The representative., 1893-10-04
$1.OO IYEAAn} IN ADVANCE.

the measure and limit of the possible
Jurisdiction of the federal courts.
This section was inserted and adopt
ed as part of the constitution be-
cause it was supposed "that the
judiciary authority of the Union
ought to extend to these several de-
scriptions or classes of cases, viz: Q)
To all those arising out of the laws
of the United States; (2) to all those
which concern the execution of the
provisions expressly contained in the
articles of union: (3) to all those in
which the United States are party;
(4) to all those which involve the
peace of the confederacy, where they
relate to the intercourse between the
United States and foreign nations,
and to that between the states them
selves; (5 to all those which originate
on the high seas, and are of admir-
atty and maritime jurisdiction; and,
lastly, to all those IN achich the state tri-
b,tnals cannot be supposed to be impartial
and unbiased" See No. 80 of the
Federalist, by Hamilton. 1t will be
observed that there is no provision
here authorizing the court to set
aside, nullify, alter or amend an act
of congress, and thus make itself the
the ultimate and absolute power in
the nation.-I. D.
Only to the last class do l propose
to particularly refer. The object and
purpose of those clauses of the con-
stitution which extend jurisdiction
to that class of cases would seem, at
first sight, to be free from doubt,
viz, Ito have a tribunal in each
state presumed to be free from local
influence, to which nOn-residents or
aliens sued by citizens of the state
may resort for legal redress Gorden
v. Longest, Is Pet. lO4. Within the
purview of these clauses of the con-
stitution it would seem proper that a
citizen of one state proceeded against
by citizen of another state, in the
tribunals of the latter, or an alien
proceeded against by citizen of the
state in which the suit is brought,
should be entitled, at his option,
to remove the case from the local
tribunal in which he is impleaded in
to the federal courts. AS the evil
anticipated was that if an alien we're
obliged to enforce or defend claim
against a citizen of another state in
the courts of the latter state, it
might be that local prejudice, pas
sion, or rivalry would prevent justice
being done, and that citizen of the
state in which the suit was brought
might have an undue advantage over
his nonresident or alien adversary,
the remedy proposed was that in
such case the party against whom
implied or possible bias might exist
should have the right to bring his
suit in, or to remove it to-, tribunal
presumed to be impartial. The
remedy is in the nature of a change
of venue on account of actual, prob
able, or implied bias. The sole rea-
son for this constitutional provision
being the possible or probable advan-
tage the citizen might have in con-
trOversy in the courts of his own
state with a nonresident or alien,
manifestly the only relief intended
or required is to the person who
might otherwise be compelled to liti-
gate at disadvantage. The other
party needs no relief. It would be
no less unreasonable or outside of
the spirit or purview of the constitu-
tiOn to permit, in such case, the citi-
zen of the state in which the suit is
brought to bring the suit in, or re-
move it to, the federal courts, than
it would be to permit a person to re-
move suit from any court or coun-
ty because of the prejudice of the
judge of said court or the people of
such county against has adversary. The
statement of such position is a suf-
ficient illustration of it's absurdity.
may safely assert that neither rea-
son nor any clause of the constitu-
tion countenances the removal of a
case of this class into the federal
courts on the petition of party,
where no prejudice, actual or i'm
piled, exists against the petitioner,
or in favor of his adversary.
Continued nert aUeek.
The Law Affirmed.