Mr. SUMNER. I should like to ask the Senfrom NewYork whether he assents to the amendment of the Senfrom Wisconsin. He does provide the relief for the Supreme Court which is desired. He has stated himself, and we all know, that the court is now some 3 years behind in its business, and the practicalquestion is, how are we to supply the relief? there are 2 different ways in which that may be done. One is by limiting the appeals to the Supreme Court, so that here after it shall have less business to do. Another way, and I am free to say to my mind the better way, would be, perhaps, to allow appeals substantially as now. but to enable the court by further provisions to give themselves unre servedly to the hearing of those apeals. Of course that raises the question whether the judges of the Supreme ourt sitting here in Vashin ton should have imposed upon them duties e sewhere. Thatis a question, perhaps, of practice, and also of theory. Since I have been in the Senate it has been ver often discussed, formally or informally. There have been differences of opinion upon it. I believe that the inclination of opinion always has been that the judges of the Supreme Court are perhaps better in the diseharge of their duties from the experience theygetatnisiprius. Thato in ion, I take it, is derived from England, an yet I need not remind the Senfrom NewYork that the 2 highest courts in England are held by judges who have no experience at the time at nisi grim, and do not go on circuit. I refer to the court of the Privy Council, and to the highest court of all, the court of the House of Lords. Then, if on pass over to France, where certainly the whole system of judicature is very admirabl arranged on principles of science, where {believe justice is assured, you have the highest court, which is known as the Court of Cassation, composed of persons set apart exclusively for cases of appea, never leaving Paris, and never hearing any other business except that which comes before them on appeal. I merely refer to these cases for illustration. The Senateis also aware that in the begiuning of our Government, when Washington submitted to his 1st Chief Justice, John Jay, the question of how the court should be constituted, Mr. Jay wrote in reply a proramme for the grganization of the court whic, according to my recollection, provided that the court should be exclusively for the consideration of appeals. The other business was to be done by circuit judges, leaving, of course, to the higher judges exclusively the hearing of appeals. That recommendation, however, wa. but aside, and the system which 15M exists su stantially was organized. Justice has been administered to the satisfaction of the country, reasonably at least, under this system. But now we are driven to this pass: justice promises to fail here in the Supreme Court unless we provide relief. Does the bill of the "Senfrom NewYork provide adequate relief? Speaking frankly, I fear that it does not; and I fear that the proposition of my friendfrom Wisconsin, if that should be adopted, will go still further to limit the relief which my friendfrom NewYork proposes to supply. 1 am disposed to believe that the only real reliefwill c foundin settings art the judges of our highest court exclusive y, for the consideration of cases of appeal. They would then sit as many months in the year as they could reasonably give to judicial labor; they might hear every case that could reach the tribunal of appeals; and still further, they would have a vacation to themselves in which they might review the science of their profession and a d undoubtedly to their attainments. I remember perfectly well that one of the ablest lawyersin nglaud, in giving his testimony some years ago before a committee of the House of Commons on the value of what is known in England as the vacation Irefer to Sir James Scarlett, afterward Lord Abinger, Lord Chief Baron testified that for one, as an old lawyer, he regarded the vacation as important because it gave him an o ortunity to review his studies and to read books that he could not read in the urgency of prac tice. I have heard our own judges make similar remarks. Now, the question is, whether the present bill does meet the case? Does it supply the needed relief? I fear that it does not, and I really should be much more safified if my friendfrom NewYork had more boldly dealt with the whole question by giving us a court of a peel composed of the eminent judges of the fend which should be devoted exclusively to a peels, and should leave to other judges the duty of hearing cases at miriprius. This brings me back, of course, to the proposition of my friendfrom Wisconsin, who I fear, by endeavoring to provide a hearing for his clients, ifI me say so