OCR Text |
Show DELAWARE RIVER LITIGATION 633 At an earlier stage of this proceeding, the City of Philadelphia sought leave to intervene. In denying leave, the Court said (345 U.S. 369,372(1953)): "On December 13, 1952, the City of Philadelphia filed this motion for leave to intervene. The petition asserts Philadelphia's unques- tioned interest in the use of Delaware River water and points to the recent grant of her Home Rule Charter as justification for interven- tion at this point. All of the present parties to the litigation have formally opposed the motion to intervene on grounds (1) that the intervention would permit a suit against a state by a citizen of another state in contravention of the Eleventh Amendment; (2) that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has the exclusive right to represent the interest of Philadelphia as parens patriae; and (3) that interven- tion should be denied, in any event, as a matter of sound discretion. Philadelphia contends that the matter is entirely within the sound discretion of this Court, which should be exercised as prayed to assure that every worth-while interest is represented in the ultimate decree. "The view we take of the matter makes it unnecessary to decide whether Philadelphia's intervention in the pending litigation would amount to a '* * * suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State * * *' in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. For the same reasons, we are not concerned with so much of the 'parens patriae'' argument as may be only a restatement of the proposition that original jurisdiction against a state can only be invoked by another state acting in its sovereign capacity on behalf of its citizens. Cf. New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76 (1883) ; North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S. 365 (1923). The ''parens patriae' doctrine, however, has aspects which go beyond mere restatement of the Eleventh Amendment; it is a recognition of the principle that the state, when a party to a suit involving a matter of sovereign interest, 'must be deemed to represent all its citizens.' Kentucky v. Indiana, 281 U.S. 163, 173-174 (I930)- The principle is a necessary recognition of sovereign dignity, as well as a working rule for good judicial administration. Otherwise, a state might be judicially impeached on matters of policy by its own subjects, and there would be no practical limitation on the number of citizens, as such, who would be entitled to be made parties, "The case before us demonstrates the wisdom of the rule. The City of Philadelphia represents only a part of the citizens of Pennsylvania who reside in the watershed area of the Delaware River and its tribu- taries and depend upon those waters.* If we undertook to evaluate all the separate interests within Pennsylvania, we could, in effect, be drawn into an intramural dispute over the distribution of water within the Commonwealth. Furthermore, wTe are told by New Jersey that there are cities along the Delaware River in that State which, like Philadelphia, are responsible for their own water systems, and which will insist upon a right to intervene if Philadelphia is admitted. Nor is there any assurance that the list of intervenors could be closed with political subdivisions of the states. Large industrial plants which, like ?Census figures for 1950 show that there were 4,061,420 Pennsylvania citizens within the watershed, of which 2,071,605, or about half, are in Philadelphia. 94-497-69------41 |