232 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. HaaL?N, J., concurring. 209 U. 8. MR. JUSTICE H?RLAN, concurring. The fundamental question before the state court of original jurisdiction was whether it had jurisdiction, under the consti- tution and laws of Tennessee, of a suit like this. Manifestly, if tha? court was forbidden by the laws under which it was created to take cognizance of cases like this, it had no alternative but to disraise this suit. The court overruled a demurmr to the bill, one of the grounds of d?murrer being that the suit was one "against the State or against an .officer of the State, acting by authority of the-State with a view. to reach the Stats, its treasury, funds or property." It thereby sustained its jurisdic- tion, and proceeded to a d?cree on the merits. Thc case being carried to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, that court reversed the judgment and held that no court of Tennessee could, /t? statute, take cognizance of this suit and give the decree asked. Upon tha? ground it did what it said the inferior stats court should have done, namely, dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction to give the relief asked. The statute of Tennessee which the Supreme Court of that Stats construed and helc? to be prohibitory of this suit was an act passed February 28, 1873, c. 13, p. 15. It provides: "That no court in the Stats of Tennessee has, nor shall hereafter have, any power, jurisdiction or authority to entsrtain any suit against the state, or any officer acting by the authority of the State, with a view to reach the Stats, its treasury, funds or property, and all such suits now pending, or bereaftsr brought, shall be dismissed as to the State, or such officer, on motion, plea or demurrer of the law officer of the Stats, or counsel employed by the Stats." The oil company seeks a reversal of the decree of the state court, contending that it was denied a right arising under the commerce clause of the Constitution. But back of any ques- tion of that kind was the question before the Supreme Court of Tennessee whether the inferior state court, under the law of its organization, that is, under the law of Tennessee, could
�
