Mr. HOWE. The opposition urged by the honorable Senfrom Illinois and the Senfrom Oregon, as well as that insinuated rather than urged by the Senfrom Massachusetts, induces me to say what I undertook to say today to the Senfrom NewYork, and it is this, very briefly: the diminution of business that you are seeking to secure in the Sn ireme Court will be accomplished much more I think than we now estimate by the fact that you are providing 2 trials for all causes before any case gets into the Supreme Court except those of which they have original jurisdiction. 2 trials are tobe had. it is a mistake to suppose, as the Senfrom Illinois seems to suppose, that suitors generally take appeals or go to law for the fun of the thing, for their own gratification. There are perhaps individuals in this world of ours so constituted as that they can find solid fun in lawsuits l speak of course of unprofessional gentlemen [laughter] but they are very rare. Ordinarily, men en ga in litigation because they believe their rights are infringed or abused, and they get the judgment of a tribunal on that question. If it oes not satisfy them, if it does not lead them to doubt v seriously whether they have been abused as they supposed, they will doubtless seek the judgment of a new tribunal; but it often happens I think it is within the experience of every professional gentleman that from accident, or from some cause or other, the 1st trial has not only failed to be satisfactory to his client, but has failed to be satisfactory to himself. I think almost all lawyers will as sent to the proposition that they frequently try causes for the rst time and can see they have not fairly presented them to the court, and that upon a 2nd hearing they could present them more satisfactorily to themselves. When that is the case, neither suitors nor attorneys will be satisfied. Here you have provided, as I said, for 2 hearings before any cause goes to this final tribunal. That is the provision which is going to restrict more than any other the business in the Supreme Court; and I think, having provided in those 2 hearings below, the business of this court will be diminished much more than we now estimate. I hope, however, that the Senate will conclude to try this amendment. lfit is found that in spite of these 2 hearings granted below, the business accumu lates iu the Supreme Court beyond its capacity to dispose of it, then we can restrict these appeals further hereafter, and then we shall have the alternative before us of diminishing the business by restricting the right of appeal, or of releasmg the judges of this court from the duty of attendin the court of appeals below. Iam encourage to believe, by the remarks thrown out by the Senfrom Kentucky some time a o, as well as by the remarks of the Senfrom NewYork and the Senfrom Massachusetts, that if we find we must provide further relief to the justices of this court, we shall by and by come to the conclusion that this is the true mode of doing it. Now, I hope the Senate will assent to this amendment.