307 Opinion of the Court. 3rd, in any case that involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States; 4th, in any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority, is drawn in question; 5th, and in any case in which the constitution or law of a State is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States. The case presented on this motion comes within none of these classes. Even if a direct appeal from a conviction under the indictment in the District Court of Western Washington would lie to this Court under § 238 on the question whether Camp Lewis was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, still the issue of jurisdiction which § 238 makes cognizable by this Court on direct appeal is the jurisdiction of the District Court from which the appeal is taken, not that of the court to whose jurisdiction it is proposed to remove the petitioner. Carey v. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 170, 180; Ex parte Jim Hong, 211 Fed. 73, 78. There was no doubt of the jurisdiction of the District Court of Rhode Island to issue a writ of habeas corpus to look into the legality of the detention of the petitioner. Certainly he made no question of it because he asked for its exercise. But it is clear that the objection raised by the petitioner does not raise a question of jurisdiction directly appealable to this Court from the District Court. Such an objection goes to the merits and the appeal must be to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Louie v. United States, 254 U. S. 548, 550, 551. Nor is there any question of the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States or of the validity of a statute or treaty of the United States or of a statute of a State under the Federal Constitution. The assignments of error recite that constitutional questions did arise but neither the motion nor the record discloses one. The issue is simply whether the specified place of the alleged murder is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and that does not appear to involve in any way the construction of the Federal Constitution. This motion must, therefore, be denied, but the ground upon which we deny it requires us to go further. The Act of September 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat. 837, requires us, when an appeal has been taken to this Court that should have been taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, not to dismiss the appeal but to transfer it to the proper Circuit Court of Appeals, which in this case is that of the First Circuit. Heitler v. United States, 260 U. S. 438. If the motion disclosed that the present appeal had been framed under § 238 to present solely the question of the jurisdiction of the District Court of Rhode Island certified here by that court, it would require us to consider whether on such a limited appeal it would be our duty and within our power to order a transfer of the appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals under the Act of September 14, 1922. The record shows, however, that the appeal is not so limited. The order of transfer to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will be made. CITY OF NEW YORK v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 588. Argued February 21, 23, 1923-Decided March 12, 1923. 1. In a suit to enjoin enforcement of orders of a state commission respecting telephone rates, upon the ground that the rates are confiscatory, a city with no control over such rates but interested only indirectly as a subscriber is not a necessary party. P. 315. In re Engelhard & Sons Co., 231 U. S. 646. 312 Argument for Appellee. 2. In such case, where the interests of the city were fully represented through the commission and other officials made parties, application of the city to become a party also was addressed to the District Court's discretion, and its order denying the application is not final and appealable. P. 316. Appeal dismissed. APPEAL from an order of the District Court denying appellant's application to be made a party defendant in an injunction suit. Mr. M. Maldwin Fertig, with whom Mr. George P. Nicholson and Mr. Harry Hertzoff were on the brief, for appellant. The order appealed from is a final order. Gay v. Hudson River Co., 184 Fed. 689; Matter of Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 129 U. S. 206; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., 51 Fed. 557; La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95; Heike v. United States, 217 U. S. 423. The order appealed from impaired a substantial right of the City and, therefore, it is a final order. Central Trust Co. v. United States Light & Heating Co., 233 Fed. 420; Odell v. Batterman, 223 Fed. 292; Gas & Electric Securities Co. v. Manhattan & Queens Traction Co., 266 Fed. 625. Abuse of discretionary power is reviewable by this Court. Mr. John W. Davis, with whom Mr. Charles T. Russell was on the brief, for appellee. Not only is the order appealed from not of that final character which furnishes the basis for an appeal, but the application to intervene was addressed to the discretion of the District Court; consequently, this appeal should be dismissed. In re Engelhard & Sons Co., 231 U. S. 646; Ex Parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311; Guion v. Liverpool Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 173; Ex parte Cut Opinion of the Court. 261 U.S. ting, 94 U. S. 14; Farmers Bank v. Arizona Association, 220 Fed. 1; Swift v. Black Panther Oil Co., 244 Fed. 20; Western Union Tel. Co. v. United States, etc., Co., 221 Fed. 545; United States v. Philips, 107 Fed. 824. The fact that the City of New York is a municipality and has attempted to assume the self-appointed duty of protecting the interests of its citizens in this rate litigation, does not confer upon the appellant an absolute right to intervene; the application rests entirely within the discretion of the trial court. Even if the order appealed from should be considered a final order, the decision of the District Court denying the appellant's motion to intervene should be affirmed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court. The New York Telephone Company, the appellee herein, filed its bill in the District Court against the members of the New York Public Service Commission, the counsel of the Commission and the Attorney General of the State, asking an injunction against the enforcement of two orders of the Public Service Commission as to telephone rates, one as to rates in the City of New York and the other as to those in the State of New York, outside of the city, which it alleged to be confiscatory of its property and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thereafter the City of New York moved the court for an order making it a party defendant in the cause. This order the District Court denied. Thereafter an interlocutory injunction against the orders was granted and an appeal, No. 542, is pending here and has been argued but not decided. This is a separate appeal from the order refusing the application of the City to be made a party defendant. Under Article 1, § 12, of the Public Service Commissions Law of the State of New York, it is made the duty of 312 Opinion of the Court. counsel to the Commission "to represent and appear for the people of the state of New York and the commission. in all actions and proceedings involving any question. under this chapter, or within the jurisdiction of the commission under the railroad law, or under or in reference to any act or order of the commission, and, if directed to do so by the commission, to intervene, if possible, in any action or proceeding in which any such question is involved." Chapter 15 of the Laws of 1922 of the State directs. that: "The attorney general shall appear for the people of the state, and take such steps as may be necessary to protect the interests of the public, in the proceeding heretofore instituted by the public service commission and entitled 'In the matter of the hearing on motion of the commission, as to rates, charges and rentals, and the regulations and practices affecting rates, charges and rentals of the New York Telephone Company.' For such purpose, he may employ special deputies, experts and other assistants, and incur such other expenses as he may find necessary, within the amount appropriated by this act." The necessary defendant in the suit to enjoin the orders lowering rates was the Public Service Commission whose orders they were. In addition the counsel of the Commission and the Attorney General were made parties defendant under the legislation above recited. The City of New York has no control over the rates. Its only interest in them is as a subscriber, and even as such its interest in the general rates is not direct because its own rates are settled by a special contract. Under such circumstances, the City is certainly not a necessary party. In re Engelhard & Sons Co., 231 U. S. 646, an action had been brought against the City of Louisville to restrain the enforcement of an ordinance prescribing tele |