Mr. BINGHAM. I desire to say, with all respect to my friendfrom Wisconsin, that he labors under a yery great and total misapprehension about the condition of the legislation of the country in regard to this tribunal for the last 3 years. ow, what I undertake to say is, that the change in the legislation touching this court made in the last Congress had no relation whatever to the question raised by the Gentfrom Wisconsin, the power of Congress to review the decisions of that court. It was a change in the existing legislation of Congress to remove the objection raised by the SCOTUS, to their obligation to review upon an appeal as hitherto provided by law, the decisions of the Court of laims. The Congress of the U.S. did not intend the Supreme Court should by any objection of that sort, taken on a mere verbal expression of an existing statute, evade the ob ligations which properly belong to their office; and therefore, what is known as the 14th section of the statute in reference to the Court of Claims, upon which they predicated their denial to review the decisions of the Court of Claims, was repealed and rightfully repealed. But, sir, with the indulgence of my friendfrom Pennsylvania, I beg leave to repeat what I said before, that during the last 3 years of the existence of this court of exchequer, as it may be rightfully called, there have been millions I do not stop with1,000s, but I say millions saved to the Treasury of the U.S. directly by its judgments, as compared with the action of any preceding Congress in the last ten years. And I chal lenge an investigation of the fact. Therefore it iIs object to the proposition of my friendfrom Illinois, {Mr. ".] and I beg leave to reiterate that I am surprise that he did not fully comprehend, that the effect of this proposition is simply to make this House again a log rolling machine in the interest of these men who come to claim, not simply a few 100,000 dollars, but a few million under some treaty stipulation, and who button hole every member of the House, to the utter disgust of the country and the disgrace of this E., It makes it altogether nugatory. As my friendfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevex's] says, it converts the tribunal into a mere set of arbitrators or commissioners in chancery to make a report to the House. My friendfrom Wisconsin [Mr. SLoAN] thinks that of course the House would understand the testimony and arguments of counsel and conflicts arising in the law. My experience is this: more than ten years since when I 1st came into this House, the very condition of things which my friend proposes to reenact to day by this amendment did exist. You had your Court of Claims, but they were simply auditors to audit the accounts, take testimony and report it to the House, and the result was the House determined finally whether the claim ought to be paid out of the Treasury or whether it should be rejected. And I think my vener able friend very well states what was the record of Congress at the time, that the larger the claim rejected by the Court of Claims as arbi trators the surer it was to pass Congress. I repeat, then, if we want to restore the oki order of things and paralyze this court we will adopt the gentleman's amendment. If, on the other hand, we intend that these claims shall be established according to the rules of law and equity in a court which has proved itself above suspicion, subject to review or appeal in all cases in the Supreme Court of the E. States, where the amount exceeds $3,000, we will reject the gentleman's proposition. If we cannot trust this tribunal of justice, whom can we trust?