Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/553

 546 :, FBDBBili EEPOBTBB. �congress, and that such occupancy does not constitute own- ership. It is further alleged in the answer that the Kernan town lots are held by the plaintiff under the provisions of the town-site act of congreBs, and that he has never had posses- sion, and his claim under said act of congress is fraudulent and void. After the filing of this answer, upon motion of de- fendant the cause was removed to this court on the ground that the case is one arising under the said acts of congress. �Plaintiff moves to remand, because — Fïrst, the case does ûot arise under the constitution of the United States, the laws > of congress, or a treaty of the United States ; second, the application was not filed in time; third, no sufficient bond is filed, as required by law. �1. That the record presents for adjudication a federal ques- tion, to-wit, the construction of the homestead and town-site acts of congress is clear; but, inasmuch as the question of the construction of these acts is raised by the answer, the question presents itself whether the case is one arising under them. The removal act of 1875 (section 2, act of March 3) employs, in defining the causes that may be removed, substantially the same language used in the constitution to define the jurisdic- tion of the federal courts : �"The judicial power shall extend to ail cases in law and in equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." Const. art. 3, § 2. �"Any suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, • ♦ * arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made under their author- ity, * * » * either party may remove, " etc. Section 2, act of March 3, 1876. �It is manifest that the words "arising under the constitution or laws of the United States" mean the same thing in the act of congress and in the constitutional provision. These words have been frequently construed by the supreme court. Thus, in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, it is said : "A case in law or equity consists of the right of one party, as well as of the other, and may truly be said to arise under the consti- ����