New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-17

! which is not fixed by the co,..
limited by law, must be held s;,s
good behavior or (which.is ths 'aef g
in contemplation of law during Is
the incumbent; or must be held%sss
and discretion of some departmaSs&
government and subject to rast g
| pleasure. v"
at can not, for a moment /,
that it was the intention of the osI
that those offices, which are dsaHe
inferior offices, should be held San'as
! The court then found that the uanlg TT
moving in such cases was vested pSIses
power TO appoint: q.
The word inferior, in this decis0, 90
with reference to paragraph t~4s
two of the federal. c0nstifnt;oT so
offices are those tor whose AM
Congress may provide. ff@s
In the case of the State er =, s.;
pagnier VS.. F. NJ. Crozart. 8a1
Sunreme Court held that. a. an ~,
creating the office of recorder Of 'SIs i.'s
deaths for New Orleans does a lug
term. the incumbent held at the Nv,
the Governor. f's
In the case OF Nicholson vs.. Tso.
Rob. 367, the court still mora elsaaN @
down the rule: Persons appo,n.ss
office whose term is not fixed Wy
hold for life or during good beha,esN
at the will OF the appointing power p,
This is the rule which is genersT.
rized throughout the country IT.
Girod College, "a Penn, 1913. Asl Al
Tie Assistant Secretary Of Stat
case. is a mere ministerial officer ~
every act the incumbent of tba ss
Secretary of State is responsible ~ ~ an
he simply absurd to maintain ,b,. or
Ger can be forced to become RESPONSE
the official act OF another whom he i"
appoint.
cause Of action in favor of Wittcsn.s
! against Fairfax.
Both exceptions must be maintain r
the action must be dismissed. L
Power to Remove a Cans.
In the appeal of the case of Marnt
e. Co. against Temple S. Coons tat..s
an order of the District Court Of M
where the case was tried. which trans 2;
it to the United States District Gem
Supreme Court were Of the opin@
Judge erred in granting the removal
cause. hich was suit for sum Overt
due on a promissory note. The usts
rested his case for removal on the HT
grounds
THAT your petitioner is the sole on,
the claims or debts upon which this
founded that the firm plaintiffs b.
dissolved. and the demands bsyl
handed over By said firm to your petts -.
who has the exclusive control tberr %
the sole right to collect the same: tlg
netitioner, resident out Of the Stated
isiana, in the State of Kentucky:s ar
AYERS that he has reason to and doesk ro
that from prejudice and local infus :
this parish he will not be able TO obta +.
tice in this court, and that he is desm ar
removing this suit to the Circuit Cqv
the United States w
Mr.. Justice Howe, organ of tie Sur AZ AZ
Court, interprets the law as follows
In the first place the statute of Man fin
1867. does not make any change ntht TO
diction of the Federal Court as to d, -
1t is still required that the plaintiff l.
be a citizen, and defendant Of anothe
it is well settled that this means tn
the plaintiffs should be citizens of al
different from that of the deisa. n
Brightley's Fed. Dig P. l25, l26i Il j
other authorities. W
1t is not pretended that all the pg
in this case are citizens of some State
than Louis ana, and it would m,thEs
that the plaintiff Martin, alone, hssnn :,
10 remove the cause to the United s; a.
Circuit Court, even if he himself ver "
perly alleged to be a citizen Of Kentud -.
An application for removal must - -
that the petitioner therefor is a eiia n
another State. An averment that b.
resident is not sufficient. MoreOyer,fi :.
not even appear by the record or all q. Il,
that the defendant, Coons. is eitH =
Louisiana. For anything that appg
the contrary, he may be a citizen oil
lucky. Is Coons to be deprived Of thsl AZ
to urge this demand against Cobb L ua
honde. because Martin resided O.
State of Kentucky, and distrusts the Z Al
Of Justice OF the people of Madison Pr