Mr. CLARK. I desire to say but one word, and that is upon the particular amendment now before the Senate striking out the word “judges” from the section proposed to be stricken out by the Senfrom Delaware, the 4th section. I beg the Senate to consider who it is that has the direction of the causes in the State courts, and who it is that when the petition is filed has the power to order a stay of the action. It is the judge. Now, if the action should he stayed, and i the parties should be visited with a penalty if they attempted to proceed, why should not that judge, if he is one of the judges that desire to proceed against the authority of the U.S., he visited with the penalt 2 Why should we make any distinction; an why should we not make a final end of the suit in the State court by enforcing the provision? I hope the amendment will not be made and now one word to my friendfrom Wisconsin, who says that the provision to proceed against a judge IS a novel provisiou, somethmg new; on think he said it was unknown or new either 1!] this country or in that country from which we derive our laws. I have before me a statute made as long ago as 16 Charles I, in the year 1640. 226 years ago, which contains this remarkable provision:. “And be it further provided and enacted.That if any lord chancellor, or keeperof the rent seal of England dord treasurer, keeper of the ings priv sea. president of the council. bishop. temporal lor. privy counselor, Judge or justice whatsoever shall pffend or do anything contrary to the purport, true intenl and meaning of this law. than he or theyshall for such offensoforfeit the sum of 500of lawful money." It was at the time when the English Parliament undertook to break up the Star Chamber which had been derogatory to the liberties of the country. They feared that they should not be able to enforce the provisions of this act without a penalty, and they made a provision that if any of those judges attempted to proceed and to do what theretofore the court had done, they should be liable to that penalty. Now, we desire to break up this practice of prosecuting Union men for attempting to preserve the Government. Why should it not be done? Everybody, I think, agrees that it is desirable. I he Senfrom Wisconsin agrees that it is desirable. Then if these judges will proceed in the face of the law of Congress, direct and eremptory, why should they not be punishe? If they do not do it, it they yield obedience to the law, they will not be visited by the punishment; but if they will act in the face and eyes of the law, why should the not, as well as the arties and officers another persons oilen mg, be visited with the punishment. I hope we shall retain the wor “judges, ” and that we shall say to them that they are amenable, as well as other purties, to the law of Congress and to this pen a ty.