Mr. WILLIAMS. I know from my own experience how difficult it is for a judge to review is own decisions and at the same time divest himself of all feeling or pride of opinion as to the judgment which be pronounced in the in ferior court; and I am inclined to favor the amendment which has been proposed by the Senfrom Wisconsin. When the constitution of the State of Oregon was formed the supreme court was made to consist of the cir cuit judges of the State, and by a provision in that constitution the judge who decided a case in the court below was excluded from any participation in the decision in the supreme court; an I believe that the experience under that constitutionso far has been satisfactory, or more satistactor than it otherwise would have been. I have no doubt in in own mind that the better system would be to are a court of apeals entirely distinct, to consist of judges who have not presided in the inferior courts. But. as that polic is not proposed in this bill, I think it desirable to approximate as near as possible to that policy. am satisfied that justice requires that the judges who are called upon sitting in the court and there Will always ve a judge to review the decisions of the inferior courts should not be the identical persons who made those decisions, because they cannot, in the na ture of things, be entirely impartial. They go into the invesption with their opinions fixed and determinetin and it is necessary that those oplinions should be overcome by which it is often very difficult to o. I I do not understand exactly the force of the objection made by the Senfrom NewYork that some members of the court may be unable to attend to their business, and if you disqual ify the judge making the decision in the court below, no court could be held. It is supposed that the persons who are appointed are compe tent and qualified to transact the business which the law devolves upon them. So far as the experienceof my State is concerned and the State government has been in operation there for several years, no inconvenience has resulted from this system; and I do not now remember one term of the supreme court where all the judges have not been present. I presume there will be no great inconvenience resulting from the adoptionof this amendment such as is anticipate by the Senfrom NewYork. Open the Pacific coast this court of appeal! I think would consist of 4 judges. A bill has been introduced by the Senfrom California which Iunderstand proposes to make the State of California one judicial district; but the State of Oregon constitutes one judicial district, and so doesNevada, which would make the court of up eals to consist of 4 judges. I think, so or as that portion of the U.S. is concerned, no difficulty would w out of the adoptionof this amendment.