Litchfield enquirer., 1830-04-08

be deemed to ema0ate (tO use cOmmou oA pressiOn) from pure heart and sound neao' ] as that such should, in fact. be their charac- | teristics. Let the community once Del'eVe. whether from causes we'll or ill founded, that the decisions of this judicial tribunal are not entitled to their confidence, and the salutary effects which would otherwise follow from inc exercise of their powers, would be neither seen nOr felt. Am I asked how this cOnh- dence of the public may he impaired, by 'n- cpeasing the number of the court 7! answer in one. or both, of two ways.
 By creating beliefthat the court partakes more of the character of a popular assembly than of mere judicial tribunal; that appoint
 ments are to be made to it with reference to some supposed ratio of representation m the several States; that each portion of the Union is to be regarded, whenever vacancy occurs, or new Judges are to be added, as entitled from its wealth, population or Poilt-
 ical importance, to furnish the incumbent
 indeed, that this of itself constitutes reason for the increase of the court; that sectional views are to be consulted, sectional 'mpor.
 tance to be considered that an increase of
 the number is necessary to advance the par
 ticular interests Ofparticular parts of the coun- trv, I need not detain the Committee to point out the deleter ious consequences result Eng from such an impression upon the public
 mind. It is very obvious, the court, under
 such circumstances, would cease to possess much of the confidence of the people.
 Another way in which an addition to the
 number of Judges might tend to weaken pub
 lie confidence, would he, by presenting to
 public view, in many cases, minority of the court, perhaps a large one, in the decision of questions of great national importance And should the minority ba supposed to be supe- rior to the majority in legal requirements and judicial learning, the decisions in such cases would perhaps not be considered as posse ssing the force and binding authority of preccdents, would be douhted. sustained or overruled, according to the varying opinions of the additional members of the court. as they should successively take their seats on the bench.
 The system, proposed to be extended by this Bill, cannot. in my judgment. be pern1a- nent. Sooner or later it must be abandoned. Whenever from the increased number of States which may hereafter become part of the Union, the increased population. and the consequent accumulation of business, 1t becomes necessary to add still further to the number of Judges, you must then either give up inc present judicial system, or the Su- prcme Court, instead of possessing hardly
 the characteristic of Court, and certainly
 not deserving the name of one, will in fact be
 but popular assembly. dJ not believe
 that any member would be willing to add one l to the number of the Judges. as often as the organization of a new Circuit becomes neces- sary. And when will this period arrive know it cannot be ascertained with matne- nautical precision. The Hon. member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan) says, not with in half century, not until every gentleman tho nf nNv sleeping the sleep of death. cannot but consider this assertion somewhat gratuitous. as made without the reflection which he usu- ally bestows upon every subject to which his attention is called. think it will arrive with in the period Of fifteen ar twenty years. and that it would not be difficult to sustain this position. But be it sooner or later. 1t IS ob- vi0us that the time will arrive wben addition al Judges will be required. if the present sys- tenn be continued. And what will then be our situation? Under what endorsements will the country then be placed Why, Sir. we shall have on the bench of the Supreme Court more Judges than, as the Hon. mem her from Pennsylvania Mr. Buchanan) ad- mits, are either necessary or useful to the due administration of justice in that Co"rt.- their office by the tenure of good behavior. They cannot he legislated out of office, unless the same course is resorted to which was a. dOpted in 1sO2. The Court then becomes burdened with useless incumbents. lsit safe or prudent. is it expedicnt to continue sys- tenn which accumulates judges so far as that hereafter it will he serious cause of regret that they are in office Is not the argument deserving consideration, that we should not go on adding to the court, when eventually the system which creates the necessity for It must be abandoned? But this is not all. Is it the dictate of wisdom. in legislating with reference to the judicial system of this cx- tended country, to make it. at least so far as it regards the numher of judges. the creature of temporary or local policy? Should not great outlines. the leading features of tt in this particular, be permanent Ought we to adopt one system to day tc meet present e4l' gencies, and another tomorrow because oth- CT exigencies have arisen? Will this princi- pie be safe one, when applied to tribunal created for the administration of justice, the exposition and construction of laws! Let us not shut our eyes to the light which histo- l ry and observation furnish on this subject | Are the rights of individuals and of the pub | lie, when drawn into controversy, in Courts Of | justice. as uniformly sustained by an inde- 1 pendent and enlightened administration of justice. where the organization and structure l of their courts are subjected to the operation l of frequent and radical changes? With few exceptions. history. and the declarations |