Mr. WILLIAMS. I happen to have on my desk the 3rd volume of Storys Commenta ries on the Constitution. Since the discussion arose on this 4th section, I have referred to it to see ifthere was any authority on the question submitted by the Senfrom Indiana. I find extracts from an opinion delivered in the case of Martin vs. Hunter, quoted from 1 Wheatons Reports, page 304, in which the right of Congress to authorize the removal of cases from a State court to a court of the U.S. is affirmed; and the Supreme Court as Xlf:. then, the right of removal be included in the appellatcjurisdiction. it is only because it is one mpdo O exercising manpower; and as Congress is not lim ited by the Constitution to any particular mode or tenmtheerobf cetxoerercoirsianlgl eirt.juidtgmmaeynta. utThhoeritzime ea, rtehme porvoal i lcewgfi.shaiitnivl ethe manner must besubjectto its absolute enntrol. A writ of error is. indeed. but a PIOCQSS WHIrCeHmoves the recordof onecourt to the ipnosspseecstsionof another court and enables the latter to the proceedings and give such Judgment as its own opinion of the law and justice of the casemay warrant. There is nothing in the nature of the proccsswhichforbids it from beinpapplied by the Legislature to interlocutory as wel as final judgments and iftho right of removal from State courts exist before Judgment, becauseit is included in the appel lJautdegmpoewnte.r it must. lor the same reason, exist alter “And in conclusion the court say: It is an historical fact that the SCOTUS have. from time to time. sustained this a pollute jurisdiction in agreat vuncty of cases hroug t from the tribunpls of many of Ihe most important Statesin the union: and that noState tribu njeuclt has ever breathed a judicial doubt on the suband declinedto obeythemandateof theSupreme Court until the present occasion. This weight of contemporaneousexposition by all parties, this no uics cence of enlightened State courts, and thesejudiciiil decisions of the Supreme Court through so long a period. do, as we t ink. place the doctrine upon a oaudation of authority which cannot be shaken without delivering over the subject to perpetualand irremediablo doubts." I understand that it has been repeatedly decided by the SCOTUS so that the question now is regarded as finally settled, that where, in a State court, a puny sued makes a defense under the Constitution. laws or treaties of the U.S., he has a right to have that cause removed at any time during its progress from the State court to a court of the U.S., and there have the questions involved adjudicated. I think there can be no question, upon this authority, and upon otherdecisions of a like nature of the SCOTUS, as to the constitutionality of this section, because it is manifest that a military otheer in the discharge of his duty is acting under the law or the authority of the U.S.