St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-04-04
FOR SPEED|ER JUSTICE.
CONGRESSMAN Wilson Makes an Able
Argument in the House
UPON ALIEN CORPORATIONS.
Cases Against Outside Corporations to
Be Tried I'm the State Where
the Action Began.

bills now before congress is one limit
ing the Jurisdiction of the circuit courts
of the general government and trans
ferring much of this business to the dis
trict courts of the different states.
When the bill came up for discussion in
the committee of the whole few days
since Congressman Wilson, of this state,
introduced the following important
amendment to the bill:
Provided, That no corporation shall
In any suit OF action to which it may be
party be held to be citizen of any
state other than that in which such suit
or action is brought because it was Gre
ated by or organized under the laws of
such other state; nor shall any corpora
ton be authorized to bring a suit or ac-
ton in any court of the United States,
OF to remove any suit or action from any
state court into any court of the United
States, because it was created by or Or
ganiZed under the laws of any state
other than that in which such suit or
action is brought. And in such cases
the circuit and district courts of the
United States shall not have jurisdic-
ton other than such as they would have
il such corporation had been organized
by or under the laws of the state in
which such suit may be brought.
In the discussion which fOll0wde
Judge Wilson held his own against such
veteran statesmen as Weaver, of Iowa;
Buckalew, of Pennsylvania: Rogers, of
Arkansas, and others, and his amend
ment was in the main adopted. He said:
MIR. chairman, if lawyers of this
house have given attention to this
amendment they must see that it cuts
up, root and branch, the theory that
corporation aggregate shall be held, for
the purposes of jurisdiction, citizen of
the state creating it. This is very i'm
portant question. Under the statutes
now in force and the decisions of the SUI
preme court of the United States, cor
poratlons created by the laws of any
state other than that in which suit is
brought are allowed, in their discretion,
to sue in the federal courts, or to remove
suits against them from the state courts
into the federal courts when the amount
involved is over 81, 600 and the adverse
party is citizen of the state in which
suit is brought. InaSmuch as the pow
ers of the general government are only
those that are granted, the cases in
which the federal courts can properly
entertain jurisdiction can only be such
as fall under some enumerated class.
The question which first arises is, there
fore, one of Interpretation, or cOnStruc-
ton, of that clause of the constitution
which provides that the judicial power
of the federal government shall extend
to controversies between citizens of
different states" for 1t is under that
clause that corporations claim the right,
as such, to litigate in the federal courts.
Every member of the legal profession
knows that of late it is assumed for the
purpose of jurisdiction that corporation
is citizen of the state by virtue of
whose laws it exists; and that suit be-
tween such a corporation and citizen
OF any other state is assumed to be
suit between citizens of different states.
This position is manifestly untenable.
Carried to its logical consequences, it is
alarming. If we admit that cOrpO-
ration aggregate is a citizen OF the state
of its creation, within the purview of
section 2, Article ILL, of the constitu-
ton, it is impossible to resist the con-
clusion that under sectiOn2, Article w.,
which declares that 'the citizens of
each state shall be entitled to all the
privileges and immunitieS of citizens of
the several states" the term ''citizen"
should have an equally comprehensive
ration aggregate is citizen entitled to
all the rights and immunities of citizens
of the several states is farther than any
court has gone, or than any intelligent
lawyer would assert there is any war
rant in the constitution for going.
For about half century after the
adoption of the constitution it was uni
fOrmly held that a corporation, as such,
had no right to sue in or to remove suit
into federal court. At that time it
was considered almost treason to diSre-
gard or evade the mandates of the con-
stitutiOn; but the influence of wealth
and corporate power soon began to be
felt, and the tendency of courts always
being to absorb questionable juriSdic-
ton, by divided court, in case in
which this question did not necessarily
arise, this new doctrine was approved,
and, not without protest at first, that
decision has since been followed. This
is an illustration of the tendency of
courts, ON any excuse or preteXt, to eX-
pand their jurisdiction, and of the
never-ceaSing, ever-increaSing influence
of corporations and concentrated capt.
tai; and, may add, OF the tendency OF
late towards unwarranted and uncOn-
stitutiOnal Capitalization.
But that congress has right to regu-
late and limit this jurisdiction is not
open to doubt, even If it were admitted
that corporation aggregate is within
the purview of the constitution citizen.
The constitution does not confer juriS-
diction on the federal courts in every
case between citizens of different states.
1t merely declares the limit of the posi-
BILE jurisdiction i'll such cases. The
question is, therefore, we having the
power, what is our duty in the premises?
Shall we take any, or limit this illegiti-
mate exercise of Jurisdiction, or tactitly
give cur sanction to it?
1t is provided in the constitutions of
most of the states that every person is
entitled to speedy remedy in the law
for all injuries or wrongs he may suffer.
This should be the birthright of every
American citizen, even in the absence
of any constitutional provision. But
the modern doctrine of the federal
courts takes away this right and deliv
ers the masses of the people bound hand
and foot to the tender mercies of cor
poratiOns and concentrated and organ
lied capital. Every lawyer of extensive
practice has frequently seen this.
Let me illustrate: A has insured his
property in foreign corporation, and
the property being destroyed by fire the
insurance company refuses payment.
The assured is compelled at great ex-
pense to bring suit in the federal court.
Ordinarily the expense of such litiga-
ton at such distance from his home is
a great burden and hardship-in some
cases nearly denial of justice. But
this is only the beginning of his calam-
ity. An appeal may be taken by the in
c,,rapaa commonly IF 6QoiCinn lie a6-
verse to it, to the supreme court of the
United States. This delays the final de-
cision about four years longer. Unless
the assured is wealthy, if he relies, as is
ordinarily the case, ON the amount re-
covered from the insurance company to
replace his buildings or his stock, the
delay is simply ruin. He is therefore
compelled to accept ruch terms of COM
promise as the corporation sees fit to
offer.
| might instance, too, the case of life