- eOOe n Hercules, as supposed by the to..ile member from Pennsylvania, (dr. PnrbanaO) to discharge the duties of Judge .r th.f circuit? I cannot think tt dees. cannot believe that we should be justified in making the appointment of another Judge to lessen the duties of him who now performs them so well without complaint.

 But should the committee suppose that the view which have thus far taken of this sub feet is incorrect; that there are ev'Is wnlcn reunire to be remedied, the most important mart of the subject remains to be considered, and that consists in an answer to the second general inquiry stated at the commencement of my remarks:

 Does this Bill furnish both an adequate remedy for existing evils, and the best wnich under all circumstances can be adopted

 In nv judgment, no worse remedy can he adoDted than that which increases the number of the Justices the Supreme Court I will briefly state the reasons for this opinion.

 1t lends to divide the responsibility of the Judges. and thus diminishes the weight Of 1t, which each individual Judge should feeS-

 It is very common observation, but not the less correct, indeed it has almost the force oI atruism, that in proportion as the number ot agents employed to perform any service IS increased beyond that necessary tor Ns ac-

 complishment, is the responsibility ot eacn lessened. This springs from a principle of

 hmman nature loo obvious to need illustration. Tam aware that it is difficult to fix the pre-

 else limit where individual responsibility will be materially impaired. ~by the increased number of agents, but think it not difficult 10 perceive that it must he impaired, when, in the court of dcrnier resort, being purely judicial tribunal. that number IS n'ne, though there is no magic, as was sad by the honorable member from Tennessee, Mr. Polk \ in the number nine. We must resort to the practice of other nations, and to the different States in the Union, to guide us to a correct result on this point. In England. with the exception of the House of Lords. and in this country. ofthe Supreme Court of Errors. of the State OfNew- York. the Court of denier resort, is composed of less numoer than that proposed in this bill. With regard t6 the Court in England, and that in New York, which are exceptions, they are not merely judicial tribunals, but possess and ex- ercise legislative powers, and there is no an. alogy between them and the Supreme appel late judicial tribunal of this country. The House of Lords. sitting as court. review Ve- " few of the numerous cases, eltner ID law or equity, which are yearly ad]ud'catea ny the court of chancery and Courts Ot M'ngs Bench and Common Pleas. l wO"Io appear to many gentlemen in this House. whose Ob- seryations have enabled them to form cor rect opinions on this subject. whether small CT number than that proposed by thus nlN

 has not conduced to more perfect respons'- bility of each member of the court 'nan would probably have existed had It been in- creased? IappeaI particularly. to one gen tleman whom I see in his place. Mr. oPen- cer. of New York.) and whom hope the

 ~ Ahn S,1n lHrn whose judicial character to know, IS to re- spect and admire. ask him tO say, wheth. CT from the observations which long ana distinguished judicial life have enabled h'm tO make, the respC nsihility of each Judge IS not to an extept, by no means lncons'deraD'e' greater or less, in proportion to the nuinoer of Judges who compose the Court. The non Orable member from Pennsylvania MT. bu- ehanan) was pleased to say, that those who think the number proposed in this bill too large, confine their views too much to the several States; whereas, the true statesman looks beyond the confines of his own State. and embraces within his vision. this extended Republic, consisting of twenty-four States providing great mass of business requiring judicial investigation. lmake no professions to the character ofa statesman. My pursuits in fife havo been professional merely put Am yet tO tGdTU tlIdt uGNuWSS ~'ss |, great and extended. because much judicial business Is to be done in it's courts. that thus effects the argument which atm now urging that an increase of numbers impairs individu' al responsibility. It may. on that account require. the adoption of different system from the existing one. but in no degree does It weaken the force of tho suggestions which have made in relation to the responsibility of the Judges.

 An increase ofthe number of Judges tends to produce less concentration of action. (f may he allowed the expression.) less union of action tn the court, than would otherwise ex- ist. and as would be desirable. It is certainly important that each Judge should, for him. self, examine with care and attention every case. every matter of law and fact connected with it, in which he is called to pronounce an opinion. This is Oftentimes work of time and of great labor. Increase the plumber. and may it not be feared that it will tend {" the alottment of different cases to different Judges, not merely tO draw 1p the opinion. (which is. not only proper. hut necessary.) hut to examine the cases and thus. instead of bringing to the aid of the htigant parties the individual learning and industry of each. the decision will in fact rest. as it will he pro- nounced, on the investigation of a single | Jcdge. May it not he feared, that either this | result will follow. or that the business of the court cannot be reasonably finished with n due regard to the rights of tho parties, or Ill