186 



CONGKESS, UNITED STATES. 



execution to their last result. There is no 

 difference between my colleague and myself as 

 to its halting on the question of suffrage." 



Mr. Kerr, of Indiana, said: "I hold that 

 the bill now under consideration cannot have 

 any shadow of legal authorization under the 

 Constitution of the United States as it stands 

 to-day. I agree with the distinguished gentle- 

 man from Ohio (Mr. Spalding), that it _ runs 

 directly across the Constitution. But it is the 

 fixed and cherished policy of the majority in 

 this House to change the Federal Constitution. 

 It is their deliberate purpose, to-morrow, or 

 next week, or a month hence, or as soon as 

 they can, to make the Federal Constitution a 

 different instrument from what it now is. And 

 then, under the somewhat latitudinarian ex- 

 pressions contained in the proposed fourteenth 

 article of amendments to the Constitution, not 

 only will this bill, but almost every other kind 

 that the party majority here can desire, be 

 introduced into this House and enacted into 

 a law." 



No decisive action was taken on this bill, at 

 this session, by either House. 



In the Senate, on December 4th, Mr. Trum- 

 bull, of Illinois, from the Judiciary Committee, 

 reported a bill declaring what shall constitute a 

 quorum of the Supreme Court, and asked for 

 its present consideration. 



The bill was read twice and considered as in 

 Committee of the Whole, by unanimous con- 

 sent. It provided that any number of the jus- 

 tices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 

 not less than five, and being a majority of the 

 court, shall constitute a quorum. 



Mr. Trumbull said: " I will state the reason 

 for the bill. The court formerly consisted of 

 ten members, and at that time the law required 

 six to constitute a quorum. As the law now 

 stands the court is to be reduced to seven, as 

 vacancies occur ; it is already reduced to eight ; 

 and the justices of the court, I am informed, 

 find a difficulty in making up the quorum of 

 six ; and it will be still more difficult when 

 there are but seven on the bench. One or two 

 of the judges at this time are unwell, and of 

 the whole number, eight, it requires six to 

 constitute a quorum. This bill provides that 

 five shall constitute a quorum, there being now 

 but eight judges, and that it shall also require 

 that number even when the court is reduced to 

 seven." 



The bill was reported to the Senate without 

 amendment, 



Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, said : "It is very 

 desirable it should pass. The court was very 

 near being without a quorum to-day, and the 

 probability is, in the present condition of 

 things, that it may be often without a quorum 

 during the session." 



The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a 

 third reading; was read the third time, and 

 passed. 



In the House, on January 13th, Mr. "Wilson, 



of Iowa, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

 reported back the Senate bill to constitute a 

 quorum in the Supreme Court, with an amend- 

 ment, as follows : 



SEO. 2. And le it further enacted, That no cause 

 pending before the Supreme Court of the United 

 States, which involves the action or effect of any law 

 of the United States, shall be decided adversely to the 

 validity of such law without the concurrence of two- 

 thirds of all the members of said court in the decision 

 upon the several points in which said law or any part 

 tnereof may be deemed invalid. 



Mr. Williams, of Pennsylvania, offered the 

 following as a substitute for the amendment 

 reported by the committee : 



That in all cases of writs of error trom and appeals 

 to the Supreme Court of the United States, where is 

 drawn in question the validity of a statute of or an 

 authority exercised by the United States, or the con- 

 struction of any clause of the Constitution of the 

 United States, or the validity of a statute of or an 

 authority exercised under any State, on the ground 

 of repugnance to the Constitution or laws of the 

 United States, the hearing shall be had only before 

 a full bench of the judges of said court, and no judg- 

 ment shall be rendered or decision made against tne 

 validity of any statute or of any authority exercised 

 by the United States, except with the concurrence 

 of all the judges of said court. 



He said: "The amendment which I offer 

 requires unanimity on the part of the Supreme 

 Court. The amendment of the committee 

 stops at two-thirds. 



"My own judgment is that there is no reason 

 that will apply, no argument that can be offered 

 in favor of the amendment of the committee, 

 which does not apply with equal force to the 

 amendment submitted by myself. Still, I was 

 not prepared to meet this question now. I 

 did not feel that the bill itself, as prepared by 

 myself, was sufficient in its details to meet the 

 exigencies of the case. There is nothing in it 

 to provide for the contingencies that may arise 

 in the decision of causes in the circuit court. 

 It wants further arrangement. It wants to be 

 perfected. It wants full consideration. If I 

 may be allowed to say it, this is a big question. 

 I do not think that the passage of the bill can 

 be facilitated by forcing it through here. Gen- 

 tlemen seem to be of the opinion that delay 

 would not answer. My opinion is different. 

 I do not think it will pass any sooner by being 

 forced through here to-day or to-morrow. It 

 seems to me that, if it is well argued here, the 

 principle might be so well vindicated as to 

 satisfy, perhaps, the other branch of the Legis- 

 lature. 



"But there is an apprehension that the coun- 

 try will suffer by any delay. It is. said that 

 there is a case now depending in the Supreme 

 Court of the United States upon which this 

 question may be ruled to-day or to-morrow. 

 Suppose such be the fact I do not know that 

 there is any such case but suppose that such 

 be the fact, that such a case is now depending 

 there, and a decision is made by the court, 

 what harm can it effect ? Instead of harm, I 

 think it will do good, because it will awaken 



