the establishment of local courts of appeal, was submitted to the Senate by Senator Morgan. (Cong. Rec. vol. 13, part 4, p. 3,888.)

President Cleveland, in his message of December, 1888, among "the numerous illustrations" of matters of public concern, as to which the attention of Congress has been repeatedly and urgently, but unavailingly solicited, refers to propositions for changing the laws relating to public lands, so that their spoliation and diversion to other uses than as homes for honest settlers may be prevented; and refers to plans in aid of Indian management; to the necessity of the erection of prisons for the confinement of United States convicts, and of a post-office building at Washington, and to propositions for the revision of the pension laws, and then says: "The crowded condition of the calendar of the Supreme Court, and the delay to suitors and denial of justice resulting therefrom, has been strongly urged upon the attention of the Congress, with a plan for the relief of the situation, approved by those well able to judge of its merits. While this subject remains without effective consideration, many laws have been passed providing for the holding of terms of inferior courts at places to suit the convenience of localities, or to lay the foundation of an application for the erection of a new public building."

This message was delivered to the present Congress, in which, in the Senate, in December, 1887, by Mr. Gray; in January, 1888, by Mr. Pugh; and in February, 1888, by Mr. Gorman (by request), bills were introduced for the relief of the Supreme Court, and were referred, the first two to the Committee on the Judiciary, and the last to the Committee on Patents. These bills may have been considered in committee, but the life of the present Congress, now soon to end, has been so concerned with politics, private claims and political scandal, that this question has not received any consideration, either in the House or in the Senate. The first of these bills (S. No. 632), introduced by Mr. Gray, December 13, 1887, provides for the appointment of an additional Circuit Judge in each circuit, and for the establishment at Washington of an independent Court of appeals, to consist of seven Judges, the chief at $10,000, and the others at $9,500, which Court shall hold at Washington four terms a year; to which court, within one year, appeals may be taken in cases (1) "between citizens of different States; (2) between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; or (3) between a citizen or citizens of a State and corparation organized under the laws of the United States; or (4) between citizens of a State, foreign states, citizens or subjects." Where, in any cause from which an appeal from a final decree could be taken, or an injunction shall be granted or continued by an interlocutory order, an appeal from such interlocutory order may be taken, within thirty days, to the Court of Appeals, without any stay of proceeding in other respects in the court below. All provisions of law now applicable to appeals to the Supreme Court shall, except as modified by the bill, apply to an appeal taken to the Court of Appeals.

"The decision of the Court of Appeals, and, except in patent cases, of the Circuit Court in bane shall, upon questions of fact, be final and conclusive." Appeals from Territorial courts are allowed only to the Court of Appeals in cases not involving questions upon the construction of the Constitution or upon the validity of a treaty or law of the United States; and appeals are allowed from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States in cases involving $50,000, or questions upon the construction of the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States; but when the case involves a question upon the construction of the Constitution or of a treaty or law of the United States, the Court of Appeals shall state the question to the Supreme Court, which question only, unless the case involves the sum or value of $50,000, shall be decided by the Supreme Court: Provided, that in any case in which the Supreme Court, upon application, may determine that the same would be expedient, or in which the Court of Appeals shall certify that it is expedient, an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court, without reference to the amount involved for a review of the law of the case; and appeals also shall be allowed, without regard to the amount involved, to the Supreme Court in the following cases, viz.: First, in criminal proceedings, where the life, liberty or property of any citizen is dependent upon the construction of the Constitution or of any Uuited States law or treaty; secondly, where, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, there is a conflict of decision between the courts of the United States; and third, where the Supreme

Court shall deem the question involved of sufficient importance to make its decision thereon expedient: And provided, further, that when the Court of Appeals shall reverse or modify the decision of a Circuit Court, in which a Justice of the Supreme Court shall have participated, the question of law involved shall be certified to the Supreme Court. With a provision that, excepting in motions for new trials, the trial judge shall not participate in the decision upon any appeal or like proceeding, the Circuit Court is made to consist of the presiding Justice, the present Circuit Judge, the new Circuit Judge provided for in the bill, and the District Judge in whose district such Circuit Court may be holding its session, which Circuit Court, so composed, shall have jurisdiction "where a final decree or judgment is sought, either upon hearing in equity or upon an adjudication upon the issue of law, as in a demurrer or the like, and in every case designed to obtain a review of any decree or ruling of any Judge, master or other person exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions." And the court so composed, of which three shall constitute a quorum, shall hear motions for a new trial based on the allegation that a verdict was against the evidence, or against the weight of the evidence. Separate terms and sessions of the Circuit and District Courts may be held by the several Judges thereof, as now provided, but general terms of the full Circuit Court shall be held, with the jurisdiction above indicated.

On January 9, 1888, Mr. Pugh introduced a bill (S. No. 1,238) providing for the appointment of an additional Circuit Judge in each circuit; providing for sessions of the court by the Associate Justices, Circuit Judges and District Judge; proscribing any appellate jurisdiction from the District Court to the Circut Court; and organizing an intermediate Appellate Court, to be composed of the Associate Justices, the two Circuit Judges and two District Judges, of which five three shall be a quorum, the trial Judge never to sit as a member of the Appellate Court in the case tried by him. In matters involving more than $2,000, and in other cases where an appeal now lies, and in cases where a Circuit or District Judge shall certify that the adjudication involves a question of general importance, appeals may be taken from the Circuit and District Courts, within one year, to the Appellate Court; and from interlocutory injunctional orders, and from orders appointing receivers or giving to them other or further powers, appeals may be taken, within thirty days, to the Appellate Court; but if such appeal from an interlocutory order is dismissed, the court may allow to the attorney for appellee a reasonable solicitor's fee, not to exceed $100, to be taxed as costs in the case. Appeals are allowed within ninety days in all criminal cases from the Circuit or District Courts. One such Appellate Court shall be organized in each of the present circuits, and shall hold two terms a year. The decision of the Court of Appeals upon questions of fact shall in all cases be final and conclusive, but where more than $10,000 is involved, or where the case involves the construction of the Constitution or of any United States treaty or law, or where the Appellate Court (by a majority) shall certify that a question of sufficient importance is involved, then an appeal may be taken from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court (the Appellate Court stating the question of construction or of importance in all cases not involving the jurisdictional amount); "and, in patent and copyright cases, a review may be had, without regard to the sum or value in dispute, upon the questions, both of law and fact, affecting the validity or the infringement of the patent or copyright: Provided, that the Court of Appeals shall certify that a question is involved of sufficient importance to render it proper that a final decision thereof should be made by the Supreme Court."

On February 27, 1888, Mr. Morgan introduced a bil', by request, (S. N ». 2,141). This bill provides for a Court of Patent Appeals, to consist of five Judges to be appointed by the President, with a like tenure of office as the tenure of the Circuit Judges, at a salary of $8,000 each, to hold one term annually, commencing in October, at Washington, and adjourned or -pecial terms, if necessary. This courts all have appellate jurisdiction, without reg rd to the sum in controversy, first, in all cases from Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia touching patents, copyrights, trade-marks and labels; second, in all cases from the Commissioner of Patents touching the patentability of inventions, priority of in

vention, and the practice in the Patent Office, and in all cases touching the registration of trade-marks or labels and the rights of conflicting claims therefor. Appeals in such cases from the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court would be denied. This bill also provides that in all cases decided by the Court of Patent Appeals, except cases relating to the Patent Office practice, there shall be a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that, at the option of the parties interested, such cases now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States shall be transferred to the Court of Patent Appeals.

THE MANNING BILL.

As originally introduced in the House (and subsequently, in January, 1882, by Mr. Pugh, in the Senate), this bill increased the Supreme Court to twenty-one Judges, and divided them into sections, assigning to each division a particular class or classes of cases; but the bill. as introduced in the House by Mr. Manning, December 6, 1881, omitted the provision for an increase in the present membership of the Court.

THE SAWYER BILL.

A bill prepared by Hon. Lorenzo Sawyer, Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, and introduced in the Senate, January 26, 1882, by Mr. Miller, of California, established a new Court of Appeals at Washington, to be divided into two sections, and also intermediate Courts of Appeal in the several circuits.

Numerous bills, embodying modifications, as to details, of the Davis and Manning bills, have been, from time to time, introduced in the House and the Senate, and among them, in 1882, bills, which were such modifications of the Davis Bill, were introduced, one by Mr. Payson, of Illinois; another by Mr. McCook, of New York, said to have been prepared by Blatchford and Benedict, JJ.; and another by Mr. Hardy, of New York, understood to have been prepared by a select committee of the New York Bar Association.

THE PRESS.

President Grant recommended to Congress an increase in the number of the Judges of the Supreme Court. Earnest protests against this recommendation were printed editorially by the Chicago Legal News, Central Law Journal and Albany Law Journal, and by a number of n wspapers of both political parties, some of these editorials characterizing the proposition as "a mere politcal party expediency, and a wretched shift."

In this connection, reference may properly be made to the bill introduced in the Senate by Mr. White, providing for an amendment to the United States Constitution, so fixing the number of Judges of the Supreme Court as that the same may not be reduced and may not be increased, except upon the basis of, and in proportion to, the increase in population; and reference may also be made to the article by Senator Margan, of Alabama, in the North American Review (1881), under the title "Partisanship in the Supreme Court," in which he approves of the White Bill, and makes some strong statements concerning what may be called the political history of the Supreme Court.

It may also be said that during the years when the Davis Bill was active in the Senate, the political press of the count y, without careful analysis or competent discussion, almost unanimously approved of the plan of that bill; further, that so far as the periodicals and the press (both political and other) have considered the questions involved, they have also, and with striking unanimity, (1) advocated the proposition to put the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court concerning the Supreme Courts of the Territories and of the District of Columbia, upon the same basis as that which concerns the Supreme Courts of the States; and (2) objected to raising the money limit of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as an unpopular proposition.

Mr. W. L. Nugent, of Mississippi (Cent. Law J., vol. 2, p. 564,), advocated (1) that the present Circuit Courts should be abolished and their jurisdiction conferred upon the respective District Courts; (2) that new Appellate Courts should be organized in each of the circuits, to be composed of the Associate Justices and two

or more additional Judges; (3) that the right of appeal should be extended to all criminal cases; (4) that appeals from the District Courts should be allowed upon orders overruling motions for new trials, and that on such appeals the evidence shall be fully considered.

An article entitled to careful consideration was published in the North American Review for May, 1881, by Hon. William Strong, ex-Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. In substance, he said:

A simple increase in the number of Jdges, instead of facilitating the dispatch of business, would tend to retard it.

Increasing the Court to twenty-one and dividing it into three sections of seven, coupled with a provision that, unless six-sevenths of a section agree, the case shall be heard before a second (and a third) section (the Manning bill of January, 1880), (1) would not, in any considerable degree, facilitate the final disposition of cases; (2) if not an infraction of the Constitution, it is marvelously like an evasion of it; (3) the judgment of a section would not command the confidence of the people which is requisite, for the usefulness of the Supreme Court is directly proportioned to the confidence which is felt in its judgments; (4) want of harmony would necessarily result; (5) a tribunal of twenty-one is illy fitted to hear cases involving constitutional questions, and to discharge, with any uniformity and unanimity, this, the greatest, function of that court.

The proposition for intermediate Appellate Courts, with appellate jurisdiction therefrom only in cases involving more than $10,000, would furnish the relief needed. Litigants in the Federal Courts ought not, simply because they are citizens of different States, to expect to have more than one hearing in a court of errors-which is, as a rule, all that is granted in the State ju isprudence.

The provision allowing appeals and writs of error in any case in which a Justice of the Supreme Court shall so order, or in which the Appellate Court shall so order, is a guaranty sufficient for uniformity in the decisions of the appellate tribunals. As to the organization of the Appellate Court, the learned Judge gave it as his opinion that it should consist of an Associate Justice and two Circuit Judges, leaving the District Judges to care for the eighteen classes of cases of which they have jurisdiction, to which should be added a bankruptcy jurisdiction. He advocated the appointment of additional Circuit Judges and a division of some of the circuits, naming the second, fifth, seventh and eighth as being now too large.

As things now are, there is a complaint, which has foundation, that a litigant in the Circuit Court of a claim involving less than $5,000, and one on trial in criminal proceedings, is denied any hearing in a court of errors. This complaint would be answered by the establishment of an intermediate Court of Appeals, under proper conditions.

STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS.

The American Bar Association, the State Bar Association of Missouri, and the Law Club of Philadelphia have given this question serious and careful consideration, but, for the most part, the consideration given by the other bar associations has been frequent, but not extended, being based largely upon the hurridly prepared reports of special committees, appointed after the session of the association began, the reports being adopted after less extended and less thorough discussions than the subject would warrant.

The following proceedings have been had in the Illinois State Bar Association, for which Association this resume is prepared for what information it may furnish for a fuller consideration of the subject by this Association, now desired by the Executive Committee:

At the annual meeting held January 5 and 6, 1882, the resolutions of the Missouri Bar Association were presented, together with a copy of the Davis Bill, and were referred to the Committee on Law Reform, which cons sted for that session of Messrs. H. F. Vallette, Stephen R. Moore, B. S. Edwards and J. L. High. The committee, after consideration, made a report that an intermediate Court of Appeals, as contemplated by the Davis Bill, afforded "the most feasible and satisfactory means which have yet been suggested," but recommended:

1. That the Judges of the Supreme Court should not sit either in the Appellate or Circuit Courts.

2. That no Circuit or District Judge should sit in the Appellate Court upon any cause heard by him below.

3. That appeals should not be allowed from interlocutory orders, or in cases involving less than $2,000. (On motion of Mr. McFadon, and after a division, an amendment was adopted, substituting $1,000 for $2,000, in this third recommendation.)

4. That, in case the Appellate Court should refuse to certify any case to the Supreme Court, as involving a question of such importance as to make a review by the Supreme Court desirable, either party might take the record to the Supreme Court, if in session, or to any Judge thereof in vacation, by whom such certificate could be given.

The report, as amended, was adopted.

In 1884, and, so far as appears, without discussion, the Association, on motion of Mr. C. C. Bonney, adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That this Association renews its recommendation of the establishment of the intermediate Appellate Court, substantially as proposed in the bill to provide such a Court, which was passed by the United States Senate, and is known as the Davis Bill."

At the annual meeting in 1887, a special committee, appointed the day before, and consisting of Messrs. Moulton, Dent, Bond, Bradwell and Hay, reported (1) that the "Davis Bill," or some similar measure, should be enacted; (2) that the Supreme Court Justices should be relieved of circuit duties; (3) that there should be no right of removal of cases to the United States Courts unless $5,000 or more is involved; (4) that negotiable instruments made between citizens of the same State should not be suable in the Federal Courts under or by reason of any assignment thereof. After discussion, the report was adopted.

The Missouri Bar Association, at a session of its annual meeting held December 28, 1881, on motion of Mr. Henry Hitchcock, of St. Louis, adopted a series of resolutions:

1. Recommending an increase in the number of Circuit Judges.

2. Recommending intermediate Courts of Appeal in each circuit, with such regulations as to appeals therefrom to the Supreme Court as should relieve the latter from the consideration of questions of fact, in all except patent and copyright cases, with such further regulations as should make appeals to the Supreme Court depend upon the nature or importance of the questions of law involved therein, or upon considerations for uniformity in the administration of the law.

3. Recommending that the Appellate Courts should have jurisdiction in criminal cases and also as to interlocutory orders.

4. Recommending the general features and provisions of the Davis Bill. 5. Objecting to the establishment at Washington of another Appellate Court, whether inferior to, or co-ordinate with, the Supreme Court, as inefficient to afford the relief sought, and as inharmonious with the obvious purpose of the framers of our Government to bring the administration of justice home to the people in their several circuits, and to provide only one court of last resort at the National Capital as a necessary means of securing uniformity in the administration of justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. And the resolutions closed as follows:

Nor, in the opinion of the Association, would adequate or satisfactory relief be afforded to the Suprome Court by dividing it into sections or divisions-whether the number of the Judges thereof be increased or not-such a plan being open to grave constitutional objections, besides being likely to impair the dignity and efficiency of the Supreme Court itself, and not likely to afford it any but temporary assistance."

The Philadelphia Law Association adopted a bill, which, by its order, was presented to the American Bar Association in 1883, and by it referred to a committee. The bill had three objects: 1. To cut off the source of supply of appeal cases. This was sought to be attained by limiting the right of removal from State Courts to Federal Courts; 2, “to make some logical division of labor for the remaining cases” by providing for a single Court of Appeals, which should hold at least one session annually in each of the four great divisions of the Union; and 3d, to provide a competent review in the Circuit Courts of cases involving less than $5,000, by