215 U. S. HARLAN, J., dissenting. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting I cannot agree to the opinion in this case, and will briefly state the reasons for my dissenting. The plaintiffs in error, citizens of Georgia, brought this suit in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia against the defendants in error, corporations of several different States, other than Georgia. The relief sought was a decree enjoining those corporations from putting in force and maintaining in Georgia certain rates established by agreement among themselves. It seems to me that this case could have been disposed of upon the authority of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Company, recently decided, ante, p. 481, in which the court held, in substance, that shippers, who complain of rates adopted by interstate carriers, cannot obtain relief by an original suit brought in any court, Federal or state, but must make application, at the outset, to the Interstate Commerce Commission. This, I think, is all that need have been said; for, whatever interpretation was given to the Judiciary Act of 1888, (25 Stat. 433,) the Circuit Court would have been required, under the case just cited, to decline jurisdiction. But the court, in its wisdom, does not refer to this view of the case and deems it necessary to determine whether the plaintiffs, citizens of Georgia, may, under the Judiciary Act of 1888, considered alone, invoke the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, held in that State, against the defendant corporations of other States. If I correctly interpret the opinion of the court, it proceeds on the theory that if the action had been founded alone on diversity of citizenship the suit-although the defendants were corporations of other States-could have been maintained in the United States Circuit Court sitting in Georgia, that being the State of the residence of the plaintiffs. But as the plaintiffs were so unfortunate as to possess and, in their pleadings, to assert, in addition to diversity of citizenship, a Federal right and to seek to have that right protected by the Federal court against the illegal acts of the defendant corporations, they must now either go into a state court of Georgia, in order to obtain the desired relief, or go to the respective States, however distant, which incorporated the defendants and sue there. Certain cases are referred to as requiring this construction of the act of 1888-McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41; Shaw v. Quincy Mining Company, 145 U. S. 444, and In re Keasbey and Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 221. But I cannot perceive that there was in either of those cases such a question as the one just stated. Neither of them actually involved or decided any such question. The McCormick case was a suit in the Circuit Court of Nebraska, by a citizen of that State, against an Illinois corporation, having an agent in Nebraska. The defendant pleaded that, as it was not an inhabitant of Nebraska, it could not, under the act of 1888, be sued in that State. But this plea was overruled by the court below and this court held that the McCormick Company, although not an inhabitant of Nebraska, was liable to be sued in the Federal court held in the State of the plaintiff's residence. Nothing more was involved or decided in that case. The Shaw case was a civil suit brought in the Federal court, sitting in New York, by a citizen of Massachusetts against a citizen of Michigan. But although the parties were citizens of different States, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant resided in or was a citizen of the State in which the suit was brought. What was really involved in that case and what was decided appears from the last paragraph of the opinion of this court, as follows (p. 453): “All that is now decided is that, under the existing act of Congress a corporation, incorporated in one State only, cannot be compelled to answer, in a Circuit Court of the United States held in another State in which it has a usual place of business, to a civil suit, at law or in equity, brought by a citizen of a different State." In the Keasbey-Mattison case it appears that the suit was brought, in the Federal court of New York, by a Pennsylvania corporation against a Massachusetts corporation. What 215 U.S. HARLAN, J., dissenting. the court said leaves no doubt as to what was intended to be decided. It said: "This suit, then, assuming it to be maintainable under the act of 1881, is one of which the courts of the United States have jurisdiction concurrently with the courts of the several States. The only existing act of Congress, which enables it to be brought in the Circuit Court of the United States, is the act of 1888. This suit comes within the terms of that act, both as arising under a law of the United States, and as being between citizens of different States. In either aspect, by the provisions of the same act, the defendant cannot be compelled to answer in a district of which neither the defendant nor the plaintiff is an inhabitant." Whatever general expressions are to be found in the opinions in the cases cited neither of those cases is an authority for the broad, unqualified statement that the United States Circuit Court, held in a State of which the plaintiff is a citizen, may not take cognizance of a suit brought by him in a Federal court against a corporation of another State, where such suit presents a controversy between citizens of different States and, in addition, discloses the fact that the plaintiff claims a Federal right which needs to be protected against the wrongful or illegal acts of the defendant corporation. This proposition is, of course, subject to the condition that the foreign corporation, by having an agency in Georgia or otherwise, can be reached by some process and brought into the Federal court sitting in Georgia. It is inconceivable, I think, that Congress intended to deprive the Federal court, sitting in the State of the plaintiff's residence of jurisdiction to protect his Federal right, simply because it appears from the record that the defendant and the alleged wrongdoer are citizens of different States. It necessarily follows from the opinion of the court in this case that where a citizen of another State is sued in a state court, and the suit involves a Federal right claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant cannot remove the case to the Federal court, but must remain in the state court of original jurisdiction, and there defend his asserted Federal right. The state court might well say, under VOL. CCXV-33 HARLAN, J., dissenting. 215 U.S. the opinion just delivered, that although the controversy between the parties involves Federal rights, and presents a controversy between citizens of different States, as well as one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, it is a suit of which the Federal court could not take cognizance by removal. We so say because such a case could not, under the court's present view of the act of 1888, have been originally brought in that court, and because, according to the settled doctrines of this court, no case can be removed from a state court to a Federal court which could not have been originally brought in the latter court. Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454; Arkansas v. Coal Co., 183 U. S. 185; Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332, 340–1. I recognize the fact that the act of 1888 was not drawn with precision. But I am of opinion that as the act gives the Circuit Court original jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts of the several States, "of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States," the intention of Congress would be best effectuated by holding that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is not excluded, in a controversy between citizens of different States, simply because the plaintiff, who sued in the Federal court held in the State of his residence, asserts a Federal right and seeks to have it protected against the illegal acts of the defendant, a citizen of another State; provided, always, that the defendant, if a corporation of another State, may, through agents conducting its business in the State where the suit is brought, be reached by the process of the court and subjected to its authority. The presence in the case of a Federal right asserted by the plaintiff ought not prejudice him and does not, I think, alter the fact that the controversy is one of which a Circuit Court may take cognizance, because it is a controversy between citizens of different States. 215 U. S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. FLAHERTY v. HANSON, SHERIFF OF GRAND FORKS COUNTY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA. No. 47. Submitted November 29, 1909.-Decided January 17, 1910. A State cannot place a burden on a lawful taxing power of the United States; nor can it place a burden upon the person paying a tax to the United States solely because of such payment and without reference to the doing by such person of any act within the State and subject to its regulating authority. A State cannot so exert its police power as to directly hamper or destroy a lawful authority of the United States. A state statute requiring the holder of a Federal liquor license to perform duties in conflict with the requirement of the Federal statute is an exercise of power repugnant to the Constitution and cannot be enforced; and so held as to chap. 189, General Laws of North Dakota, 1907, requiring the holder of such a license to file and publish a copy thereof. Quare, whether the payment to the United States of the special liquor tax and taking a receipt therefor creates a prima facie presumption that the person holding the receipt is engaged in the liquor business. 16 N. Dak. 347, reversed. THE facts, which involve the constitutionality of a statute of North Dakota, are stated in the opinion. Mr. Edward Engerud, Mr. Daniel B. Holt, Mr. John S. Frame and Mr. George A. Bangs for plaintiff in error: The act complained of, chap. 189, Gen'l Laws, 1907, of North Dakota is not a regulation for sale of liquor and is not a proper exercise of the police power of the State. It relates only to the holders of Federal licenses. Even if such was the intent of the legislature, effect cannot be so given to it unless the language is plain and unambiguous. Courts cannot imagine an intent and twist the language so as to substitute what the court thinks the law should have been |