Mr. WILiIAMS. I hope the Senfrom NewYork will not accede to the renest made by the Senfrom Wisconsin an make the proposed change in this bill. I understand that the primary, if not the only, object of this legislation is to reduce the amount of business in the SCOTUS and to expedite the administration of justice in that court. Now, it is a fact that all the labor of the Supreme Court during this present session has hardly reduced the size of the docket. Cases have come into that court about as fast as they have been decided; and the respect is that unless some relief can be affored by this or similar legislation the accumulation of business will be so great as to amount to an absolute denial of justice. Suitors in the Supreme Court are now compelled to wait 2 or 3 years before their cases can be reached upon the docket, and there is a necessit for some remedy of this kind and of the kin proposed by this bill. Now, sir I should rather see the amount increased than decreased, and I believe that it would add to the administration of justice in the Supreme Court, and be of advantage to all concerned. to have the amount enhanced rather than reduced. It is objected that this amount is too large, and that persons may be interested in suits where the amount involved is less than $10,000, and it may be of as much consequence to such litigants to have their cases go to the Supreme Court as in cases where the amount exceeds $10,000. If I understand this bill, it provides the same remedy for eraons who have suits in the courts of the U.S. as persons have who have suits in the State courts. Nearly all the questions of property, or a very large proportion of the cases of property, are sett e in the courts of the States. Suits are brought in the circuit courts of a State; questions are there decided; the parties have their remedy by a writ of error or appeal to the supreme court of the State, and there is an end of litigation. Every suitor, under this bill, has the same remedy. He has his case tried by the district court, and then he has his case tried by the court of appeals in the circuit; so that every suitor, under this bill, has the same remedy that every suitor has who brings his suit in a State court; and it is well known that there are suits involving as much property brought before the tribunals of the States as are broughtin the courts of the U.S. I thin that the business of the Supreme Court should be confined as much as possible to the construction of the Constitution and laws and treaties of the U.S., and that questions of property and questions of fact that arise in ordinary litigation shouldas much as possible be confined to the State courts or to courts of inferior jurisdiction. I believe there was a time when the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was confined alto gether to questions of law, and I think that perhaps even now it would be advisable to recur to that old practice of confining the proceedings of the SCOTUS to questions of law, and not require that court to pass upon questions of fact. at, at any rate, if the court is required to pass upon questions of fact, it seems to me that this bill certainly does not restrict the jurisdiction of that court any more than is absolutely necessary; and if this proposed amendment should be adopted, it seems to me that this bill will produce but little or no effect; the change from the old law to this one will be trifling. and, the great evil which exists at this time will not to any considerable extent be remedied. I am satisfied from whatI have learned of the proceedings of the Supreme Court, that it is absolute] necessary that this provision should be may e, or, if not this, that some other provision equivalent to it should be made in this bill.