306
The Green Bag
and was binding on all the members of the church. Those members not willing to follow the decrees of their church judicatories within their jurisdiction, must be held to have aban doned all interest in its property. State as Defendant. Jurisdiction of Fed eral Courts— Eleventh Amendment. U. S. The state of South Carolina passed the Winding-Up Act on February 16, 1907, pro viding for the appointment of a commission to close out the state dispensary business and turn over to the state treasury the sur plus funds remaining after liquidating and paying claims out of the state assets. In W. J. Murray v. Wilson Distilling Company, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458, L. ed. adv. sheets Oct. term p. 458, decided April 5, certain vendors of liquor to the state sought to enjoin the commission from disposing of the funds until their claims were paid, and asked for the appointment of a receiver, on the theory that the assets were placed in the hands of the commission as a trust fund. The question was whether the suit was against the state, and beyond the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Court because of the Eleventh Amendment. The Court was of the opinion that the state, in providing for the liquida tion of the dispensary system, did not intend to divest itself of its right of property, and to endow the commission with a such a right to the property as would authorize the federal courts to take the assets and by means of a receivership administer them without the presence of the state. The final conclusion was that the suit was against the state. Statute of Frauds. See Landlord and Tenant.
Statutes. Non-Concurrence of Federal and State Court Regarding Constitutionality. Iowa. In a suit to enjoin the business of taking orders for intoxicating liquors for a foreign corporation, in violation of Code §2382 as amended by Acts 28th Gen. Assem. p. 59, c. 74 (Code Supp. 1907, §2382), the Supreme Court of Iowa in McCollum v. McConaughy, 119 N. W. Rep. 539, held that though it has determined that such statute was unconsti tutional when applied to one soliciting such orders as the agent of a non-resident, because in conflict with the interstate commerce clause, it will overrule its decision, the Su preme Court of the United States holding otherwise. Water Law. Common Law Doctrine of Riparian Rights—Appropriation. Ariz. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine of appropriation as op posed to that of riparian rights under the common law in the territory of Arizona, in the case of Boquillas Land & Cattle Co. v. /. N. Curtis (L. ed. adv. sheets Oct. term, p. 493). The non-existence in Arizona of the common law doctrine of riparian rights since the statute of 1887 was not disputed. Before that time the doctrine of appropriation was to some extent in force by custom, and the Supreme Court held that the general adoption of the common law by Howell's Arizona Code in 1864 cannot be deemed to have included the common law doctrine of water rights. For the Bill of Rights made streams useful for irrigation purposes public property, and provisions of the Code granted the right to divert necessary water by means of irrigating canals.
A TOAST TO THE JURY (Delphin M. Delmas, at Annual Banquet of Kansas City Bar Association) THE Democracy of Justice—the Jury! May this institution, which, having stood for ages as the bulwark of the liberty of Eng lishmen, was brought here as their birthright by the colonists who first landed upon the banks of the James, and upon the shore of Massa chusetts, which they cherish with such devotion that its violation by the King was enumerated as one of the grounds justifying their rebellion against the mother country, which, as soon as their independence was achieved, they incorporated in the Constitution as a fundamental right of American citizens, and which every American state has since em bodied in its organic law—may this venerable institution, which has come down to us unimpaired through the lapse of centuries, abide with us yet and remain sacred and inviolate forevermore.
