Knop v. Monongahela River Consolidated Coal & Coke Company/Opinion of the Court

by David Josiah Brewer

United States Supreme Court

211 U.S. 485

Knop  v.  Monongahela River Consolidated Coal & Coke Company

 Argued: December 18, 1908. --- Decided: January 4, 1909

An appeal was taken under § 5 of the act creating the circuit court of appeals. 26 Stat. at L. 826, 827, chap. 517, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, pp. 488, 549. The mere construction of a state statute does not of itself present a Federal question. But the contention of appellants is that the circuit court improperly construed the act of 1904; that, correctly construed, it applies not merely to sales by boat or barge load, or some aliquot part thereof, but also to sales by weight or measurement; and that, under such construction, a question is presented of a conflict between it and the Federal Constitution.

But the difficulty with this contention is, first, that the statute construed, as applied to boat and barge loads, has been declared valid by this court; and, further, that there is no claim by the appellee of any invalidity in the statute, but only of its inapplicability to the facts. In the face of the decision of this court and the claim of the appellee, it is difficult to see how there can be any question of a conflict between the legislation and the Federal Constitution. After a final decision, it is going too far to hold that there still remains an undecided question, and that when we have held that a statute of a state is valid there remains a controversy as to its validity, and this is emphatically true when neither party challenges that decision. Nor, for like reason, does there appear any ground for holding that there is a question as to the construction or application of the Constitution. While in § 10 of article 1 of the Federal Constitution there is a recognition of the power of the state to pass inspection laws, yet, to justify a holding that the application of the Federal Constitution is involved, there should be a question as to the relation between some constitutional provision and the state statute.

Under these circumstances we are of opinion that this court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Notes