*1 n TERM, 1906. m n 206-U. оf the Case. Statement of this rule Lieber, application the letter text.” relative to the rank the provisions Consideration clear. Navy make it Army and evident that of'officers pay surgeon” as “assistant descriptive words used the Congress of. n as well surgeons, passed as those not of assistant the whole class passed.
Jugdment affirmed. Moody in the decision part took this case'. Justiсe Mr. of. TENNESSEE COPPER COMPANY. GEORGIA IN EQUITY.
BILL Argued Original. February 26, May 25, 13, 1907. Decided No. the forcible by their union made abatement of the States outside When théy thereby agree each, impossible to did to submit to' nuisances They might retained to make done. reasonable whatever remaining quasi-sovéreign interests, still grounds of on demands force a suit alternative court. to, will, corpora^ at the suit of a enjoin State jurisdiction This cоurt discharging from its over of another noxious tion, citizen ' appears State where fumes .another from works those fumes damage a considerable scale to the and vege- forests threaten cause health, plaintiff's within the life, State. if not to table enjoin corporation having its brought a State works another suitA discharging gases territory is noxious over its not the same as privatе parties, although "the elements which would form between one. the basis parties wanting, are can of relief between' main- private capacity quasi-sovereign, capacity the suit for which tain independent of and behind citizens in it has all earth domain; insisting bringing within such a and air whether citizens, many may profit good suit more harm than whom results nuisance, causing works through the maintenance of the is for itself determine.. the opinion.- The facts are stated'in GEORGIA TENNESSEE CO. COPPER State Georgia. Mr. John C. Hart, Attorney General of the State of Georgia, *2 Mr. and Johnson for the Ligón State of Georgia: A public merely as is nuisance, such, abatable action- at the direct of an able instance individual. Where the public is the .time nuisance at same some special working injury. reason of this the citizens, by sрecial individual injury but seek to abate of action is with same, relation right and and nui- particular private public The mere fact that the subject sance. matter controversy nuisance affords of action public right is premises only Not is this a of law private person. rule general is also but it statute law the State of incorporated Citizens reason statutes Georgia. of-Georgia, deny- in "the them of action would have premises, been' ing right redress in such matters reserved powerless, being to the State. solely 3858 and of the Code of
Sections 4761 1895 are more than the codification the law as practically nothing The rule is Debs, it existed. stated In re general And see General v. Tudor Ice Attorney Co., 587. 104 Massa- General Pond chusetts, 239; Attorney v. Jamaica Corporation, (cid:127) State v. 70 Massachusetts, 361; Goodnight, Texas, 133 That the State is a and party proper controversy was this court decided in Missouri v. justiciable U. S. 241. in point For-other authorities see Eden on Injunction, 267; ,4th Chan. and Eq. Juris., §921; Daniels, Pr., PI. ed., Story, Penn v. 1636; Wheeling Bridge Co., 518; 13 How. Irwin v. Dixon, 168; 9 How. Phalen 8 How. Virginia, Smith v. Richter, 398; Attorney 159 H. S. General v. Forbes, &Myl. Cr. her and to the court to her sover-
Georgia appeals protect and her enforcement of her and with rela- within еignty laws to the section community injured. and maintenance tion law nuisance is common and public of a crime law of The offender is statute both Tennessee Georgia. n TERM,'1906. .232 Georgia. U. S- in far The criminal so act; Tennessee.
is concerned, is-within State of offender Georgia. the jurisdiction beyond without the reach of the laws while the acts have and are been, Georgia, being, committed In threatened consequence, without Georgia. Georgia, court, only aid is not unable to constantly punish .this criminal and within recurring injurious acts her her soil and but is also citizens, unable enforce her criminal, civil or and to maintain her laws, within sovereignty lier dominion.
Every State possesses sole and exclusive jurisdiction over her own territory, with reference to her but of soil, acts thereоn, committed as.well as of the citizens inhabi- tants thereof. Iioyt v. 103 IT. S. Sprague, Pennoyer *3 U. S. Neff, 95 v. 44; Simpson 92 1 State, Georgia, 42; Bishop, 53; Crim. Law, 110; Crim. Proceed. Bishop, Commonwealth § Internationa] 1; v. et 101 al., Massachusetts, Macloon Rorer on Law, ed., 323; Minor, Laws, 2d Conflict of
As of the' of a sovereignty to. State see preservation 621; United States v. IT. Texas, Fowler v. 143 3 Lindsay, ' ' Dali. in The offender this is a case corрoration. Its is in corpus Tennessee, this, without the consent of could but. Congress, not be surrendered even if Georgia, Tennessee desired. Its chief officers are non-residents of Tennessee. The offense merely a is not such being that Tennessee would .misdemeanor by extradition. recognize
The State in suit, its as will be seen, a mere seeking e. injunction equity -against commission of a crim It court to it in protect this .appeals sovereign attributes. - Unless this’ cause may be maintained court ,to . means the Federal Government pf cannot said be ade- and a can quate ends, State maintain its sovereignty only the mere tolerance of her through sister States.
The power, police power right pro- safety, tect welfare, health and as public well the welfare, GEORGIA v. TENNESSEE COPPER CO. 233 Georgia. for the State of health, safety and comfort of each citizen, resides the States ’ and was never surrendered to the general government, now rests in the State of Georgia, was and is called action by into the resolution of its as in legislature the' bill set forth. and most highest binding duties are sovereign .
often enforcible through police power. Fertilizer Co. Hyde v. 97 Park, 659; Beer Co. v. 97 Mаssachusetts, U..S. U. S. 33; Holden v. Hardy, U. S. Lawton Steele, New York U. S. Miln, Pet. 103. Constitution the United States protec guarantees any
tion invasion Georgia against whatever, invasion force of whether such arms or other means, by its citizens, State or or another foreign government harmful, the means be hostile is sufficient or and be such cannot prevent protect herself against without use of force upon territory. foreign bar In the case at has exhausted all amicable or in'her other left powers Constitution. She has applied to Tennessee to abate the further -prevent commission of acts acts complained of, which, their effect, are not only criminal in the State of but which result Georgia, laying in waste more surely than completely by any army could be bent acсomplished invading de-' Tennessee has refused to struction. restrain her citizens in the acts, of such declines to take commission steps and-shields the defendants in the premises, continuation of a *4 harmful invasion. most effective and every friendly has office, used sought through
every territory means her her open protect and her citi- Constitution, She is denied right zens. of invasion action, other and under such denial aggressive is powerless of in the without the aid this premises honorable court and enforcement of the constitutional of guarantee protection court, this substituted of the of through place in an State take direct or hostile endeavor to main- action TERM, 1906. CO Defendant, Copper Co. 206 U. S. Argument for the Tennessee life, her and to preserve her .rights tain sovereignty S,,. of Constitution the U. comfort of health and her'citizens. 180 Federalist, LXXX; Missouri-y. Illinois, IV; 4; Sec. Art. .v., Rhode Petitioner, 564; 158 208; Debs, U. S. U.. Island 1; v. 134 657; Louisiana,' Hans U. S. 'Massachusetts, Pet. U. S. Colorado, 185 Kansas Mr. Frantz, with Mr. John H. Cornipk,
Mr. Howard
whom
brief,
Mr.
H.
on the
Vogel
B.
Martin
were
Wright
James
Copper*
for the defendant
Company:
.Tennessee
wholly fail to
such a con-
bill and the
establish
proof
The
this court
of the
jurisdiction-
subject
as would give
dition
’
matter
litigation.
this
has not made
in her bill
out
nor
a state of facts
direct
such
interest
proof,
showing
her
s
Constitution,
controversy
entitles her under
thi
as
the-
to maintain this action
redress
States
supposed
the United
(cid:127)
her
done- to
domain.
wrongs
in her bill and in
The State of
her
shows
proof,
.Georgia,
as to entitle her to
suit
such state of facts
maintain
parens
trustee,
capacity
patria,
in her sovereign
guardian
citizens.
her
or representative
of taxable
does
create
The threatened reduction
values
in-
controversy,
but-at most
remote
direct
a.
bill.
does
support
proof
allegations
terest. The
an incident of
and not
power
sovereignty
.taxation
3d
McCulloch
Cooley
Taxation,
ed.,
a property right.
Bank v.
316, 428;
Billings,
4 Wheat.
Pet.
Maryland,
Qase
there is and can be no but is private ownership, ownership in the State as representative 3 Kent’s Com. public. (cid:127)
The bill alleges injury citizens,. the health though proof fails to plaintiff utterly; support allega- Missouri tion. S. 180 U. distinguished.
Neither bill nor proof shows such injury (cid:127) property citizens to entitle this' the State maintain suit on behalf citizens.
All of the рroof plaintiff, where is injury shown to have occurred, clearly that- demonstrates be fully citizens could for compensated if damages injury, any, which.they may sustained; their could not esti- injuries be mated and their compensation fixed in no reason is damages, would, why they shown be entitled the same relief which their behalf being sought State. In order to prosecute suit original Supreme Court, show just must cоntroversy as an individual question must show in order to maintain s suit i proper jurisdiction, of' the dignity State rather than the character of the which controversy en titles it to come into this court by original New proceeding. Hampshire .v. Louisiana, U. S. 76 et seq.; Wisconsin v. Pelican Co., Ins. U. Louisiana- Texas, ,U. v. Southern Pac. Co., 157 S. 261. California as to the proof injury by the bill is alléged not only doubtful, but in favor of preponderates defendants.
An injunction to restrain a nuisance will issue in a case where the fact the nuisance is made out upon deter- minate and If satisfactory evidence. the evidence con- flicting doubtful, conflict doubt will be ground the injunction. 1 Wood on- withholding Nuisance, ed., 732; 3d 4th High Injunctions, ed., §870. of the millions of
Irrespective dollars invested in the opera- tions of these and' defendants in their vested rights properties, estopped seeking TERM, 1906.
Opinion of the Court. *6 in bill on of the account injunctive prayed injurious relief would effect which such an have the eom- injunction upon these by operations. 'munities established Not have the of of de- and laches the State Georgia permitted acquiescence case make their investments, in this upon fendants depending no been heretofore made complaint having the inference that would be but the complaint made; the State of by Georgia, her by upon- any of she sleeping rights, rights State' Georgia, community has allowed the to become built up; had, and and cities towns thriving has allowed prosperous of created; people acquire has allowed thousands their family their investments and their make establish homes and security with ties the feeling against complaint and-social as State of to these by operations. for Copper G. Parks the Ducktown Sulphur,
Mr. James Company. Iron of the delivered the opinion court.. Holmes
Mb. Justice in filed in court ‘of This is equity a bill of the resolution legislature pursuance Georgia, Governor defendant enjoin direction of the .to from noxious gas Companies discharging Cоpper territory. It plaintiff’s over the alleges works Tennessee a wholesale destruction discharge consequence orchards, on, and other crops injuries forests, going iii counties the State. It al- threatened are done and five for vain relief. application also a Tennessee leges but, was there was injunction denied, A ground preliminary done, to fear that irrеparable damage might great were parties fixed the final early day was for hearing This case on affidavits. try if so leave; minded, given the method has been objection, and, although done without nice turned on would be if. our decision unsatisfactory unlikely it take we think fact, the view that we question that either suffered harm. party GEORGIA v. TENNESSEE COPPER CO. Opinion of Court. U. S. ifas
The case has been were one betwеen argued largely but it is not. The very elements that private parties; two would in a suit between be relied fellow-citizens as a relief are here. The owns ground equitable wanting to be very affected, little of the alleged dam- of estimate in at money, to it capable possibly, least, age small. This is a suit a State for an to it capacity In that the State has an capacity gtosi-sovereign. of and behind the titles all the independent citizens, domain. It earth and air within its has the last word as to mountains shall be of their whether its forests and stripped inhabitants shall breathe air. pure have to might pay *7 could utter that word, individuals before-it but with it re- final to mains the the State as a power. alleged damage merely may owner is we on makeweight, lay one private as to whether the destruction of forests has dispute side of its roads. led the gullying to which of caution with on sort, demands the part relief from to injuries
of a 'for analogous torts, must be in Missouri dwelt examined, But it is that some such
496,
plain
demands must
if the
are proved.
be
When the
grounds alleged
recognized,
the forcible"
union made
abatement of
by
States
their
outside
did not
each, they
to
thereby
nuisances
to
impоssible
agree
be done.
did
They
to whatever
not
might
submit
renounce
reasonable demands on the
possibility making
ground
interests;
their still
remaining quasi-sovereign
force is a suit
this court. Missouri
alternative to
v. Illinois,
208, 241.
mark a suit
necessarily
of this
If
Some
kind.
peculiarities
a case at
it is somewhat more
all,
certainly
en-
be,
than a private party
to
relief
It is
specific
might
titled
up
to be
for
required
give
yuasi-sovereign
lightly
rights
pay;
from the
difficulty
and, apart
valuing
rights money,
insist that an
that be its choice
infraction of them shall
by
be
The States
the Union did
sink
stopped.
entering
TERM,
23S
Opinion of-the Court.
U.
subject
system
owners
to one
position
private
law. This court has not
the same freedom
quite
private
injunction
the harm
will be done
against
balance
that
have
of which the
that
it'would
plaintiff complains,
that
between two
of a
subjects
political power.
deciding
single
the' considerations
takes
equity always
Without
that
excluding
was
them
account,
into
we cannot
give
weight
given
to a
between the
comparison
argument
damage.threatened
de-
calamity
of a
possible stop
to the plaintiff
character
business,
question
health,
fendants’
possi-
forests as a first or secоnd*
the commercial
growth,
acid,
the fumes to
bility
impossibility'
reducing
sulphuric
place.
of the business
adaptation
the special
demand on the
of’a
part
sovereign
It is a fair and reasonable
not be
air over
should
polluted
great
that the
a.
on mountains,
acid
that the forests
sulphurous
gas,
scale
(cid:127) and whatever domestic destruction
worse,
better or
they,
should,
or threat
suffered,
further'destroyed
they
crops
beyond
.control,
persons
the act
ened
e
from the
its hills-should not b
orchards on
endangered
this must
is to be enforced
If
such demand
same source.
if the
that we
feel
the hesitation
might
be,'notwithstanding
whether
.private
between
parties,'
suit were
doubt
bé
they
property
which
suffering
injuries
might
to an
at law.
not be-left
they should
action
*8
It is
that
but a few words.
not denied
rеquires
The prodf
their works near the
line
Georgia
generate,
the defendants
in.
dioxid which becomes sulphurous
sulphur
quantities .of
large
acid,
is:
can-
air.
denied and
hardly
mixture with the
It
by its
is'
with-success
often
carried
that
gas
'ñot be-denied
oyer
land.
Georgia
arid'
tracts
wind
great
distances
great-
evidence,
air and the
magnitude
pollution
On
any attempt
Without
are
to
pollution
open
disputе.
-that
to
that
suit, it is
add.
proper
to
into details immaterial to the
go
-
that- the'
evidence
we are satisfied
preponderance
so consider-
damage
fumes
and threaten
sulphurous
cause-
n GEORGIA v. TENNESSEE COPPER CO.
Harlan,
J., concurring.
able a
scale to the forests
to
life,
health,
vegetable
within
as to make out a
case within the re
plaintiff
of Missouri
deem it to consider how défense would in in be available a suit this. our sort, since, opinion, of. due has been shown. The cоnditions have been different diligence evil had in years. until recent After' grown greater a bill this court. The how- defendants, the State brought already were the old ore ever, method abandoning roasting it was that would heaps hoped open change stop were They ready the trouble. to return to that to-agree , such an method, and made the bill was being agreement without But now prejudiсe. finds, dismissed plaintiff chimneys thinks that the tall use cause finds, present carried to than poisonous distances gases greater ever before and that the evil has not been helped.
If adheres to its determination, there is no alternative after injunction, issuing allowing reasonable time to defendants the structures complete they now are and the efforts that are mak- they building, submit a form stop fumes. plaintiff ing, in of this court next. decree on the October coming
Injunction issue. , Harlan, MR. Justice concurring.
' "State, of is, my opinion, 'entitled to the gen by'its bill, and, eral relief I concur-in sought therefore, With some' however, result. contained' things, the opinion, I or to be do not concur. When implied language,-. jurisdiction the Constitution this court in cases gave original *9 , TERM, TJ.S. 'Syllabus. I intended, a "in which á shall be it was not party,” any prin to in its apply behalf, to authorize the.court think, not under the or rule of that would ciple equity applied, If this wholly in suits between facts, private parties. same upder evidence, and if private parties, was a suit between - plaintiff injunction, a would give court of equity to circumstances, under to like relief, then it ought grant be a some possessing because.it to happens the plaintiff, is- to the relief sought, powers sovereignty. entitled a which has party not' it is a but because it is State, because' I to such relief proof. opinion, established do not scope, proceeds largely ground mistake a owes case as court court, equity, that this sitting a as a it is duty party, although some special facts, duty same would not owe while under the if an individual. plaintiff, UNITED STATES BROWN.
BROWN UNITED STATES. THE PROM COURT OF CLAIMS. APPEALS April 25, May 13, Submitted 1907. Decided 283, 284. Nos. against regular Article of officers of the in the 77th prohibition War try. serving soldiers and officers of other forces army on courts-martial and, contrary notwithstanding the construction of former peremptory, although regular army, subject, an oh same officer articles volunteer, absence, accept him commis- leave indefinite enable officer; try sion, competent to On volunteer sit court-martial is no an insufficient number there without him there would been and if void, court, so of dismissal is and in this case.an officer sentence and.the