BYBEB V. HAWKBTT. :9 �thus oltained jurisdiction, is competent to determine ail the controversies involved between the plaintiffs and the other defendants. The other questions are regarded as incideiital." �It is difficult to conçoive of any other effect being given to this clause. Its language is so clear and explicit there la no room for construction. It must be taken to mean what it says, and say what it means. There is no suggestion of any particular kind or degree of controversy as a main or princi- pal one, or a minor or incidental one ; so thaï the controversy is wholly between citizens of different states, and one which can be fully determined as between them. The right of removal exists in favor of any plaintiff or defendant in the suit actually interested in such controversy. AU the contro- versies whichil have mentioned as existingin this case corne withiu this category. They are wholly between citizens of different states, and can be fully determined as between them, and the petitioners for the removal are actually interested in them. �The grant of judicial power to the United States expressly includes ail such controversies, (Const. U. S. art. i, § 2,) and its courts are not precluded from its exercise because other parties and controversies are or may be incidentally or other- wise involved in the suit for the determination thereof, or in which they exist. �In a case lately decided in the supreme court — The New Orleans M. dt T. By. Co. v. The State of Mississippi — where it was held that a case arising under an aet of congress waa removable under section 2 of the aot of 1875, Mr. Justice Harlan, in speaking for the court, says "that it is not suf- ficient to exclude the judicial pOwer of the United' States from a particular case, that it involves questions which do not at ail depend on the constitution or laws of the United States j but when a question to which the judicial power of the Union is extended by the constitution forms an ingredient of the original cause, it is within the power of congress to give the circuit courts jurisdiction of that cause, although other ques- tions of fact or of law may be involved in it." �But, €ven upon the theory that the controversy which ����
