Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-05-02
nseft, alder the word :. Circnit, in .he senale's

amendment:
ss And the three additional justices whose APP
pointment is provided for by this act, shall seve
rally be assigned by the President oil the United
States 10 the said eighth ninth, and tenth, circuits
until the next term OF the Supreme Court, when il
shall be e duty of the Justices thereof assign or
allot themselves to the several Judicial Circuits oil
the u States, and to make record thereof accord-
ing to law"
The amendment was agreed to Ayes 81, Noes
so.
The opponents of the Senate's amendment con-
tended that it went 10 defeat the original purpose
of the bill, which to relieve the embarrasspen,s
occasioned by great accumulation of business in
tire courts oil Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. To
effect this the original bill those States, with
other Western States, into three different circuits,
Tor which the three new Judges appointed.
The amendment of the Senate destroyed this ar
rangement, and pat the two great States of Ken
tacky and Ohio, in which the greatest accumuia-
ton of business had happened, into one circuit.
This would leave matters in nearly the same state
as before; for Judge Todd, who had had the srper-
intendence of the courts of those two States to-
gether with those of Tennessee, had scarce been
able 10 perform any duty IN Tennessee, one dis
trict OF which he had not visited tor seven years
Nor could the accumulation in Ohio and Kentucky
be attributed TO the illness OF Judge TODD because
the salts, brought in those two States in one year
had amounted to twelve bundled, while the suits
in Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana, (aow proposed
10 be thrown into another circuit were but one
hundred and sixty. Thus, the duties imposed on
one Judge would amount TO eight times the duties
imposed on another, who received the same emolu-
nient. The population in the district of Kentucky
and Ohio, such sent twenty-six Represea-
,atves to this House; while the population in In
diana, Illinois, and Missouri, sent but FIVE A
circuit containing two States, would thus contain
a greater amount of business than any other three
"a 4
arrangement as this should be- adopted, the re-
manning business in the other circuits would be so
small that only two Judges instead of three, ought
10 be appointed.
On the other sido, it was insisted, that, in a
matter which concerned tho Western States the
wishes of those States the best rule 10 20 by
and the amendment now sent down, had received,
in the Senate, the votes of seven Western States
out of nine. The union of Ohio and Kentucky, in
district, was natural arrangement, as those
States Were con.ermnous and the distance OF their
Seats q Government from each other was far less
than those OF Kentucky and Missouri. The accu-
mutation of business in the courts of those States
was temporary matter, occasioned chiefly by the
proiracted illness of the late Judge TODD; he had
now been succeeded by Judge in full health,
and of great activity. Besides, the number of
suits was more in name and in sound, than in fact
because great number of the suits depending ON
precisely the principles, the settlement of
of them was virtually the settlement of all the
rest, and one decision might settle one hundred
cases; where an ejectment suit on an old grant
went TO GUST hundred different occupants. The
unanimity with which the Senate had passed the
amendment (there being but four dissenting voesl
rendered it very improbable that that body would
rece6e, in which the bill must be lost: and il
asked if the opposers of the amendment would
the risk and the responsibility ofdepriyin-
all the other Western States of the ben ets provid
oil h,,th a ratha hon, IL. q.
kentucky should have their wishes crossed. The
putting them in one district might be considered by
them inconyenient, but il asked if they
would assert that one Judge incompetent TO
discharge the duties of such circuit as Tennessee
longer to be included in il. II was further
insisted that, in arranging the circuits, respect was
70 be had TO the future well the present; that
Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana, would, in few
years, be populous Ohio and Kentucky and
though they might be represented in one House of
The Legislature by very unequal numbers yet in
the other House, where the small States were nut
footing with the large ones, they had express
ed their will, as States, by majority of fourteen
Western Senators against four II the bill should
be defeated by rejection OF the Senate's amend
ment, Ohio and Kentucky would still enjoy the
benefits OF the Judicial System of the United
States; but their Sister States would remain exclus
ed.
To this il was replied, by the opponents of the
means, necessary consequence. of rejecting the
Senate's amendment, a committee of confer
might be had, and, on suitable representations
the difference might be accommodated. Asto the
distance of the seats of justice of the States o.
kentucky and Missouri, though it was greater in
miles than those OF Ohio and Kentucky vet il adj
Ieitted of easy water communication for the
greater part OF the way; whereas, the other Jour
ney was over land entirely. If Ohio vas confer
rn:nous with Kentucky, al one extremity so was
Missouri at the ether But, if it were otherwise
the convenience of the Judge, and the distance he
had to travel was very subordinate subject of
consideration. In some rare cases il might happen
that the decision of suit settled the principle of
many others; but still jury was necessary in each
and the delay was, TO great degree, in proportion
10 the number OF causes; and even in eiecment
cases, where many occupants were assaiied by a
single grant, yet their defences were usually on
divers grounds; that the settlement of one suit
17as no settlement OF the others But if there was
any thing in this argument, its force went TO Sc
parate, and not to unite, Ohio and Kentucky;
because the suits in Ohio and the new States
were all founded on the same kind oftenure while
those in Kentucky resulted from the old laws of
Virginia and North Carolina, and required very
different description Of law knowledge
The amendment of the Senate was advocated by
Messrs. Scott Of Missouri, Cook of Illinois, Jen-
nings, and Tes, of Indiana, Moore of Kentucky,
Polk of Tennessee, Forsyth of Georgia, and Nc
Lame OF Delaware.
1t was opposed by Messrs. Clarke, Beecher
Campbell, Wright and Vinton of Ohio; Messrs.
Wiekliffe, Buckner, James Johnson, and Letther
OF Kentucky; Cooke and lsacks of Tennessee
Marvin of N. York, and Webster of Massachusetts.
The question of disagreeing to the Sena,e's
amendment, was then taken, and decided in the
affirmative. Yeas no. Nays 80.
So the amendment OF the Senate wa disaoraed IN