CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



143 



" So in a late case in 9th Otto, of Hartell vs. 

 Tighlman. That was merely a case arising 

 upon a common-law contract between the 

 patentee and a third party. It was claimed 

 that, because the patent had issued under the 

 patent laws of the United States, therefore the 

 Federal court had jurisdiction to try the mat- 

 ter of contract between the parties, which in 

 no manner involved the validity of the patent. 

 Strange to say, a very respectable and large 

 minority of the Supreme Court delivered a 

 minority opinion in that case, holding that the 

 United States Circuit Court should take juris- 

 diction over the case simply because the patent 

 originally emanated from the Government. 



" Now, it may be said that there is no neces- 

 sity for the amendment of the gentleman from 

 Texas [Mr. Cnlberson], in view of these deci- 

 sions of the Supreme Court. The answer to 

 that is this: the nisi judge upon the bench, 

 after all, is human. As such be loves power, 

 and he loves that dignity which as he thinks 

 adheres to enlarged jurisdiction ; and where 

 that jurisdiction, under a proper interpretation, 

 is wanting, he too often secures it by the liber- 

 ality of construction. 



" It may be said that the injured party has 

 the right of appeal. He has not this right in 

 some cases, on account of the amount involved, 

 but, even if he had, Mr. Speaker, the moneyless, 

 timid litigant ought not to be driven to the 

 necessity of incurring the extraordinary and 

 ruinous expense and delay of prosecuting his 

 case to the Supreme Court of the land. It 

 would amount practically to a denial of justice. 

 This Congress, as the law-making power of the 

 land, should send out its law with its own in- 

 terpretation, with its just limitation and cure 

 incorporated in the act itself, so that it may 

 be a shield of protection to the citizen instead 

 of a mere instrument for oppressing, and a 

 snare for despoiling, harassing, and annoying 

 him. 



"The bill and amendment under considera- 

 tion hits the blot, and I trust we have the wis- 

 dom and courage to enact it into a law. 



" The only criticism to which, in my humble 

 opinion, the amendment of the gentleman from 

 Texas is justly subject, is, that it does not go 

 far enough in its safeguards. It provides that 

 the defendant may have the right of removal 

 by simply stating in his application and making 

 affidavit to the fact that his cause of action 

 arises under the Constitution or law of the 

 United States, and in whole or part involves 

 its proper construction. Now, suppose, as the. 

 history of litigation under the act of 1875 

 shows has frequently been the case, and as 

 will be the case in the future, the applicant 

 falsely makes this statement for the purpose of 

 obtaining delay and getting his cause trans- 

 ferred to the Federal court. The remedy 

 should go one step further and provide that if, 

 upon the trial of the cause in the court to which 

 it is removed, it should be disclosed that in 

 truth the defense or the right of recovery does 



not in fact depend upon the proper construc- 

 tion of the Constitution or law of the United 

 States, the United States Circuit Court should 

 eo instanti discontinue the trial of the cause 

 and remand it to the State court, at the cost, 

 of course, of the party who has improperly had 

 it transferred. 



"The gentleman in charge of the bill has 

 already explained fully the changes which its 

 adoption will make in the law. I shall, there- 

 fore, not go into a detailed comment on the 

 provisions of the bill, but direct my remarks to 

 the evils of the present law the encroachments 

 of the United /States courts upon the judiciary 

 of the States. 



"There are but few questions of more im- 

 portance than the one we now have under con- 

 sideration. It pertains to a speedy and impar- 

 tial trial by a judicial tribunal near parties 

 concerned. It involves the respective rights 

 and poAvers of the General Government and of 

 the States, and hence the dearest interests of 

 the citizen. 



" From the organization of our Government 

 it hns been thought that two dangers threat- 

 ened it. They might appropriately be com- 

 pared to the centrifugal and centripetal forces 

 in philosophy. One was the tendency of the 

 States to separate and set up for themselves or 

 form new alliances ; the other, the tendency 

 on the part of the General Government to 

 usurp or absorb the authority of the States, 

 thereby virtually obliterating their lines and 

 converting the government from one of limited 

 to one of unlimited powers. Scylla on the one 

 hand and Charybdis on the other never gave 

 more just cause of alarm to the mariner than 

 these have given the sages and patriots who 

 founded and maintained our institutions. But 

 one of these dangers is past. The question 

 of dissolving the Union of the States has been 

 submitted to that tribunal from the decisions 

 of which no appeal can be taken to the arbit- 

 rament of war; but has the other peril that 

 of the destruction of our form of government 

 by consolidation ceased to exist? Unfortu- 

 nately, it has not. No million of men have 

 marched forth to impede its progress and crush 

 it. ' No braying horn and screaming fife ' 

 have given notice that the march of the Fed- 

 eral Government against the reserved rights of 

 the States was to be stopped ; and no booming 

 salute has announced to us that it is ended. 

 On the contrary, the Government of the Uni- 

 ted States has gradually assumed authority 

 which of right belongs to the States, until they 

 are left the mere skeletons of what they were 

 under the Constitution, and of what it was in- 

 tended by those who framed that instrument 

 they should be. 



" Of all the means employed by those who 

 have either designedly or inadvertently par- 

 ticipated in this attempted and partially suc- 

 cessful wreck of the States and of their re- 

 served rights, the most efficient have been the 

 Federal judiciary and Congressional legislation 



