St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-05-15
In Railway Company VS.. Keary
same court
Affirmed the Doctrine

Affirmed the Doctrine
thus declared, and held that where a
brakeman in the employ of railroad
company, on train under the control
of conductor having exclusive COM
mand, was injured by the carelessness
of the conductor. the company
was responsible. holding that the
conductor was the representa-
tive of the company upon which
rested the obligation to manage the
| train with skill and care. In its opinion
the court said no service was common
| that did not admit common partlclpa-
ton, and no servants were fellow
servants when one was placed in con-
troll over the other. In Berea Stone Com
pany VS.. Kraft 81 Ohio ST.. 2S7), decided
| in 1887, that court held that master
was liable for an injury to a servant re-
Sulting from the negligence OF a SUI
perior servant. The question is not
whether that is the best law for ONO,
but whether it is the law OF that state.
Attempts at Dictation.
The claim of the majority Of the, court
that the decision Of the courts of. OHIO
in these liability cases are not to be re-
absence of a statute is made ridiculous,
and the statement broadly made that to
disregard the decisions of the state
courts is nothing less than an attempt to
control the state in manner in which the
state is not amenable to federal author
ity-a jurisdiction which federal judges,
it is claimed, never possessed, never
should possess. That doctrine, con-
tinues the dissenting opinion, would
inevitably lead to a subversion OF the
just authority of the state in many
matters of public concern. 1t
would also be in direct conflict
with section 721 of the Revised
Statutes. which declares that "the laws
OF the several states. except where the
constitution, treaties or statutes OF the
United States otherwise require OF pro-
vide, shall be regarded as rules of de-
cision in trials at common law in the
courts of the United States IN cases
where they apply" Continuing, the
opinion states:
The present case presents some SIN
gular facts The verdict and judgment
OF the court below were in conformity
with the law of Ohio, in which state the
cause of action arose and the case was
tried. and this court reVerseS the Judg-
ment because rendered in accordance
with that law, and holds it TO have been
error that it was not rendered according
to some other law than that of Ohio,
which it terms the general law OF the
country. This court thus assumes the
right to disregard what the judicial au-
thorltieS of that state declare to be its
law, and to enforce upon the state
Some Other Conclusion
as law which it has never accepted as
such, but always repudiated, The fire
man, who was so dreadfully injured by
the collision caused by the negligence
of the conductor Of the engine that his
right arm had TO be amputated from the
shoulder, and his right leg was rendered
useless, could obtain some remedy from
the company by the law of Ohio, as
declared by its court, but this
court decides, in effect. that that
law, thus declared, shall not be
treated as its law, and that the
case shall be governed by some other
law which denies all remedy to him.
Had the case remained in the state
court, where the action was commenced,
the plaintiff would have had the benefit
of the law of Ohio. The defendant
asked to have the action removed, and
obtained the removal to a federal court
because it is a corporation of Maryland,
and thereby citizen of that state by a
fiction adopted by this court that MEM
bers of corporation are presumed
to be citizens of the state where
the corporation was created-a presump-
ton, which, in many cases, IS contrary
to the fact, but against which no aver
meDt or evidence is held admissible for
the purpose of defeating the jurisdic-
ton of a federal court. Thus in this
case foreign corporation, not citizen
of the state of Ohio where the cause
of action arose. is considered a
citizen of another state by
fiction, and then, by what the
court terms the general law of the coun-
try, but which the court held III
Wheaton vs. Peters has no existence in
fact. is given an immunity from liabil-
itY in cases not accorded 10 citizen Of
that state under like circumstances.
Many will doubt the wisdom of system
which permits such vast difference i'll
the administration of justice for in
iureS like those in this case, between
the courts of the state and the courts of
the United States.
No General Law.
/ am aware that what has been
termed the general law of the country
which is often little less than what
the Judge advancing the doctrine thinks
at the time should be the general law
on a particular SubJect-haS been often
advanced in judicial opinions of this
court 10 control a conflicting law Of
state. [ admit that learned judges have
fallen into the habit of repeating this
doctrine as convenient mode of brush
ing aside the law of state
in conflict with their views.
And L confess that, moved and
~,f fha
names of those judges. have, myself,
in many instances, unhesitatingly and
confidently, but | think now errone-
ously, repeated the same doctrine. But,
Notwithstanding the great names which
may he cited in favor of the doctrine,
and Notwithstanding the frequency with
which the doctrine has been reiterated,
there stands, as a perpetual protest
against its repetition, the Constitution
of the United States, which recognizes
and preserves the autonomy and
independence of the states indie
pendence in their legislative
and independence in their judicial de-
partments. Supervision over either the
legiS latiye or the judicial action of the
states is in no case permissible except
as to matters by the constitution spe-
cially authorized or delegated to the
Uulted States. Any interference with
either, except as thus permitted, is an
invasion of the authority of the state,
and, to that extent, denial of its i'll
dependence. AS said by this court,
speaking through
HIr. Justice Nelson.
"the general government and the states.
although both exist within the same
territorial limits. are separate and dis
tInct sovereignties, acting separately
and Independently of each other, within
their respective spheres. The former
in its appropriate sphere is supreme;
but the states within the limits of their
powers not granted, or, in the language
of the tenth amendment. reserved are
as independent Of the general govern
ment as that government within its
sphere is Independent of the states"
[The Collector VS.. Day, II Wall. 113. 124. !
TO this autonomy and independence
of the states their legislation must be
as free from coercion as if they were
separated entirely from connection with
the Union. There must also be the like
freedom from coercion or supervision in
the action Of their iudicial authorities