◆ SpookStack

6 Hague +s, Committee for Industrial Organization, that the respondents had established a cane of action ander the Constitution of the United States and ander R. &. 14 7, Tt. S. 1980, and R. 5. 5508, as amended! The Cireuit Court of Appeals conenrred in the findings of fact; held the District Court lad jurisdiction under Section 24{1) and (14) of the Judicial Cocte: modified the deeree in respect of one of its provisions, and. as modified, affirmed it. By their specifications of error, the petitioners limit the isstes in this court te three matters. They contend that the court below erred in holding that the District Court had jurisdiction over all or some of the causes ef action stated in the hill, See. ondly, ther assert that the ent ed in holding that the streei meeting ordinance is unconstitutional on its face, and that it has been unconstitutionally administered. Thirdly, they claim that the decree must be sct aside because it exceeds the court's power and is impracticable of enforcement or of compliance. First. Every question arising under the Constitution may, if properly raised in a state court, come ultimately to this court for decision. Until 1875,5 save for the limited jurisdiction canferred by the Civil Rights Acts, infra, federal courts had no original juris- diction of actions or suits merely because the matter in controversy arose under the Constitution or laws of the United States; and the jurisdiction then and since conferred xpon United States courts has heen narrowly limited. Section 24 of the Judicial Code confers original jurisdiction upon District Courts of the United States. Subsection (1) gives jurisdiction of ‘‘suits of a civil nature, at common Jaw or in equity, . . . where the matter in controversy exceeds, exclu- sive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000" and ‘arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States.’ The wrongs of which respondents complain are tortious inva- sions of alleged civil rights by persons acting under calor of state authority. it is true that if the various plaintiffs had brought actions at jaw for the redress of such wrongs the amomnt necessary to jurisdiction under Section 24(1) would have been determined by the bum claimed in good faith? But it does not follow that in a 46 U. 8. C. $$ 43 and 47(3), 18 U. S.C. § 51. 5 Hague v. Committee for Endustrial Organization, 101 F, (2d) 774, @Seo Ast of Mareh 2.01875 ¢. 137, eee fet ef Maren 3, 1875,¢, 13 409 Gent atny » 28 Star, 470, TWiley p, Sinkler. 179 U. 8. 58; Swafford v. Templeton, 185 Tt. 8. 487, Compare Bt. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co, v. Red Cab Co., 303 U. 8. 283, 288, Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization. xuit do restrain thevatened invasions of such rights a mere av ment oF the amount in controversy confers jurisdiction. In st brought upler subsection (1} a traverse of the allegation as the ameiunt be eentroversy, or a tnotion to dismiss based upon absence of sueh ammount, calls for substantial proof on the part the plaintill of facts justilyiud Che conclusion that the suit invol the nevessary sum” The resard: fiers is hare of any showing the value oi the asserted rights to the respondents individu aud Ue sureostion that, ie total, they lave the requisite valu unavailug, since the plaintiffs may net aggregate their inter ip order to attain the amount necessary te give jurisdiction? et Coriet lacked jurisdiction under Sect sdhat ihe dis that tie bp CE iw et(]). Section 24(14) grants jurisdiction of suits ‘‘at Jaw or in em authorize] by law to be broneht by any person te redress deprivation, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, reg tion, custom, or usage, of any State, of any right, privilege, or munity, secured by the Constitution of the United States, o any right secured by any law of the United States providing equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all per: within the jurisdiction af the Cited States. 71° The petitioners insist that the rights of which the respond: say they have been deprived ate nol within those deseribe subsection (14). The courts below have beld that citizens of United States possess such rights hy virtue of their citizens! that ihe Fourteenth Amendment secures these Tights against vasion by a state, and authorizes legislation by Congress to force the Amendment. / Prior to the Civil War there was confusion and debate a the relation between United States citizenship and state citi ship. Beyond dispute, eitizenship of the United States, as 8 existed, The Constitution, in various clauses, recognized it : 8 MeNute’ a.. Genera] Motors Acceptance Corp, 298 UT. & 178; coo KVOS, Inc. ¢. Asacciated Presa, 289 U.S. 268. ; 8 Wheloss b, St, Lonis, 186 U.S. 379; Pinel r. Pinel, 240 U. S, 594, Seota », Frazier, 259 1. 5. 248. ; - inn i i hich, in turn, origi 19 Th tinn in derived from BR. 8. 563, Settion 12, , in Rection 3 ot the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, id Rtat. 27, na een by Seetion 18 of the Civil Righta Act of May 31, 1870, 36 sat i en ferred to in Beetion ft of the Civil Rights Act of April 20, 1871, di San Act T Soetions “and 2: Art. TL, Section 1. ViBeo Ari. 2, SoehGhs o ARM wr Aber.