Mr. HENDERSON. I was only going to suggest that if Senators insist upon reducing the amount here, I think some plan of that sort ought to be adopted. If we retain the $10,000 clause here, and let no case come up to the Supreme Court that does not present a controversy for that amount, the Supreme Court, perhaps, in the course of 3 or 4 years can get through the mass of accumulated business; and then, if it be deemed advisable, let as reduce this amount to $5,000, or let us adopt the other plan of having circuit court judges to perform these duties separate and distinct from the judges of the Supreme Court. I do not know that I should vote for a pro.osition of that sort. Iam very much incline to believe that the judges of the Supreme Court are made better judges by performing circuit. court duties. That has been my opinion and I have seen no cause to change that opinion during the discussion here. But would it not be etter for the time being to retain the $10,000 clause, and wait awhile, especially as the Senfrom Massachusetts has succeeded iningrafiing an amendment on the bill putting in the patent laws, and I really can see no use for that? If a plaintiff in an action of trespass for infrin ging his patentclaims $20,000, (and it is a very easy matter so to do) and he recovers 8100, can he not bring the case to the Supreme Court under the provisions of this bill? Certainly so. I know defendants cannot do it; but plaintills will bring cases into the Supreme Court in order to get all the questions under the patent laws on revenue laws adjudicated, so as to be uniform throughout the nation. If it becomes important at any time that a principle should be settled even under the patent laws, 0.party can sue for $20,000 and recover a dollar, and can bring the case, under the provisions of this bill, to the Supreme Court. It is a very easy matter to do so. In that way we get uniformity. These courts of appeal surely will be courts possessing ability and vast legal learning. We expect to have able men upon the bench of these courts of appeal, as they are called here; and I think that under the circumstances, considering the fact that the Supreme Court is so much bur dened with business, the utter impossibility of. getting speedy justice at the hands of the supreme Court cases put 00 in which States and people are interested, and deeply interested, from year to year, as was well suggested by the able Senfrom Indiana and in consideration of the fact that this.bill gives a court that will be equalin its ability and in its legal learning, to the Supreme Court when it was 1st established, equal in numbers, even, in a great many of the circuits, and in fact in a majority of them, I suppose, equal in every respect to the Supreme ourt as it formerly stoo, (I do not speak of it now) and equa in many circuits perhaps to the Supreme Court asitnow stands, having one of the judges of the supreme bench who will go out With a full understanding of the various questions that have been discussed before this court and decided by this court with the advantages of such a court as that I think it would be we! to retain this prevision, at least for a time. I do not say that I would retain it for all time. Senators have presented strong reasons, I admit, why the amount should be reduced to $5,000; but in 1789 it was provided by the ju diciary act that a case must involve $2,000 in order to get to the supreme Court, and nowl ask if $10,000 at the present day is a larger amount of money ora ects private interests to a greater degree than $2,000 did in 1780. A man in 1789 owningr $2,000 was as rich as he is now worth $10,000. If at that time it was thought well audit has certainly operated well from that time to this yto restrict appeals from the circuit court to the Supreme Court to cases involving at least $2,000, would it not be well at this time, under all the circumstancesl have enumerated, to retain the $10,000 clause so as to restrict appeals from these courts to cases involving that amount? The plaintiff can always get his case here if he claims euou b, no matter what the judgment is. I know the de fendant cannot get it to the Supreme Court unless the judgment itselfinvolves that amount., But suppose there is any difficulty upon the point of the amount in controversy, 1 suggest to the Senators that the Supreme Court has again and again received affidavits of individuals here in open court to ascertain the amount in controversy. It does not matter what the declaration is, or what the judgment is, if the thing itself can be shown in the Supreme Court to involve the value of $2,000 under the old law, the court will take jurisdiction. There are various decisions on that subject which I have looked up since the discussion yesterday, and to which I can refer Senators. The Supreme Court will take evidence here by affidavit to show that the amount really in controversy between the parties is $10,000. I think it better, therefore, to retain the clause, but other Sen, ators know much more about the matter than do.