Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, a very strenuous opposition is made to the 4th section of theIiill. The honorable Senfrom Delaware has moved to strike it out. Another Senator has moved an amendment to that amendment, to strike out the word “judges” in the 7th line, so as to exempt the judges of the State courts from the damages which are contemplated in the section. I am opposed to both these amendments and in favor of the passage of the bill with the 4th section in it, because I think that section contains a sound principle, and that without it there may be many cases in which great injustice may be done to parties who are brought into the State courts on claims of damages by owners of property taken for the purposes of the war. see no constitutional itheulty whatever in the 4th section. Still I am aware that it comes within that long catego of hills which the Senate have passed or en cavored to pass during the late war, which by certain gentle. men in this Chamber have been denounced as flagrantly unconstitutional. Indeed, the honorable Senfrom Delaware has gone so far as to say to us that if he were a judge sitting for the purpose of administeringjustice between man and man in his own State, and this stat ute, if it should become a statute, should be presented to him, and should he insisted upon by way of defense, he would feel bound to hold it unconstitutional and void, and that he would proceed, notwithstanding this Federal statute, to pass a finaljudgment in the case which might be before him, and to enforce it. It is not necessary for me to say that it is the duty ofajudge, whether he occup a high or an inferior position, as such to ecide every question oflaw that may fairly be presented to his consideration. I am not aware that the law exempts any class of judges of courts from this high and solemn duty. Still it does seem to me that if I were a State judge, and this question were presented to me in the form which he has suggested, certainly if a doubt hung over the nestion at all, I should feel it my duty to decide in favor of the validity of the statute, leaving the question finally to e determined by the court of dernier ressort, the SCOTUS, and such, I think, would he felt to he the duty of almost every well informed State tribunal. But, sir, is there anything in this statute which is in conflict with the Constitution? and does the judicial power of the U.S.as delegated in the Constitution itself cover the cases and which are contemplated by the section? That is the 1st and principal point for us to determine. If there be a diflegation of power in the Constitution coverin these cases, the question of its constitutionality cannot be raised upon that issue. The Constitution declares that “ the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and e nity arisin under this Constitution, the lawso the U.S., " &c. Are the cases contemplatedb section 4 cases arisingnnder any law of the U.S.? What are they, and what is their character? It is best illustrated by a single example. Suppose a private soldier in the State of Kentucky or Delaware, no matter where, received an order in writing, or a mere verbal order, from his superior officer in command and to whom he owed obedience, to proceed and take possession of the horse or any other article of property belonging to a citizen in the neighborhood: property deemed by the supe prior officer to be essential and necessary in the prosecution of his military operations; or suppose that the same soldier was directed by a similar order to proceed to demolish the dwelling house of a resident in the neighborhood for the same purpose and under the same necessity. The soldier proceeded and executed the order; he took the horse or any other article of personal property mentioned in his order, or e proceeded and demolished the dwelling house. He is sued in one of the local courts; he is made defendant; he is charged with committing a tres pass against the property of the owner of the orse in taking and carryinvaway the horse, or he maybe charged with demolishing the house. e is brou lit into court by regular appearance process; it? pleads to the declaration of the complaint, whatever it may be; and his defense consists in the simple fact that he received from his superior officer a written or a verbal order to do the acts as to which the complaint is made against him. He presents the order, if it be in writin, or he proves or offers to prove the order, i it be a verbal order and not in writing. This is one of the numerous cases that have arisen during the late war. I ask the honorable Senfrom Delaware and the honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania whether this is not a case arising under a law of the U.S. It arises from military necessity; that necessity is adudged of by e superior officer in comman.