The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1891-04-30
THE C00SAW MATTER.
TROUBLE BREWING BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.

States Court Has jurisdiction In tho
Case--the Questions Presented and tho
Principles Involyed.I
CHARLESTON, 5. c., April 2l.-Judpc
cllhohCon rendered decision to day al
llrmlng Federal jurisdiction in the Coo
saw case. Following is Il SYNOPSIS of
the decision:
AZ the threshold Of this case plain.
I Iiils submit two questions to the court:
lrSt, las it jurisdiction in this case?
second, II it has Jurisdiction, are there
not considerations of courtesy and
comfy towards the State Court which
VIII induce it to withhold action?
LAS this court jurisdiction Of this
case Will depend upon two questions:
Is case removable from the State
Court to this court? Has it been re-
moved: The case cannot be removed
unless 1T comes within the class of cases
arising under the Constitution of tina
United States, of which circuit courts
or the united States are given juris-
dlctlon by the first section OF the act of
congress OF 1888. Section | of that act
gives 10 the Circuit Court of the Uni
ted States original cognizance, concur
rent with the courts of the several
States, OF all suits Of Il civil nature at
common law or in equity where the
lllaCler exceeds, exclusive Of interest
and costs, the sum or value Of $1,000,
ana arising under the constitution Of
Che United States. The value Of the
matter In dispute here is bcyond the
sum stated. The acts makes no eycrD
ton because of the character of the
parties
Inc sole question, therefore, is: Does
CnlS arise under the constitution of the
United States?
The petition for rem oval states that
the REALTORS are acting under and by
the authority Of an act Of the assembly
OF this State, approved December, 1890.
mat the grant which they have, and
Whlch they charge is contract between
them and the said State, is impaired by
SAID act Of 1880. That the said act is Il
Violation OF the Constitution of the
United States in sundry particulars es-
pecially in that it impairs the obliga-
ton Of a contract.
There can be no doubt that if the
question whether the act of 1890 i'm
pared the obligation of Il contract can
De made to appear on that part Of their
record, which this court is at liberty to
examine at this stage Of the proceed
lngs, the case is removable. 1t is IA
LedeIal question, arising under the
| CONSTITUTION Of the United States.
| mus there are present before the
| Court with this complaint two acts of
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 proyis-
ions seeks to clothe them with power
lmpairing these contract rights of de-
PENDANTS, and by its general repeating
clause seeks to destroy them altog ether.
mus there is made in this way, going
no further than the complaint-andt the
| acts which III contemplation of law ac-
company and illustrate it--an issue
which raised a Federal question and
would be proper for the jurisdiction of
the court.
But is the court, in seeking to asccr-
tain whether cause IS removable, con-
lined to the allegations of tho COM
plant? Is it precluded from examin-
| ing the petition for removal? When a
petition for removal and bond are fled
IN the court, the cause is removed when
the recol d is filed in this court. The
case viii be remanded TO the State
court II 1T Shall appear to the SatiSlac-
tlon of the Circuit Court of the United
States that such suit does not really
and substantially involve in dispute or
controversy property within the iuris-
diction of the said Circuit Court"
Under the act Of 1909, In all cases Of
removal the petition for removal is a
part OF the record, and is examined bv
the court, and under the act Of 1915 il
was an essential part of the record. and
was always examined In determining
the remOvability of a suit. Authori-
ties are cited in each instance for these
positions. But the removal act re-
qulreS the court to examine into the dis
pute or controversy, and to determine if
that IS within its jurisdiction. 1t ap-
pearlng from the record in this case
that the suit really and substantially
involves Il dispute or controversy
whether the State Of South Carolina
mas not passed an act impairing an OBJ
legation of 4 contract alleged to have
been made between said State and the
defendant, the cause presents QueS-
tion within the original jurisdiction Of
| tnlS court, and is removable
The next question is, Has the cause
| been removed? This being rcmova-
PIE case, a, soon as the petition and
| pond were filed in the State court its
jurisdiction absolutely closed and that
ol this court Immediately attached.
Inc last question which we are asked
TO examine is: Are there not considcra-
lions or comfy Or courtesy which
would induce this court to withhold its
acIlon? With regard to considerations
0d td comfy, they have no place here.
me me qaeStlon is one as to the right Of
Che cltlZen, not as TO the conduct of the
court. In entertaining the petition for
dcllioVal this court cannot mean any re-
llectlon upon the State court. 1t sim
ply considers whether the petitioners
have the right to the remoyai. If thcv
nave, refusing it would be drLiaI OF
right. CHARLES III. SIAIONTov
April 81, 1891. l.. :. JUDGE
Miss Hollands Grit
MURPHY, y. c., April 22.-Abous a
year ago il. w. eagle spolI. slanderous
words of Miss Sallie Holland, q young
lady living near Robbinsville, in Gra.
ham County. a warrant was sworn
out for his arrest, but he gave bond
| and fled across the line to Tennessee. A