Mr. WILLIAMS. Idesire to add one or 2 suggestions to what I said yesterday on the proposed amendment. I am satisfied that its:1 cption will tend greatly to defeat the benefits that otherwise would be derived from this bill. In considering the amount of business to come before the SCOTUS it is to be remembered that all, casese ome before the Supreme Court as heretofore from courts of final resort in the State. There are 3 cases gending in the SCOTUStates at this time from the State of Oregon; all of them are brought up by writs of errorto, or appeals from, the supreme court of that State. 2 of them are cases in equity, and involve the examination of a large amount of evidence and the decision of questions of fact; the other is a case involving a question oflaw. Now, is it a large estimate to suppose that each State will average 2 cases in the Supreme Court each year? If so, there will be 72 cases coming from the supreme courts of the several States into the SCOTUS annually, and they may be cases involving questions of fact as well as questions of law. Besides that, as I understand, all cases determined in these courts of aipeals involving constitutional questions made a pealed to the SCOTUS, and it is well known that a large proportion of those cases are cases of that description. Then all cases involving the construction of the revenue laws or patent laws maybe brought into the Supreme ourt; and to use must be added such cases as may come up to the Supreme Court from the Court of Claims. Putting together, then, all the cases that may come into the Supreme Court from the courts of final resort in each of the 36 States, with all cases involving constitutional questions, all cases involving the construction of, or any claim arising under, the revenue or patent laws of the country, and all cases that may come up from the Court of Claims, and I ask if it is not reasonable to suppose, if this bill remains in its present sha e, that as much business will accumulate be ore the Supreme Court as it can reasonably transact. Moreover, Mr. President, the condition of things in the lately rebellious States, it seems to me, ought to be considered. Acts of congress have been passed affecting the rights of property, immense quantities of property, in those States. Acts of the Federal government affecting the rights of property there have been committed; and it is well known that many peeple in the country, and particularly those most directly concerned, claim that these laws and these acts are unconstitutional; and the probabilit is thatas soon as the door of the Supreme cart is opened to those people, if it is not open at this time, they will come into that court With these cases involving these constitutional questions that grow out of the transactions of this war, and they are certainly very numerous and very important; and it seems to me that in considerin this subject it is necessary to give due weight to that circumstance. Now, I do not appreciate the force of the argument that has been urged in favor of this proposed amendment, because if it proves any thi it proves that a man that has a claim invo ving $4,000 ought to he allowed to come into the SCOTUS as much as a man who has a claim involving $6,000. There must be some limitation upon the right of appeal. What is the criterion by which that is to be determined? Is it to be the supposed wishes orinterests of the persons who maybe involvedin litigation, or is it the capacity of the court to transact busmess? I presume there would be no particular object in restricting the right of appeal at all if the SCOTUS could reu sonab transact all the business that might arise from an unlimited right of appeal; but it is perfectly clear that the Supreme Court cannot transact that business, and therefore it is necessary that there should be some limitation, and that limitation is fixed at $10,000 in the bill, and as I before suggested, I do not see why suitors who go into the courts of the U.S. should complain when they have the same remedy that suitors have in the State courts. Every man who brings a suit in the district court of the U.S. has a right to have his case, there tried and determined before a judge and jury, if it be a jury case, and then has a right to take his appeal to this court of appeals, where there will be 4 or 5 learned judges to pass upon the questions involved. So far as my observation extends, the multiplication of courts is of no advantage to suitors, but rather a detriment to them and to the country, because men, when the become involved in litigation. become excite and exasperated; they carry the cases from court to court from a sort of stubbornness rather than from any expectation that the ends of justice will be roiiioted. The Senfrom NewHampshire suggests that this will be a hardship upon the poor man. Sir, poor men, in my opinion, will not carry their cases into the SCOTUS under this system. suppose a man brings a suit in the district court of pthe U.S. upon a claim amounting to $5,000; the case is tiere tried and determined and he is defeated and compelled to pay the expenses of that litigation and the fees of his attorneys; he takes his case into this court of appeals; it is there tried and determined and he is defeated, and he pays there the expenses of that trial and the fees of his attorneys, and then takes the case into the SCOTUS, where he must wait for 2 or 3 years and have an attorney employed all the time to watch the case. Suppose in the end he recovers his $5,000, how much has the poor man made in that operation? Deducting all his expenses, costs ofcvery nature and description, to which this litigation has subjected him from the $5000 that he recovers, how much will be left? lfthat man is driven by any feeling of resentment, as he might be, contrary to his own interests. to take the case to the SCOTUS, it is better or him and better for all concerned, he will be better sat isfied when he comes coolly to reflect upon the subject, if the law prevents him from taing the case any further than the court of apeals. It seems to me that the object which I this bill seeks to attain will be reserved more by allowing the bill to pass in its present shape than by the adoption of the amendment. 1 say again, so far as [am concerned I me not be as well advised on that subject as other Senators I believe it would be conducive to the ends of justice to enhance this amount rather than to diminish it, because the businessof the SCOTUS should chiefly be decisions as to the Constitution and laws of the U.S. rather than to be engaged in trying puestions of property and other questions of that description, which may be tried and properly adjudicated by the inferior courts of the d U.S or the courts of the States.