Mr. HENDERSON. Yesterday the Senfrom Maine [Mr. Fesssxnax] started the question. I was not prepared at that moment to answer it; but since then I have examined the authorities on the subject, and I find it abun dantly settled in a case before me, in 3 Peters. I shall not detain the Senate by reading that decision. The judiciary act of 1780 allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the amount in dispute should be $2,000 or over. Thatlanguage, “amountin dispute, ” is changed in this bill to “amount in controversy.” I suppose that will make no difference, butI suggest to the Senfrom NewYork that it would be better to adopt the same word “disute, ” because its meaning has been judicially settled and fixed; and by using the same words the court will have no trouble, though I suppose the expressions mean the same. In the case of Alexander Gordon, and others, vs. Francis B. Ogden, 3 Peters, 33, this question came up and was thoroughly discussed and determined. I "will read the head notes of that decision: The plaintiff below claimed more than 2000 dollars in his declaration, but obtained ajudgment for a lesssum. “Tliojurisdiction of this court dependson the sum or value in dispute between the parties. as the case stands upon the writ of c rrorin this court. not on th“aItfwhich wasin dispute in the circuit court. the writ of error be brought by the plaintiff below. then the sum which the declaration showsto be due may bestill recovered should the judgment forasmallor sum be reverse d; and consequentlythe. whole sum claimed is still in dispute. But if the writ of error he brought by the defendant in the original action the judgment of this court can only affirm that of the circuit courts, and consequently the matter in dispute cannot exceed the amountofthatjudgment. Nolhinnbutthatjudgment is in dispute between the parties." That is not the only case. I have looked at half a dozen cases where it has been abun dantly settled. I refer the Senate to the case of Wilson vs. Daniel, 3 Dallas, 401, where the same principle was settled; and also to the case of Course vs. Steads executors, 4 Dallas, 22; and also to a case in 7 Peters, 634. Senators seem to argue this question as if no case could ever get to the Supreme Court where the judgment below would not be $10,000. There is never any difficulty in the plaintiff claiming enough; he has no difficulty in swearing to his declaration; his declaration may claim as much as he chooses, and if he recovers only $100, 110.can get in the Supreme Court; there is no trouble about it. The Senfrom Maryland yesterday insisted that the business of the Supreme Court would be so much lessened by the provisions of this bill that it would he a very bad idea to adopt this $10,000 clause. 5,000 dollars would be amply sufficient, he said. Let us look. I understan from the judges of the Supreme Court that they are 3 or 4 years of business behindhand now. suppose that all the Senfrom Maryland sai be true, suppose that this bill by relieving the Supreme ourt from an examination of the facts appearin on the record and confining them to the law can les them to attend more conveniently to the business that comes before them, I cannot see how the Supreme Court can ever aply principles of law very well unless they have this facts in the bill of exceptions. They must have the facts of the case in order to ascertain and determine what principle of law aplies, and they are not going to be disburdene a great deal by that provision of the bill. But even if they were to the extent urged by the Senfrom Maryland, let me suggest that this business now of 3 cars yet undetermined has accumulated here, in the absence of all the southern States. I apprehend the Union will be restored sometime soon. I apprehend the southern States will be again in their political relations to the Government at some time or other, and that they will begin to send causes here. believe the Supreme Court has determined already to take up cases that were here from the southern States, and I see no reason wh cases cannot be broughtfrom those States. do not know what the determination of the court would be on that point. A case might come here from those States and be set asule by the court as not properly coming; but on the other hand they may take them up, and if they do, the business at least will be 1/3rd greater than it is from the present loyal States. Therefore the court will not be relieved any by this provision, cannot possib be relieved. What the court will gain by the provisions of this bill, in not being required to examine the facts of cases coming up from the northern States, they will receive in the shape of additional business in a short time from the southern States. I think, therefore, that the bill as it stands ought to be adopted, at least until the Supreme Court can get rid of the vast mass of business that is now before them. If Senators desire, let the bill go back to the ComJudiciary, and let them adopt the principle suggested by the Senfrom Vise onsin yesterday, that separate judges for circuit duties be selected; and I think the Senfrom NewHampshire has made the same suggestion.