Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/839

 7.8o

77ге Green

be receiving compensation for his services as such minister, or simply engaged in the work without reward or the hope thereof. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. (ORIGI NAL JURISDICTION — SUITS BETWEEN STATES UN STATE BONDS.) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

In State of South Dakota v. State of North Carolina, United States Supreme Court, 24 Supreme Court Reporter 269, it was contended that the original juris diction of the United States Supreme Court did not extend to a suit against one state by another state as donee of bonds originally held by individuals. The court refers to section, art. 3, of the Constitution, by which the Supreme Court is given original jurisdiction of "controversies between two or more states," and then cites Missouri v. Illinois, 1 80 U. S. 208, 45 L. Ed. 497, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 331, wherein Justice Shiras, speaking for the court, reviewed at length the his tory of incorporation of this provision into the Federal Constitution and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in respect to such jurisdiction, closing with these words: "The cases cited show that such jur isdiction has been exercised in cases in volving boundaries and jurisdiction over lands and their inhabitants and m cases di rectly affecting the property rights and in terests of a state." The court says that the present case is one "directly affecting the property rights and interests of a state." The court then, after reviewing the history of the adoption of the above mentioned clause in the Constitution and the adoption of the nth Amendment, comes to the con clusion that the court has jurisdiction to en tertain the suit. In support of this conclu sion the court cites United States v. North Carolina, 136 U. S. 211, 34 L. Ed. 336, n Sup. Ct. Rep. 920; United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 641, 36 L. Ed. 285, 12 Sup. Ct.

Rep. 488; United States г: Michigan, 190 U. S. 379, 47 L. Ed. 1103, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 742. Justice White wrote a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Fuller and Justices AleKenna and Day Concurred. In this dis senting opinion Justice White contends that as the state of South Dakota was merely the donee, of the bonds which originally were held by individuals the suit was a clear eva sion of the nth Amendment, which provides that "the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state or by citizens or subject ot any foreign state," and that, therefore, the Supreme Court did not hâve jurisdiction of the suit VILLAGES. (REASONABLENESS OF FRANCHISE GRANTED LIGHTING COMPANY.) SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN,

In LeFeber v. Northwestern Light & Power Co., 97 Northwestern Reporter 203, it was contended that an ordinance adopted by the village board of West Allis. Wisconson, which granted to the Northwestern Heat, Light & Power Company the exclusive right to furnish lights for the village and its inhabitants for a period of thirty years, with a conditional right of extension for twentv years more, was invalid as being unreason able. The court notes the fact that the longest period for which a contract to fur nish a village or municipality with water has been sustained is thirty-one years, and then states as its opinion that though a contract to supply water for a period of thirty years might be sustained on the ground of the magnitude of the investment required, a con tract for lighting for such a period would be unreasonable, as the investment required is much smaller. Especially does the court regard as unreasonable a contract which practically extends for fifty years.