New-York tribune., 1868-02-13
TIE CHICAGO and RoCK ISLAND BATL-
ROAD CASES.

motions to remove TO the Unitod States Circuit Court
have been decided by Judge Cardozo In the suit OF Fisk
and Others against the Company and s ocers tho Court
denies the motion In the case Of Hatch against the
same parties he grants the removal only far the
defendants, the Company itself and hs
President Mr. Tracy concerned leaving the suit
70 the other defendants TO be prosecuted or not as the
plaintiff elect He hss % Which I oomss
IS an abstract He decides that the proc, as 70 tho rest
Of Fisk and geden two 1f sue sns
IN tss cty. and notwithstandag the affidavit mads
by them at previous stage Oh 1 ,ae ssss. ssss..
Intention t1as TO reside in other States aud
that they therefore, citizens Of ether STATES Ties sn
pany has also shown his Intention 10 contnne his rest
denee in Chicago he having taken te ctay os
there, having always described himseii as oI ecsSN
and there seng no proof that he has votea mere a &
holds, does not initiate against H. since ne nss nos a,a
here either He holds that Mr. Tracy having once eeay
been citizen OF Illinois, tho 0nus lay on the oppesne
party to show change Of residence and that they bave
not done He reviews the decisions OF inc tn'.ee e
CITIZENSHIP of corporations, and arrives at tho
conclusion that corporation is only ,las1 c,ss1n
a. '1S the StssS cSe unde denSant was
laws Of Iowa and Illinois, he holds that ~ oannot pe SI
zen OF the State however much its business ana cohuuss
may be here He holds that the acts requiring certain
foreign corporaops TO keep an agent here 10 accep ST
vice OF process does not debar the corporation 0n ~
constitutional right when eerved TO remove the case ~
the United States courts Having thus disposed o. se
two Of the plaintiffs are ctzsns other States white Z.
the Hatch case the sole a9tm m 81 ens
of other Staes the Judge proceeds This satementoI OF
the situation Of the parties suces 70 snow hds 81
i7s9 Under that Act no removal eau take place unless
all the plaintiffs Of the STATE IN EneSs Of other States
but careful examination OF the Act OF is.o lea ~ ~ @
CONVICTION @ r tnat IL 9ss mo a Is not brought by c
zen OF this state, and il Is only IN an action
nj N 0cmduutd
iirst element necessary "a th9 pasls VI rio ri
aapa9 OF the term CITIZEN in such statutes has
long established Tne plaintiffs collectively INSIST Us w
haze Sen en- as citizens o. % e the sa se St II 30
citizen Of this state athsggn .ne $ gLsess ,e % ms 20
clearly put in the excellent opinion Of Judge Daly which
Ihave before mentioned. that no other authority neea
that Congress had intended to egsate as far ss .ne
parties plaintiff are concerned np1n as tleoty .'
ioned as the party plaintiffs any other RUE sn9nla 10
applied than that which bad long before ehseo M wnes
plaintiff employ precisely the language as rs USED
In of 1865 think. therefore that the anguass
This view Is strengthened by the fact that Congress re
sorted to language showing that 1t recognized the nss
governs regards parties defendant The just Iefe
Is then that the language OF the Judiciary ActS h
change of the law was contemplated or deeited IA
other phraseoogy was introduced IS 70 tne pSiss ~
fendai because rule was to DO made ns TO theis
But In Mr. Hatcs suit the difficulty whch hayc peh
toned in the way Of the removal o. she caass aces
action not exclusively by oti1ch OF W n,sS
where was brougb there would % no rssSc f
a case where the plaintiffs were al citizens ctlzens
OF OF, the isr sae Sop ~ ~ with defenda yho was
Stzen of hat same state persous who we're cltzens Of
another and gTeo m sa ta s % be ao%sd
1riyece Of invoking the Federal Judiciary. And nay
exannaton The whole context of tho act shows thai
Congress designed to egsate for where there were
which Inc scion was instituted and citizens Of other
states. Aud by this statute u Is suDstaLtaly po,ia. ~
tat wne9 en- an bs oe against citizen Of the sane Slate
m conjunction with citizens or other otates any
anu Eno cass transfer the litigation 70 the United
States Court, SO far it affects him. Now. IN
ssnS TSss another & Ias sGST of this State Sad &c @
es Tast f 9SP Ss stS
the litigation First The matter in dispute must exceed
TO the Distinguished counsel for Mr. Estss think the
eases relied upon by hn 20 sustain hs POSITION that kS
no analogy to this litigation yhey did not cohcsf prop
erty at an This does bear upon properly: and gpoa
provides that il the trial be brought for the purpose of
restraining enoinning person not there
him without presence Of the other defendants then
the citizen Of me foreign sas may remove ~ sHe
agreed that this action IS brought 70 restrain M III icy
suit can proceed to a1a determination q the ceutro
versy respects them, without the other defendAnt
used in this statute as to show that Congress pro
yldng for two different classes OF cases nIs where SUI
was obtain injunction and second, where the pres
ence OF the other defendants not necessary " the de-
termination of the controversy as respects the defend
gress did not consider that restraining person was Of
such serious Importance as 10 justify provision tnat
citizen Of another state might require that
the action be transferred. II the eondltlon d
the plaintiff and defendant were as has beea
previously described 1t would clearly be within the
tltutona authority Of Congress. where the painnl
dcton Of any acton TO Which citizen Of another STATE
ssary party, whether alone or with Others ana
therefore Il equally within It's power 10 provide for the
removal OF such case after has been instituted In the
state Courts. I have nothing 10 do with the conse
removal The responsibility Of the legislation does lot
rest with me- but responsible for the CONSTRUCTOR
and Just one and not ingenious aud refined
theories and unusual interpretations OF words which s
OF and OF sentences which are OF orua4p
import the purpose OF eyadng or defeating what
gress may have perhaps rnwscly attempted With, m.
provisions Of the statute of 1866 In the suit brought py
Mr. Hatch and far as relates to them and 20 naex
tent only the action must be removed to the united
states Courts pursuant to their petition and when 50 re-
moved by the statute S ad u bce sne bSons
there by original process only mention this Tor tns
saying that tSas Ci anS e ecs Oo dSs.
ns any guide to the cases which are to be removed
proceedings in the action after its removal, viz
The same practice which prevails In action ong
nally Drought IN the tOurts OF tuo Oultcu ouncs
II 1t be said that the OF the suit
viii prevent any efficient litigation and leave the
plaintiff without remedy, as TO which express 10
opinion have only that that misfortune pro
ceeds from the exercise % the right OF the United stas
TO claim exclusive Jurisdiction OF actions between citizens
OF different States and must be borne like any other COD
sequence resulting from the constitutional exercise o.
sovereign will. The power to produce that effect exists
and the exercise Of has resulted the courts canns
helpt II Is OF far less Importance that the plaintiff s
lose his remedy than that the courts should attempt Will
fuly TO disregard and overthrow the consttutionsy
exercised power OF legislation Respecting tine act OF @
laws OF XXXIxth Congress, Sess 2, p 6s9 very lew lew
remarks will be necessary do not ind anything ineor
sstent between this statute and teat Of is6 as the