Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-03-28

would, in the event of the passage of this
! bill, be at the mercy of local courts and
/ juries. Quite a large number OF persons
were present, and General Humes introduced
| resolutions cOndemning the bill. In present
! ing the resolutions he said;
GENERAL HUMEs's IDEAS.
! In support of the resolutions just read in
| your hearing, have only 10 appeal to the
| experience and observation of every mer-
chant and business man in the reach of my
voice. You know that if any merchant had
debt to collect from a resident OF any of
| the surrounding States of Tennessee, Missis-
sippi, Alabama, Kentucky or Arkansas, he
would feel his claim seriously imperiled if
compelled to resort to the courts OF the State
where the debtor resides, where the neigh bors
of the debtor are chosen as the Jurors and
where the judge is elected by the votes
of the debtor and his friends, and de-
pendent on their continued favor for his re-
election in future. On the other hand, the
creditor, a non resident, unknown to the
jurors and Judge, and wholly without inhu-
ence over them. All that is known of him
is that he Is nonresident stranger seeking
| to force money from their friend and fellow
citizen. Add to this the fact that the Gaze of
this debtor is not isolated, but belongs to
strong and numerous class bound together
by the ties OF a similar condition and COM
mon purpose, and you have the eminent
hazard of nonresident creditors asking relief
of local courts and juries. In the Federal
Judges you have men who know neither the
creditor nor the debtor; who, being officers
of the government of the United States,
holding their offices during good behavior,
are wholly independent OF any local or per-
sonal influence. The jurors are selected not
from the vicinage of the debtor or creditor,
but from the district at large, unacquainted
with and uninfuenced by both. Thus it is
manifest that in the construction and organ
ization of the State courts for the trial of
controversies between citizens of the diff
ferent States, every element exists cal
culated to imperil impartial justice
to the nonresident creditor, while in
the construction and organic alton of the
Federal courts every element exists condu-
Give to a fair and impartial administration
of justice between the litigants, resident and
non resident. 1t may be esteemed the basis
OF the Union, that the citizens of each State
should be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of the several States. And if it
be just principle that every government
ought 10 possess the means OF executing its
provisions by its own authority, ii will follow
that in order to maintain inviolable that
equality of privileges and immunities, to
which the citizens of the Union are entitled,
the national judiciary ought to preside in all
cases in which the citizens of one State are
opposed TO those of another. For these rea-
sons the fathers of the republic, in the con-
siitution of the United States, provided, in
the third article, second section, "that the
judicial authority OF the United States gov
eminent should extend to controversies be-
tween citizens of different States" Congress
is violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the
constitution when, under pretext OF creating
inferior courts and regulating their jurisdic-
ton, they annul SO important provision OF
the constitution by fixing the minimum
limit of the jurisdiction SO high practi
cally to exclude the larger number OF
real controversies that would arise be-
tween citizens of different States. Nor
can any valid reason be given why
the assignee, If nonresident, should be ex-
cluded from the Federal courts any more
than if he were the original payee or obligee
in the instrument. And what good or intel
ligible reason can be given why a plaintiff,
If he has begun in the State court, should
not, on finding his case endangered by local
prejudice or influence, remove his case to a
tribunal free from such objections? Proper
reasons may often exist why it will be more
beneficial and less expensive both to the |
creditor and debtor TO bring the suit in the |
State court. Are nonresident plaintiffs to |
be wholly excluded from this benefit by a |
standing prohibition in the law, and thus |
driven in every case to resort, in the first |
place, to the Federal courts? 3d. too, in the |
case of foreign corporations; it is only an
effort to exclude on-residents, trading in the |
States, under the form of body polite, from
the Federal courts. 1t is all narrow, ex-
elusive and in violation of the constitution |
of the Union, and belongs to the buried ira
ditions of strict constructionists.
THE OTHER SIDE.
Messrs Clapp and C. w. Heiskell opposed |
the resolutions and favored the bill. Mr. |
Clapp said that the carrying of these cases |
into the Federal court would work disas- |
trously to the debtor, and would put him to |
the additional expense of carrying on a suit |
away from home; and, furthermore, influence |
could be brought to bear ON the courts against |
the debtor. Judge Heiskell was in harmony |
with the sentiments of Mr.. Clapp.
The following are General Humes resolu- |
tions, which were adopted:
THE RESOLUTIONS.
WHEREAS, There is now pending in the |
Congress of the United States bill limiting |
the jurisdictions of the Federal courts TO |
causes in which the amount IN controversy |
exceeds $4,000; also to prevent assignees of |
claims suing in such courts where assignors |
could not; to deprive plaintiffs from taking
to Federal courts where suit has |
been brought in the State court, and to pre-
vent corporations from suing in the Federal
courts of any State In which they do bust
law all those who have most interest in
relief through the courts of the !
United States will be unnecessarily and
wrongfully shut out from these courts,
and driven to seek their remedies and to en-
orce their Just claims against debtors resi-
lent in the localities where the local courts
are created, their juries chosen and judges
elected; and whereas, such a measure would
greatly ipjure both the planting and mercan-
lie interests of adjoining States by curtail-
ing necessary and proper advances OF sup
plies and money by the merchants to the
planters to enable the latter to produce their
crops; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the representative in Con-
yress of this district, and the Hon. Isham G. |
Harris: and the Hon. Howell L. Jackson, the
United States senators from the State of Ten
,essee, be instructed to oppose by all proper
means the passage of said bill, as fraught
With evil and evil only to the mercantile in
erests of Memphis and to the planting and
interests of the adjoining States.
THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
When this matter was settled, Mr.. J. NJ. |
Nash was invited to present his library prop
,sition, asking for subscriptions for build
ng. He addressed the meeting for fifteen
and expressed much concern for the
Welfare of Memphis. He had sold goods to
Memphis merchants years ago; he had formed |
L
zee a library building that would reflect
redit upon the present generation, and serve
o educate the one to come. He wanted to
zee monuments erected to prominent men Of
he State-Andrew jackson, John Overton,
md others. He alluded to the bene6cence
# George Peabody.
THE SUBSCRIPTIONS.
The address of Mr.. Nash was received
With applause. The following gentlemen
rave subscribed $1,000 each toward the estab-
of the library: Job NJ. Nash, J. t.
Eargason, J. C. Nicely, S. II. Brooks. NJ. L.
deacham, A. Vaccaro, r. B. Snowden, \.
Eontaine, L. Hanauer, B. Lowenstein, d. I. |
Porter and f. NJ. Apperson, making 81, 600.
several other gentlemen have subscribed
mailer amounts, making $4,000 already
ecured. The trustees expect to make a
our OF the city and solicit subscriptions.
The money ought to be raised by the end Of
his week. The APPEAL suggests that some
Gentleman might do very proper thing by
donating the ground for the building.