Litchfield enquirer., 1830-04-08

inc norkef. At inc term of that year 5S ca ses were decided. On the 18th of February, IRsO. there were lSS cases on the DOcket.-I Tn 1897. inc Court were in session 68 days. Tn 1898. 6s days. In 1899, 67 days. And hew will the period of delay be extended, as the business of the Court increases with the increase of the business of this growing cOun- try. This delay will not be attributable to the Court. The Judges are in no fault. It IS to be attributed to the system under which they are placed. They accomplish asI which the most devoted and untiring industry and inces- sant application to the discharge or tneir dn- ties, can accomplish. But they are OOlIge6 to adjourn before all the causes are heard ana determined, to enable them to nOSo the Clr- cult Courts. Must not then the present sys- tenn hereafter he abandoned, or the docket of the Supreme Court be filled with anumber of ltigated cases, immeasurably almost exceed ing that of any of the WesterI. States, which now complain of it as amounting to denial of justice to them? Why, Sir, 1t may be fear ed that the proverbial delays of the English Court of Chancery will no: exceed the neces- sary delays which hereafter will attend par ties htigating in the Supreme Court, if the present system be then persevered in. The hand of death will remove them before their controversies can be dscided. The delay and consequent expense will consume the whole of what may eventually be awarded to them. This would be. not merely delay, it would be mockery ofjustice.
 Ihave thus, as briefly as could, adverted to the evils which in my judgment would fol- low, or which might follow, from the adop- ton of the principle, that new Judges are to be created as often as the wants of the new States require them. Were it in order. as am aware it strictly is not, 10 advert to an :. nlendment which has been printed. and laid on our tables, and which an honorable mem- Der from Kentucky (Mr. Daniel) proposes to offer hereafter to this bill. which provides tt.at maj jority of all the Justices of the Supreme Court, authorized by law to be appointed and commissioned, shall concur in deciding against the validity of statute of, or an au- thority exercised under. any State, in every case in the Supreme Court, where is drawn in question the validity of such statute ok or authority exercised under. any State. on the ground of repugnance thereof to the Goa stitution, treaties or laws Ofthe United States. and. unless such majority concur, the deci- sion of the Court shall he entered as in favor of their validity, and which further provides that no District or Circuit Court shall have jurisdiction, OF take cOgnizance of any suit. matter, OF cause of action, (Other than causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,) ei- ther at common law or in equity, where the cause of action, matter or suit. arises out of, and depends solely upon the laws of any State. and in which no statute of. or authority exercised under any State, is drawn in question, on the ground Ofa repugnance thereof to the constitution, treaties or laws of the United States; and if could think it possible that lis amendment would meet with the favor
 .l. oA hsrbr fINsh hVnn CnN amended much worse than 1t now is; for then the tendency 6f the system would perhaps more obviously be to unsettle and put at ha - gard judicial decisions on great questions which take hold ofthe vital interests of this nation, to set affoa: precedents regarding con- stitutional law. made after the fullest discus sion and the most mature deliberation, and acquiesced in by every department of the government, and by the great body of our cit- ixens. But this is not the time % discuss the principles involved in this amendment. l abstain at present from any further remarks upon it.
 have now submitted to the Committee, am sensible in n very imperfect manner. all which I wish to say regarding the sup posed necessities which have given rise to this bill, and the objections which in my judg- ment exist to its provisions. even if those necessities did exist. My object has been to show that there are no evils attendant upon the practical operation of the present judicial system. confined as it is by existing regula- tions, which. according to the uniform course of legislation on this subject, require rense- dy, and if there were, that the remedy pro- posed is worse than the disease. Should these objections be considered as deserving attention, as possessing any weight. while at the same time the Committee believe that q necessity does exist for the application of some remedy for existing evils, it may be ex- pected that should point out better reme- dy for them than that which this bill proposes. This is all which remains for me to do.
 The amendment of the hon. member from N. Y., (Mr. Strong.) now more immediately under consideration. proposes division ofshe States into nine judicial circuits. as follows:
 The first circuit to include the States of Name, New Hampshire and Vermont; .r
 The second ccuit the States Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut;
 The third ci,c1it the States of New-York and New
 The josrth eircsit the States of Pennsylvania and Delaware; - gina;
 The sirth circuit the States Carona, South. Carolina and Georgia;
 The seveath circuit the States of Alabama, Missis- sippi and Louisiana:
 The eighth circaii the States of Tennessee, Ken lucky and Missouri;
 The nisth circuit the States of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
 .E Al T.