Litchfield enquirer., 1830-04-08

IHe IoFmer the CIrCut court System IS not extended at all; and the complaint IS, not that their Judicial business is not finished, but that it is not as well done as if would be were Justice of the Supreme Court assigned to them. To the latter the system is nominally extended, but, from a variety and combination of causes, the ben- ehtS of 1t are not realized: their complaint IS, not that their Judicial business is not well done, but that the unavoidable delay Tn completing it is tantamount to a denial of justice.
 The source from whence these complaints proceed, and the manner in which they have been presented to us, ,claim ihe most respect i"l consideration, and ,ifwell founded how. everwe may differ as to the mode of redress sing them, trust we shall not differ as to the extent of their rights, or of our duties. do not intend to trespass long upon the pa- tience of the Committee by the remarks which shall make upon this branch of the subject; for, with the views which enter tain regarding the remedy proposed, it might safely be admitted, that the evils complained of, are as extensive as has been supposed. But as this bill is professedlv framed to supply tue wants. the absolute necessities, and to sustain the just rights of the States, to which have referred as no disposition has been manifested bv any member to increase the number of the .Jus- ices ot the Supreme Court, except for these reasons, 1t may be we'll briefly to examine and ascertain, if practicable, how far the complaints which have been made, are we'll founded, what real necessity does exist for the increase And if do not very much mistake, it will be found that the state of Judicial business in the Courts of the United States, in these States, will not ius- tlfy, nor does itrequire any such addition at least, from the information now before the committee, the necessity adverted to is not shown to exist. 5.-
 begin with the six younger States. The honorable Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, (Mr. Buchanan,) has informed the committee that tue parental care the Government, so far as it regards the equal and due administration of justice, in the Federal Courts, is withdrawn from them.
 Ofthis they complain, because it depies to them an equality of rights and privileges with the other States, and thus mortiies what IS sometimes called State pride, and eXcteS otate jealousy. G5.
 have no disposition to deny the propo- sItion, that by the terms of the admission. the new States are placed on an entire e. quality with the old States, as to rights and duties-and if l had the disposition, have not the power to do it, consistently either with the letter or spirit of the acts of Con- gress authorizing their admission. Nor, in what l am now about to say, shall | be justly obnoxious to the ;mputation of ep- tertaining unkind feelings towards the new States. Coming as do, from one of the old States of the Union, and from State from which the tide of emigration has berc- totore rolled with a rapidity and constancy, which has hardly yet began to be checked, have many reasons to feel and cherish ali that kindness and respect towards the youn- ger sisters of the cohfederacy, Gas they were very appropriately called ivy the Honorable Member from Pennsylvania, Mr.. Buchan- an,) which such an endeared relation should excite. Many of the sons of Connecticut are now respectable citizens of those States ; some of them are distinguished members from those States, of the National Legislature. I say, therefore, with frank "~ ""u "stN pAC0SubC eu04 WOuIU WltUs hold from them no one right--I would de- prive them ofno one privilege, which. un- der similar circumstances, is granted to the older States. l may, however, still be per- mitted to say, that this principle of equali- ty, so far as it relates to the administration ofjustice in the Federal Courts, has never been the standard by which the judicial sys- tenn of the Nation has been regulated. not even in the old States of the Union. Up- on the principle of entire equality, each State should have judge of the Supreme Court and more than one, if necessary to enable it's judicial business in the courts of the United States 10 be finished with the same facility and economy as in the other States. .....
 But our judicial system does not now proceed on any such assumed basis. Why are parts of the wealthy and powerful States of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, cut off from the benefits of the present system Why are they deprived of the talents and learning ofa Judge of the Supreme Court Is not this humiliating to their pride-and yet, to obviate it, the number of the Judges must still further be increased. Even the bill under discus- sion deprives part of the state of Louisi- ana, and part of the State of Alabama, of the same benefits. If we look at the