The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1886-05-01
ANOTHER SOUND JUDGMENT.
[PicayuneI


Again we have occasion to ob-
serve the remarkable contrast be-
tween the judgments which are
issuing from the Supreme Court
of the United States now and
those of the period Of reconstrue-
tion. An opinion vas rendered
by Chief Justice Waite on April
5. in the case of William Stone,
plaintiff in error, VS.. the the State
of South Carolina, in error to the
Supreme Court of the State of
South Carolina, which was not
thought worthy of being tele-
graphed even in brief, but which
proves abundantly superior to the
judgments of that day which were
sent over the wires. We are in
debted for the text of the decision
to the Charleston News and Cou-
rier, which says: "There is a diff.
ference in more ways than one be-
tween 1876 and 1856. The whiri.
gig of time brings about its re.
venges." The State of South Car.
olina in 1877 sued Corbin & Stone,
attorneys at law, for moneys col.
lected by the firm for the State
and not paid over. April 27, 1877,
Stone, as a citizen of the State of
New York and resident therein,
petitioned for the removal Of the
suit to the Unitod States Circuit
Court. The Supreme Court of the
United States now says that a
State court is not bound to surren.
der jurisdiction on a petition for
removal until o case has been
made which on its face shows that
the petitioner has a right to trans.
fer. The mere fling of petition
does not work a transfer. The
suit must be one that may be re-.
moyed and the petition must show
q right in the petitioner to demand
the removal. The State court is
at liberty to decide for itself
whether on the face of the record
the removal has been effected.
The State court proceeds at risk
of having its final judgment re
versed il the record on its tace
shows that when the petition was
filed that court ought to have Civ.
en- up its jurisdiction.
If this we're all the judgment
would be noteworthy. But what
follows we are but summarizing
lis weightier yet. The court says
that In Ames vs.. Kansas, Ill U.
S., 449 in which case the removal
of a suit arising under the Consti.
tuition and laws of the United
States brought by a State against
q corporation amenable to its own
process was sustained, this was
because of the subject matter Of
the action, and not because of the
citizenship of the parties. There
is no statute which authorizes the
removal of o suit between a State
and citizens on the ground of cit
izenship, for o State cannot, in the
nature Of the case, be a citizen o
any State. Other ground for sus
tanning the State Supreme Cour
is stated by the Chief Justice, bu
we have given the most importan
points, enough to show the ten
dency of the decision. This sam'
man Stone was imprisoned by thu
Supreme Court of South Car0lin'
ten years ago for contempt, an,
was released by the United State
Circuit Court. Those were day
when institutions had fallen int
disgrace. The change is healthfu
from them to the present time
There can be no such thing as th
decay of constitutions or the los
of freedom so long as the funda
mental laws are interpreted witt
the virility which is characterizinI
judicial utterances of the Suprem
Court. Waite, Gray, Blatchfor'
Harland and Woods, all new bloo
transfused into the court within
dozen years, are making their teri
an epoch In constitutional inter
| ..4.t,o.,