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

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 "that as tbesuit really
and substantially involves dispute or
controversy whether the State of South
Carolina has not passed an 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, and the ma
ture Of the rights granted by the State
to the company.
POINTS OF THE DECISION.
Especial to Register.
CHARLESTON, April 2l.-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 to 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-
diction 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. accompanies
the person into court, throwing light
upon, explaining, sustaining the record;
is in effect part of the record. So, in
this case, when 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 10 aid
them in their control or collection 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 !passed an Act impairing an
obligation OF contract, 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 coulC
properly consider whether it ought moi
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
Election upon the State Court. 1t simp
ly consider whether the petitioner:
have the right to the removal. If they
have, refusing it would be a denial o
rights.
COOSAW APPEALS FROM THE DECISION
OF JUDGE ALDRICH.
Especial to News and Courier.]
COLUMBIA, April 2222,-The genera
and special pleadings in the CoosaV
case will soon constitute a very respect
ably sized volume. Yesterday the at
torneys of the Coosaw Company wer'
served in Charleston with L notice t
the effect that the State would move
before Judge Norton to dismiss the de
murer (Which has been published OF
the ground that its allegations are friv
olous, and also giving notice that the
State would require the defendants t.
file their answer