of the establishment of the harbor line as indicated, would be to render them useless for the accommodation of the commerce of the lakes, and to practically deny to the appellee a substantial and valuable riparian right to which the Supreme Court has determined it is entitled." The words of our mandate, "practical navigability, having reference to the manner in which commerce in vessels [on the lake] is conducted," admonished the circuit court that the question as to the extent to which the railroad company could rightfully continue to occupy the bed of the lake with piers, docks, or wharves was not to be determined upon narrow, technical grounds, but upon grounds which, under all the circumstances, would be fair and reasonable as between the company and the public, having reference to the manner in which commerce was commonly or habitually conducted in vessels of various sizes. It is said that, in determining whether the piers and docks in question extended into the lake beyond the point of practical navigability, the circuit court could only take into view the size and capacity of vessels habitually employed on the lake at the commencement of this litigation or at the date of the original decree in the circuit court. That was particularly so in the case of metal steamers, some of which carried as much as 4.000 or 5,000 tons, while others varied in draft from 10 to 18 feet. There were, at the time of the investigation below, vessels regularly engaged in commerce on the lake whose draft was as much as 20 feet. It is safe to say that according to the evidence in the cause a wharf or pier in the lake would not have adequately accommo. dated commerce, as carried on in many vessels on the lake, unless it had reached water not less than from 14 to 18 feet deep; and even such a structure could not have been used by the largest vessels on the lake. It was shown by soundings that the struc tures in question extended no farther into the lake than was necessary to accommo date a great number of vessels of moderate capacity. When the investigation below was entered upon, pursuant to our mandate, the depth of water in the channel of Chicago river over the La Salle and Washington streets tunnels was about 16 feet and 8 inches,-a greater depth than exists at the outer edge of the piers, docks, and wharves in question, except that at the mouth of the Chicago river, against the ends of some of the company's structures, there is a depth of 18 to 20 feet, obtained by dredging. The average depth of water at the outer line of the structures in question does not exceed 12 or 13 feet at the utmost, which is insufficient for the accommodation of a vast amount of commerce carried on in vessels on the lake. An examination of the evidence will disclose this fact beyond all serious controversy. We are of opinion that nothing in our mandate or opinion compelled the circuit court to frame its decree upon that theory. That court was directed to ascertain whether the structures complained of extended beyond practical navigability, having reference to the manner in which commerce "is conducted on the lake." There was no intention to withhold the power to determine We are therefore of opinion that there the particular matter reserved for investi-was no error in holding that, in view of the gation in the light of the situation as it was when that investigation was made. If this court had intended that investigation should relate to the situation as it was when the litigation commenced, or when the original decree was rendered, it would have so declared. If, having reference to the manner in which commerce in vessels was conducted at the time of the investigation below, the structures in question did not ex-court. tend into the lake beyond the point of prac tical navigability, then the circuit court, in the execution of the mandate of this court, properly confirmed the title and possession of the railroad company as established by the original decree. manzer in which commerce was conducted on the lake during the period of the investigation below, such structures did not extend into the water beyond the point of practical navigability. Regard being had to. the weight of the proof, the same conclusion would be reached if we looked at the capacity of the vessels used on the lake at the time of the original decree in the circuit. Confirmation of these views will be found in the testimony of many witnesses whose opinions are entitled to respect. Captain Marshall of the Engineer Corps of the United States Army, having accurate knowledge of the harbor of Chicago and of its needs, It appears from the evidence that in 1847 was asked the question: "Having refer the largest vessel on the lake had capacity ence to the manner in which commerce in sufficient to carry 18,000 bushels of corn; vessels is now conducted on the lakes at the that in 1860 some grain vessels carried as port of Chicago, what, in your opinion, is much as 20,000 bushels, having a draft of the reasonable and necessary depth of water about 12 or 12 feet. In 1869 some vessels in a sliip or dock for the accommodation of had a draft of 13 feet. Later, and during that commerce?" His answer was: "At the period covered by the investigation, present no vessel with a deeper draft than there were vessels on the lake carrying 100,-about 16 feet can carry on commerce in the 000 bushels of corn, while others carried as Chicago river, so that I should think that a much as 160,000 bushels, the latter drawing foot deeper than that-17 feet-would be a from 16 to 18 feet of water. The proof proper depth to accommodate the largest as shows that the tendency for many years well as the smallest vessels that come to prior to the rendition of the decree was to Chicago now." He was also asked: "If increase the carrying capacity of vessels. you were to construct a pier or wharf in the 66. said outer harbor for the accommodation of vessels engaged in lake commerce, or were to advise in relation thereto, what would be the depth of the water you would consider it necessary to reach in order that such pier or dock should be available for the uses in tended?" He replied: "17 feet at present, and ultimately they should construct their docks with 20 feet of water. Piling and bulkheads so as to stand dredging to 20 feet." Many other witnesses testified substantially to the same effect. For the reasons stated, the decree of which the State complains must be affirmed. It is so ordered. sel for the city of Chicago in the earlier The CHIEF JUSTICE, having been of coun stages of this litigation, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. NORTHERN v. SECURITIES (184 U. S. 199) COMPANY, Original jurisdiction of Supreme Courtsuit between state and corporation of other state-domestic corporations as necessary parties. of the United States cannot be exercised in a suit between a state and a citizen of another state, when, with the latter, citizens of the complainant state must necessarily be joined as parties. It does not follow from what has been STATE OF MINNESOTA, Complainant, said that the railroad company can, of right, further extend into the lake either the structures in question or new structures. While sustaining the title and possession of the railroad company in respect to piers and docks, so far as then constructed, the original decree of 1888 perpetually enjoined the railroad company from erecting structures in or filling with earth or other materials any portion of the bed of Lake Michigan as it then existed and was shown on 1. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court the Morehouse map east or in front of the fractional sections 10 and 15, that is, "east or in front of the grounds now [at the date of the original decree] occupied and used by it between Chicago river and the north line of Randolph street extended eastwardly, or east or in front of the grounds now [then] occupied and used by it between the north line of Randolph and the center line of Sixteenth street, each extended eastwardly, except that said company may complete the slip or basin already commenced immediately north of Sixteenth street extended, with a wharf on each side not exceeding 100 feet, in width each, where vessels coming into such slip or basin may load or unload, and upon which tracks of the company may be laid." These restrictions imposed by the 2. A bill by a state against a corporation of another state to enjoin that corporation, its officers, representatives, agents, servants, or stockholders from interfering in any way with the management or control, and from holding any of the stock, of either of two railroad corporations of the complainant state, is one to which the domestic corporations are necessary parties for the representation of the interests of all other stockholders and of the general public. [Original.] ary 24, 1902. original decree were confirmed by the for- Argued January 27, 1902. Decided Febru mer decree of this court, leaving open only the question whether the structures complained of, and as then constructed and maintained, extended into the lake beyond the point of practical navigability. So that the railroad company cannot acquire by the present decision any authority to further extend its structures into the lake. It must stand upon the original decree of the circuit court in respect of its rights. We may add that, the circuit court and the circuit court of appeals having concurred in finding that the structures in question did not extend into the lake beyond the point of practical navigability,-which is largely, if not entirely, a question of fact, the decree should not be disturbed unless it was clearly in conflict with the evidence. Compania de Navigacion la Flecha V. Brauer, 168 U. S. 104, 123, 42 L. ed. 398, 406, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 12; Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U. S. 1. 14, 42 L. ed. 639, 643, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 274: Baker v. Cummings, 169 U. S. 189. 198, 42 L. ed. 711, 716. 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 767; The Carib Prince, 170 U. S. 655, sub nom. Wupperman v. The Carib Prince, 42 L. ed. 1181, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 753. RIG against a corporation of another state to restrain interference with domestic corporations. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Statement by Mr. Justice Shiras: On the 7th day of January, 1902, came the state of Minnesota, by Wallace B. Dougcourt for leave to file a bill of complaint las, its attorney general, and moved the against the Northern Securities Company, a corporation of the state of New Jersey. Thereupon the court directed that notice of such application should be given to the defendant, and set the motion for argument on January 27, 1902, when it was duly heard. The bill proposed to be filed was in the following terms: To the Judges of the Supreme Court of the Your oratrix, the State of Minnesota, complainant, by Wallace B. Douglas, attorney 86. general thereof, brings this its bill of com- | sota will not be reached by railroads for plaint against the Northern Securities Company, a corporation organized under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New Jersey, and allegos: That said Northern Securities Company is a corporation organized as hereinafter alleged, under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New Jersey, and is a citizen of the state of New Jersey. III. years to come, if at all, owing to such combination and consolidation removing all rivalry and competition between said companies; that the settlement and occupation of said lands will add very much to their value, and such occupation will depend entirely upon the accessibility of railway lines and transportation facilities for marketing the products raised thereon; that if said lands are sold and become occupied they will add very largely to the taxable value of the property of the state, and that said lands cannot be sold or the income of the state increased thereby without the construction of railroad lines to, or adjacent to, the same. B. That the state of Minnesota is now and for many years past has been the owner of, and continuously maintained, an educa tional institution for the benefit of its citizens, known as the University of Minnesota; also a large number of hospitals for the insane, within its territorial limits; also five normal schools for the education of teachers within the state; also a state training That by an act of the Congress of the school for boys and girls; also several state United States, of March 12, 1860 (12 Stat. schools for the education, care, and mainteat L. 3, chap. 5), extending to the state nance of the deaf, dumb, blind, and feebleof Minnesota the swamp-lands grant there-minded; also a state school for indigent and tofore made to the state of Arkansas, and homeless children; also a state penitentiary by various subsequent acts, the Congress of and reformatory. the United States donated to the state of That for many years past the state of Minnesota from the public domain large Minnesota has continuously maintained and quantities of lands situated within the state supported each of said institutions, and in of Minnesota, and of the value of several the care, maintenance, and management millions of dollars. That the state of thereof has been compelled to and in the Minnesota now has left and undisposed of future, of necessity, will annually purchase more than 3,000,000 acres of said lands, of large quantities of supplies for said institu the value of more than $15,000,000, much tions, including provisions, clothing, and of which said land is located in the terri-fuel, a great portion of which the state of tory traversed by the railroads of the Great Minnesota is compelled to ship over the dif Northern and Northern Pacific Railway companies, as hereinafter alleged. That the value of said land, and the salability thereof, depends in very large measure upon having free, uninterrupted, and open competition in passenger and freight rates over the lines of railway owned and operated by said Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway companies. ferent lines of railway owned and operated by the Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Great Northern Railway Company. That the state of Minnesota is compelled to expend annually more than $700,000 in the operation and maintenance of said public institutions, most of which sum is raised by general taxation upon the lands and other property of the citizens of the state That many of said lands are vacant and of Minnesota, and situated therein. That unsettled and located in regions not at pres- the amount of taxes which said state of ent reached by railway lines, and depend Minnesota can collect, and the successful for settlement upon the construction of lines maintenance of its said public institutions, in the future; that it has heretofore been as well as the performance of its governthe practice of said Great Northern and mental functions and affairs, depends Northern Pacific Railway companies, re- largely upon the value of the real and perspectively, to extend spur lines into terri-sonal property situated within its terri tory adjacent to each of said roads as well torial limits, and the general prosperity and as into new territory for the purpose of business success of its citizens. That the developing such territory, as well as to obtain traffic therefrom; that such new lines have been built in the past very largely by reason of the rivalry heretofore existing between said companies, for existing, as well as new, business; that under the consolidation and unity of control hereinafter set forth such rivalry will cease, and many of the lands now owned by the state of Minne value of said real and personal property of the citizens of the state of Minnesota, as well as their business success and general prosperity, depend very largely upon maintaining in said state free, open, and unre stricted competition between the railway lines of said Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway companies, respectively, within said state. C. Minnesota, and all on the lines of railway of the said Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway companies, hereinafter re ferred to, to the cities of Duluth, St. Paul, and Minneapolis, within the state of Minnesota. That nearly all of the shipment of such products made from the above-named initial points are consigned to various citi zens at either the city of Duluth, St. Paul, or Minneapolis over one or the other of said lines of railroad last-above named. That enormous quantities of merchandise have been and will continue to be shipped annually over said lines of railway, between the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis and va rious other cities and villages along said lines of railway situated within the state of Minnesota, and which are purchased and That it has been the settled policy and practice of the state of Minnesota, since its organization as a territory, to develop the resources of the state by encouraging railroad building therein; and in furtherance of this policy the territory of Minnesota, by an act thereof under the date of May 22, 1857, granted to the Minnesota & Pacific Railroad Company a charter, and in consideration of the construction and maintenance of a line of railway in Minnesota by said company said territory donated to it out of its public domain about 700,000 acres of land. That said Minnesota & Pacific Railroad Company thereafter became insolvent, and all its property was placed in the hands of a receiver; that such proceed-used entirely by the people of said state. ings were thereafter had that all the property of the last-named company, including said land, was duly sold and conveyed to the St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Manitoba Railway Company, hereinafter mentioned. That the competition in both freight and passenger traffic to and from said places has always been sharp and active between said railway companies, and has secured to the residents of said cities, as well as the state of Minnesota, and to the state of Minnesota itself, much lower rates for both freight and passengers than would otherwise have been obtained, or than wil' or can be obtained in case the consolidation or unity of control and management of said Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway companies, hereinafter alleged, is not enjoined as herein prayed. That the state of Minnesota, by an act of its legislature, and in consideration of the construction and maintenance of a line of railway by the Great Northern Railway Company, hereinafter referred to, between St. Cloud and Hinckley, a distance of 84 miles, donated and conveyed to said lastnamed company upwards of 400,000 acres of land then owned by and situated in the state of Minnesota, which said land was then worth more than $1,000,000. That in carrying out said policy, and in aid of the building of railways within the state of Minnesota, there has been granted out of the public domain within the limits of the state of Minnesota upwards of 10,500,000 acres of land, nearly all of which has been granted to said Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway companies, and the sub-apolis & St. Cloud Railroad Company," apsidiary companies owned and controlled by them. D. That by an act of the legislature of the state of Minnesota, approved March 3, 1881, entitled "An Act Granting Swamp Lands to Aid in the Construction of the Main Line of the Road of the Little Falls & Dakota Railway Company," and which now is a part of the Northern Pacific Railway Company system, hereinafter referred to, the state of Minnesota donated to said Little Falls & Dakota Railway Company two hundred forty-three thousand five hundred and ninety-one (243.591) acres of land situated in and then belonging to said state, in consideration of the construction and maintenance by said last-named railway company of a line of railway extending from Little Falls to Morris, in the state of Minnesota. IV. Your oratrix further alleges that immense quantities of wheat and other products are shipped annually from East Grand Forks, Crookston, Moorhead, Fergus Falls, and other competitive points within the state of V. That the Great Northern Railway Company is a corporation organized and exist ing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Minnesota, to wit, under an act duly passed by the territory of Minnesota, entitled "An Act to Incorporate the Minne proved March 1st, A. D. 1856, and various "An Act to Amend an Act Entitled 'AnAct to Incorporate the Minneapolis & St. Cloud Railroad Company,' Approved March 1, 1856, and to Repeal Certain Portions of an Act Amending the Charter of Said Company, Passed February 23, 1864.'" Approved February 28, 1865. "An Act to Amend an Act Entitled 'An Act Granting Swamp Lands to Aid the Minneapolis & St. Cloud Railroad Company in Building Branches to Connect with theLake Superior & Mississippi Railroad and: ⚫204 •200 Winona & St. Peter Railroad, or Any Other | bank of the Mississippi river to St. Cloud, Railroad in Southern Minnesota."" Ap- Minnesota. proved March 5, 1869. "An Act to Amend the Charter of the Railroad in Southern Minnesota."" Appany." Approved March 6, 1869. "An Act to Amend the Charter of the Minneapolis & St. Cloud Railroad Company." Approved March 2, 1870. "An Act to Extend the Time for the Construction and Completion of the Branch of the Minneapolis & St. Cloud Railroad Company." Approved March 11, 1879. "An Act to Amend an Act Entitled ‘An Act Granting Swamp Lands to Aid the Minneapolis & St. Cloud Railroad Company in Building Branches to Connect with the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad and the Winona & St. Peter Railroad, or Any Other Railroad in Southern Minnesota,' Approved February 11, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-Five, as Amended." Approved March 1, 1885. Another line of railway extending from St. Cloud easterly to Hinckley, Minnesota. Another line of railway extending from Elk River, Minnesota, northward to Malaco, Minnesota, on the line of the St. Cloud and Hinckley Branch, last above referred to. Another line of railway extending from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Breckenridge, Minnesota. 2 Another line extending from Sauk Center, Minnesota, to Park Rapids, Minnesota. · * Another line of railway extending from Hutchinson Junction to Hutchinson, Minnesota. Another line of railway extending from Benson, Minnesota, thence in a westerly direction to the western boundary line of the state; thence to Watertown, South Dakota. Another line of railway extending from Evansville, Minnesota, westerly to the state boundary line, thence to Ellendale, North Dakota. Another line of railway extending from Moorhead, Minnesota, to Crookston, Minnesota. Another line of railway extending from Barnesville, Minnesota, to Moorhead, Minne sota. Another line of railway extending from Carman, Minnesota, to Foster, Minnesota. That on the 16th day of September, 1889, the corporate name of said company was Another line of railway extending from duly changed to the Great Northern Rail-Moorhead, Minnesota, westerly to the state way Company. That during the year 1889 boundary line; thence to Wahpeton, North said railway company caused to be con- Dakota. structed a line of railway extending from St. Cloud, Minnesota, to Hinckley, Minnesota, which line was immediately conveyed to the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the Manitoba Company. That said Manitoba Company, prior to the 1st day of February, 1890, had built, purchased, and put in operation various lines of railway within the state of Minnesota, as well as in the states of North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Washington, connecting by rail the cit ies of St. Paul and Minneapolis, within the state of Minnesota, and various other cities and villages within said state, with each other, and with Puget Sound, on the Pacific ocean; which said railways are hereinafter more particularly described. That on the 1st day of February, 1890, said Manitoba Railway Company leased to the said Great Northern Railway Company; for a period of 999 years, all of the lines of railway, including the rolling stock then owned and controlled by said Manitoba Com-pany; that ever since said last-named date said Great Northern Railway Company has continued to and now does control, operate, and maintain each and all of said lines as one complete railroad system. That said lines of railway so constructed by said Manitoba Company and now so controlled, operated, and maintained by said Great Northern Railway Company under said lease, are described as follows: A line of railway extending from St. Paul, Minnesota, via Minneapolis, Elk River, St. Cloud, Sauk Center, Fergus Falls, Glyndon, Crookston to the northern boundary line of - the state of Minnesota at St. Vincent. Another line of railway extending from Minneapolis, Minnesota, along the western Another line of railway extending from Crookston, Minnesota, to Red Lake Falls and Thief River Falls, Minnesota. All of the foregoing lines being situated in the state of Minnesota, except as hereinafter otherwise expressly stated. That said Great Northern Railway Company now either owns or controls, and operates and maintains, by virtue of said lease, a line or system of railways connecting with said lines above referred to, and extending from the western boundary line of of North Dakota, Montana, Idaho and Washthe state of Minnesota through the states ington, to Puget Sound on the Pacific coast. The said railway lines covered by said lease, or owned by said Great Northern Railway Company, aggregate a total of about 4,500 miles. That many of said railroads above described, being located within the state of Minnesota, were built by subsidiary companies or corporations, and said Great Northern Railway Company now owns all of the capital stock of such corporations in addition and as supplemental to said lease; and in addition thereto said Great Northern Railway Company owns all of the capital stock of the Eastern Railway Company of Minnesota, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota, and which owns and operates a railway line extending from the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis to Duluth, Minnesota; and from Duluth, Minnesota, to Bemidji, Minnesote; and by virtue of such ownership of |