Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/115

 lOWA HOMBSTBAD 00. V. DBS MOINES NAVIGATION, ETC., OO. 101 �navigation company. It may turn out otherwise upon the proofs, The mere allegation of its insolvency does not establish the fact. If this question of jurisdiction were to be determined by the true con- struction of the second section of the act of 1875 alone, there might be room for grave doubt. The last clause of that sectiod is as fol- lows : �"And wheti in any suit mentioned in this section there shall be a contro- versy which is toTwlly between citizens of different states, and vMich can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the plaintiffs or defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district." �But it must be borne in mind that upon every question of federal jurisdiction we are to consider not the law alone, nor the constitution alone, but the constitution and the law. These must coneur in order to confer jurisdiction upon a federal tribunal. The constitution is the fountain of federal jurisdiction; the laws of congress are the streams through which the waters of jurisdiction flow to the courts : though the streams exist, yet, if the fountain be empty, the jurisdic- tion fails; and though the fountain be full, yet, if the streams exist not, the jurisdiction equally fails. The constitutional provision is that the judicial power shall extend to controversies between citi- zens of different states. This, as well by construction as by the very nature of our national constitution, excludes all controversies be- tween citizens of the same state from the judicial cognizance of the federal courts. Clearly, then, we can have no jurisdiction of the controversy between the two citizens of lowa in the present case. Standing alone and uneonnected with the controversy between the plaintiff and Litchfield, there is a controversy in this suit between two citizens of different states. Does that fact give us jurisdiction to hear and determine a controversy between two citizens of lowa of which otherwise we could have no jurisdiction whatever? Does the fact that a controversy between citizens of the same state is united in the same suit with a controversy between citizens of different states, bring the former controversy within our jurisdicton? �The whole course of legislation and of judicial decision hitherto has proceeded upon the principle that where in a suit a controversy between citizens of the same state is so blended with a controversy between citizens of different states as to be inseparable, the suit must remain in the state court. The reason is obvions. The state court is competent to decide both of such inseparable controversies and do full ��� �