The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-07-02
IN NOTABLE DECISION JUDGE JONES @
 REFUSES TO REMAND COUNTIES SUIT

issue Tn the particular suit. Ine flght or removal Is given to promote justice" in the sense in which that term is used in the laws passed in pursuance of ithc Consultation, which demand. in behalf of the non-residents In all cases, as an in- dispensable element of that justice. that the nonresident shall stand from the beginning to the end of the trial as free from adverse focal influence" as the res- ident plaintiff. and their spirit and pur- pose one. when this equality is found not to exist that the. nonresident defendant shall be deemed to be denied the justice intended by the Constitution. no matter how pure and able the Judge Of the State Court. or now free he himself may be. from the effects of that, local infiu- ence.'' The policy and spirit of the Con stitution and laws. in that event. regard less of the restitude and capacity of the State Judge. compel a removal to the Courts which the Constitution provides among other things for the special pro- tection of non-residents.
 Misunderstood.
 Tn the natural jealousy. which the ex- ercise of this delicate Jurisdiction arouses, and the pardonabIe zeal of counsel who resist such applications, the real prir- ciples upon which the court proceeds in such cases as this, have been misunder- stood and oftentimes, though perhaps nr- intentionally. largely misrepresented. The framers of our Constitution thought. and experience seems to bear them out. that 1t is the better policy in. the mass of liti- gation in which citizens of different States may be engaged. even as to matters in which the State and Federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. to have their controversies tried In the courts which derive their authority and Jurisdiction from the Constitution and laws of the United States. made directly or indirectly by the people of all the States, rather than to compel citizens of other States to litigate their rights in court deriving authority and jurisdiction from the laws of one State only. and in localities where prejudice or local influence might affect fair trial. The policy of these laws is to have both the litigants environed, if pos- sible, by like conditions, alike free from local interest, local prejudice. or local opinion. In cases where diverse citizen ship alone, is the test of the right to re- move. the command of the Constitution and laws Is to treat the mere fact-that a nonresident Is sued in the courts of State by a citizen thereof-as conclus- i've reason for holding that the State court is not the proper forum to try such controversies, if the nonresident make timely and proper objection. The court is shut out from all power to receive evil dence in the particular case, that preju- dice and local influence could not pos sibly affect the right to remove It.. and. therefore, that 1t ought to be remanded.
 It has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that this right of removal in the cases stated, applies as well to tribunals in which the judge alone tries the law and facts as to cases where jurles are constituent part of the court. It is not the judge who is impeached by thiz policy and not neces- sariiy the juries which form a constitu- ent part of the court: but the Constitu- tion deals with a condition of things from which 1t draws its own conclusions and declares that in all such cases it Is not the policy of the Constitution to have the nonresident citizen sued in the courts of A State of which the plaintiff is a citi- zen. If the nonresident objects. It is not for the courts to dispute the wisdom or policy of the Constitution.
 In the Act here in question, the consti- tutionality of which has been frequently sustained, and with the policy of which the courts have nothing to do, Congress has gone step further and provided in certain suits by resident of the State in a State Court against nonresident, VhiSh SAAtt OWile tO d CIIIL6HS of the same State with the nonresident defendants. could not be removed under the ordinary provisions of the law as to suits between citizens of different States there may nevertheless, be removal, if 1t be found, in the manner I have stated that prejudice or local influence, what ever those terms may include, prevents the non-resident from entering the courts of the State in the initial stages of the trial with the same advantages and fa- vorable surroundings as attach to the resident plaintiff in that court Congress thought In cases of this kind, that a Joinder with the nonresident defendant or citizen of the State In which suit was brought by resident plaintiff, might or might not, according to it's peculiar facts. bring into being the same policy which the Constitution and laws of the united States declare, when the suit in the State court Is merely between q resi- dent plaintiff and a nonresident defend ant. Accordingly. Congress mas provided, Where there Is diverse citizenship in the suit in the State Court, when a resident sues a nonresident and a resident of the State is joined as defendant with the nonresident, that the fact of diverse citi- zenship should be considered: and if add ed to this consideration, there is preiu- dice or local influence of which it could oefairly said that it would put the non resident defendant on an uneoual footing and at a disadvantage with with the resident plaintiff, then, the nom resident defendant should not be put to trial under such surroundings in the State Court
 Review of Situation.
 Here. the County. a powerful munich pal subdivision of the State is plaintiff. If this suit be decided against it. it will lcse very large sum of money. which was intended to be devoted to the i'm pavement of roads and the building of orldges-a matter which has long been agitated, and involving in large degree the prosperity and social progress of the people of the County. The contemplated improvements necessarily came to a standstill until the fund intended to be so used could be raised from other sources and that adds to the burden of the tax payers If the County loses this suit a double burden is imposed for these pur- poses. The conduct of a trusted public official. the Treasurer Is necessarily un. der discussion and forms a material is- sue in this case. The culpablity or free dom from blame of the fiscal tribunal Of the County whose duty It was to su- pervise him in the discharge of his office necessarily has been discussed and con sidered in the public mind. That issue may or may not be waged in the case. ac- cording to the defenses which may be set up. as to which the court, in tn absence of n formal interpretation of those defenses, can only conjecture. Uncon- SciOuSlV. there ariSaz in thp mind of