CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



219 



or in any Slate under martial l:i\v. Tbo reason 

 i^ the same in both cases, the groat object being 

 the |>n>teetii.uiif the soldier or the officer in 

 the discharge of his duty, and that is a duty 

 which 1 hold devolves upon Congress. A sol- 

 dier or an otlirer \\lio is a subordinate must 

 not omit to obey the order. If bo refuses to 

 do so it is always at the peril of his life or of 

 imprisonment ; and to expose a person thus 

 situated to the consequences which might flow 

 from a suit or prosecution in a community 

 where t hero were strong prejudices against him 

 is something I imagine which we ought not to 

 do. The bill is nothing, in my judgment, but 

 simple, naked justice, applicable to one case 

 as well as to another, and to one locality as 

 well as another." 



The amendment moved by Mr. Edmunds was 

 rejected by the following vote : 



YEAS Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Doolittlc, Ed- 

 munds, Guthrie, Hendricks, Jolfrnso/i, McDougall, 

 Nesmith, and Saulsbury 10. 



NAYS Messrs. Anth'ony, Chandler, Clark, Con- 

 ness, Cragin, Crcswell, Foster, Grimes, Henderson. 

 Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Lane of 

 Kansas, Morgan, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, 

 Snnt^iio, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, 

 A\ ado, Willev, Williams, Wilson, and Yates 29. 



ABSKXT Messrs. Brown, Davis, Dixon, Fessen- 

 den, Harris, Merrill, Norton, Poland, Kiddle, and 

 Wright-10. 



Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, moved to strike 

 out the fourth section imposing damages on 

 State officers on proceeding with a suit after 

 notice of removal. He said : " Now, Mr. Presi- 

 dent, I am very free to say that if I were a judge 

 in any State I should not feel myself bound to 



fay any attention whatever to this act ; because 

 do not believe the Congress of the United 

 States has the constitutional authority to pass 

 the act. Suppose a judge of a State court 

 should honestly be of that opinion, and suppose 

 some Secretary of War, or the agent of some 

 Secretary of War, or some Secretary of State, 

 or the agent of some Secretary of State, has 

 caused a citizen within the limits of one of the 

 States to be arrested, and application is made 

 to the State courts for redress, and the State 

 courts believe they have the constitutional au- 

 thority to afford that redress, notwithstanding 

 the provisions of this act, and shall honestly so 

 decide, your act proposes to punish them in 

 damages for the exercise of an honest judicial 

 opinion. I will npt discuss the question, how- 

 ever, Mr. President, but I make the motion to 

 strike out the fourth section of the bill." 



Mr. Clark: "I hardly think it is worth 

 while that I should spend much time in answer- 

 ing the Senator from Delaware, and I would 

 not say a word now if this had not been the 

 second time when he uttered words like those 

 which ho has now uttered in defiance of the 

 authority of the United States. When the Civil 

 Rights bill was upon its passage, when the Sen- 

 ate was about to vote on it, the Senator from 

 Delaware, in the spirit that ho now shows in 

 the Senate, and in the hearing of the people 



who were here, stood up in the Senate and 

 defied almost the authority of the United States, 

 and said that if ho were a judge, or a person 

 acting in that capacity, in the State of Dela- 

 ware, ho would not obey the law. Ho repeat* 

 that same thing to-day. Sir, if it bo so that 

 the rebel spirit which defies the nation, in the 

 person of judges and others, has crept into the 

 Senate, and shows itself here, the more the 

 necessity of the bill which wo propose to pass. 

 'I will not yield to that authority' so said 

 the rebel, and that produced the war ; and now, 

 when the war is over, the Senator from Dela- 

 ware stands up and repeats that he will not 

 yield to the authority of the United States. It is 

 time this should be done with. It is time that 

 the Senator should understand that the author- 

 ity of the United States will be supreme, whether 

 it takes a Senator or the merest rebel soldier. 

 This Government must be obeyed, and it is 

 not worth having if it cannot cause itself to bo 

 obeyed. This proceeding, if attempted to be 

 carried on in a State court, in defiance of the 

 United States authority, should bo void, and 

 the judge and everybody else who undertakes 

 to set himself up in this way for it will not be 

 an honest authority should bo punished for so 

 doing. Wo have had abont enough of this 

 State authority to teach it to yield respect and 

 obedience to the laws of the United States." 



Mr. Ilendricks : " I was not able to see that 

 the reply of the Senator from New Hampshire 

 met the point made by the Senator from Dela- 

 ware. This bill addresses itself to each one of 

 us as lawyers. It proposes to confer upon the 

 courts of the United States jurisdiction, and to 

 control the proceedings of the State courts in 

 certain causes ; and I was not able to see the 

 impropriety on the part of a Senator in saying 

 that if he were a judge in a State conrt he 

 should disregard the provisions of a law which 

 ho thought to be unconstitutional. Sir, it is 

 not clear that this proposed transfer of causes 

 from the State courts to the Federal courts was 

 contemplated by the Constitution ; and when a 

 similar provision found its way in what is called 

 the Civil Rights bill I had the same opinion 

 upon it. Causes such as are not described at 

 all in the provisions of the Constitution, which 

 defines the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, 

 are to be transferred from the State courts to 

 the Federal court?, merely because Congress 

 so provides. I have my doubts whether it can 

 properly be done. When a case is pending in 

 a State court, and an application is made to 

 transfer that cause to the United States court, 

 if the judge in the State court slxill be of opin- 

 ion that under the Constitution of the United 

 States that cause ought not to bo transferred, 

 I submit to the judgment of the Senator from 

 New Hampshire, what is the clear duty of the 

 State judge 1 Ought he to send the cause from 

 his . court into a Federal court, contrary to the 

 laws and Constitution of the country "i What 

 jurisdiction shall be possessed by the Federal 

 courts is defined v> the Constitution of the Uni- 



