Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/17

 CHBSTEE V, CHESTER. �Justice Bradley in his dissenting opinion in the Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, 479, which I understand to be that, wherever there is in any case a substantial controversy between citizens of different states, the eonstitutional grant of judicial power attaches to it ; and, under the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470,) the whole case may be removed to the federal court. I quite agree that, technically considered, the majority opinion in that case cannot be said to limit, by its construction, the eonstitutional grant of judicial power, so as to exclude a case like this from the operation of the act of congress, but I also think it fairly inf erable that the court is of opinion that the act of congress \fra8 not intended to vital- ize the eonstitutional power to its fullest extent, so as to include a case like this, This case requires, in my Opinion, that the eonstitutional power shall be extended by act of congress to its utmost verge to include it ; and, if there can be any case in a state court where one of the parties is a cit- izen of another state than that of the petitioning party, which lies beyond the eonstitutional grant, it is this one. I do not decide that this is; and, so far as I may properly express an opinion at all, I may say that I do not now think it impossi- ble for congress to include this case in a grant of jurisdiction to this court, but I do not think it has done so, and that is all I decide. It is not at all necessary for me to support this judgment by an extended review of the cases, or an analysis of the statute in comparison with previous statutes, because the subject of the construction of this difficult statute is one of siich perplexity that the supreme court seems itself to he divided, and there is quite as much diversity of opinion among the judges of the other courts. But I may properly say that, in making up this judgment, I have considered every case and authority accessible to me, and am left to follow the infer- ences to be drawn from the majority opinion in the Removal Cases, supra, and the very recent case of Barney v. Latham, not yet reported, rather than any authoritative adjudicalion to be found in either of them as applied to this case. If Mr. Justice Bradley's dissenting opinion is the law of the subject I am wreng here, and I frankly confess there is. ��� �