The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1891-04-28
THE COOSAW MATTER.
TROUBLE BREWING BETWEEN The
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.

TROUBLE BREWING BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.
States Court Has JurIsdIotion In tho
Case--tho Questions Presented and tho
Principles Involved.
CHARLESTON, sc. April 21.-Judge
Simonton rendered decision to day af-
firming Federal jurisdiction in the Coo
saw case. Following is synopsis of
the decision:
at the threshold Of this case plain.
tiffs submit two questions to the court:
First, Has it jurisdiction in this casep
Second, If it has jurisdiction, are there
not considerations Of courtesy and
comfy towards the State Court which
will induce it to withhold action?
Has this court jurisdiction of this
case will depend upon two questions:
Is a case removable from the State
Court to this court? Has it been re-
moved? The case cannot be removed
unless it comes within the class of cases
arising under the Constitution Of the
United States, OF which circuit courts
OF the United States are given juris-
diction by the first section OF the act of
Congress of 1888. Section of that act
gives to the Circuit Court Of the Uni
ted States original cognizance, concur
rent with the courts of the several
States, of all suits Of civil nature at
common law or in equity where the
matter exceeds, exclusive of interest
and costs, tho sum or value Of $4,000.
and arising under the constitution of
the United States. The value of the
matter in dispute here is beyond the,
sum stated. The acts makes no excep-
tion because of the character of the
parties.
The sole question, therefore, is: Does
this arise under the constitution of the
United States?
Inc petition for rem oval sta teS that
the relators are acting under and by
the authority of an act of the assembly
OF this State, approved December, 1890.
That the grant which they have, and
which they charge is a contract between
them and the said State, is impaired by
said act of 1890. That the said act is
violation Of the Constitution of the
United States in sundry particulars es-
pecially in that it impairs the obliga-
tion Of a contract.
There can be- no doubt that if the
question whether the act of 1890 i'm.
paired the obligation Of contract can
be made to appear on that part Of their
record, which this court is at liberty to
examine at this stage of the proceed
1ngs, the case is removable. 1t is a
Federal question, arising under the
Constitution Of the United States.
thus there are present before the
the Legislature of South Carolina.
One Of them, says the defendants, Gre
ates contract between them and the
State, giving them certain exclusive
rights in State territory. The other
creates the board which the REALTORS
claim to be, and by its several provis-
ions seeks to clothe them with power
impairing these contract rights of de-
PENDANTS, and by its general repeating
clause seeks to destroy them altog ether.
Thus there is made in this way, going
no further than the complaint-..and the
acts which III contemplation Of law ac-
company and illustrate it-an issue
which raised Federal question and
would be proper for the jurisdiction Of
the court.
But is the court, in seeking to ascer-
tain whether a cause IS removable, con-
fined to the allegations of the COM
plaintp Is 1T precluded from examin-
ing the petition for removal? When a
petition for removal and bond are filed
in the court, the cause is removed when
the record is filed in this court. The
case will be remanded to the State
court if it shall appear to the satisfac-
tion of the Circuit Court of the United
States that such suit does not really
and substantially involve in dispute or
| controversy property within the juris-
diction of the said Circuit Court"
Under the act of 1909, In all cases of
removal the petition for removal is
part OF the record, and is examined by
the court, and under the act Of 1876 it
was an essential part of the record, and
was always examined in determining
the removability of suit. Authori-
positions. But the removal act re-
quires the court to examine into the dis
pute or controversy, and to determine If
that Is within its jurisdiction. 1t ap-
pearing from the record in this case
that the suit really and substantially
involves a dispute or controversy
whether the State Of South Carolina
has not passed an act impairing an OBJ
legation of a contract alleged to have
been made between said State and the
defendant, tho cause presents ques-
this court, and is removable.
The next question is, Has the cause
been removed? This being q remova.
BILE case, 10 soon as the petition and
bond were filed in the State court it's
jurisdiction absolutely closed and that
OF this court Immediately attached.
The last question which>we are asked
to examine is: Are there not considera-
tions of comfy or courtesy which
would induce this court to withhold its
action? With regard to considerations
of comfy, they have no place here.
The question is one as to the right of
the citizen, not as to the conduct of the
court. In entertaining the petition for
removal this court cannot mean any re-
Fiction upon the State court. 1t sim
ply considers whether the petitioners
have the right to the removal. If they
have, refusing it would be denial OF
right. CHARLES Ii. SIMoNToN,
April 21, 1891. u. S. Judge,
Miss Hollands Grit.
MURPHY, N. c., April 22.--AbouS a
year ago III. w. eagle spoke slanderous
words of Miss Sallie Holland, a young
lady living near Robbinsville, in Ora.