The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1891-04-29
THE C00SAW MATTER.
BREWING BETWEEN THEW
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.

FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.
Judge Simonton decides that the United
States Court Has Jurisdiction In the
Case--the Questions Presented and the
Principles Involved.
CHARLESTON, s. C., April 2l.-Judge-
Simonton rendered a decision to-day af-
irming Federal jurisdiction in the Coo
saw case. Following is a synopsis of
the decision:
At the threshold of this case plain
tiffs submit two questions to the court:
First, Has it jurisdiction in this case?
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 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 l 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 exec eds, exclusive Of lnteres
and costs, the sum or value Of $1,000
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-
ton because of the character of the
parties.
The sole question, therefore, is: Does
this arise under the constitution of the
United States?
The petition for rem oval states that
the reIators are acting under and by
the authority of an act of the assembly
OF this State, approved December, 1880:
That the grant which they have, and
which they charge is contract between
them and the said State, is impaired by
said act of 1890. That the said act is "a
violation of the Constitution of the
United States in sundry particulars es-
pecially in that it impairs the obliga-
tion Of contract.
There can be no doubt that if the
question whether the act of 1890 i'm
paired the obligation OF a 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
| ings, the case is removable. 1t is
Federal question, arising under the
Constitution Of the United States.
Thus 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
impairing these contract rights of de-
PENDANTS, and by its general repeating
clause seeks to destroy them altogether.
Thus there is made in this way, going
no further than the complaint-and the
acts which ir contempt plation 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
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 record is filed in this court. Inc
case will be remandsd to the State
court if it shall appear to the satisfac-
ton 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 a
part of the record, and is examined by
!; the court, and under the act OF 1873 it
was an essential part of the record, and
was always examined in determining
the removability of suit. Authori-
ties are cited in each instance for these
positions.l But the removal act re-
0uires the court to examine into the dis
Dute or controversy. and to determine IT
that is within it's 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 CaroIna
has not passed an act lmpalrlng an oo-
legation of a contract alleged to have
been made between said State and the
defendant, the cause presents ques--
ton within the original jurisdiction OF
this court, and isremoyable.
The next question u.s., Has the cause
been removed :! This; being a remova-
bic case, a, soon as the petition and
bond were filed in theaState court It's
jurisdiction absolutely closed and that
OF this court Immediately attached.
The last question which we are asked
to examine is: Are therenot consldera-
tions of comfy or courtesy which
would induce this court to withhold It's
action? With regard to considerations
of comfy, they have no place mere.
The question is one as to the right OF
. the citizen, not as to the conduct OF the
. court. In entertaining the petition Tor
removal this court cannot mean any re-
ilectloa upon the State court. 1t SIM
: DIV considers whether the petitioners
have the right to the removal. IT they.
have, refusing it would be a derial OF
right. CHARLES II. SIIONTON,
April 2l, 1891. y. ). uoge,
Miss Hollands Grit.
MURPHY, \. c., April 22.-AbouS a
, year ago II. w. eagle spoke s!anderous
, words of Miss Sallie Holland, a young
lady living near RobbinsVille, in Ora
! nam County. 4 warrant was sworn
out for his arrest, but be gave bond
and lied across the line to Tennessee. a