Mr. HOWE. I think the proposition is not so new as the Senfrom Massachusetts seems to think, though it is newer than it ought to be. I think it has not been adopted early enough, nor generally enough, nor stuck to in the State of Thine or in the State of NewYork very long. It is impossible for me to conceive how such a provision should occasion any inconvenience. on have an appellate tribunal here consisting of several judges. The purpose of providing that court of appeals is to give a new trial, to get the adjudication of a different tribunal, and, I think, it is better and will be more satisfactory if it is entirely a different tribunal than if it is partly a new one and partly the same. To the extent that it is the same tribunal, it is a rehearing and not an appeal, not a review. It is a fact not universal, but so general that it scarce] affords a ground for an imputation on the character of a magistrate, that some men become so wedded to an opinion from the me fact that they have once pronounced it, thn they are less open to conviction than they would be if they never had pronounced that opinion. I do not mean to make any personal application of the remark, and I hope my friends close by will not wince under it. have noticed such cases; and I have heard of anbther fact, which is that some judges are so constituted that they are inclined to ield to the Opinion of an associate, findiii a rm and fixed opinion in that associate, rat ier than to investigate for themselves when they have such an opinion to lean upon; and I do not mean to make any personal application of that remark either. It has been suggested here that the acquaintance of the judge who has tried a case in the court below might be absolutely essential to the a pellate court. I be leave to say in rely to that suggestion that think it is absolutely dangerous for an a pellnte eourtto know more of the cause than tiiey can gntherfrom the record and from the arguments of the counsel, except what they gather from the examination of authorities. If it be resolved that there shall be one man in the appellate tribunal who has already passed upon the case and has fixed opinions, the side of the controversy on which those opinions have been pronounced has an advantage on this hearing. That is certain. The appellate court has then the duty of hearing counsel for each of the parties before it and when those arguments have been submitted there is or may be a further argument submit ted in the council chamber by the judge who has once tried the cause and made up his opinions on the trial below and has transported those opinions to the appellate court. I there were any pOsitive orpossible good to be derived from that I would submit to whatinconvenience is likely to result from this measure of fallibility to which I referred; but unable as I am to see any possible good to. be derived from having that warticular judge to preside on the new trial of tecause, it seems to me we had better provide for a new tribunal, composed of new judges, to act as the apiellute court. I hardly think the Senate would be prepared to accept this proposition against the protest of the Senfrom NewYork and the Senfrom Massachusetts and others who have indicated their opinion against it. My own judgment is that it is a very proper one, and I should be very glad to see it adopted.