El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1915-05-20

New Mexico. and the defendants "citi-
zens" Of other states, that this is
controversy between citizens Of diff
ferent states.
Defendantz' Contention.
1T is insisted by the defendants that
this action is in effect a cause Of ac-
ton against the United States. by rea-
son OF the fact that the defendants
are officers Of the United States claim
ing to act by virtue Of the laws Of the
United States, and that the relief
prayed for would constitute an inter-
ference with the use and possession Of
the property Of the United States. l. e.
the Leasburg canal; and, would in ef-
feet. be compelling the United States
to furnish water, to whose in whose
behalf plaintiffs sue, under certain
contracts.
THE complaint does not question the
validity OF any law OF the United
States or Of any contract previously
made by the plaintiffs with the United
States or its officers; It seeks RELIEF
upon the ground, as alleged in the COM
plant, that the acts Of the defendants
in shutting off the water TO the several
community bitches are acts unauthor-
lied and contrary to law. If such is
the case these acts are not the acts
Of the United States, but of the defend
ants as individuals, and the relief
sought is not a suit against the United
States or a suit to interfere with its
lawful use OF It's properly.
Unlawful Imposition.
1T Is a suit to enjoin officers Of
the United States from unlawfully shut
ting off water and interfering with and
diverting water from the Rio Grande,
which plaintiffs allege they are entitled
to by virtue Of long continued use and
prior appropriation. and preventing the
defendants from attempting TO unlaW-
fully impose upon the land owners a
san.n not Fnw n = Q
tolls and the taking OF their lands with
out condemnation or due process Of law
for the use Of the reclamation service
and the surrender OF control OF their
individual bitches, terms not author
lied by law or any statute OF the
United States, and the shutting off OF
such water and the failure TO enable
the plaintiffs to receive the same is al
legged to constitute an irreparable in
jury to the persons whom the plaintiffs
represent.
IN determining the question Of
whether this is a suit arising under the
laws of the United States. the court is
limited to the allegations Of the COM
plant: any statements set out in the
petition for removal have no binding
effect upon the court. A case cannot
be removed from a state court to q fed
eral circuit court. as one arising un-
der the constitution or laws OF the
United States, unless plaintiffs state
Of that character (Here the court cites
various authorities).
The L. $. Law.
Section eS Of the judicial code of
the United States shows that
there are three classes of cases re
movable; First, cases arising under
the laws and constitution of the United
States: second, suits of a civil nature
which may be removed by a defendant
or defendants being non residents
and. third. when there is a controversy
between citizens Of different states in
volving suits OF a civil nature arising
under the constitution or laws of the
United States. or treaties made
etc, OF which the district courts
Of the United States are given
original jurisdiction by section
- OF the judicial code. The third
class Of cases are held by the authori-
ties to be cases which in their nature
are separable. that is cases in which
separate judgment could be rendered.
The cause Of action set out in plain
tiffs' complaint is joint
Citizenship and Residence.
"The case at bar not being a suit OF