The ordinary rules of legal procedure applicable to cases
between individuals cannot be always applied to controversies
between states involving grave questions of law determinable by
this Court under the exceptional grant of jurisdiction conferred by
the Constitution.
Page 234 U. S. 118
In this case, the defendant state is permitted to file a
supplemental answer, the averment in which are to be considered as
traversed by the complainant state, and the subject matter of the
supplemental answer is referred to the Master before whom previous
hearings were had with directions to report at the commencement of
the next term of this Court.
The facts, which involve the procedure and practice in an
original case between two states of the Union and the rules to be
applied in regard to the filing of a supplemental answer, are
stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, which was begun in 1906, was elaborately argued in
1907 on a demurrer, which was overruled.
206 U. S. 206 U.S.
290. It was again argued in 1908 on a motion to appoint a master.
209 U. S. 209 U.S.
514. Before that officer, there was an extended hearing, and a full
report of all the matters involved was filed in March, 1910. It was
then argued on a motion to take further testimony, and was
ultimately heard in an argument which extended many
Page 234 U. S. 119
days, every party in interest being represented, in the month of
January, 1911.
Notwithstanding these facts, when, in March, 1911, the Court
came to decide the controversy, although it fully reviewed and
passed upon the fundamental issues, as its obvious duty required it
to do, and fixed the principal sum due by the State of West
Virginia to the State of Virginia, in view of the consideration due
to the parties as states, and that the cause was, as then said,
"no ordinary commercial suit, but, . . . a
quasi-international difference referred to this Court in
reliance upon the honor and constitutional obligations of the
states concerned, rather than upon ordinary remedies,"
the controversy was not completely and irrevocably disposed of,
but was left open for a time not specified, to the end that any
clerical errors that might have crept into the calculations of the
sums due could be corrected, and to give the states time to
consider the subject of liability for interest in the light of what
had been decided, and to agree as to the rate and period of the
interest to be paid on the principal sum which was determined.
220 U. S. 220 U.S.
1.
On the convening of the Court in the following October, 1911, a
motion was made on behalf of the State of Virginia to proceed at
once to a final decree. Listening to the suggestion of the State of
West Virginia to the effect that it desired further time to
consider the subject, and in view of the public considerations
which had prevailed when the decree was entered, the motion of
Virginia was overruled.
222 U. S. 222 U.S.
17.
Yet further, when, in November, 1913, another motion on the part
of Virginia was made to set the case down to be finally disposed of
at once upon the statement that no agreement between the parties
was possible, again giving heed to the request of West Virginia,
through its constituted officers, for a postponement for a stated
time, and to the statement that they were engaged in an honest
endeavor
Page 234 U. S. 120
to deal with the controversy, and, if possible, to come to an
agreement as to the subjects left open, the motion of Virginia was
again refused (
231 U. S. 231 U.S.
89), and as it was possible to give to the State of West Virginia
all the time which that state, in resisting the motion, asked, and
yet secure against the possibility of the hearing being carried
over to another term, the case was assigned for hearing on the 13th
of April of this year. When that day was reached, the State of West
Virginia, in accord with a motion filed some days before, prayed
leave to be permitted to file a supplemental answer asserting the
existence of credits which, if properly considered, would
materially reduce the sum fixed as due to the State of Virginia,
the said answer in addition asserting various grounds why interest
should not be allowed in favor of Virginia and against West
Virginia on the sum due. Resisting this request, the State of
Virginia insists that the items embraced in the supplemental answer
asked to be filed had in effect already entered into the
considerations by which the principal sum due was fixed, and that,
if not, the case should not be postponed for the purpose of
permitting the rights urged in the answer to be availed of because
every item concerning such alleged rights was proved in the case
before the master, was mentioned in his report, and was known or
could have been known by the use of ordinary diligence by those
representing West Virginia. And it is this controversy we now come
to dispose of.
Without intimating any opinion whatever as to whether the items
with which the proposed supplemental answer deals entered into the
processes of calculation or reasoning by which the sum due was
previously fixed, and moreover, without intimating any opinion as
to how far the items embraced in the answer could serve as credits
upon the sum previously found due, and therefore to that extent
reduce the amount, we think it is obvious that most of the
Page 234 U. S. 121
items embraced in the answer were contained in the master's
report, and, in any event, all were available then for every
defense now based upon them if their consideration had been pressed
in the aspect and with the assertions of right now made.
The question then is, under these conditions ought the
permission to file the supplemental answer be granted? We think it
must be conceded that, in a case between ordinary litigants, the
application of the ordinary rules of legal procedure would render
it impossible, under the circumstances which we have stated, to
grant the request. We are of the opinion, however, that such
concession ought not to be here controlling. As we have pointed
out, in acting in this case from first to last, the fact that the
suit was not an ordinary one concerning a difference between
individuals, but was a controversy between states, involving grave
questions of public law, determinable by this Court under the
exceptional grant of power conferred upon it by the Constitution,
has been the guide by which every step and every conclusion
hitherto expressed has been controlled. And we are of the opinion
that this guiding principle should not now be lost sight of, to the
end that, when the case comes ultimately to be finally and
irrevocably disposed of, as come ultimately it must, in the absence
of agreement between the parties, there may be no room for the
slightest inference that the more restricted rules applicable to
individuals have been applied to a great public controversy, or
that anything but the largest justice, after the amplest
opportunity to be heard, has in any degree entered into the
disposition of the case. This conclusion, which we think is
required by the duty owed to the moving state, also in our opinion
operates no injustice to the opposing state, since it but affords
an additional opportunity to guard against the possibility of
error, and thus reach the result most consonant with the honor and
dignity of both parties to the controversy.
Page 234 U. S. 122
Because of these convictions, we therefore make the following
order:
That the motion on the part of the State of West Virginia to
file the supplemental answer be and the same is hereby granted, and
that the averments in such answer be and the same shall be
considered as traversed by the State of Virginia; that the subject
matter of the supplemental answer as traversed be at once referred
for consideration and report to Charles E. Littlefield, Esq., the
master before whom the previous hearings were had, with directions
to hear and consider such evidence and testimony as to the matters
set forth in the supplemental answer as the State of West Virginia
may deem advisable to proffer, and such counter-showing on the part
of the State of Virginia as that state may deem advisable to make.
The report on the subject to embrace the testimony so taken and the
conclusions deduced therefrom, as well as the views of the master
concerning the operation and effect of the proof thus offered, if
any, upon the principal sum found to be due by the previous decree
of this Court. Nothing in this order to vacate or change in any
manner or in any particular the previous decree, and the same to
stand wholly unaffected by the order now made or any action taken
thereunder until the examination and report herein provided for is
made and this Court acts upon the same. It is further directed that
the proceedings before the master be so conducted as to secure a
report on or before the second Monday of October, 1914.