The New York herald., 1869-04-07
THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD WAR.
important Decision by Judge
BlatcllfOrd.
Ihe Suits in the State courts
Null and Void.
Decision Of Judge Biatchford In the Unitea
States Circuit Court.

States Circuit COurt.
James FISK, Jf., Us. The Union Pacific Ra,lrOad
Company ana OGers.-It being understood that
Judge Blatchord yesterday delivered his opinion on
the motion argued before him some days ago to
grant stay Of proceedings in the suits instituted
the State courts, great into. est was mani.
tested to know the result. The court
room was crowded with counsel, railroad peo-
pie, and general assembiage OF spectators whose
interest has been more less excited by the war
waged between the railroad Titans OF this city, and
it may be said OF the whole country.
Judge Blatchford occupied two hours and half
in delivering his opinion speaking without the aid
OF notes or memoranda, which, notwithstanding the
importance Of the subject and Its well known compli
cation, exceedingly clear lucid and to the point
His Honor has apparently left not q hook or hinge
for counsel to hang doubt on; and Therefore, in
accordance with his opinion which declares that the
various suits as regards all the parties involved are
in the United States Circuit Court OF this district,
contests further in this gigantic litigation must
cease in the State courts. This ls the beginning OF
the eud, to be hoped. Judge Blachford decided,
the parties properly in the United states Circuit
Court, and that all the proceedings heretofore had
and orders made thereon In the State court
to grant the order for the Stay Of pro-
inasmuch as the cases were only properly and legally
in the United States courts, there could be really
no proceedings 10 stay, ana also on the ground Lnat
If the suits were legally in the State courts the
United states Circuit Court was inhibited by act OF
Congress from granting stay OF proceedings or IN
any way interfering with the legitimate Jurisdiction
OF the State courts.
His Honor said that he had read over with painful
diligence all the papers submitted to him in the case,
and also the printed arguments and citations OF
thorites aud statutes, and had considered all cues.
tons involved IN the with the utmost care, in
order to come satisfactory decision in regard to
IT. but in consequence OF the pressure or engage
mens and the necessity OF an early decision being
MIR taI ha had moi rnn N writ an
opinion In consequence OF the time that would thus
have unavoidably been consumed, and he would
therefore give his opinion orally The case came be-
fore the court in the shape OF motion on the part of
the defendants in the case on the theory that the
case was pending in this court and the paintf, who
had commenced proceedings in the State court,
should be restrained from further proceedings in the
latter court against any OF the parties who we're
Joined as defendants IN the In the State court;
that the suit did not commence in this court by
vice Of process Of any kind, and Jurisdiction If
CURED at ALL must be by process OF removal sought
to be exercised under the statute passed by Con-
gress July 27, 1868. He believed this was the first
and only under this statute. In some respects
to removals, and in other respects was similar. The
frst question that arose for consideration was
whether this case was In this court, and this court
had jurisdiction. II this were not 80, this court
could make no order In 1t. AS was well observed by
one Of the counsel who had argued In the cause,
there were two classes OF subject to removal,
class in which jurisdiction s conferred by
the subiect.matter in dispute. There were three
statutes which made the cause OF removal depend
ent upon the sublectmatter In dispute; these stat
utes were In conformity with constitutional pro-
vtson and Congress had the constitutional right to
enact them into laws. The case OF Osborn VS.. The
Bank Of the United States settled this principle dis
tinctly The question raised there was whether the
case could be withdrawn from the jurisdiction OF
the United states courts as as ere were questions on,
construction to be given to the constitution
and laws Of the United States; 1t was there held that
II the case was based upon q question over which
the United states had Jurisdiction all other questions
were carried with the case into the United States
courts. In other words the case went there as
entirety 1t was OF no consequence whether the
removal was construed to be under appellate or
Sa@es e thing Is what the united states Court
has jurisdiction The statutes were enacted for
the purpose Of conveying to the Unites States courts
the Jurisdiction over the whole case In q case In
which a question existed arising under the laws of
the United States and to give Jurisdiction over
case cas- "d'' OF Osborn vs.. ~ Tie Bank Of the the
United States was case possessing features
case. Judge Nelson had held that removal could
take place after well as before Judgment in the
State court. Chief Justice Marshall had said that
the process OF q case, which question was one to be
decided under the constitution and laws OF the
which the Bank OF the United States was party
said the case never could have arisen unless the
Congress, and, Therefore, the question arose
under the laws o. Of the United f,i, states; c, The
other acts In providing for removal by the
party desiring 1t taking action by obtaining writ,
as first step from the United States Circuit Court,
ana without regard TO citizenship. There was no
need OF petonlng the state court for removal and
upon the United States Circuit Court commencing
proceedings by issuing certiorari the State court
was stayed from further proceedings in the case.
The United States Circuit Court could not nor could
any party or parties be deprived OF the Iight OF re-
mOva by joining of another party or other parties
In the suit who had different causes OF action. IL
was contemplated to remove the suit the Whole suit
and all the parties to IT, else the statutes governing
removals were simply waste paper. case could be
removed after judgment, either by appeal or writ OF
error.
The Alley Contempt Case in the Union Pacific
Railroad Litigation I'm the Supreme Court.
Before Judge Barnard.
James FISK, m, u.s. The Union Pacific Railroad
COn,paav.-Ihe hearing Of the contempt case
against John b. Alley for violating the injunction
restraining the election OF directors Of the COM
pany was commenced yesterday. ON the previous
day Mr. Alley had been requested to produce the
minute book OF the meeting. He was now placed
on the stand ana examined by Mr.. Field. Hc stated