The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1875-04-24
or does it's jurisdiction embrace the en-: ,1 !:

or does it's jurisdiction embrace the en-
tire Slater sa'riisS.
If the Courts held in Charleston and
Columbia have common jurisdiction,
and case brought in Charleston against
q citizen Of one of the Counties in the
Western District, can BIO transferred to
Columbia, and upon continuance ,or
incompleted can be further prosecuted
there, then will the suitor in these Courts
have the chances and benefits of two
terms in the year for tho prosecution of
his case over any other suiter who may
sue in the Greenville Court, and thus
that Court be put to the additional dis
advantage of contending against tho
United States Circuit Court, with its two
terms year, as we'll rs against the State
Courts, with their three terms year.
Where is the equality of remedy, either
rs to tho State Courts or the Unite Stntes
Courts?
But if the Court held in Greenvillc
possesses exclusive jurisdiction, and
suitors OF the other States are compelled
to sue the inhabitants of the Counties
composing tho Western District in that
Court, (with it's one term a year, and
when they go there must stop there, and
CulluOC LIuublcT tuclT CtiScS 10 COlllmDln,
but must be hindered for whole year
in the further prosecution of their cases,
what becomes of their oQunl remedy,
either rs against tho suitor in the Eastern
District or suitors in tho State Court?
Is legislation with such unjust conse-
quences and 80 opposed to tho whole
theory of the United States Courts, as the
organs and instruments of equal Justice
to the stranger, as against the citizens Of
any State between themselves to be
accepted as tho legislation of the country?
1s it to be supposed that Congress could
have done anything so unequal and
abortive?
On the whole, looking to what Con-
gress has done in reference to this Court,
taken in connection especially with what
it has not done-the provision it hos
made and the provision it hns failed to
mnke-the conclusion seems to DO incvi-
table That it can only be effective rs nm
organ of Federal justice when accepted
(as it has hitherto been) MS ono of the
three Courts constituting system, insti-
tuted by tho country, to secure equal
justice to the citizens of the United
States. So held, it is necessary, or ut
least q most helpful, complement to tho
Circuit Court previously established, by
furnishing third term in the year, and
thus putting the United States Courts on
an equality with the State Circuit Courts
Thus regarded rs m integrate portion of
the Circuit Court system of tho State, all
confusion disappears, and tho Federal
judicial administration, whilst reduced
to unity, gains both in completeness and
efficiency. And does not this view re-
ceive emphatic confirmation from the
fnct that the nero doubt Of tho sound
ness of this construction, of 80 recent
birth, of the character of this Court, and
tho place it holds in the judicial system
of the State, has put the whole System
atloat, nnd introduced chaos and per-
plexity where there had hitherto been
neither question, hesitation or disorder.
Whilst, therefore, conourring with the
Circuit Judge as to the validity of the
judgment in question, upon the narrow
technical ground of the special and ex-
ceptional pleadings in this cnse, (saving
the jurisdiction of the Court,) upon
which he rests his judgment, havo not
felt ut liberty to withhold my dissent
from the novel view which he has felt
called upon, in the discharge of his duty,
to publish for the benefit of the profess
sion, MS to the regular, normal juris,lic-
ton of the Court in which this judgment
was had.