opinion in a cause heard and decided by a few, to be equivalent to that of the whole court, the majority of whom would thereby be rendering an opinion upon a case they had not heard.

Instead of asking the Supreme Court to hear a case once, you are, by this minority report, providing for their hearing many cases twice. Such a plan will require more time to transact the business than is even now devoted to it.

But even with a court divided as is proposed, it would not be equal to the growing demands of the increasing business of this country. The measure they propose would only afford temporary relief, while we think the establishment of intermediate courts will bring permanent relief.

With regard to what has been said about no appeal to the Supreme Court being allowed under our method, unless the amount of $10,000 was involved, gentlemen surely must have forgotten that I called attention to the provisions of the Davis plan, which by no means provides that there shall be no appeal to the Supreme Court unless $10,000 is in controversy. On the contrary, it provides for appeals without reference to the amount involved, whenever the questions of law involved are of general importance, and also in other classes of cases specified,-thus not raising, but in reality lowering the present limit; so that the argument about rich men's courts and poor men's courts has no application.

I regretted to hear an argument which raises a supposed distinction of class, based upon the possession of wealth. Such an argument is a fire-brand, even when the facts might seem to support it; but, as I said, it is not applicable here, for instead of shutting out the poor suitor, we afford him more ample facility of appeal. The best answer to the argument made by the other side in that respect is simply to recall the actual provisions of the Davis bill.

The time has arrived for the vote to be taken, and I propose we now vote upon the question.

(Several members: Question! question!)

Mr. Evarts:

I rise to ask the gentleman a question: Am I to understand that all cases that come before the intermediate courts will, as a matter of right, go to the Supreme Court, and that there will be no pecuniary limit above $500?

Mr. Hitchcock :

The statement is in the bill itself, giving the restrictions. In several classes of cases there are no restrictions of appeal. I will read it.

Mr. Evarts:

You can answer my question whether your report favors a system of intermediate courts from whose decisions, as a matter of right, there shall be an appeal or reconsideration, unaffected by any amount involved.

Mr. Hitchcock :

No, sir; not as you now state it.

Mr. Evarts:

We should not take the vote of this body upon an uncertain presentation. If you mean to have an intermediate system. of appellate courts, making this another step through which all cases may go without a distinction as to amounts, then you are crippling and misappropriating the appellate power. If, on the other hand, you allow a universal appeal, then you are multiplying the steps and expense of an appeal, and enlarging the business in the Supreme Court instead of reducing it.

Our proposition is that we will enable the Supreme Court to do more business than it now does; your system will result in bringing more business, without furnishing the means to transact it.

Mr. Hitchcock:

We recommend that a pecuniary limit be fixed, below which there shall be no appeal, unless the question involved is of such importance that the Supreme Court should pass upon it.

Mr. Evarts:

Then, as a matter of right, you do not give a man an appeal unless he has a case involving $10,000.

The President:

The first question is upon the motion of the gentleman from New York, to amend the resolution of Mr. Hitchcock by striking out the word "majority," and inserting in lieu thereof the word "minority." Those in favor of the amendment will vote Aye; those opposed, No.

A vivá voce vote was then taken, and the Chair being in doubt as to the result, a rising vote was demanded, which resulted

For the amendment, 23; opposed, 42.

The President:

The question is now upon the adoption of the resolution of the gentleman from Missouri, and a count is called for.

The result was

For the adoption of the resolution, 39; opposed, 27.
And the resolution was adopted.

E. B. Sherman, of Illinois, offered the following resolutions: Resolved, That the criminal laws of the United States and of the several states do not sufficiently distinguish and punish persons committing crime as a business, and that provision should be made for the permanent confinement of those who so engage in crime as an occupation or pursuit.

Resolved, That the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform be requested to consider and report a proper method

and criterion for discriminating between professional and non-professional criminals, and for the protection of society agatist the former, when so ascertained.

These resolutions were adopted, and the matter referred to the committee therein named.

Simeon E. Baldwin, of Connecticut, moved that the Association now adjourn sine die.

Seconded by Henry Hitchcock, of Missouri.

The meeting then adjourned without date.

EDWARD OTIS HINKLEY,

Secretary.