reciprocal rights of inheritance in California. Such an offer of reciprocal arrangements is said to be a matter for settlement by the Federal Government on a nation-wide basis.

In Blythe v. Hinckley, 180 U. S. 333, California had granted aliens an unqualified right to inherit property within its borders. The alien claimant was a citizen of Great Britain with whom the United States had no treaty providing for inheritance by aliens in this country. The argument was that a grant of rights to aliens by a State was, in absence of a treaty, a forbidden entry into foreign affairs. The Court rejected the argument as being an extraordinary one. The objection to the present statute is equally farfetched.

Rights of succession to property are determined by local law. See Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 U. S. 188, 193; Irving Trust Co. v. Day, 314 U. S. 556, 562. Those rights may be affected by an overriding federal policy, as where a treaty makes different or conflicting arrangements. Hauenstein v. Lynham, supra. Then the state policy must give way. Cf. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52. But here there is no treaty governing the rights of succession to the personal property. Nor has California entered the forbidden domain of negotiating with a foreign country, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 316-17, or making a compact with it contrary to the prohibition of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. What California has done will have some incidental or indirect effect in foreign countries. But that is true of many state laws which none would claim cross the forbidden line.

In summary, we hold that disposition of the realty is governed by Article IV of the treaty. Disposition of the personalty, however, is not governed by the treaty unless it is determined that Alvina Wagner was a German national. If she was an American citizen, disposition of the

RUTLEDGE, J., concurring in part.

331 U.S.

personalty is governed by California law. Whether there are other requirements of the California statute which would bar the California heirs-at-law is a question on which we intimate no opinion.

The judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the cause is remanded to the District Court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

So ordered.

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, concurring in part.

I join in the Court's opinion insofar as it relates to the real estate. But, as to the personal property, I think the cause should be remanded to the District Court for determination of Alvina Wagner's nationality, without expression of opinion here upon the constitutionality of the California statute.

The decision now made on that issue, by virtue of the Court's hypothesizing that she was an American citizen, will be rendered both moot and advisory in character if it is found, as it may well be in the District Court's further proceedings, that she was a German national. This Court has consistently declined to decide constitutional questions on hypothetical presentations. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549. The practice should be followed in this case, even though conceivably another appeal might be saved by indulging the presumption which the Court makes. It is more important that constitutional decisions be reserved until the issues calling for them are squarely and inescapably presented, factually as well as legally, than it is to expedite the termination of litigation or the procedural convenience of the parties.

Syllabus.

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION.

No. 970. Argued May 6, 1947-Decided June 9, 1947.

1. Under § 17 (11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the Transportation Act of 1940, a union duly designated as the representative of employees of a railroad is given an absolute right, within the meaning of Rule 24 (a) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to intervene in a suit brought under § 16 (12) to enjoin the railroad and its employees from violating an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, where the injunction sought would prevent the railroad from carrying out a contract with the union and was directed in part against the employees. Pp. 525526.

(a) The right of intervention granted to representatives of employees of carriers by § 17 (11) applies to a court proceeding under § 16 (12) and not merely to proceedings before the Commission. Pp. 526–530.

(b) The right to intervene granted by § 17 (11) is absolute and not merely permissive. Pp. 530-532.

(c) A suit is one "affecting such employees," within the meaning of § 17 (11), if the employees would be prejudiced or bound by any judgment that might be entered in the case. Pp. 530, 531.

2. An order of a district court denying a union the right under §17 (11) to intervene in such a case is appealable to this Court, which has jurisdiction to consider the appeal on its merits. Pp. 524-525, 531-532.

Reversed.

A district court denied a petition of a union of railroad employees to intervene under § 17 (11) of the Interstate Commerce Act and Rule 24 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a suit brought under § 16 (12) to enjoin the railroad and its employees from violating an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. On appeal to this Court, reversed, p. 532.

Burke Williamson argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Jack A. Williamson. E. Douglas Schwantes and Robert McCormick Adams were also of counsel.

Ernest S. Ballard argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Our concern here is with the intervention rights of representatives of railroad employees in a suit brought against the railroad under § 16 (12) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 16 (12).

The origin of this suit is to be found in an order issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission on May 16, 1922. Chicago Junction Case, 71 I. C. C. 631. See also Chicago Junction Case, 264 U. S. 258. The Commission there approved the purchase by the New York Central Railroad Co. (Central) of all the capital stock of the Chicago River & Indiana Railroad Co. (River Road); it also authorized the leasing to River Road of all the properties of the Chicago Junction Railway Co. (Junction) for 99 years and thereafter, at the lessee's option, in perpetuity. Among the properties in question were trackage and switching facilities at the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, Illinois, connecting with various trunk lines. Prior to the Commission order, the practice had been for the trunk line railroads to use their own power and crews to move their empty and loaded livestock cars over these tracks to and from the loading places in the Union Stock Yards. For the privilege of so moving their cars, the railroads were charged $1.00 per car, loaded or empty.

The Commission made various conditions to its approval of the proposed transactions. The third condition provided: "The present traffic and operating relationships

existing between the Junction and River Road and all carriers operating in Chicago shall be continued, in so far as such matters are within the control of the Central." 71 I. C. C. at 639. This condition is still in effect, the Commission's decision and order having been found to be valid and binding on all parties in a proceeding in the District Court in 1929.1

The trunk line railroads have continued to use their own power and crews in moving their livestock cars over the trackage operated by River Road and have paid River Road the amount of $1.00 per car. But on January 25, 1946, Central and River Road notified the railroads that on and after February 1, 1946, the cars would be moved over this trackage by means of the power and crews of River Road and that the handling charge would be $12.96 per outbound loaded car. Soon after this new practice went into effect, the trunk line railroads (appellees herein) brought this suit for preliminary and permanent injunctions under § 16 (12) of the Interstate Commerce Act against Central, River Road and Junction. They claimed that the new practice was in violation of the third condition of the 1922 Commission order. They accordingly sought to enjoin the defendants and "their respective officers, agents, representatives, servants, employees and successors," from disobeying the order, especially the third condition thereof, and to force the defendants to permit them to move their cars with their own power and crews. The Commission was allowed to intervene as a party plaintiff; its intervening complaint also prayed for an

1 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United States (unreported), United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Equity No. 3427, January 15, 1929. The court approved the Commission order as amended in 150 I. C. C. 32. That amendment is not germane to this case.