In the exercise of original jurisdiction by this Court, the
usual practice in equity cases is to hear applications for leave to
file bills
ex parte, and ordinarily leave is granted as of
course.
But this is not an invariable rule, and where it is apparent on
the face of the proposed bill that there is a defect of parties,
which cannot be supplied without ousting the jurisdiction, leave
will be denied.
Where the objection is one of jurisdiction over the subject
matter and tile case is of grave importance, leave to file will be
granted that the fullest argument may be had.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
This is an application by the State of Washington for leave
Page 185 U. S. 255
to file an original bill in this Court against the Northern
Securities Company, a corporation of New Jersey, the Great Northern
Railway Company, a corporation of Minnesota, and the Northern
Pacific Railway Company, a corporation of Wisconsin. Notice was
given to the proposed defendants, and argument had in support of
and against the motion.
The usual practice in equity cases has been to hear such
applications
ex parte, Georgia v.
Grant, 6 Wall. 241, although under special
circumstances a different course has been pursued.
Mississippi v.
Johnson, 4 Wall. 475. Ordinarily, as stated by the
Chief Justice in the latter case, the motion for leave to file is
granted as matter of course.
71 U. S. 4
Wall. 478.
In
Georgia v.
Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, a bill in equity was filed by
the State of Georgia to enjoin the Secretary of War and other
officers representing the executive authority from carrying into
execution certain acts of Congress, on the ground that such
execution would overthrow the existing state government of the
state and establish another and different one in its place, and a
motion was made to dismiss for want of jurisdiction over the
parties and over the subject matter, on which full argument was
had. It was held that the bill called for the judgment of the court
on political grounds and on rights of a political character, and
that therefore the court had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
In
Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S.
1, the case stated shows that
"argument was had on objections to granting leave, but it
appearing to the court the better course in this instance, leave
was granted, and the bill filed, whereupon defendants demurred, and
the cause was submitted on the oral argument already had and
printed briefs."
In
Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., decided at
this term,
184 U. S. 199,
ante, application to file a similar bill to that, before
us, and seeking similar relief, was made, and after examining the
bill we directed notice to be given, and heard argument on both
sides. The result was that leave to file was denied because of the
want of certain indispensable parties, who could not be brought in
without defeating our constitutional jurisdiction. That insuperable
difficulty does not meet us on
Page 185 U. S. 256
the threshold here, but, among other objections to granting
leave, it is urged that the Court would have no jurisdiction over
the subject matter because, as contended, the bill does not present
the case of a controversy of a civil nature which is justiciable
under the Constitution and laws of the United States, in that the
suit is purely a suit for the enforcement of
"the local law and policy of a sovereign and independent state,
whose right to make laws and to enforce them exists only within
itself and by means of its own agencies, and is limited to its own
territory."
In the exercise of original jurisdiction, the Court has always
necessarily proceeded with the utmost care and deliberation, and,
in respect of all contested questions, on the fullest argument, and
in the matter of practice, we are obliged to bear in mind, in an
especial degree, the effect of every step taken in the instant case
on those which may succeed it. In view of this, it seems to us
advisable to take the same course on the pending application as was
pursued in
Louisiana v. Texas -- that is, without
intimating any opinion whatever on the questions suggested, to
grant leave to file in accordance with the usual practice. Our
rules require service sixty days before the return day of process,
but as the final adjournment of the term will have taken place
within that time, process will be made returnable on the first day
of next term.
Leave is granted and process will issue
accordingly.