The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1891-04-30
THE COOSAW CASE.
Judge Simonton Renders His Decision.
Ouestsrns of Right, Not of Comfy
and Courtesy.

case, OTueIlnS the removal OF the case
from the State Court and assuming
jurisdiction. There were two questions
submitted by the State, viz: Has the
United States Court jurisdiction of this
case? and, second, if it has Jurisdiction,
are there not considerations Of courtesy
and comfy towards the State Court
which will induce it to withhold
action? As to the first question, Judge
Simonton holds "tnat as thesuit really
and substantially involves a dispute or
controversy whether the State of South
Carolina has not passed all Act that
impaired an obligation Of contract al
legged, which had been made between
said State and the defendant, the cause
presented the question when rightful
jurisdiction of the court is removable" !"
| AS to the question of comfy and cour-
tesy, Judge Simonton holds that such
considerations have no place in his
court. The question is one as to the
right of citizens not as to the conduct
| Of the court.
The question will now come upon
the right of the State to appoint a re-
ceiver for the mining territory claimed
by the Coosaw Company, aid the ma
ture of the rights granted by the State
to the company.
Joints OF THE DECISION.
Especial to Register.
CHARLESTON, April 21.-The follow
ing are the points of Judge Simonton's
decision in the Coosaw case: There
can be no doubt that if the question
whether the Act of 1890 impairs the
obligation of a contract can be made to
appear on that part of the record which
the Court is at liberty 70 examine at
this stage of the proceedings the case is
removable. 1t is Federal question,
arising under the Constitution of the
United States. The public laws of a
State must be known to and be III the
mind Of every Judge exercising juris-
divtioo within that State, not only as
to their existence, but as to their con-
struction when a right, privilege or
duty is given to or imposed upon any
person, natural or artificial, by a pub
lie Act. Such person can pursue such
| right, privilege or duty in the courts,
| and the courts will, without pleading,
! producing or referring to the Act, re-
cognize and enforce it. Itaccompanies
the person iuto court, throwing light
upon, explaining, sustaining the record;
is in effect part of the record. So, in
this case, Wien the five relators, styling
themselves the Board of Phosphate
Commissioners, bring into court the
complaint, or it comes before the court
in any way, using the name of the
State, concerning the use of property of
the State, asserting the right to control
that property, and especially the right
to interfere with the claim of the Coo
saw Mining Company to the property
on which that company set up an ex-
elusive privilege under grant, pray
ing the assistance of the court TO aid
them in their control or colIectio. and
disposition Of the States property, the
courts are bound to take judicial notice
of the Act of 1890, which confers on
them these powers and to take such
notice of its on motion.
happening from the record in this
case that the suit really and substan-
TALLY involves dispute or controversy
whether the State of South Carolina
has not Ipassed an Act impairing an
obligation OF acontract, alleged to have
been made between said State and its
defendant, the cause presents ques-
ton within the original jurisdiction of
this court and is removable.
The next question is has the cause
been removed? This beinga removable
case, as soon as the petition and bond
were tried in the State Court, itsjuris-
diction absolutely ceased and that OF
this Court Immediately attached.
Judge Simonton says with regard to
considerations of comfy: "rhey have
no place here. The question is one as
to the right of the citizen, not as to the
conduct of the Court. Had an action
been brought in this Court after the
Jurisdiction of the State Court had been
engaged over the subject matter in an
other action, then the Court could
properly consider whether it ought not
to leave the parties to the tribunal first
charged with the settlement OF the
State Court removed into this Court. "
In entertaining the petition for re-
moval this Court cannot mean any re-
fiection upon the State Court. 1t slmp'
ly consider whether the petitioners
have the right to the removal. If they
have, refusing it would be denial OF
rights.
coOsAw APPEALS FROM THE DECISION
OF JUDGE ALDRlCH.
Especial to News and Courier
COLUMBIA, April 2,-The general
and special pleadiDgs in the Coosaw
case will soon constitute a very respect
ably sized volume. Yesterday the at
torneys of the Coosaw Company were
served in Charleston with a notice to
the effect that the State would move
before Judge Norton to dismiss the de-