Alexandria gazette & advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1822-1824, 1824-04-29
IN SNENATE-ApR,L 96.

Nineteen bills from the Ii Use of Re-.
prese ntati.e were twice read, and re-
ferred appropriate committees.
A resolution offered on Saturday last,
by Mr.. II Johnson, of Lou respecting
the claim. OF Col. John Smrh, OF Lou.
sians, was again read and agreed to.
JUD CIARy system.
The bill reported by the commute on
the judiciary further to amend the Ju-
dietary system of the United States,
and 20 provide for the holding OF the
Circuit Courts together with the q.
mendment proposed by Mr.. johnson,
ofKy. was taken up for consideration,
ID committee Of the whole, MIR. Gail.
lar6 Insthe chair. This bill provides
that two sess,"ns the Supreme Court
shall be held at Washington annually
that the Judges of the Supreme Court
shall be relieved from The duty Of hold.
ing the Circuit Courts--thst the Unit.
ed States shall be divided into zen dis.
tricts, in each of which, Courts shall be
holden by District Judges, with the
same powers aDo duties as are now ex-
ercised and performed by the Circuit
Courts.
Mr.. Johnson's amendment 10 an en-.
tire new bill. and provides, that thsre
shall be three additional Circuit Courts;
that the Supreme Court shall consist
Of Chief Justice and nine Associate
JUS ices; and that the concurrent opini-
on of seven Judges of the Supreme
Court, leach Judge to deliver his OPT
MOL separateIy,) shall be required, to
invalidate any law of any ofthe States.
The amendment was somewhat modi~
| fed, on motion of MIR. Talbot.
Mr.. johnson. Of Ken. stated the OBJ.
iects OF his amendment His plan was
TO extend the Circuit system to all the
Western States. upon the same princi-
pies that u rests upon in other States.
He spoke against the bill reported by
the comml,tee, as doing away the init.
maze and highly impor ant connection
between The Supreme Court and the Sc
veral District Conrts
Mr Van Buren, opposed the amend.
meDt, Il stated the views OF the commit.
tee, in reporting the bill! lie explained
the difference between the preseDtsys
tenn. a that proposed by the bill, and
adverted to the absolute nscessity, ere
long. Of some change In the judiciary
system. lie reeapltulated the number
Of causes which had come before the
Supreme Court, and been pui of for
want Of time; and remarked that the
proper administration Of jus''ce called
loudly for some change. He also OK.
planned the propriety Of some amend
mendment, in regard to the Circuit
Courts.
Mr.. Talbot addressed tho Senate on
the subject. bespoke oftbe great i'm
{ portaDce of the organization Of the Ju.
dietary. He advocated an increase Of
the number of Judges of the Supreme
Court, as necessary toa fair ano we'll.
defined administration Of justice. He
mir. r. believed there would be ample
time for the decision Of every cause be.
fore tho Supreme Court with some al
teratIon of the terms Of the Circuit
Courts. He alluded to the great vega
ton and distress which had been expe-
rieDced'under the present system. Dir.
r. spoke Of the evils which he appre-
hended would grow out Of a separation
of the Supreme and Circuit Courts, as
leading to too near connexion of the
Judges of the Supreme Court with tho
other branches of the government, and
taking away their chief means OF be-
coming acquainted with the various To-
cal laws and usages; and the judicial
decisions, of tho several states. He
thought tho present number Of Judges
Of the Supreme Court to be too small,
for the proper administration Of Justice
over such an extensive country, VITA
so many various and conflicting inter.
ests. Mr.. Il. believed the amendment,
proposed by his honorable colleague,
much preferable to the bill reported by
the committee. He thought the juris-
diction of the Circuit Cosrt, ought not
TO be given to the District Judges. The
salaries that had been given to them
had not always brought men Of the first
legal talents into the Office Of District
Judge, and he feared that, in many IN.
stances, they would not be competent
TO the performance of the duties. The
system proposed by the bill was un-
just and unequal, in respect to the
Western states, and would not be sub
mi,ted to. II was a great measure,
making radical change in the Judici-
airy system; and it could not be expect
ed that it would be adopted at the pre-.
sent session. 1t did not meet the wish
es CT the Western states: it did not ex.
tend to them equal advantages in th"