Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/692

678 FEDERAL HEPOETEK. �the courts to search for these averments aliunde his petition. If the fact that the suit arises under the constitution and laws of the United States may be shown by reference to the record coming from the state court, I see no reason why it may not be shown as well by affi- davits or depositions, or other evidence put in the record here for the purpose ; nor why this practice should not apply as well to a declara- tion in an original suit, both as to subject matter and citizenship. Another reason why this averment should appear in the petition may be found in the facfc that the adversary parties are entitled to know on what grounds the removal is sought, and not be left to grope in the dark; and to determine for themselves whether it is on account of citizenship or the subject matter the petitioner claims the right. It would be just as reasonable to leave the adversary party to deter- mine for himself whether the removal is sought on account of local prejudice, under the act of 1867, to be proved at the hearing of the motion to remand, or because the controveray arises under a revenue law under the act of 1833, or for acts don,e duriug the rebellion by federal authority under the act of 1867, where these grounds are not mentioned in the petition. It would be a very looae practice to dis- pense with this averment in the petition of the ground of removal, or to allow one ground to be alleged and another relied on at the hear- ing of that petition, on the motion to remand. If this were the prac- tice, I can see no need of any averment on the subject in the peti- tion, nor why the whole matter should not be tried on the transcript, and such other proof as may be offered, without any petition at all. If this averment of the grounds of removal is not necessary, there is no other use for a petition. I am, therefore, of opinion that the petition for removal must state Lhe jurisdictional facts, and if it states one ground allowed by the statute, as that of citizenship, no other can be relied upon in reply to a motion to remand, although it may appear by the transcript from the state court that on some other ground it could have been removed. I do not think Ruckman v. Ruck- mail, 1 Fed. Eep. 587, and Norria v. Minerai Point Tunnel, 7 Fed. Eep. 272, are against these views, when properly considered. In the first, counsel only misconstrued the facts shown by the petition; and, in the second, he only cited the wrong act of eongress ; while in both the- jurisdictional facta appear bj' the petition for removal, namely, the difference in citizenship. �Application is made to amend the petition by inserting the neces- sary averment that the case is one arising under the constitution anci laws of the United States, and by allegationsof the facts showing thai ��� �