CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



145 



vised Statutes, section. 639, subsection 1, it is 

 provided that 



" When the suit is against an alien, or is by a citi- 

 zen of the State wherein it is brought, and against a 

 citizen of another State, it may be removed on the pe- 

 tition of such defendant filed in such State court at the 

 time of entering his appearance in such State court. 



" It will be observed that before the cause 

 could be removed under this act the party re- 

 moving must be a defendant, must also be an 

 alien or a non-resident of the State in which 

 the cause is pending, and must make his appli- 

 cation for removal at the time of entering his 

 appearance. These requirements tended to re- 

 strict the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. 

 But in 1866 Congress lifted the floodgates, and 

 since that a tide of litigation sufficient to arouse 

 the gravest apprehension has flowed continu- 

 ously into the United States courts. By the 

 act of 1866 aliens and citizens of other States 

 than that in which the suit was brought are 

 authorized to divide the suit under certain cir- 

 cumstances, removing a portion to the United 

 States courts, and leaving it as to part of the 

 defendants in the State courts, a thing unheard 

 of in former times, and an innovation which 

 should never have been tolerated. 



" The next step taken to degrade the State 

 courts was the act of 1869, which authorized 

 either the plaintiff or the defendant to remove 

 the cause, and at any time before final hearing. 

 In other words, a party might select his court, 

 and commence his suit therein, and after ex- 

 perimenting he might turn his back upon the 

 forum of his choice, and upon his own petition 

 have the cause removed to the United States 

 courts, and there still further harass his vic- 

 tim, till, from exhaustion or want of means to 

 defend his rights, he yielded the matter in con- 

 troversy. What justice is there in allowing 

 the party bringing a suit to abandon and fly 

 from the forum of his choice ? What justice 

 in permitting him to vex his victim by requir- 

 ing him to dance attendance on every court 

 known to our complex system ? 



" The Federal court takes jurisdiction of the 

 navigable rivers. What more? The Federal 

 judiciary have not only had their jurisdiction 

 extended over the lands of the United States, 

 but over the waters also. In the earlier his- 

 tory of our Government the Federal court as- 

 sumed jurisdiction over the waters only so far 

 as tide- water extended. But in this, as in eve- 

 rything else, the jurisdiction of these courts has 

 been enlarged till it extends now over all ot 

 our navigable rivers. It is true that thus far 

 the courts have only exercised jurisdiction of 

 civil causes on the watercourses; but how long 

 will it be, at their present rate, till they take 

 jurisdiction of crimes committed there? 



" The Civil Rights Bill was passed and ju- 

 risdiction given to the United States courts of 

 causes arising under it, without any regard to 

 whether the parties to the suit were citizens ot 

 the same or of different States, and without 

 any limitation of time within which the appli- 

 VOL. xx. 10 A 



cation for transfer shall be made. By this 

 legislation, for the first time in the history of 

 this or, so far as I know, any other country, 

 the complexion of the suitor determined the 

 court that should administer justice to him, 

 and we had established one court for one color, 

 and a different tribunal for the other, when all 

 the parties were citizens with equal rights and 

 privileges under the Constitution. 



u Mr. Speaker, this all-pervading Federal ju- 

 diciary, by virtue of section 5486, assumes the 

 right to go into our county courts under certain 

 circumstances, take the ward's guardian there- 

 from, and carry him to the Federal court to be 

 tried for not discharging the duties of his trust. 

 The section is in these words: 



" If any guardian having the charge and custody of 

 the pension of his ward shall embezzle the same in vio- 



not exceeding five years, or both, at the discretion of 

 the court. 



" Is any man deluded enough to suppose 

 that the founders of the republic ever antici- 

 pated that this authority would be claimed by 

 the Government or yielded by the States? If, 

 because the money came from the Government 

 as a pension, the Government may follow up 

 and punish the custodian for embezzlement, 

 why may it not for the same reason follow it 

 lor all purposes and control the ward, guardian, 

 and fund, to the exclusion of the county courts 

 of the States ? If this assumption of authority 

 goes unchallenged, who can tell but that ere 

 long we shall have the General Government, 

 through its judiciary, directing where the ward 

 shall live, how much shall be paid for support, 

 supervising settlements, directing the invest- 

 ment 01 the fund, and determining who shall 

 inherit upon the death of the ward? 



"But, Mr. Speaker, as if not content while 

 a vestige of exclusive jurisdiction remained to 

 the States, Congress in its wild career went 

 further and provided that corporations and in- 

 dividual members of corporations might re- 

 move their causes from the State to the Fed- 

 eral court. This change is made by section 

 640 of the Revised Statutes, which is as follows : 



" Any suit commenced in anv court other than a 

 circuit or district court of the United States against 

 any corporation other than abanking corporation or- 

 ganized under a law of the United States or against 

 any member thereof, as such member, for any alleged 

 liability of such corporation, or of such member as a 

 member thereof, mav be removed, for trialj in the 

 circuit court for the aistrict where such suit is pend- 

 ing, etc. 



" This is the law as to corporations organized 

 under the laws of the United States. 



"As to corporations organized under the 

 laws of any State, the courts have held that 

 the residence of all of the persons owning or 

 controlling the corporation within the State 

 where the suit is instituted makes no differ- 

 ence. They are still entitled to the removal if 

 the corporation was organized out of the State. 

 Nor will the court hear evidence upon the 



