Mr. DAVIS. I was struck with the soundness of the suggestion of the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin. It seems to me that the object of all appeals is to have a uniformity of law, and that that uniformity cannot be obtained unless the right of appeal, in cases involvinglegal questions, is granted. This bill allows an appeal where the value in controversy is $10,000, or where the question in litigation involves the construction of the Constitution of the U.S., or of any treaty or revenue law of the U.S. The sug insert the words “or other” between “rev enue” and “ law." I agree to that suggestion. By the section as it now stands, an a peal is allowed where the court shall certify flint the adjudication involves a legal question of sufficient importance to require that the final decision thereof should be made by the Supreme Court. I think that provision would prove illusive in practice. A court having power to certify that a legal question is of sufficient importance to justify an appeal, will have a General indisposition to give such a certificate. My experience in relation to courts is precisely the same that it is in relation to all deposita ries of power. The de ositarics of power want to increase their juris iction and their power and lesson their labor that is the general ruleand I think the disposition of courts, both supreme and inferior, is not an excetion; they will grasp as much Jurisdiction an power as they can, with as little labor as it is possible for them to perform. The idea of their certi fying that a Hlegal question is of sufficient importance to authorize an appeal to be taken from their judgment to the Supreme Court will, in practice, I think, prove illusive. The proviSion ought to be expunged, in my or judgment, it ought to be put in a form that would make it practical and available to the parties to the suit. I hope, therefore, that the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin will put his idea into an amendment to this proposition and that the question upon his proposition will be taken.