The New York herald., 1869-03-31
NEW YORK CITY.
TIE COURTS.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT ccysr.
The Union Pacinc Litigation in Fog-The
Case Asccrt aimed TO be an Outcast-"Under
which King" Ssc.-Thc Qncsiion Of the Re-
novai to the Uuited States Court.
Before Judge Blatchford.
James Fisk, Jg., Us. The onion Pacific Rdltrav
Company, drad the Credit M0bfi' or America ct al
The argument on the motion for stay OF proceed
ings in this resumed yesterday afternoon
nc quarter before four O'Clock In this court The
three questions TO which the discussion was con-
fined vas, first, whether the case was now actually
removed from the supreme Court OF this State INTO
the United states Court; second, whether. II 1t
actually removed, this court had the power 10 stay
proceedings IN the State court aud lastly, whether
II the court possessed such power the necessity ex
listed in this case for Its exercise.
Messrs. David dudley Field, Il. W. St0ughton and
Dudley Field appeared for Mr.. Fisk, and Judge Allen
ard Messrs. ). D. Tilden, Charles Tracy Clark Bell,
w. w. Mctaranc ana Q. A. Seward for the CON-
MIR. Seward opened the argument by recapitulat-
ting the leading facts in the up TO the time OF its
alleged removal 10 the United Statcs Court and
tended that the order made by Judge BlatchfOrd
alter the presentation and consideration Of the order
by Judge kosecrans removed the Whole
Into the United States Court and that the order OF
Judge Blatchlord was pt.ad .tace evidence 0i such
IN e sae conr eaa a NAG in eeen
moval to the United States court. The defend
ants had complied with all the requirements OF
the United States statute governing removal, and
the case being one IN which the right OF removal
listed the State court was bound to grant removal
forthwith. The defendants had defence arising
under the laws oi the United states. The case in
v0lved the construction Of an act OF Congress and
should De heard on It's merits In tine United States
United States court until Judge Barnard revoked the
order Of Judge Rosecrans But the order OF Judge
to nulfy tue eject OF the order OF Judge Rose
Grams after this latter order had been made although
made er pdrte and In chambers. There was
no power In the Supreme Court to recall the
ease and take jurisdiction after tho making
and pronunciation Of the order OF Judge Rosecrans.
The case being proper one lOr removal, and the
delendants having complied with the requirements
governing the removal the case was Lpso t1cto, in
moval mad been granted by the state court There
might be cases where some OF the defendants could
obtain removal as to themselves into the United
States court while the other defendants were lett
to obtain their remedy In the State court. The
United states courts had either orlsnal or appellate
OF the laws Of Congress-. IL had been sought to
prevent the removal Of the case by judicial
case was now In the United Stale court, and that
court mad the power to issue order staying further
proceedings by the plalnun, Fisk, In the state
court The statute prohibiting an injunction by the
United States courts OF proceedings in the State
courts referred TO proceedings only which were law
fully pending In State court, and not 10 proceed
ingB like ths which had been removed legally into
the United states courts. any further proceeding In
which by the plaintin IN the state court would be In
contempt ot hc United states court and tending to
subvert its jurisdiction.
Mr. Dudley Field said the foundation Of the argu-
ment Of Mr.. Seward was that the was wholly In
the United States court. II the proceedings oy the
plaintiff In Tue state court 49, as claimed, suppo-
could be done. The United States court could not
interfere with state court IN case IN relation to
which concurrent jurisdiction existed, when the
State court had first taken cognizar- of the case.
In whichever court the case was commenced that
court had exclusive jurisdiction until the nnal dis
position OF the case by such court.
Mr.. Stoughton said that 1t was due to the Supreme
Court Of the State Of New York that the United
States Circuit Court should presume that every step
taken in the former court In this was properly
and justly taken until the opposite positively
shown. The granting OF an order for a stay was
urged on the ground that some things were being
done IN the State court III defiance OF law and de-
cency. This was the first time In the history or the
United States courts this district that an appi-
cation for such an order as was now sought
had been made because the State court thought
II had Jurisdiction. Notwithstanding proceedings
had hitherto been taken to cases. such cases
had often been proceeded with TO completion In the
State courts in spite OF such proceedings entirely
ignoring them. II those cases were rghtiully re
a cors ann acS ~ N
effect Each court could move within It's own
sphere ignoring the action Of the other IN any par
ticular case, and none would ultimately be harmed
by the court which the sequel showed mad acted
without Jurisdiction. 1t would not be right the
Jurisdiction OF case to the detrimcnt OF any one
and then have its action reversed by the Supreme
the United ed states, % prohibiting tie ' United ed States
courts from enjoining the action OF State courts
covered the issuing Of the order now asked. The
relief sought BY the plaintfn could clearly be OBJ
tanned in the State court. 1t was sought to
make the Credit MObilier disgorge for the
benefit Of the Union Pacific Railroad Com
pany, and, incidentally. for the benefit Of Fisk,
tine amounts 1t was alleged 1t had defrauded
s fSe ous o Is o.
val was an admirable exposition OF the principles
governing the case. The two Ameses, defendants in
The case mad pettioned TO Judge Sutherland Tor an
order TO the to the United states Circuit
Court, 1ing that petition since the making Of the
order by Judge Blatcnford declaring that the case
was removed, and had thus estopped themselves
from receiving the benefit they had asked for on the
original application for q removal.
At the conclusion OF Mr.. Stoughton's argument
the further hearing Of the matter was adjourned
20 Thursday, at halfpast three O'Clock p. N.