Court said, could not operate to constitute a cloud upon them from the standpoint of relator himself, for if nothing further could lawfully be done in the absence of legislation for his protection, that was apparent. The consequences which he deprecated were too remote to form the basis of decision. Whatever private rights or property he has by virtue of the Territorial act of 1854, or of the state act of 1890, whatever his right of access to navigable waters or to construct a wharf from his own land, we do not see that he would be deprived of any of them by the action he has sought to prohibit. It may be true that the width of the reserved strip as delineated on the map brings the inner line across the outer end of relator's wharf, in respect of which, as if it were the harbor line, he complains that his right under the act of March 26, 1890, to purchase the ground occupied by his improvements, would be interfered with; but the construction of that act is for the state court to determine, and the averments of the affidavit and alternative writ make no issue upon it, as affected by the constitutional provision. The commissioners are to locate and establish harbor lines, whereupon the area between the harbor line and the line of ordinary high tide, within not less than fifty nor more than six hundred feet of the harbor line is reserved, under the state constitution. Whether the end of relator's

Syllabus.

wharf is within that area and the consequent effect, the record does not call upon us to consider.

It may properly be added that the decision of the Supreme Court indicates that in its opinion relator was not entitled to the writ of prohibition, because he had other remedies of which he might have availed himself. This was a ground broad enough to sustain the judgment irrespective of the decision of any Federal question, if such arose; but we have considered the case in the other aspect, as the ruling of the Supreme Court in this regard is perhaps not sufficiently definite for us justly to decline jurisdiction upon that ground.

Our conclusion is that no Federal question was so raised upon this record as to justify our interposition, and therefore the writ of error is

HUNTINGTON v. ATTRILL.

Dismissed.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.

No. 33. Argued April 26, 1892. Decided December 12, 1892.

A bill in equity in one State to set aside a conveyance of property made in fraud of creditors, and to charge it with the payment of a judgment since recovered by the plaintiff against the debtor in another State upon his liability as an officer in a corporation under a statute of that State, set forth the judgment and the cause of action on which it was recovered; and also asserted, independently of the judgment, an original liability of the defendant as a stockholder and officer in that corporation before the conveyance. The highest court of the State declined to entertain the bill by virtue of the judgment, because it had been recovered in another State in an action for a penalty; or to maintain the bill on the original liability, for various reasons. Held, that the question whether due faith and credit were thereby denied to the judgment was a Federal question, of which this court had jurisdiction on writ of error. The question whether a statute of one State, which in some aspects may be called penal, is a penal law in the international sense, so that it cannot be enforced in the courts of another State, depends upon the question whether its purpose is to punish an offence against the public justice of the State, or to afford a private remedy to a person injured by the wrongful act. A statute making the officers of a corporation, who sign and record a false VOL. CXLVI-42

Citations for Plaintiff in Error.

certificate of the amount of its capital stock, liable for all its debts, is not a penal law in the international sense.

Whether a statute of one State is a penal law which cannot be enforced in another State is to be determined by the court which is called upon to enforce it.

If the highest court of a State declines to give full faith and credit to a judgment of another State, because in its opinion that judgment was for a penalty, this court, in determining whether full faith and credit have been given to that judgment, must decide for itself whether the original cause of action was penal in the international sense.

If a judgment for a fixed sum of money, recovered in one State by a creditor of a corporation against one of its officers upon a liability for all its debts, imposed by a statute of that State for making and recording a false certificate of the amount of its capital stock, is sued on in a court of another State, and that court declines to enforce the judgment because of its opinion that the original liability was a penalty, the judgment is thereby denied the full faith, credit and effect to which it is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

IN EQUITY. The bill was dismissed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, to which judgment this writ of error was sued

out.

Mr. Hugh L. Bond, Jr. and Mr. John K. Cowen for plaintiff in error, (with whom was Mr. E. J. D. Cross on the brief,) cited: Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290; Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11; Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265; 2 Morawetz on Corporations, § 908 et seq.; Neal v. Moultrie, 12 Georgia, 104; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203; McKenna v. Fisk, 1 How. 241; Allen v. Pittsburg & Connellsville Railroad Co., 45 Maryland, 41; Phillips v. Eyre, L. R. 6 Q. B. 1; Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115; Le Forest v. Tolman, 117 Mass. 109; Boyce v. Wabash RailNesmith, 4 Allen, 233;

way Co., 63 Iowa, 70; Erickson v. Andrews v. Callender, 13 Pick. 484; Halsey v. McLean, 12 Allen, 438; S. C. 90 Am. Dec. 157; Erickson v. Nesmith, 46 N. H. 371; Flash v. Conn, 109 U. S. 371; Richardson v. N. Y. Central Railroad, 98 Mass. 85; Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130; Steam Engine Co. v. Hubbard, 101 U. S. 188; Chase v. Curtis, 113 U. S. 452; Union Iron Co. v. Pierce, 4 Bissell, 327; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Prescott v. Nevers, 4 Mason, 326; Parrott v. Barney, 1 Sawyer, 423;