The case of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co.,30 though not one between States, illustrates a further definition by the Supreme Court of what will constitute a justiciable interest upon the part of a State enabling it to seek relief by federal judicial process. Here an injunction was granted, at the suit of the State of Georgia, to enjoin the defendant company located in the State of Tennessee from discharging noxious gases from its works over the border of the State upon the territory of the plaintiff. In its opinion the court observe that it is proper to grant relief to a State, as a quasi-sovereign body, under circumstances which would not warrant it in a suit between private persons. In the case at bar, the court say: "The very elements that would be relied upon in a suit between fellow citizens as a ground for equitable relief are wanting here. The State owns very little of the territory alleged to be affected, and the damage to it, capable of estimate in money, possibly, at least, is small. This is a suit by a State for an injury to it in its capacity of quasi-sovereign. In that capacity the State has an interest independent of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain. . . . The caution with which demands of this sort, on the part of a State, for relief from injuries analogous to torts, must be examined, is dwelt upon in Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496; 26 Sup. Ct Rep. 268; 50 L. ed. 572. But it is plain that some such demands must be recognized if the grounds alleged are proved. When the States by their union made the forcible abatement of outside nuisances impossible to each, they did not thereby agree to submit to whatever might be done. They did not renounce the possibility of making reasonable demands on the ground of their still remaining quasi-sovereign in-terests: and the alternative to force is a suit in this court." The court, in its opinion, then goes on to make the following important observation: "Some peculiarities necessarily mark a suit of this kind. If the State has a case at all, it is somewhat more certainly entitled to specific relief than a private party might be. It is not lightly to be required to give up quasi-sovereign rights for pay; and, apart from the difficulty of valuing such rights in money, if that be its choice, it may insist that an infraction of them shall be stopped. The States by entering the Union, did not sink to the position of private owners, subject to one system of private law."

29 Cf. Harvard Law Review. XXI. l32. See also Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 27 Sup. Ct Rep. 618; 51 L. ed. 1038. 30 206 U. S. 230; 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 618; 51 L. ed. 1038.