Ez/?'t?YOUNG. 1? 209 U. ? A?,,?t for P?t?. This court in this proceeding will determine the ?risdlction of the Cireult Court in the' suit in which the order pun?hino? for contempt was made, and if it is found that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction in the suit, or was without power or thority to m?ke the order enjoining the petitioner, will direct his discharge from costody. This application does not fall within tho?e decisions where this court ? held that .the case was not a proper one to be considered in proceedings under the writ of habeas corpus or those holdlng that this court may exercise its discretion in granting or withholding the writ. It is in accordance with the decision rendered in Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651. See also Ez part? F?sk, 113 U.S. 713; Ex part? W.d?s, 18 How. 307; Ex parte Lan?e, 18 Wall. 163; E? parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604; Ex parte Parks, 93 U.S. 18; Ex parte Ayers, 123 U.S. 443; Ex parte $?o/d, .100 U.S. 371; Ex ?rte Kearne?j, 7 Wheat. 38; Ex part? Royall, 117 U.S. 241; Ex parte MaFfield, 141 U.S. 107; Ez parte McKenz?, 180 U.S. 536; Ddgado v. Chav?, 140 U.S. 586; Ex part? Watk/?, 3 Peters, 193. The Circuit Court did not kave jurisdiction because of di- verse citizenship, and no Federal question was presented by the bill of complaint which justified the Circuit Court in as- suming jurisdiction. The sufficiency of the intrastate rates prescribed by chap- ter 232, did not present a 'question involving the construction of the Constitution of the United States. The adequacy or inadequacy of a prescribed rate is a question of fact ouly. lllinoiz C. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Corn., 206 U.S. 441. Where the true meaning and construction of a constitutional provision has been settled by decisions of this court, the juris- diction of the Cire?it Court will be determined, upon a con- sideration of the bill of complainant, in the same m?nner as it would be ff it appeared from all the pleadings in the case that there was no controversy as to the meaning or'construction of the Constitution or law under which it is claimed the con- troverey arises. West?n Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co.,
�
