Mr. HENDRICKS. When this bill was examined in the ComJudiciary, I thought it would be a very good bill or aver? vicious bill, and my judgment is that it depends upon the action of the Senate on this very question. If we do accomplish what is intended by the bill, that is, to relieve the Supreme Court so that the cases which come to that court may be decided at an early day, we accomplish what every one admits to be a desirable en, because it is dreadful that people have to wait 2 or 3 or 4 years to have their cases decided. In the mean time estates are tied up, and the gaining party sometimes is destroyed by the very fact of the delay. Speedyjustice is a most as important as it is to have justice itself. But, Mr. President, if we do not relieve the Supreme Comb and that is really, I think, the only virtue in this bill then we introduce a very great vice into our system; that is, increasing the number of courts in which cases are to be litigated. If we do not decrease the labor of the Supreme Court. the cases ought to go directly from the court of trial to the appel late court; and in my judgment it is a very great objection if cases have to go 1st from the district court or circuit court to the court of appeals, undergoing there the delay and the expense of that litigation, and then go to the Supreme Court still. ldo not think there is much force in the argument of the Senfrom NewHampshire. [Mr. CI.Aiiit.] although it was statedingeniously, that this is a provision for the rich man and against the poor man. I do not look at it so. In our State we havea provision that causes of trifling importance before a justice of the peace shall have an appeal to the circuit court. but none to the supreme court. It may be said the corman is as much interested in the disposition of a little case that originates before a justice of the peace as a rich man is in a case of greater importance that originates before the circuit court. That is the argument. It turns simply on the proposition that the case is of such inconsiderable importance in itself that there ought to be an early end of litigation about it. So I think in the Federal courts, if a case is of considerable importance, either because of the amount that is involved or because of the importance of the question that. decides it, then there ought to be aua pool of course to the highest court; butif the case be inconsiderable in amount, and unim ortant in regard to the principles involved. et the litigation stop upon one appeal. This bill provides for a veryenlightened court, a court of appeals, equal perhaps it ought to be equal to the supreme court of any of the States. An ordinary case not involvinga constitutionalquestion. but involvingcommercial law, is sufficiently litigated when it goes from the district court to the court of appeals, and it is no hardship to say that the party shall stop there. In myjudgment it is a benefit to liti nuts to say to them that there shall be an ear y stop to their litigation in 3/4ths of the cases. Therefore, I think this bill is right asit stands, and if we change it so as to increase the business of the Supreme Court above wnatit contemplates, we do not accomplish angiood, but introduce a vice into the system is proposition to have an intermediate court of appeals is a very objectionable feature in the system, if we allow all cases to go still on from that court to the Supreme Court, ifwe do not stop litigation there in the great body of the cases; and it is a good feature if we do stop litigation there. I do not think ordinary litigants will comlain of it.