The Cairo bulletin. [volume] (Cairo, Ill.) 1872-1878, 1875-09-19

|
Suppose petition is Tiled which IL clear
|y no petition whatever under this act:
Is not the state court allowed to ascertain
that fact? Suppose that in each one Of
the several hundred civil cases now pend
ing in THU court, ono party or the other
should place upon the files petition
not sworn to--for the act does not re-
lurc the petition to be sworn to-and
should offer of evidence of the truth of
the petition. aud should file with his or
her petition bond for merely nominal
sum and with mere straw surety for such |
nominal sum! In such state OF the case |
what is the State court to do? Must It |
adjourn until court IN course and wait /
until after the next January term OF the
circuit court OF the United States for the
Southern District of Illinois. in order that
the Federal court may come to its assist
nncc by remandidg the several causes
and Furnishing the refractory litigants by
compelling them to pay costs!
II the doctrine contended Tor Is correct,
what Is there to prevent such result:
II n reasonable construction can be given
to the art oi congress and such construct
ion does not lead to snch absurdi,ics,
| ought not such "rea scnablc construc,ion'
be the accepted construction?
The circuit courts of th. State have
almost unlimited common law and chan
Gerry jurisdiction. Arc the rights and
interests of the litigants in these courts
wholly worthless: A citizen Of this
State sues another citizen OF this State.
in the State court, on n simple contract
for money demand. What power has
congress to Interfere with his suit What
authority has the Circuit Court of the
United States to interfere with his suit I?
| Where is the constitutional provision Civ
| ing the power TO congress- Where Is the
act of congress giving jurisdiction to the
Federal court In such eases. j. not the
state court allowed to protect its own
litigants? |, it not allowed to protect it,
own lawful jurisdiction and exercise the
powers given TO it and perform the duties
required of it by the law of the land:
would take the correct practice to he
this, that the State court should ap-
prove o. the bond and allow the removal
of the causc. Any other practice would
degenerate into farce. and hazard the
rights aud interests Of the citizen in the
hands of the unscrnpulous and reckless,
without any adequate remedy.
Ii the party applying for the transfer
OF the cause il entitled 10 IL under tho
law. the State court will be bound 70 give
it to him. II the state court decides err
roneously. the evidence may be preserve,
by bill OF exceptions aud the party az
grieved may have the question passed
upon by the Supreme Court Of the Stat'
and finally by the Supreme Court of th'
United States. or he may proceed mo
T. eNpediiiously under the seventh section
, OF the act OF 1870. by suing ont Il writ o
: cc,'toyuri from Circuit Court of the Uni
; ted States to the State court. commanlln.
the State court To make return of the rec
ord, 81 and may cniorc,
said writ according to law. II the ap
plicant l. entitled ~ the removal ant
makes the proper application, any subs"
quent proceedings by the state coum
would he co,~i0 H0il .ipHlcc.
Ample power is given to the Fedora
court IN this net to protect the lcga
rights of all who are entitled 10 call TO,
its assistance. Aud that too without de
laying and endangcrng the rights Of lit
igants whose suits are properly cogui
Fable in the State court.
Even II we adm that the Fedora
court should not, under section five d
the late act, remand Il cause for mere ''ir
Irregularities" or "deiects in the name
of removal" 1t does not follow that thi
..irrcgular" and defective" practice i
the correct practice.
II petitions and bonds for the remola
OF causes are filed in term time in thi
court, the court will insist upon ascrI
tanning that the applicants are "cnttle,
to the removal" before it ceases 10 cXcr
: else jurisdiction. If the petition and bout
are filed in vacation and II copy OF the rec
ord filed in the Federal Court, it would
upon motion, ii fully satisfied that tn
party filing the petition was not "cnti
tied to the removal" order the case 1
he placed upon the docket and procec
to trial therein rs in other causes. For
:. IL was n suit in which the applicant wa
not ..'entitlcd to a removal" OF the caust
then the act Of 1873 would have no appl
cation TO the CASE, and the jurisdiction {
e.cause, under The law of the land. woul
have remained all the while in this cour
', The second point OF inquiry is this
= is this suit, as 1t now stands, "a contrO
4 vcrsy between citizens OF dlitrcl
States 2" is it cognzablc in the circu
: court Of thd United states.
e As we have already stated, the plainli
! sued 5. Stats Taylor and Edwin Par
8" son. Trustees, &c, Jointly, on II Joint COZ
h tract.
= IL appears that the plaintiff is citizc
- of the State OF New York. that the d
Il PENDANT Taylor is Il citizen of the State
:. Missouri, and that the defendant Parsol
# is citizen Of the State OF New \ ork-tl
d plaintiff and Parsons being citizens of Il
!