« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
p. 3214), Congress made permanent annual mate any disagreement with the conclusions appropriations of a certain sum of money of that court. But, as the plaintiff in error “to each state and territory for the more must fail in the attempt to compel the paycomplete endowment and maintenance of ment to it of the money in the hands of the colleges for the benefit of agriculture and defendant for the reasons already given, the mechanic arts, now established, or which there is no need to go further in this court, may be hereafter established, in accordance and the judgment of the Supreme Court of with an act of Congress approved July sec-Wyoming is therefore affirmed. ond, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, to be applied only to instruction in agriculture, the mechanic arts, the English language, and the various branches of mathe- R. G. STONE, R. M. Finley, and Nannie E. matical, physical, natural, and economic
Finley, Plffs. in Err., science, with special reference to their applications in the industries of life, and to the SOUTHERN ILLINOIS & MISSOURI facilities for such instruction." It is so
BRIDGE COMPANY. obvious that these appropriations are made to the state, and not to any institutions Error to state court-questions reviewable
-local law. within the state, and that the states, acting
1. Rulings of the highest court of the through their legislatures, are to expend the state on questions involving the powers of appropriations in accordance with the trust corporations under the laws of that state imposed upon them, that it is unnecessary are conclusive on the Federal Supreme Court to quote the numerous expressions in this when reviewing the judgment of the state act which support that view. By the act of court. * March 2, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 440, chap. 314, Error to state court-questions reviewable U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3218), Congress
local law. directed that a certain sum should be annu
2. Whether a given corporation comes ally appropriated to each state” for the within the scope of the statutes of a state support of agricultural experiment stations conferring the right of eminent domain, and
is entitled to assert such right, presents at the institutions established under the only a question of state law, which cannot act of 1862. The law provides that the ap- be reviewed by the Federal Supreme Court propriation shall be paid to the treasurer of on writ of error to a state court. +
† the institution where the agricultural ex. Eminent domain-bridge over navigable periment station is established, and no stream-effect of time limit set by Conmoney has come or will come into the hands
gress. of the state treasurer. It is, therefore, un- 3. The owner of property taken by emnecessary to consider further the provisions inent domain for the approaches and terof this act. There is in the hands of the minal facilities necessary to the use of a
. state treasurer the permanent fund estab- | bridge erected, under the authority of the
, lished under the act of 1862, and one of the chap. 181), over a navigable stream, is de
act of January 26, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 741, annual appropriations paid to him under the nied no Federal right because the erection act of 1890. The interest on the fund and of the bridge was not begun within the the annual appropriation the state treasurer time limit set by Congress, where the bridge is about to pay to the University of Wy has been constructed without complaint by oming in obedience to the laws of the state. the Federal authorities, Congress having, by The agricultural college claims that it is en
the act of January 18, 1904 (33 Stat. at L. titled under those statutes to receive this 6, chap. 5), extended the time for its com
pletion. money. If this claim fails it is the end of the case. But, as has been shown, both the Eminent domain-bridge over navigable
fund and its interest and the annual appro
stream-approaches and terminal facili
ties. priations are the property of the state, and
4. The appropriation by eminent donot of any institution within it. The agri-main of land for the approaches and tercultural college shows no title or right to minal facilities necessary to the use of a this money under these statutes. The whole bridge erected, under the authority of the case of the plaintiff in error fails at the act of January 26, 1901, over a navigable threshold, and it is unnecessary to determine stream, is not forbidden by that act because whether the state has complied with its the plans submitted to the Secretary of trust in bestowing the government bounty though fully subserving the purpose of
War, and specifically approved by him, alupon the University of Wyoming, or has showing the extent to which `navigation violated the obligation of a contract by re-would be affected, do not include such terpealing, as it has, the act establishing the minal and connecting facilities, and cannot, agricultural college. These questions were .
under the act, be altered without his condiscussed with learning and ability in the sent. court below, and we do not intend to inti
Argued March 22, 25, 1907. Decided May| miles above or below the terminus of said 13, 1907.
The bridge was to be constructed for the IN N ERROR to the Supreme Court of the passage of railway trains, and, at the option
State of Missouri to review a judgment of the corporation, might be so constructed affirming, on a second appeal, a judgment as to provide for the use thereof by wagons, of the Circuit Court of Scott County, in vehicles, and the transit of foot passengers that state, for the appropriation of land for and animals at such reasonable tolls as approaches and terminal facilities necessary might be approved by the Secretary of War. to the use of a bridge erected under con- It was also provided that the bridge congressional authority over a navigable structed under the act and subject to its stream. Affirmed.
limitations should be a lawful structure and See same case below, 194 Mo. 175, 92 S. recognized and known as a post route of the W. 475.
“That the approaches to the bridge built Smith, and Thomas T. Fauntleroy for plain under this act shall be so designed and contiffs in error.
structed as not to interfere with the free Messrs. Martin L. Clardy and Alexander discharge of the river in seasons of flood; G. Cochran for defendant in error.
and any encroachment on the high-water
cross sections by piers, solid embankments, Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of or otherwise, which might result in unduly the court:
accelerating the high-water current at the On March 3, 1899, Congress passed an act site of the bridge, shall not be allowed.” providing, among other things:
Section 7 provides for the submission to “That it shall not be lawful to construct the Secretary of War of the drawings of the or commence the construction of any bridge, bridge, piers, approaches, and
nav- works and a map of the location, giving, for igable river
of the United States the space of at least 2 miles above and 1 until the consent of Congress to the build- mile below the proposed site, the topography ing of such structures shall have been ob- of the banks of the river and the shore lines tained, and until the plans for the same shall at high and low water. The maps and have been submitted to and approved by the drawings are to be referred to the board of Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of officers of the Corps of Engineers, United War."
States Army, for examination and report. The act further provided :
Provision is made for hearing objections “That when plans for any bridge or other to the construction of the bridge, and it is structure have been approved by the Chief provided that the proposed bridge shall be of Engineers and by the Secretary of War, a lawful structure only when built in acit shall not be lawful to deviate from such cordance with the plans recommended by the plans either before or after completion of Board of Engineers and approved by the the structure, unless the modification of said Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of plans has previously been submitted to and War, and while so managed and kept in rereceived the approval of the Chief of En-pair as to offer at all times reasonable and gineers and of the Secretary of War.” 30 proper means for the passage of rafts, Stat. at L. 1151, $ 9, chap. 425, U. S. Comp. steamboats, and other water craft under the Stat. 1901, p. 3540.
said bridge, and while said requirements are
observed. On January 26, 1901, Congress passed an act (31 Stat. at L. 741, chap. 181) author
Section 10 provides for alterations and izing the Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge changes as may be required by the SecreCompany (defendant in error), a corporation tary of War, in accordance with existing of the state of Illinois, to erect, construct, visions of the act, so as to preserve free and
law, in the bridge constructed under the promaintain, and operate a bridge and ap- convenient navigation. Such changes were proaches thereto over the Mississippi river to be made, under the direction of the Secfrom a point on the Mississippi river in Al- retary of War, at the expense of the perexander county, in the state of Illinois, op- sons, companies, or corporations owning, posite the terminus of the St. Louis South-controlling, and operating the bridge. I western Railway, at or near Gray's Point, in
Section 11 provides that the bridge shall Scott county, in the state of Missouri, or be constructed under the general supervision from some other convenient point on said of the Secretary of War, and no changes or river in said Alexander county, Illinois, to alterations in the plan shall be made dursome opposite point on said river in the ing the construction of said bridge or after state of Missouri, within the distance of 31 its completion, unless recommended by the Chief of Engineers and approved by the a bridge company to build a bridge across Secretary of War.
the Mississippi river; The act makes provision for the preserva
That the laws of Missouri do not confer tion of the navigable channel during the the right of eminent domain on a corporaconstruction of the bridge.
tion of another state; Section 12 provides that whenever Con- That a corporation of Illinois can only exgress shall decide that the public interests ercise in Missouri such powers as are conrequire it, the right to order the removal of ferred upon it by the state of its creation. the bridge at the expense of the owners is These questions involve the powers of expressly reserved, without liability for corporations under the laws of Missouri, damages on the part of the United States. which are concluded by the adjudication of
Section 13 provides that if the bridge is the state supreme court. not commenced within one year and com- There is no contention that the statutes pleted within three years from the date of conferring the right of eminent domain, the approval of the act, the same shall be passed by the legislature of the state of null and void, and the rights thereby con- Missouri, and which its courts have decided ferred ceased and determine.
authorize this appropriation by the defendThe Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge ant in error, do not make ample provision Company, in pursuance of this act, submit- for assessment of damages to the landowner ted its drawings and plans and the same were by due process of law. Whether a given corduly approved as required by law.
poration comes within the law of the state, The bridge company, on the 24th day of and is entitled to assert its power, presents April, 1902, filed its petition in the circuit only a question of state law. court of Scott county, Missouri, for the ap- Nor is error shown in the contention that propriation of a strip of land containing the erection of the bridge was not begun 20.3 acres, said to be approximately 4,000 within the year, as provided by the act of feet long and 200 feet wide, alleging that it Congress. The evidence shows that the bridge is necessary to have a right of way for the has been constructed without complaint by railway tracks, bridge, and terminal yards the Federal authorities, and, indeed, Conof the company, and, for the purpose of gress has extended the time for the complecarrying out its charter privileges, it is tion of the bridge by an act passed January necessary to hold and own the described 18, 1904. 33 Stat. at L. 6, chap. 5. It cantract.
not prejudice any Federal right secured to On trial in the circuit court that court the plaintiffs in error that the right of emheld that the bridge company had no right inent domain is authorized by the state notto make the appropriation under the laws withstanding the bridge was not begun withof Missouri.
in the time which Congress might have From this adjudication an appeal was insisted upon as a condition of enjoyment taken to the supreme court of Missouri and of the privileges conferred. that court reversed the judgment of the If the record presents any Federal quescircuit court, and remanded the case with tion at all, it rests in the contention that directions to the lower court to appoint the appropriation in controversy is in conthree disinterested commissioners to assess travention of the act of Congress, because the damages which the defendants would it is an unauthorized extension of the apsustain by the appropriation of the strip of proaches to the bridge upon the Missouri land. 174 Mo. 1, 63 L.R.A. 301, 73 S. W. side, not included in the drawings and plans 453.
as submitted to the Secretary of War, and Such proceedings were had, and $10,000 which met with his approval, as already was assessed as damages in favor of the recited. plaintiffs in error, defendants below, and a The copy of the approved drawings in the second appeal was prosecuted to the su- record shows that the approach to the bridge preme court of Missouri, where judgment upon the west side was shown in a series below was affirmed. 194 Mo. 175, 92 S. W. of arches extending from the river bank to 4/5.
a distance of 720 feet. And it is the conTo that judgment this writ of error is tention of the plaintiffs in error that, in prosecuted.
view of the act of Congress, the approach Many of the assignments of error involve must be limited to the extent and construconly questions of state law, the rulings con- tion shown in the plans and drawings thus cerning which, in the supreme court of the approved by the Secretary of War. Indeed, state, are conclusive, and involve no sub- it is contended that this plan, after its apstantial Federal question.
proval, became a limitation upon the power Among these may be named:
of the state to extend the bridge by auThe contention that the statutes of Mis- thorizing further approaches and connecsouri do not authorize the incorporation of 'tions.
But we think this contention wholly un- This record shows that the point 720 feet tenable. The act of Congress and the pow- to the west, where the approach required by ers given the Secretary of War thereunder the War Department ends, is at a height of are the result of the exertion of the consti- some 60 feet from the ground. The structutional power conferred upon Congress to ture was thence extended some distance to regulate commerce between the states. Fed the crest of a bluff, thence over the lands of eral control of bridges constructed over nav. the plaintiffs in error to a point where the igable waters is maintained because of the terminal yards of the bridge company are right to prevent obstructions to navigation situated. and preserve such public highways as rivers We cannot find it within the purpose of for free and unobstructed use in the interest Congress, if it had the power so to do, by of commerce. Newport & C. Bridge Co. v. the terms of this act to limit the state in United States, 105 U. S. 470–475, 26 L. ed. its right to authorize these necessary ter1143-1145, and cases therein cited.
minals and connecting facilities, because the An examination of the act of Congress plans and specifications, which fully subunder which the bridge company was au- served the purpose of showing the extent to thorized to construct this bridge manifests which navigation would be affected, had been the purpose to prevent its becoming an ob- specifically approved by the Secretary of struction or interference with free naviga- War, and are not to be altered without his tion of the river, and when the matter of consent. approaches is specifically spoken of it is In our view no Federal right was taken provided that they shall be so designed and from the plaintiffs in error by the action constructed as not to interfere with the free complained of under the state laws as interdischarge of the river in seasons of flood. preted by the supreme court of the state of
It is evident that the purpose of requir- Missouri, and if it may be said that the ing the submission of plans, and their ap- contention fairly presents a Federal quesproval by the Secretary of War, was to pre- tion, we are unable to find merit in it. serve, as far as may be, the unobstructed Judgment of the Supreme Court of Mispassage of the river in the uses of naviga- souri is affirmed. tion. To the extent that it was necessary to protect such interests, the law provides that the structure shall be unalterable, and that its approaches shall be approved by the STATE OF GEORGIA, by its Attorney GenSecretary and remain unchanged without his
eral, John C. Hart, sanction, but it certainly never was designed to destroy the usefulness of the bridge by TENNESSEE COPPER COMPANY and limiting the power of the state to authorize Ducktown Sulphur, Copper, & Iron Comthe corporation constructing and owning it,
pany (Limited). by proper connections and other facilities, Injunction-against pollution of air-suit
to make the bridge available for the pur
by state. poses for which it was intended. The bridge
1. Foreign corporations will be enjoined and approaches as approved by the Secretary at the suit of the state of Georgia from so of War have not been altered. The con- discharging sulphurous fumes from their necting approaches and tracks are addition works in Tennessee as to pollute the air al means of making the bridge available for over large tracts of territory in Georgia,
and to cause and threaten wholesale damage the purposes intended. As was pertinently observed by the Chief to forests and vegetable life therein, if not
to health. Justice, in delivering the opinion of the court in Union P. R. Co. v. Chicago, R. I. Laches—as bar to injunctive relief. & P. R. Co. 163 U. S. 588, 41 L. ed. 273, 16 guilty of such laches as bars her right to in
2. The state of Georgia has not been Sup. Ct. Rep. 1173: “A railroad bridge can junctive relief against the pollution of air be of no use to the public unless united with over large tracts of her territory, and the necessary appurtenances, such as approaches, destruction of forests and vegetable life tracks, depots, and other facilities for the therein by sulphurous gases discharged by public accommodation.”
foreign corporations from their works in If the state was deprived of its power to Tennessee, where such conditions have not authorize extensions and connections which obtained until recent years, and the disshould make this bridge available for the missal, without prejudice, of a similar bill should make this bridge available for the filed in 1904, was due to the mistaken belief common use of railroads for which it was that changes in the process of manufacture intended, it would have been a vain thing then in progress would remove the evil. to provide for a bridge abruptly terminating at a height and point where, without fur
[No. 5, Original.] ther approaches and connecting facilities, its Argued February 25, 26, 1907. Decided May usefulness would have been destroyed.
in a , state of Georgia to enjoin certain for- injuries analogous to torts, must be exameign corporations from discharging noxious ined, is dwelt upon in Missouri v. Illinois, gases from their works in Tennessee over 200 U. S. 496, 520, 521, 50 L. ed. 572, 578, large tracts of territory in Georgia. In- 579, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268. But it is plain junction decreed.
that some such demands must be recognized, The facts are stated in the opinion. if the grounds alleged are proved. When
Messrs. Ligon Johnson and John C. Hart | the states by their union made the forcible for complainant.
abatement of outside nuisances impossible Messrs. James G. Parks, Howard Cornick, to each, they did not thereby agree to subJohn H. Frantz, James B. Wright, and Mar- mit to whatever might be done. They did tin H. Vogel for defendants.
not renounce the possibility of making rea
sonable demands on the ground of their still Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion remaining quasi-sovereign interests; and the of the court:
alternative to force is a suit in this court. This is a bill in equity filed in this court Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208, 241, 45 by the state of Georgia, in pursuance of a L. ed. 497, 512, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 331. resolution of the legislature and by direc- Some peculiarities necessarily mark a suit tion of the governor of the state, to en-of this kind. If the state has a case at all, join the defendant copper companies from it is somewhat more certainly entitled to discharging noxious gas from their works specific relief than a private party might be. in Tennessee over the plaintiff's territory. It is not lightly to be required to give up It alleges that, in consequence of such dis- quasi-sovereign rights for pay; and, apart charge, a wholesale destruction of forests, from the difficulty of valuing such rights orchards, and crops is going on, and other in money, if that be its choice it may insist injuries are done and threatened in five that an infraction of them shall be stopped. counties of the state. It alleges also a vain The states, by entering the Union, did not application to the state of Tennessee for re- sink to the position of private owners, sublief. A preliminary injunction was denied; ject to one system of private law. This but, as there was ground to fear that great court has not quite the same freedom to and irreparable damage might be done, an balance the harm that will be done by an early day was fixed for the final hearing, injunction against that of which the plainand the parties were given leave, if so mind- tiff complains, that it would have in deed, to try the case on affidavits. This has ciding between two subjects of a single pobeen done without objection, and, although litical power. Without excluding the conthe method would be unsatisfactory if our siderations that equity always takes into decision turned on any nice question of fact, account, we cannot give the weight that was in the view that we take we think it unlike given them in argument to a comparison ly that either party has suffered harm. between the damage threatened to the plain
The case has been argued largely as if tiff and the calamity of a possible stop to it were one between two private parties; the defendants' business, the question of but it is not. The very elements that would health, the character of the forests as a first be relied upon in a suit between fellow-citi- or second growth, the commercial possibilzens as a ground for equitable relief are ity or impossibility of reducing the fumes wanting here. The state owns very little to sulphuric acid, the special adaptation of of the territory alleged to be affected, and the business to the place. the damage to it capable of estimate in It is a fair and reasonable demand on the money, possibly, at least, is small. This is part of a sovereign that the air over its a suit by a state for an injury to it in its territory should not be polluted on a great capacity of quasi-sovereign. In that ca- scale by sulphurous acid gas, that the forpacity the state has an interest independentests on its mountains, be they better or of and behind the titles of its citizens, in worse, and whatever domestic destruction all the earth and air within its domain. It they have suffered, should not be further has the last word as to whether its moun- destroyed or threatened by the act of pertains shall be stripped of their forests and sons beyond its control, that the crops and its inhabitants shall breathe pure air. It orchards on its hills should not be endanmight have to pay individuals before it gered from the same source. If any such could utter that word, but with it remains demand is to be enforced this must be notthe final power. The alleged damage to the withstanding the hesitation that we might state as a private owner is merely a make-| feel if the suit were between private par. weight, and we may lay on one side the ties, and the doubt whether, for the indispute as to whether the destruction of for- juries which they might be suffering to their ests has led to the gullying of its roads. property, they should not be left to an ac
The caution with which demands of this I tion at law.