Mr. FESSENDEN. I suppose, Mr. president we may just as well speak out and let everybody understand what all this means. The provision as it now stands in the House bill, I take it, was a sort of compromise on this question between the circuit and district judges. In some of the districts, district judges have been recently appointed who are Republicans, of the prevailing party of the present time; but in many of the districts they are otherwise, being judges who were appointed in former times; but owing to the change of circuits the circuit judges in some of those districts are of a different political faith. Now, the contest seems to be who shall have these little registerships, whether they shall all go to the dominant party or whether they shall not. Those in favor of having the appointments given to the district judges I suppose are those residing in. districts where the judges are of their way of thinking, and those who want to give them to the circuit judges are those residing in districts where the circuit and not the district judges are of their way of thinking. Thus arises a controversy over a very small matter. I shall vote for the amendment, not particularly because it would suit my case exactly, for I do not think it of consequence.one way or the other, (though I have no objection to having the section stand as it is by way of compromise if a difficulty is to be made about it,). I shall vote for it for this simple reason: this bill places about all the power with reference to bankruptcy in the hands of the district judge. He is the judge of the court of bankruptcy; he does the business; he super vises the whole matter. These registers are under his direction, operate with him and under him. if I read the bill rightly, the circuit judge has substantially only appellate juris diction in cases to be submitted to him on a bill in equity or otherwise. The whole principle on which our small judiciary appointments have been conducted heretofore is that the judges of the courts who do the business should have the appointment of the inferior officers. It is proper that a judge should have in his court such persons as are satisfactory to him and in harmony with him; and I should be in favor of adhering to that principle., I am not so much afraid of these matters, however, because it is true in regard to judges as in regard to other people that they sometimes die. They do not always die soon enough, perhaps, but their time comes at last, and there may be a change; and in the course of a few years the change may be directly the other way from what some gentlemen apprehend. We cannot tell what will happen in relation to the districts. But in framing a bill of this kind I think it should be framed upon some sort of principle, and not be constructed with particular reference to who is to appoint half a dozen registers in a State for a court of bankruptcy, who may be turned out when their time comes or when the judge is changed. I have noticed, however, as a general rule, that judges, after they get safely on the bench in a position which they hold for life, do not trouble themselves much about these small matters. They are very apt rather to be disposed to make friends with the bar, and make such appointments as will be satisfactory to the bar in the different parts of their district. They become in a measure conservative and do not trouble themselves so much about these small appointments. I think this rule applies just as well to the district judges who may happen to be Democrats at the present time as it does to the circuit judges who may happen to be Democrats. I do not think either of them regards this as a very material matter, and that all of them will be more anxious to i. good men, good officers who will make the discharge of their own duties easy, quiet, and comfortable, than they will be to get particular partisans of anybody. I think that applies retty much to all of them, and arises from the hature of the office they hold. Therefore if one or the other is to be selected I shall vote in favor of selecting the district judges, because they are the head of the bankruptcy court; but if it is to make a controversy, perhaps the better way would be to stick to the compromise which seems to have been agreed upon in the HoRep, and that is to provide that the registers shall be apF.on the nomination of the Chief Justice. suppose that would work, because he would be instructed as to the right men who should be appointed in the different States by the circuit and district judges. They would probably agree in such a case upon who should be the registers and submit the names to the Chief Justice, and he would nominate. There is another reason why, if the appointment is to be given either to the district or the circuit judge, it should rather belong to the district judge. The circuit judge may know as much about the bar in the State in which he resides as the district judge; but where there are half a dozen States in the circuit, some of those States having 2 district judges, he certainly cannot be so well acquainted with the qualifications of the men and the right kind of men to appoint as the district judge of the particular district. Take, for instance, the 1st circuit, which includes the States of Maine, massachusetts, RhdIsland, and NewHampshire. I dare say the circuit judge would appoint in the State of Maine perhaps as judiciously as the district judge; but I do not think he could appoint as judiciously in the other States where he does not reside and where he only goes occasionally to hold the circuit court. For that reason, also, I think it should belong to the district rather than the circuit judges. But ifthere is to be any contest to see whether it shall be according to the prevailing polities of the circuit judges at the West or the district judges at the East, I think we had better compromise on that important matter and have it fixed accordingly.