CONNINGHAM V. COUKTY OF EALLS. 455 �construed as regulating proceedings in the state courts, is, of course, entirely valid, and so far as I can see it is altogether proper. But it is perfectly clear, both upon reason and authority, that it cannot be invoked for the purpose of cur- tailing or abridging the jurisdiction of courts of the United States. �If -we concede that the state, by legislation, can deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction in one case by declaring that certain parties shall be permitted to sue or be sued in the fed- eral courts, it would foUow, of course, that the state might by their legislation deprive the federal courts of ail jurisdic- tion. For, if the state can, by its own act, provide that one citizen shall not sue or be sued in a federal court, in a case coming within the constitution and laws of the United States, it may, in like manner, exolude ail its citizens from the fed- eral courts. �In the case referred to by Judge Dillon, "which was the insurance company against Morse, supra, the supreme court of the United States said : "The constitution of the United States declares that the judicial power of the United States shaU extend to ail cases in law and equity arising under the constitution, the laws of the United States, and to the treaties made or which shall be made under their authority ; * * ♦ to controversies between a state and citizens of another state, and between citizens of different states. �"The jurisdiction of the federal courts, under this clause of the constitution, depends upon and is regulated by the laws of the United States. State legislation cannot eonfer jurisdic- tion upon the federal courts, nor can it limit or restriet the authority given by congress in pursuance of the constitution. This bas been held many times." Raîlway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall 270-286, and other cases. �It is therefore clear, both upon reason and upon authority, that we must sustain the demurrer to the plea to the juris- diction in this case, and it is so ordered. ��� �
