CHAPTER IX. THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. § 406. Two general classes of cases over which the supreme court is granted original jurisdiction.-The supreme court of the United States is, by the constitution, vested with original jurisdiction over two general classes of cases, namely: (1) All cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; and (2) cases in which a state shall be a party.1 It is not within the competency of congress to vest in the supreme court original jurisdiction in any other classes of cases than those specified in the constitution.2 § 407. Same-Classification of cases in which a state may be a party.—The cases in which a state may be a party, and over which the supreme court is, by the constitution, vested with original jurisdiction, are classified as follows: (1) Controversies between two or more states; (2) controversies between a 1 U. S. Const. art. III, sec. 2. 137 (2:60); Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 96, 97 (19:336). state and citizens of another state; (3) controversies between a state and foreign states; (4) controversies between a state and citizens or subjects of foreign states, that is, aliens; and (5) controversies between the United States and a state.* 3 § 408. Same-Same-No jurisdiction of suit by state against own citizens.-The supreme court has no original jurisdiction of a suit brought by a state against one of its own citizens," nor of a suit between a state and citizens of another state and its own citizens, and corporations joined as defendants." § 409. The original jurisdiction not made exclusive. The original jurisdiction conferred upon the United States supreme court by the federal constitution is not, by that instrument, made exclusive; and it is competent for congress to vest in the inferior courts of the United States original jurisdiction of the same classes of controversies, of which the supreme court is by the constitution given original cognizance. And congress has, in the exercise of its power, provided that in certain classes of those cases the original jurisdiction shall be exclusive, and in others it shall not be exclusive. The exclusive jurisdiction is: (1) of all controversies of a civil nature where a state is a party, except between a state and citizens of other states or aliens; and (2) of all such suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics or servants, as a court of law can take cognizance of, consistently with the laws of nations. The original jurisdiction of the supreme court which is not exclusive is: (1) of suits between a state and citizens of other states or aliens; and (2) of suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul or viceconsul is a party. It seems, also, that the original jurisdic 3 U. S. Const. art. III, sec. 2; Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449472 (28:482); St. Luke's Hospital v. Barclay, 3 Blatchf. 265; Graham v. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. 50; California v. Southern Pac. Co., 229-271 (39:683); Pennsylvania V. Quicksilver Min. Co., 10 Wall. 553 (19:998). 4 United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621 (36:285); United States v. North Carolina, 136 U. S. 221222 (34:336). 5 Pennsylvania V. Quicksilver Min. Co., 10 Wall. 553 (19:998). 6 California v. Southern Pac. Co., 157 U. S. 229-271 (39:683); Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 184 U. S. 199-247 (46:499). 7 Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449– 472 (28:482); Gittings v. Crawford, 1 Taney, Dec. 1; United States v. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 3239 (31:69); Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252-263 (28:419). 8 U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 687; 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. 436. tion of a suit by a state against the United States is not exclusive in the supreme court." § 410. Same-Jurisdiction of the court of claims-United States v. Louisiana.-The United States having by statute consented to be sued in the court of claims, upon any claim founded upon a law of congress, and being indebted to the state of Louisiana in an aggregate sum of $71,385.83, arising under two certain acts of congress, and the federal constitution not making the original jurisdiction of the supreme court exclusive in cases where a state is a party, and the federal statute whereby the United States consents to be sued, as aforesaid, making no exception when a state is a party, there is no more reason why the jurisdiction of the court of claims should not be exercised in such a case, than when a private person is a suitor. The statute by which the government consents to be sued making no exception as to the jurisdiction of the court of claims in such cases, the supreme court can create no such exception. The jurisdiction of the court of claims was sustained.10 § 411. Suits between states to settle boundaries.-The most numerous class of cases of which the supreme court has entertained original jurisdiction is that of controversies between two states as to the boundaries of their territory, such as were determined before the revolution by the king in council, and, under the Articles of Confederation, while there was no national judiciary, by committees or commissioners appointed by congress. All such suits have been entertained on the equity side of the court, as suits in chancery, and the usual prayer of the bill is that the court, by its decree, may ascertain and establish the boundary line between the states, parties plaintiff and defendant, and that the plaintiff be restored to her right of jurisdiction and sovereignty over the disputed territory, and that she be quieted in her title, possession and enjoyment of such territory.11 • United States v. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 32-39 (31:69). 10 United States v. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 33-39 (31:69). And see, also, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437-472 (50:261). 11 New Jersey v. New York, 3 S. Pet. 461 (7:741); S. C. 5 Pet. 284 § 412. Jurisdiction of suits beween states not confined to controversies cencerning boundaries.-Although the history of litigation in the supreme court shows that its original jurisdiction has been more frequently invoked and exercised in suits. between states involving boundaries, and questions of jurisdiction and sovereignty over lands and people, directly affecting the property rights and interests of a state, yet manifestly such cases do not cover the entire field in which controversies may arise between states over which the supreme court is, by the constitution, vested with original jurisdiction, and that court has declared that it would be objectionable, and, indeed, impossible, for it to anticipate by definition what controversies between states can and what cannot be brought within its original jurisdiction; and a bill' filed by one state to enjoin another and a corporation created by it from discharging sewage into the public waters of the plaintiff state, whereby such waters and the soil under them would become polluted, and contagious and typhoidal diseases would be introduced into the river communities, spreading themselves throughout the state, and threatening the impairment of the comfort, health and prosperity of the towns along such public waters, including its commercial metropolis, stated a case affecting the entire state, and of which the court had original jurisdiction under the constitution.12 It is also held that the court has jurisdiction of a bill filed by one state against another to compel the payment of bonds lawfully issued by defendant state, and to foreclose a mortgage given on certain railroad stock to secure the debt, the plaintiff state being the owner of the bonds.18 § 413. Same-Diversion by one state of flow of water into another. A bill in equity, which, by the averment of facts, presents the question as to the power of one state of the Union to wholly deprive another of the benefit of water from a river 1116); Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660 (12:861); S. C. 10 How. 1 (13: 303); Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478 (15:181); Alabama v. Georgia, 23 How. 505 (16:556); Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39 (20: 67); Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall. 395 (20:116); Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1-59 (50: 913); Iowa v. Illinois, 202 U. S. 59, 60 (50:934); Nebraska V. Iowa, 143 U. S. 359-370 (36:186). 12 Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208-250 (45:497); S. C. 200 U. S. 496-526 (50:572). 13 South Dakota v. South Carolina, 192 U. S. 286-354 (48:448). rising in the former, and, by nature, flowing into and through the latter, and which seeks a decree enjoining such diversion, presents a controversy between two states within the original jurisdiction of the supreme court.11 § 414. In suits between states there must be a justiciable controversy between them as states. In a suit between states, in order to maintain the jurisdiction, there must exist a real justiciable controversy, in which the entire state, plaintiff and defendant, each respectively, is directly and immediately interested. The rights and interests represented by the plaintiff must belong to it in its capacity as a state; and the action of the defendant complained of must be state action. A bill in equity brought by one state against another and its state officers must show by proper averments, made in conformity to the established rules of equity pleading, that the controversy presented for decision and determination is a controversy directly between the plaintiff state and the defendant state, and not a controversy in which the plaintiff state seeks the redress of the grievances of particular individual citizens of plaintiff state. There must be a direct issue between the states; and that issue must, by reason of the subject-matter out of which it arises, be susceptible of judicial solution. And one state cannot maintain a bill in equity to enjoin the execution of the quarantine laws of the defendant state, upon the ground that in the execution of them the officers charged therewith, by rules and regulations formed and put in force thereunder by them, unnecessarily and unreasonably interdict, absolutely and intentionally, interstate commerce between plaintiff and defendant states, and that the governor of the latter permits those rules and regulations to stand and be enforced, although he has the power to modify them, and that such maladministration of its quarantine laws injuriously affects the interests of the citizens of plaintiff state, and is a violation of the constitutional provision giving congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Neither the regulation of interstate commerce, nor the vindication of the freedom of that commerce is committed to any state; and no state is engaged or can engage in interstate commerce; and the absolute and intentional interdiction of commerce between two states by means of unnecessary and unreasonable quaran 14 Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125-147 (46:838); S. C. 206 U. S. 46-48 (51:956). |