Mr. BOUTWELL. I cannot allow myself to be interrupted, as I have but ten minutes of time. Under section 35 of the judiciary act of 1789 Congress provided by law for the appointment of these officers by the court; and as I said yesterday, the court derives its power to appoint attorneys from that act. But for that act they would be driven back upon the ancient Is there objection. common law doctrine, under which the party himself was required to appear in court and manage his cause. That section is as follows: “Abife:, That in all courts of the U.S. the parties may plead and managetheir own causes personally, or by the assistance of such ccoouurntsse, lroersaptetoctrinveeylys, at law asby the rules of the said shall be permitted to manage and conduct causestherein.” Therefore the authority of the court to appoint an attorney is derived from the judiciary act of 1789, framed by the fathers of the Constitution; and without the authority of that act it would not today have constitutional or legal power to admit a single attorney to the performance of his ordinary functions in any court of the U.S. They are entirely devoid of power to enact rules for the government of the courts, except through the act of 1793, which provides, “That it shall be lawful for Nie several courts of the U.S. from time to time, asoccasion may require, to makerules and orders for their respective courts, directing the returning of writs and processes, the filing of declarations, and other oings, the taking of rules, the entering and making up judgments by default, and other inatters, in the vacation oafndthoeth U.S. manner not repugnant to the laws That is their limitation. They have power by the authority of law to make their rules, and that is the only power they have on the subject. The law limits this power by declaring that they shall not make any rules except such as are in conformity to the laws of the U.S. The SCOTUS, many years ago, through the decision of Justice Story, recognized the authority of the Congress of the U.S. in this matter. He says: “So far as the acts of Congress have adopted the forms of process and modes of proceeding and pleadings in the State courts, or have authorized the courts thereof, to adopt them, and they have been actually adopted, they are obligatory, but no further. But no court of the U.S. is authorized to adopt by rule any provisions of State laws which arerepugnant to or incompatible with the positive enactments of Congress upon the subject of the jurisdiction or practice or proceedings in such court.” Keary et al. vs. PTehteerFs, aprm. ers' and Merchants' Bank of Memphis, 16 94. It is from the Constitution and laws and decisions of the courts, then, that we derive authority to }. any rule which we think necessary and proper for the performance of the duties devolved upon the courts of the country. If we have authority to give the courts power to make their own rules, we have clearly authority to prescribe exactly and definitely the rules by which the courts shall be fov'ern.ed; and upon this statement of the matter the bill to the House.