Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-01-24
Mr.. BUCKNER'S SPEECH.
JUDICIARY SYSTEM


JUDICIARY SYSTEM
On motion Of Mr.. Webster, the House again
resolved itself into Committee of the Whole
Mr.. Tomlinson in the Chair, on the bill "further
to amend the Judiciary System Of the United
States"
Mr.. BucKNER, Of Kentucky, said that, in ris-
ing to address the committee, at this late period
OF the discussion, whep even eloquence would
be Invested OF its wonted charms, he was salts
fed that he needed some apology to offer for the
&. intrusion. he hoped, however, thata satisfaC-
tory one would be found in his conviction that
amore important matter would not c. cupy their
attention during the present session, and in the
very deep interest which the People of the West
felt in the fate Of this bill He confessed. how.
ever, that he was almost deferred from entering
upon the investigation If its principles, when
he recollectcd that the gentleman from Virgil
MIA MIR. Mercer) had told us, that the learned
Chairman OF the Committee who reported this
bill MIR. Webster) haG himself shown its utter
lnaptitude 10 answer the avowed objects of its
friends; and that the able argument Of the gen
tleman from South Carolina Mr.. Drayton) had
but served TO strengthen his resolution to Cd.
pose it. A task which they had failed to &C
complish would certainly be far beyond his
reach Under hope, however, that the COM
mittee might take very different view OF it,
Mr.. B said, he should proceed concisely to
submit the remarks which he designed to offer.
II, said he, could be satisfied, with the gen.
tleInan from Virginia, (Mr. Mercer,) that this
bill is calculated to destroy the very vital prin-
ciples Of the Judiciary system, hope need
not declare that not a member on this floor
would oppose il more zealously than myself,-
But he could see no ground on which to found
such an apprehension.
In speaking Of the grievances complained o.,
respecting the inequality Of the operation Of
that system, in the different parts of the United
States, and the inability of the circuit Judge,
who presided in the Western circuit, to dis
pose, in any short time, of the great and ncreas-
ing number Of suits in the courts of that cir.
cult, aud the fitness Of this bill, as remedy,
Mr.. B said, it was necessary to turn our atIen-
ton to its legislative history. and 10 its present
arrangement. We should also Inquire "L-.,..
it had secured the prompt and satisfactory adj
ministration Of justice In the States to which II
had been extended, where circuit court duties
were required to be performed by a Judge OF
the supreme court Of the United States. This
Government is divided into three distinct de
partments-the legislative, the executive, and
the judicial 1t was certainly highly desiia-
bic that the principles WHICH support those
main pillars Of the Government should be as
stable and permanent as possible; and no doubt
can reasonably be entertained that the very able
men who framed our Constitution endeavored,
as far as they could to effectuate that important
object They declared that the judicial power
of the U. States should be vested in one su-
preme court, and such inferior courts as Con-
gress might; from time to time, ordain and es-
tablish.
The permanency of the supreme court was
scarcely more to be desired than that Of the In
ferior tribunals. But it was no, within the ken
of human foresight to declare either the partic-
ular number of those inferior tribunals, which
the exigencies Of rapidly increasing nation
might require, or the precise principles On
which they should be organised. Those mat
ters were Of necessity submitted to the wisdom
and future experience Of Congress. But if sta
bihty was important, when that feature of the
present bill, which requires the performance OF
circuit court duties by the Judges OF the SUI
preme court, had received the appreciation Of
the American People for SO many years. when
the utility and wisdom of such arequisltlon had
been tested BY the experience OF upwards OF
thirty-6ve years; ought we not to regard 1t al
most in the light of constitutional provision!
Were a proposition made to change the consti-
sti,ution itself, would not approach 1t with
more caution In 1889, we are informed that
the first statute was enacted in relation to the
judicial power Of the United States. In that
law you find the same feature which the present
bill presents. That statute remained unatered
until 1898, when the subject was again present
ed to the consideration OF Congress The Tune
was 100 short to give it the character Of fixed
policy at that period. But let US pursue It's
course further. The system was continued
without any change, in the principle alluded to,
until 1901, when the acts of 'ss, and 's3, were
repealed. the Judges of the supreme court were
separated from the circuits, and circuit Judges
were appointed. N 1902, the act of 1901 was
was repealed; and thus well nigh did the same
year witness the birth and the death OF this sys-
tenn of 1901. The act Of 1902 brought US back
70 the principle of the law Of 1889 and 1898,
so far as they required the supreme Judges TO
s,,ard =, the circuits; and thus was furnished
s,rone and persuasive evidence Of a most de-
e;i,ed preference by Congress for that course
! shall not stop here, (said MIR. B, to inquire
into the considerations which contuced to the
repeal Of this law OF $50 |, from any othersource
than that which the statute itself furnishes