
    Benjamin Rush against William Cobbet.
    An alien cannot remove an action brought against him for a lible into the Circuit Court of the United States, though he swears that the matter in dispute exceeds SOO dollars.
    A Summons in case, founded on a libellous publication by the defendant, in a weekly paper, issued, returnable to last term. A petition was then filed by him, stating that he was a subject to the kind of Great Britain, and that the matter in controversy exceeded the value of 500 dollars, exclusive of costs; and praying for the removal of the cause of trial into the next Circuit Court of the United States, to bo held for the district of Pennsylvania. The facts contained in the defendant’s petition, were verified by his affidavit. The argument was then continued, for want of time.
    Messrs. Moses Levy and Hopkinson for the plaintiff,
    now objected, that the 12th section of the law of congress,passed 24th September 1789, did not include the present case. The objects of that clause were matters of property, not vindictive suits. The value of the dispute in the nature of it is uncertain, and what the amount may be, cannot “ be made appear to the satisfaction of “ this court. ” One cannot be held to bail in slander, because there can be no estimate of damages; and yet the defendant undertakes to swear, that the matter in dispute, resting in slanderous expressions, exceeds 500 dollars. To oust the jurisdiction of this court, plain words are necessary. By the 20th section of this law, a plaintiff in an action originally brought in the Circuit Court, .and recovering less than 500 dollars, shall not recover costs.
    Mr. Thomas for the defendant,
    contended, that the 2d section of the 3d article of the constitution of the United States, declares, that the judicial power of their courts, shall extend to all cases “ between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. ” This right is secured to all persons who shall migrate to America, and cannot be narrowed. This court has in many instances concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts. Whether bail in slander is demand-able dr not, no difference can be effected, as to an alien’s privilege of removing his suit. There is no evidence before the court, except the defendant’s affidavit, and he has deposed that the matter in dispute exceeds 500 dollars, and that the plaintiff demands more. This is not denied by any counter affidavit, and must be conclusive. — It is presumed, that the court will decide on the proofs before them.
   By the court.

The .words of the act of congress, under which the present motion is founded, are, “ that the matter in dispute, “ exceeds the sum or value of 500 dollars, exclusive of costs, to be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court. ” It is not similar to the removal of an action inthe Court of Errors and Appeals of this state, under the "act of 13th April 1791, (3 Dall. St Laws, 98,) for these the affidavit of the party or his agent, that the matter in controversy exceeds 400 dollars, is declared to be sufficient. How can the court be satisfied, that the present cause of action exceeds 500 dollars, unless they can in a summary way estimate the damages in an action for a libel ? The law of congress meant to give them no such power, in torts, or vindictive suits. Its object was confined to property, where the value of the thing in controversy could be satisfactorily ascertained. It appears a singular circumstance in this cause, that while the defendant aggravates the damages arising from his own wrong, the plaintiff diminishes them. But it is certain, that the terms of the law cannot be complied with¿ should the present petition be granted. And therefore

Motion denied.  