Mr. HENDRICKS. I was not able to see diet the reply of the Senfrom NewHampshire met the oint made by the Senfrom Delaware. this bill addresses itself to each one of us as lawyers. It proposes to confer upon the courts of the U.S. 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 ofo. Senatorin saying that if e werea judgein a State court he should disregard the provisions of a law which he 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 dese ried at a 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 courts, 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 U.S. court, if the judge in the State court shall be of opinion that under the Constitution of the U.S. that cause ought not to be transferred, I submit to the judment of the Senfrom NewHampshire, what is the clear duty of the State judge? Ought. he to send the cause from his court into a Federal court, contrary to the laws and Constitution of the country? What jurisdiction shall be possessed by the Federal courts is defined in the Constitution of the U.S.; and I am of opinion that that definition of Ju] risdiction does not include the cases provided for in this bill. But, sir, suppose it be proper to transfer these causes from the State to the Federal courts, ought the 3rd and 4th sections of this bill to be as they are? We are all familiar with the act which authorizes the transfer of certain causes from the State to the Federal court. Where a citizen of one State brings a suit against a citizen of another State, in a State court, the act of Congress authorizes the transfer of that cause to the Federal court upon the application of the defendant; an why? Because the Constitution of the U.S. provides that litigation between citizens of different States may be heard in the Federal court, which is supposed to be disinterested in judgment and feeling between the parties. But in that not we do not find such extraordinary provisions as are in this bill. In that case the defendant, upon the 1st day of the term, must come into the State court and make his application for the transfer before he does any act which recognizes the jurisdiction of the State court, an he must give his bond that upon the 1st day of the next term of the federal court he will file the papers in the cause in the Federal court, and enter his appearance. That is required of the defendant in a cause where it is clearly proper, within the provisions of the Constitution, to take the case from the State to the Federal court. 7 Here, however, in a case, to any the least of it, where it is doubtful whether the transfer can be authorized by Congress, it is provtded that that transfer may be asked by the defendant, after he has entered an appearance in a State court, after he has recognized, by his appearance and pleadings, the jurisdiction of the State court. and, sir, there is very strange language here, which may be construed authorizing the transfer after a judment has been rendered in the State court. I call the attention of the Senfrom NewHampshire to the language found in the 3rd section, commencing in the 8th line, and I ask him to explain to the Senate the meaning of this language: But nothing herein contained shall be held to abridge the right of such removal after final judgment in the Statecourt; nor shalllt be necessary, in the State court, to offer or give surety for the filing of copiesin the circuit court of the U.S. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to abridge the right to take the case from the State to the Federal court after judgment remdered. After the defendant has recognized the jurisdiction of the local court, after he has pleaded in that court. after he has submitted to trial by ajury, and after upon the verdict a judment has been rendered, I want to know of the Senator whether he contemplates that there should be a transfer, and that the judgment of the State court shall be vacated and a new trial had in the U.S. court. But, sir, in the existing law which authorizes the transfer of causes to the Federal from the State courts in cases that are clearly within the provisions of the Constitution, is there any provision that if the judge shall be of opinion that the case ought not to be transferred, he shall be liable to punishment, he shall be liable to suit and damages? No, sir. Congress, in the enactment upon that subject, has assumed that the State judge will do his duty. But here, almost for the 1st time, and I believe for the 1st time unless a provision like this is found in what is called the civil rights bill, it is provided that if the judge shall deny the transfer, upon the exercise of his judgment, for what Congress may hold to be an error of judgment, he shall be liable to a civil suit and to damages. Are Senators willing to say that the State judges are to be punished by suits and damages or an error of judgment? Mr. President, these are very extraordinary provisions, and I am not at all surprised that the Senfrom Delaware should express himself upon them very earnestly. The language which he used I did not observe at the time but I am very free to say to the Senate that if I were a State judge, and I thought the provision of this law was unconstitutional, I certainly should regard the Constitution as a higher law than the act of Congress which, in my judgment, if it should be my judment, was contrary to the provisions of the constitution. It presents the question to a judge whether n case can be transferred to the federal court; and shall he not decide it? If I bring a suit in a State court against a man who has done me a grievous wrong during these 4 or 5 years, a wrong perha accompanied with violence and malice, an the cause is set down for trial upon an appearance and plea by the defendant, and he then asks a transfer of the cause to the Federal court, and the judge shall say that the case must be heard before him and before ajury in that court, shall that judge, because of the exercise of a sound and honest judment, be punished by suit and damages“! I as the Senfrom NewHampshire if he has known of any cases in which the State courts have refused under existing laws to allow a transfer where a proper case was made for a transfer? I have heard of none.