Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-01-21

Will gentlemen show to me why II cannot!
= Uniformity NAV be matter o. pride, OF feeling,
bn, !, can have no concern with the substantial
interest and happiness Of the country. 1t is
trne. the honorable Chairman of the Committee
has NOT advanced or intimated an opinion fur
Wishing ground to conclude that the'idea Of ju-
, d;c;al r.ore senta,ion furnished motive to the
scheme of the bill they have reported. But
other honorable gentlemen, in support Of it,
have distinctly advanced the proposition, that
II is valuable and desirable feature in it,
He confessed, the idea Of judicial represen-
tation was not only new to him, but was be-
vond the reach of his humble comprehension.
He could not comprehend how court could
be representative body The Constitution
has fixed no standard for this representation;
his mind could conceive no rightful rule
He would simply ask, upon the ordinary prln-
ciples OF representation, would New-fork be
content to be represented on the supreme
court bench BY one Judge, and would the ad-
vocates Of this representative system give 10
Delaware and Rhode Island an equal privi-
lepe2 This canno, be the principle Of judicial
representation referred TO by its advocates.-
The principle he presumed to be, to bring to
the supreme brench, through the medium OF
circuit Judge, a knowledge Of the kr loci OF all
the respective states to whom they respectively
administered Justice. To perfect this plan, 1t
would be necessary to have one Judge from each
of the twenty-four States. Is this the plan con-
tended for by the advocates OF this bill? Ii tits,
will the Judiciary Committee go with them!-
must have an imperfect idea oil the views OF
that committee if they are prepared Tor such
scheme
He contended that the Judges the supreme
court have it in their power TO acquire know
ledge Of the law and the end and policy OF the
law, Of the several States, without the circuit
court intercourse, as eHectually as with 1t
They already possess this knowledge. Ii, In
deed, 4 ere were any unwritten law OF the
States, which could not be acquired without
personal observation, there would be some rea-
son for the adoption of this principle. But
Judges, and lawyers, and jurists, obtain elemen-
tary knowledge in the closet. They can, In
truth, acquire it no where else. 1t is true, they
can become most speedily and ehectually &C
quainted with all the information, in relation to
State courts and State laws, which may enable
them to exercise the appellate power beneficial
~ and ably. The duty, imposed on the Judg-
es Of the supreme court, oftravelling from court
to court, is calculated to do injury, as it inter-
rupts and destroys this closet application. He
tration. Has not the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts been employed to argue a cause be-
fore the supleme court, depending upon sta
tutory law of some remote quarter Of the u
Mons? Did he find those insuperable difficulties,
which have been alluded to, in understanding
The law which it was his duty to expound to
the court? 1 presume not. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania has not succeeded in Guiding
the force Of the argument Of the gentleman
from Virginia, as 10 the inefficiency Of hume
rous appellate courts, by his reference to the
New-York Senate and the House of Lords as
appellate tribunals.
From his knowledge ofhistory he understood
that, in its judicial capacity, the House OF
Lords was considered blemish on British Ju-
risprudence. Its judicial character belonged
to the structure Of the government, and could
not be separated from il. II was the Baronial
judicial power by regular succession, that had
descended upon the House Of Lords, BY the
force of circumstances. In our courts, the o.
pinions of Mansfield and Kenyon would
have more weight than the opinion OF Lords
and Commons, upon question OF law. AS to
the adjudications Of the Senate Of New-York,
sitting as court OF errors, he could affirm
that in all the courts with which he was &C
quainted, the single opinion Of Chancellor
Kent would be received as better authority
Again, he was opposed to increasing the num-
Der Of the Supreme Judges, because Of It's ten
dency to lessen judicial responsibility. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania had laid down,
as to this matter, sound principle, when he
asserted that the individual members should be
held responsible for the opinion of the COURT
If you have ten judges, or greater number,
you may never expect to have their opinions
seriatem on any subject. Even in the present
organization of the supreme court, he under
stood it to be the practice to portion off the bu-
siness, giving this cause to certain number OF
Judges, and that cause to another number,
Thus, the principle is weakened even now, and
ifyou increase the number, you only extend the
evil.
Another objection, in his mind, arose out of
the effect of this increase Of Judges in lessen
ing the motive, in the appointing power, in Sc
Letting the very best men for such high and re-
sponsible offices. 1t was reasonable to expect
that the appointing power would be more care
full and select, if the court consisted of FIVE
Judges, than if j, consisted of ten.. Knowing that
there are now SO many members on the bench,
of great learning and experience, his anxiety
and solicitude as to the competency of the new