Mr. CLARK. I desire to call the attention of the Senfrom Oregon and the Senfrom Massachusetts to the provision of this bill that the decision of the court of appeals shall be final upon the facts. I suppose that more than half of the time of the present Supreme Court is spent upon an investigation of the facts in the record. This bill relieves them entirely from that, " and will save, I presume, more than half their labor. Then, again. the bill, if itshould be amended as the Senfrom Wisconsin proposes, would double the amount in controversy which now comes to the Supreme Court. It is now $2,000, and it would e by this bill, if amended, $5000, so that the relief that would be furnished by relieving the Supreme Court from the investigation of questions of fact and carryin the amount in controversy up to $5,000 would be a very great one. Mr. President, I apprehend another difficulty from this bill, and my objection to it is not so much that itjwill relieve the Supreme Court, as that it will overburden and break down the district courts. I am afraid that you ar. but ting more work upon the district courts than they will be fairly able to do. The are to take the place of the circuit courts an try all the questions of fact, settle the law in the 1st in stance, and then they are to hold a court of appeals in various cities of the Union some 2 or 3 months in the year to determine the cases which may be carried there; and I am very much afraid that you will overburden the district courts. That is my objection to the bill, ifI have one. I am willing to try the experiment, but I certainly doubt ver much whether it is going to work in the way that the Senfrom NewYork and others apprehend; but still lam willing to try it; it may be better than the present system. But I wish to call the attention of the Senfrom NewYork and other Senators to what is requisite to have a good system, and that is that your system should be satisfactoryto your suitors as well as to the court. It must be a system which will not only not impose too much labor upon the judges, but will be satisfactory to the most of the people whose business you undertake to transact. My fear in regard to this matter is, that a great many of the suitors whose cases do not come u to the amount of $10,000 will not be satisfie if on provide one tribunal for them and a more ig nified and more learned tribunal for another class of cases. There must be a limit some where; but you must allow all the people as far as you can to aproach our highest tribunal, or they will not be satisfied. the man with a case that involves $0, 600 will inquire of you wh he cannot come up to the higher court as well as the man whose case invo ves $10,000, and perhaps his case involves a principle of vastly more consequence than the case where the value is $10,000. It is necessary, therefore, that you should open the court as wide as you can, and give all the suitors an opportunity of approaching the higher court consistent with the labor of the court. I submit to the Senfrom NewYork whether it would not be better to try the experiment of more than doubling the present jurisdiction, placin it at $5,000, and removing the examination of all questions of fact to the court of appeals, and trying the point there.