Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, the motion is to strike out $10,000 as the basis of an apeal from the court of appeals to the SCOTUS and to insert $6,000 instead. I shall vote for that motion. I shall vote for it for the reasons which were so for cibly presented to us yesterday by the Senfrom Iaryland. He remarked very properly and very forcibly that the great desideratum in the matter of the decisions of our courts was uniformity. Now, whathave we in this bill presented to us? We have 11 appellate courts, each of which operates within a separate cir cuit, and each of which is to be composed of the circuitjudge for that circuit as the presiding judge and of all the district judges embraced within the circuit. It is supposed that these courts will consist, upon the average, of 4 or 5 judges. Of cOurse, in every case the district judges will constitute the majority. As my ffieud on the opposite side from Maryland remarked, it is of a lthings desirable that these courts, 11 in number, should decide the same questions of law uniformly; that there should be no variation in the course of decision. I have a little distrust of these new fangled projects for the reorganization and the improvement of our judicial system. There has been existing in the State of NewYork for several years past a reformed udiciar, and that State is divided, I believe, into ei it different circuits or districts within which there is held at proper seasons of the year what is called a supreme court. Each of these courts makes a very great number of decisions every year, most of which arepublished in a series of law reports; and if I am not mistaken, the greatest complaintagainst the system that exists in NewYork is the want of this same uniformity of decision mentioned by the Senfrom Maryland. Indeed, the decisions of the supreme courts of the State of NewYork have liecome really of very little value. The bar there, if I am properly informed, have very little respect for the decisions of those supreme courts, and the parties litigant, of course, are never satisfied until their cases have been determined by the court of last resort, which in that State is called the court of appeals. It is just as desirable to obtain this unifor mity in the Federal courts as in the courts of the State of NewYork; and the question in in mind is, whether ar eduction in teamount Wiich is the basis of the a peal will have a tendency to produce that Uniormity. I think it will, because by multi lying the number of cases appealed to the SCOTUS, we are more likely to obtain this same uniformity; and I confess that I am not yet prepared in my own mind to say that the ress of business before the SCOTUS is so great, or that it is likely to become so great, as to justify the introduction of this radical change in our judicial system. It is possible that the u ges, learned, industrious, as they undoubte ly are, might by some arrangements among themselves secure a greater dispatch of business in that court. I do not accuse them of inattention to their duties, or an omission to bestow that de gree of industry upon their business which is required at their hands; but I would rather ca l the fact to their attention and ask them whether they cannot by some means contrive to dispose of the cases more expeditiously than they have done heretofore. I am not without some apprehension that the might do this, and thus relieve suitors and the country. I shall vote to reduce the amount. I cannot see any justice in excluding from the right of taking an appeal to the Supreme Court, the man in whose case the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $10,000. Under the old system, which has lasted more than 3 quarters of a century, every suitor in a circuit court had a right to take an appeal where the matter in contest exceeded the sum of $2.000. I believe the country has been well satisfied with this arran ement, and I do not believe the people genera ly, if they understood this bill, would give in their adhesion to a principle which would exclude from the benefit of appeal to the court of last resort of the U.S. 8 10ths at least of the cases which now go there. They would be ver apt, I think, to suspect that the othee of aJe of the SCOTUS was about to become a sinecure. I do not say that that would be the effect by any means, but I am in favor of keepin the door to appeals as widely open as is practicable under the circumstances.