The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1908-03-17
A GREAT SPEECH.
CONTINUED From Page Two.)

which to try his case, whereas the
citizen who sues another citizen of
his own State has no choice but to
sue in the courts OF his own State
These renewals cause greatcomplaint
and dissatisfaction, especially at this
time when foreign corporations are
so numerous, doing business as COM
mon carriers, express, telephone, and
telegraph companies, being incorpor-
ated in one State and doing business
In dozen or more States. 1t works
a hardship, especially upon the cit
izen III moderate circumstances, and
often results in a denial Of justice to
the poor man, the widow, and the or
Phan, who have not the means to
conduct and carry on a lawsuit with
foreign corporation in the United
States circuit courts. It may be
and often is many miles distant from
tho home OF the plaintiff, owing to
the very few courts established in
any one State. It is against the pol
Icy and principles Of our Government
and of all civilized nations to place
the machinery OF the courts Of JUS
t3ce beyond the reach OF the poorest
and humblest citizen who seeks re-
dress for wrong or remedy for an
existing evil. (Applause.)
The act of 1875 fixed the right of
the foreign corporation to remove
the cause when the amount involved
In the suit was $500 or more. This
act was amended in 1887 and the
amount of $4,000 fixed as the limit.
Twenty years have elapsed since this
amendment and it has been
twenty years OF such progress
and prosperity as were never known
or experienced by any nation or gov
ernment in the history of the world.
We have advanced in wealth and
material prosperity by leaps and
bounds unknown to any nation or
of any age Of the worlds history. and
q suit now involving $4,000, con-
sidering the comparative wealth and
prosperity of the country, is no great
er and involves relatively no more
values than suit of $4,000 twenty
years ago. If it iswas a wise leg
isIation in 1887 to raise the value
limit Of removals from $500 to S2,-
600, would it not reflect greater wis
dom and more justice and equity to
raise the limit of removal In this
year A. D. 1908 to the sum or value
of $4,000? In Justice, equity, and
good conscience say that it should
be done at once (Applause.)
For further good and sufncient
reasons why this bill should become
q law / will state what you all know,
what has been shown in the exper-
ience of every practicing lawyer in
this country, that the Federal courts
are held by the people Of the coun-
try in more awe than the State
courts; they are not looked upon
with favor or regarded. with the
same degree Of confidence as State
courts; they are far removed from
the people and frequently are presid-
ed over by judges appointed by the
President from other and distant
States from that in which they pre-
side; they are personally unknown
to the people, and 7 regret to say
that the knowledge or information
the people have gathered concerning
some of these judges is not rassurlng
and not calculated to inspire conf
dence, respect or esteem. (Applause.)
The people value more highly than
any other the right of trial by jury.
That right is often ruthlessly swept
aside by a Federal judge in charging
q jury upon the facts or in instruct
ing q verdict. For these and many
other reasons the people and lit
igants generally throughoutsthe rural
districts are restless and dissatisfied
under the, present judicial system OF
the United States to look upon the
Federal courts, as now establlshed'
as foreign tribunals, whose presiding
officers are not in touch or sympa-
thy with the masses OF the people
and who altogether ignorant or the
character, habits, and customs o. tae
people over whom they WELD ]IA-clai
authority after the manner OF ty-
rant of the sixteenth century; under
this system equity, justice, and mer-
CIV are oftentimes most conspicuous
nv their absence. (ApplauSe on the
Democratic side.)