National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-02-18
FoRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS.
fCoHffnufd 5yox Efrsf PCdel

necessary to relieve the United States supreme
Court OF the immenss amount Of business that
Increase Of busineFs before the Supreme COust,
and showed that il was physically Impossible 70.
the judges to perform their duties under the eX-
istiDg system. If the court should sit every day
in the year, Gsd oct with the utmost industry. Il
would take II three years to dispose oil tue III
cases now on the docket. Il Is the duty Of the
Government to afford to all its citizens an early
opportunity for the settlement of Htigated cases.
As it now lie, the judiciary system Of the United
States is practical denial OF justice to the citi
zen. Vhe system fails to give the Iitigant a
speedy trial. and fails TO give him easy access to
a court of appeals from lower court. The Judi.
subject, and proposed TO give the citizen greater
facilities and advantages than they had under the
existing system.
As to the expenses Of these courts, It created
only the new office Of CLERK of the court. The
courts would be held In cities where there would
marshal would be performed by the United States
marshal. The expense Of going to the United
States Supreme Court would be saved, and the
jurymen to serve in both the circuit and district
courts, and for the sitting Of both courts az the
gsMe were fsv .es TbeTe the al
the same time, each with separate grand Juriss.
According to the lowest calculation the saving on
grand jurles, in these fItyf five cases, would be
$50 S75 and If separate petit juries found
necessary, there could be large saving added in
He was pleased to see that in all the amend.
ments offered there was not one that was hostile
to the general principles Of the bill. He appealed
to the House to vote down the amendments which
had been offered, and pointed out the defects in
some OF the amendments.
Mr.. LYNDE, of Wis, argued the necessity OF
the bill, and appealed to the House to support
the measure.
Mr.. SAYLER, of Ohio, asked if this bill did
rot do as had been done sll along during several
years past-eRlarge the jurisdiction Of the United
States courts and curtail the Jurisdiction OF the
State courts.
Mr. LYNDE replied that 1t did Ut In any sense
enlarge the Jurisdiction OF the United States
courts in any manner.
Mr.. KNOTT, OF Ky, then called the previous
question on the bill and amendments.
Mr.. SAYLER, Of Ohio, moved to lay the bill
on the table. Rejected.
The demand for the previous question was then
seconded.
Mr.. KNOTT, being entitled to the floor for the
closing hour of debate, yielded to Mr.. PARSONS
of KY, who took Issue with Mr.. LAWRENCE, OIL
Ohio, on the question whether the Court OF Ap
peals should be held at Louisville or Cincinna att
He complimented Cincinnati as @ great city, with
its railroads and its great enterprise and great
monopolIes. She had 1t all, and he wanted to ask
the Gentleman from Cincinnati why he was SC
"hoggish" about It. He defended Louisville, and
said IL was the greatest tobacco market In tho
world. Theycould at least give the court enough
to chew upon there. He argued that the amount
oGrevenue paid by Louisville gave 1t sufficient
importance TO entitle it to the court.
At the conclusion Of his remarks, Mr.. KNOTT
yielded for motion to that effect, and az 40 p
IN tie House adjourned.