Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-05-23
TIE U. S. sUPREME COURT.

1t has been evident to the bar of the
country for years, that the constantly &C.
cumulating business before the Supreme
Court of the United States can only be
disposed of by resort to relieving it of
that class of cases involving less than $l0,-
600, and in which no consti-
tutional questions are inoylyed.
1t is not so clear, however, that a reoi-
ganization of the court On this plan
would obviate the constitutional object
ions raised against dividing the court into
several heads having final appellate ju-
risdiction of cases coming within the re-
vlsing power of the United States Su-
preme Court, as at present organized. To
establish an appellate court in
each of the nine judicial circuits
of the country, as has been suggested,
would undoubtedly relieve the Supreme
Court of the great mass of the cases
usually brought land which rarely, il
ever, involve constitutional questions
before it, but the establishment of such
tribunals would no doubt be in conflict
with that provision of the fundamental
law of the land, which declares that
there shall be but Zone Supreme Court
The law under which our present
judiciary system was organized, provides
for bench composed of nine judges; the
concurrent action Of any five of whom
being rs binding as the opinion of the
court as the action Of the full bench.
And to provide against the wilful and
inadvertent or unavoidable absence OF
one or more judges interfering with the
business of the court, two-thirds
of the full bench--six judges
were constituted a business quorum,
the concurrent action of any four OF
whom giving the same validity to the &C
ton Of the court as would five with a
full bench.
The power of congress to fix the num-
Der Of Judges that shall constitute full
bench of the Supreme court, and to de-
termine the number necessary to consti-
tute n quorum for the transaction OF
business has never been questioned. But
advisor of the present court into several
branches by the legislative action OF
congress would, in the opinion of the
majority of the American Bar associa-
ton, be of very doubtful constitutional
itv, although the plan has the support OF
very respectable minority of the Asso-
citation, consisting of William N. Evarts,
Richard T. Merrick, Edward j. Phelps
and Courtlandt Parker.
The bill recently introduced by Judge
Davis, creating an intermediate
court in each of the nine judicial
circuits, and known as the Court of APP
peals bill, no doubt obviates this consti-
tutional objection. 1t provides for the
appointment of eighteen additional cir
cult court judges, two for each circuit,
who with the present circuit judges, the
Supreme Court justice assigned TO it, and
two of the district judges, are to be within
their respective circuits the court of fina
resort in all cases involving more than $500
and not more than $4,000, except in bank
ruptcy proceedings, which are to be
finally passed upon as at present by the
circuit courts. Recourse, however, may
be had to the present supreme court
without regard to the amount, where
constitutional question, the validity Of
treaty, or the construction of federal
law, is involved, or when the circuit
court of appeals shall certify that the
question at issue is of sufficient public
Importance to warrant an argument be.
fore that court.