742 DOUGLAS, J., dissenting. termined by its own courts. The "right to chose [sic] the forum in which the suit may be tried" (H. Rep., supra) can hardly have any other meaning. (3) The 1887 Act in its operation was not applicable to the United States. It provided for removal by defendants. They alone could remove. The right of removal was therefore not available to the United States. It could not be a defendant in a state court, since it had not consented to be sued there. That was well settled at the time. For in 1896 the Court stated, "The United States, by various acts of Congress, have consented to be sued in their own courts in certain classes of cases; but they have never consented to be sued in the courts of a State in any case." Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, 270. It seems clear then that the prohibition against review of orders of remand contained in the 1887 Act was not aimed at the United States. I think, therefore, that it should require an explicit provision in the 1926 Act to conclude that the United States was now to be bound by an Act heretofore inapplicable to it. It has long been held that if the United States is to be deprived of a right or a remedy by the general terms of a statute, "the language must be clear and specific to that effect." United States v. Stevenson, 215 U. S. 190, 197; United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 159 U. S. 548, 554; United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 263; Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239. This seems to me to be a clear case for the application of that rule. If Congress had said that orders of remand under the 1926 Act should not be reviewed, mandamus of course would not lie. But since there is no such prohibition, mandamus is available to compel the District Court to perform its duty. Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507; In re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451, 453. DECISIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM JANUARY 29, 1946, THROUGH APRIL 22, 1946.* No. 723. REPUBLIC PICTURES CORP. V. KAPPLER. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. February 4, 1946. Per Curiam: The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. McKnett v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co., 292 U. S. 230, 233, 234; Pufahl v. Estate of Parks, 299 U. S. 217, 227; Miles v. Illinois Central R. Co., 315 U. S. 698, 704. A. A. McLaughlin for appellant. George B. Porter for appellee. Reported below: 151 F. 2d 543. No. 61, Misc. IN RE YAMASHITA; and No. 672. YAMASHITA V. STYER, COMMANDING GENERAL. February 4, 1946. It is ordered that the order of this Court of December 17, 1945, 326 U. S. 693, staying all further proceedings in these causes pending the consideration and determination of the applications for writs of habeas corpus and prohibition and of the petition for writ of certiorari is vacated. It is further ordered that certified copies of the orders denying the motions for leave to file the petitions for writs of habeas corpus and prohibition and denying the petition for writ of certiorari be issued forthwith. For opinion of the Court in these cases, see ante, p. 1. No. 85, Misc. LAMORE v. WELCH, SUPERINTENDENT. February 4, 1946. The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. *MR. JUSTICE JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases in which judgments or orders were announced during this period. For decisions on applications for certiorari, see post, pp. 771, 777; rehearing, post, pp. 812, 813. 691100°-47-52 757 Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 327 U.S. No. 84, Misc. RESCO v. RAGEN, WARDEN. February 4, 1946. The motion to withdraw the motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari is granted. No. 495. CRESPO v. UNITED STATES. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. February 4, 1946. Dismissed for failure to comply with the rules. Reported below: 151 F.2d 44. No. 770. TAYLOR v. KENTUCKY STATE BAR ASSOCIATION. Appeal from the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. February 11, 1946. Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal dismissed for the want of a properly presented substantial federal question. Appellant pro se. Eldon S. Dummit for appellee. Reported below: 300 Ky. 448, 189 S. W. 2d 403. No. 402. BRUCE'S JUICES, INC. v. AMERICAN CAN Co. Certiorari, 326 U. S. 711, to the Supreme Court of Florida. Argued January 29, 30, 1946. Decided February 11, 1946. Per Curiam: Judgment affirmed by an equally divided Court. Cody Fowler and Thurman Arnold argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was R. W. Shackleford. John Lord O'Brian argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Leonard B. Smith, John M. Allison and Harry B. Terrell. Reported below: 155 Fla. 877, 22 So. 2d 461. No. 410. MACGREGOR v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MANUFACTURING Co. Certiorari, 326 U. S. 708, to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued January 31, 1946. Decided February 11, 1946. Per Curiam: Judg 327 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. ment affirmed by an equally divided Court. William B. Jaspert argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Jo. Baily Brown argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent. Reported below: 352 Pa. 443, 43 A. 2d 332. No. 93, Misc. HOMMA v. PATTERSON, SECRETARY OF WAR, ET AL.; and No. 818. HOMMA V. STYER, COMMANDING GENERAL, ET AL. On motion for leave to file petition for writs of habeas corpus and prohibition and on petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippines. February 11, 1946. The motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus and writ of prohibition is denied and the petition for writ of certiorari is also denied on authority of In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1. Captain George W. Ott for petitioner. Solicitor General McGrath for respondents. MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, dissenting. This case, like In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, poses a problem that cannot be lightly brushed aside or given momentary consideration. It involves something more than the guilt of a fallen enemy commander under the law of war or the jurisdiction of a military commission. This nation's very honor, as well as its hopes for the future, is at stake. Either we conduct such a trial as this in the noble spirit and atmosphere of our Constitution or we abandon all pretense to justice, let the ages slip away and descend to the level of revengeful blood purges. Apparently the die has been cast in favor of the latter course. But I, for one, shall have no part in it, not even through silent acquiescence. Petitioner, a civilian for the past three and a half years, was the victorious commander of the 14th Army of the |