gaged in a movement from State to Territory not purely local in its character and hence there is jurisdiction. But this rests upon the mistaken assumption that the test of jurisdiction is the character of the act to which the statute applies, and not the nature of the statute itself, that is, whether it is general or local to the District. And this difficulty is not answered by the argument that because the statute was made controlling concerning acts not purely local, therefore as the effect cannot be greater than the cause, the statute must itself be said to be for the purposes of jurisdiction not of a local character. But again the proposition rests upon an erroneous assumption. The test of whether the statute is general or local depends not upon the particular question to which it may be exceptionally applied in a given case, but upon the exertion of legislative power which the statute manifests and its general operation, that is to say, whether it was enacted as a statute of general application under the general legislative power or whether it took being as the result of the exercise of the purely local power of Congress to govern the District of Columbia, and was as a general rule intended to be so applicable.

The error of the argument could not be better illustrated than by saying that if the proposition were admitted, it would necessitate deciding that a statute which has been held to be beyond the constitutional power of Congress to enact so far as it embodied anything but the exertion of local power may yet be enforced and applied as a general statute. The want of foundation for the contention is besides made plainer by looking at the subject from another point of view. While the transit in which the train was engaged was not purely local, the accident complained of occurred within the confines of the District of Columbia and the statute became applicable concerning it because as a local statute it governed in the absence of legislation by Congress of a general VOL. CCXXXVI-13

character governing the subject. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133; Pennsylvania R. R. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477; Martin v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R., 203 U. S. 284. To take jurisdiction, therefore, we would be compelled to decide that a purely local statute which would be void if it were general in character was yet operative in such aspect, and that because a local law was applicable to a given situation solely for the reason that there was no general law to control, the local law was a general one.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

UNITED STATES v. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS.

TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS v. UNITED STATES.

EVENS & HOWARD FIRE BRICK COMPANY, PETITIONER.

APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE.

Nos. 452, 572,-Original. Argued October 20, 1914. Petition submitted October 13, 1914.-Decided February 23, 1915.

Even though persons seeking to intervene on the settlement of a decree were not parties and therefore cannot intervene in the court below, they may be entitled to be heard in this court concerning the decree in so far as it may operate prejudicially to their rights. Where both parties have appealed, one from the decree entered on the

mandate of this court and the other from denial of a motion to

modify such decree, as the whole decree is before this court the dismissal of the latter appeal would not limit its power and duty to pass on the questions raised by it; the proper practice is to consolidate the appeals.

The decision and mandate of this court in regard to a combination declared illegal under the Anti-Trust Act should not be interpreted as safeguarding one public interest by destroying another, or as making the movement of transportation freer in some channels by obstructing its flow in others.

The decision of this court in 221 U. S. 383, explained, and the decree entered by the court below on the mandate modified so as to recognize the right of the Terminal Company as an accessory to its strictly terminal business to carry on business exclusively originating on its lines, exclusively moving thereon, and exclusively intended for delivery on the same.

THE facts, which involve the construction of the mandate and decision in United States v. St. Louis Terminal Association as reported in 224 U. S. 383, and the effect to be given to such mandate and the further directions of this court in regard thereto, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Edward C. Crow for the United States.

Mr. H. S. Priest and Mr. T. M. Pierce for St. Louis Terminal.

Mr. George M. Block, with whom Mr. John F. Lee was on the brief, for intervenors.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was decided April 22, 1912 (224 U. S. 383), and the question now is, Was due effect given to the mandate of this court? A clear understanding will come by the merest outline of some of the legal proceedings preceding and following that decision. The decree which was reversed was entered by a circuit court composed of four judges in accordance with the Expedition Act. The cir

Opinion of the Court.

236 U. S.

cuit courts having been abolished when the decision of this court was rendered, the mandate was directed to the appropriate district court. There the United States filed the mandate and asked an interlocutory decree giving the time fixed by this court to take the steps which were decided to be necessary to make the organization of the defendants a legal one under the Anti-Trust Act. The defendants presented a statement of what was proposed by them to be done in compliance with the decree of this court to accomplish the result stated, and over some objection on the part of the United States an interlocutory decree was entered which in many respects accepted as sufficient what was proposed to be done by the defendants. On the taking of those steps and after a full hearing of the parties the court announced its purpose to enter a final decree not following in some respects a proposed form of final decree suggested by the United States. Thereupon the United States by petition for prohibition filed in this court asserted the entire want of jurisdiction in the court as constituted to entertain the enforcement of the mandate, as that could only be done by a court composed like the one which had rendered the judgment, that is, one composed under the Expedition Act. The prohibition was granted (226 U. S. 420), and jurisdiction to enforce the mandate was assumed by a court of three circuit judges sitting in the district court in pursuance of the Expedition Act. In that court after a hearing as to a proposed interlocutory decree and as the result of steps taken by the defendants to comply with the decision of this court which were deemed sufficient for that purpose, a final decree was entered on March 2, 1914. This decree was objected to by the United States because of the insufficiency, at least in form, of the steps taken by the defendants for the purpose of complying with the decree of this court and of the failure by the court below to insert in the decree various clauses suggested by the United

States and which it was insisted were necessary to give effect to the mandate of this court. For these reasons the United States on March 27, 1914, appealed and such appeal is now before us and constitutes No. 452 referred to in the caption.

The day after this appeal (March 28) the defendants moved to modify the decree by striking out the first paragraph on two grounds: First, because it referred to the Terminal Company as illegally organized in violation of the Anti-Trust Act, although under the supervision and approval of the court such steps had been taken as were directed by this court to remove all objection to the organization of the Company. Second, because the restrictions imposed on the business which the Terminal Company might lawfully do, were susceptible of being construed as forbidding the Company to carry on as ancillary to its strictly terminal work a transportation business originating upon one part of its line and destined exclusively to other points on such line. And the necessity of not prohibiting the Company from doing such work, the petition to modify asserted, was shown by the fact that "on account of the necessary extent of its tracks, covering an area of seventy-five to one hundred square miles, it is frequently called upon to take traffic from one point on its line to another point on its line, completing the entire movement on its own tracks." In addition the petition to modify alleged as follows:

"As an illustration: The Terminal Association operates in the early morning and late in the afternoon some trains to transport laborers engaged in industrial factories from Granite City, Illinois, to the different stations on its line in St. Louis, Missouri. This it is prohibited from doing under the decree.

"Another illustration: Many factories are located upon the Terminal Association's tracks on both sides of the Mississippi river. Under this order the defendant, Ter