When I may have to argue an appeal in the federal court, it would unquestionably be easier and more agreeable for me to go to New York or to Boston, than to Washington ; and as we get farther West, this consideration is felt to a much greater extent.

But are there not considerations in respect to the administration of our judicial system at large; the true construction of the constitution; its wise application to the administration of justice; the future of the Supreme Court itself, which all must agree should not in the least degree be imperilled in public estimation;-is there not something in all this, that is of more consequence than any question of the expense or time of counsel?

Is not the proper and permanent administration of justice of more importance, than any matter of mere convenience? I should ask your pardon for occupying so much of your time and attention.

I have no personal feeling about this bill; it is nothing to me nor to my associates, who agree in these views, more than to any other citizens; we have engaged in no canvass on the subject, nor have we attempted privately to influence any man's opinion, nor the action of any association or legislature. But as long as the duty of examining the subject was cast upon us, unsought, by your action, we have felt it to be but a proper discharge of that duty, however imperfect, when an expression of opinion is asked from you that may have weight in Congress and elsewhere, to endeavor to bring before you as clearly as possible, the considerations which we believe ought really to be decisive.

C. C. Bonney, of Illinois, said:

Mr. President, I have been requested to follow the learned gentleman (Mr. Phelps) who has just concluded his remarks on behalf of the minority report.

Conscious of the fact that the time which can be devoted

to this discussion must necessarily be limited, and that there are probably several other gentlemen who will feel it a duty to express their views, I shall endeavor to condense into the briefest compass what I feel called upon to say in support of the majority report.

Let me first say that originally all the bias of my mind was in favor of the scheme set forth in the minority report. Whatever prejudice I had was opposed to the appellate court system, and it has only been after the most careful and patient examination of the subject, now continued for several years, that I have come to a deliberate conviction that the first impression I entertained in regard to the subject ought not to prevail, but that the only practical measure of relief for the courts of the United States is to be found in some method substantially such as that contained in the bill presented in the United States Senate by the distinguished senator from Illinois.

The state from which I come (Illinois) has suffered all the evils of an overcrowding of its highest judicial tribunal by a mass of business beyond the working capacity of its judges. It tried an experiment which I trust will not be repeated in any other of the United States. The judges of the court of last resort, when the cases before them rapidly increased, undertook to keep up with the business and dispose of the cases by dividing among them such time as they could give. What was the consequence? It was what must inevitably result from such a state of affairs-a deterioration of the work of the court, and a consequent lessening of the esteem in which it was held in the community where it pronounced its judgments. But at length a system was adopted that has been found entirely adequate to remedy the evil. I refer to the establishment of an Appellate Court in the State of Illinois, upon substantially the same principle as that contained in the Senate bill.

There was at first a general prejudice of the profession against the establishment of that court. Many of the arguments made here against the proposed United States Court of Appeals were urged against the Illinois tribunal. It was said it would be another obstacle in the road to the court of last resort, would double expenses of court officials, and multiply fees to be paid to counsel. Other objections were raised. It was claimed that the intermediate court would settle nothing, and that its decisions would be conflicting in the different districts.

When you bear in mind the magnitude of Illinois-its one hundred and one counties, its enormous increase in population and wealth, the great amount of commerce concentrated at its chief mart-you may estimate the variety and extent of business in its courts. The appellate court. system has proved a practical success in that state. It has remedied the difficulty and has prevented its recurrence.

No measure of relief which can be adopted with reference to the United States courts will fully meet the requirements of the occasion unless it provides not only for the present, but also the future.

In that opinion I think we all agree. It is confessed on both sides that the circuit judges provided a few years ago for the nine judicial circuits are now overworked in their respective courts, and the time is not very far distant when they will be quite unable to dispose of the cases now so rapidly accumulating. There is as much necessity for relief of the Circuit and District courts as of the Supreme tribunal. The plan of the majority report provides for that contingency, and I venture to say that if the proposed increase should at once be carried into effect, a large portion of the time of the new judges, at least half of it, would be required in the discharge of circuit and district duties. As was stated by the learned gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Phelps), a

large portion of the cases in the United States courts are those involving great and overshadowing interests that cannot well be dealt with by the tribunals established in the several states. And it is obvious that the business of the national courts must largely increase. The regulation of inter-state commerce, and the cases which will arise in the course of the transportation business alone, will crowd the national tribunals. The powers of the great carrying corporations are greater than those of some of the states, and only the authority of the nation is strong enough to protect the rights of the people. And there are other sources from which other cases must arise, but the time and the occasion forbid even their enumeration.

There is one provision of the Illinois Appellate Court Act that I think it would be an improvement to add to the proposed appellate court system of the United States, that is, a provision that constitutional questions and others of the highest character should not go to the Appellate Court in the first instance, but should be taken directly to the court of last resort. That provision saves the expense and delay of taking through the intermediate tribunal cases which, from their magnitude or the nature of the questions involved, are morally certain to go to the Supreme Court at last.

It is argued that a division of the Supreme Court of the United States into sections would answer the requirements of the present business before the courts; but it seems to have been overlooked by our learned friend. (Mr. Phelps) that if the plan of the minority is carried out, it will still leave upon the Supreme Court all the responsibility of the entire mass of business before it.

It is said the court can dispose of its business by sitting in sections, each taking the cases assigned to it, with a proviso that certain cases shall come before the full bench. But much time would be taken up in examining the cases so

far as to determine whether or not they are of a nature which requires that they should be heard by the entire

court.

It seems to me that is a difficulty which, standing by itself, would prove an insuperable barrier to a practical success of the minority scheme.

Then, again, the opinions of the several sections would necessarily be reported as those of the district and circuit. now are; and there might be a conflict of opinion, one division of the court sitting in the trial of a cause delivering an opinion of a particular character, and another department of the same court, in a case involving a similar question, delivering an opinion of an opposite nature. Where, then, would be that uniformity of law which is said to be so desirable and indispensable?

Suppose a case is heard before a division, and an opinion delivered, and the case then reheard before the full bench, and the opinion of the division overruled. The judgment of the division would only be like that of a circuit or appellate tribunal, whose opinions may go up for revision, and the high dignity of the Supreme Court would be impaired.

In my judgment it is not the office or function of the court of last resort to try controversies between individuals. Incidentally it does declare rights between man and man in the cases brought before it; but it was said long ago by a great judge that the chief duty of courts of justice—and, let me add, far more the chief duty of the highest judicial tribunal known to human government-to declare the law and the principles of justice, and only incidentally to decide the rights and interests of the parties to the particular cause before them.

To select out a question of law upon which some case may depend, and decide it, requires much less time, but a far