190 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



tends, can any decision be made by a bare 

 majority of a quorum when the quorum is the 

 unit in the constitution of the court ? Does not 

 this doctrine necessarily lead to the conclusion 

 that no decision can be made by the court in 

 which there is not a concurrence of the judges 

 equal in number to a clear majority of the 

 court? The principle contended for by the 

 gentleman would render null and void a large 

 number of decisions made by the Supreme 

 Court of the United States, for very many of 

 them have been made by a bare majority of a 

 quorum. This doctrine is far more revolution- 

 ary than is any thing contained in this bill or 

 the amendments which have been proposed to 

 it." 



The question was taken on Mr. Williams's 

 amendment, and it was rejected, yeas 25, 

 nays 124. 



The question was then taken on the amend- 

 ment of Mr. Wilson, and it was adopted yeas 

 111, nays 38. 



The amendment of the committee was then 

 agreed to, and the bill passed by the following 

 vote: 



YEAS Messrs. Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. 

 Ashley, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, 

 Banks, Bearuan, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blair, 

 Boutwell, Bromwcll^ Broomall, Buckland, Cake, 

 Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, 

 Coburn, Covode, Cullom, Dawes, Dixon, Dodge, Don- 

 nelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Ela, Eliot, Farnsworth, Fer- 

 riss. Ferry, Garneld, Gravely, Griswold, Harding, 

 HigW, Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, 

 Hulburd, Hunter, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Judd, Julian, 

 Kelley, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz, Laflin, 

 William Lawrence, Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Lough- 

 ridge, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, McCarthy, Mc- 

 Clurg, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Morrell, 

 Mulhns, Myers, Newcomb, Nunn, O'Neill, Orth, 

 Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike, Pile, Pomeroy, Price, 

 Raum, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shanks, 

 Smith, Spalding, Aaron F. Stevens, Stokes, Taylor, 

 Thomas, John Trimble, Trowbridge, Twichell, Up- 

 son, Van Aernam, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Cad- 

 walader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne,Henry 

 D. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, William 

 Williams, James F. Wilson.John T. Wilson, Stephen 

 F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge 116. 



NAYS Messrs. Adams, Archer, Barnum, Beck, 

 Brooks, Burr, Chanler, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Gol- 

 laday, Grover, Haight, Hawkins, Holman, Hotchkiss, 

 Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Johnson, Kerr, 

 Knott, Marshall, McCormick, Morrissey, Mungen, 

 Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Pruyn, Randall, Robin- 

 son, Ross, Sitgreaves, Stone, Taber, Lawrence, S. 

 Trimble, Van Auken, Wood, and Woodward 39. 



NOT VOTING Messrs. Allison, Axtell, Barnes, 

 Elaine, Boyer. Butler, Cary, Cook, Cornell,Eckley, 

 Eldridge, Fields, Finney, Halsey, Asahel W. Hub- 

 bard, Jones, George V. Lawrence, Lynch, McCul- 

 lough, Morgan, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Selye, Shella- 

 barger, Starkweather, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, 

 Taffe, Burt Van Horn, Van Trump, Van Wyck, and 

 William B. Washburn 33. 



In the Senate this bill was referred to the 

 Judiciary Committee, and not further con- 

 sidered. 



In the Senate, on March llth, a bill to amend 

 the act of 1789 was taken up, and passed. 



It provided that final judgments in any cir- 

 cuit court of the United States, in any civil 



action against a collecter or other officer of the 

 revenue, for any act done by him in the per- 

 formance of his official duty, or for the recovery 

 of any money exacted by or paid to him, which 

 should have been paid into the Treasury of 

 the United States, might, at the instance of 

 either party, be reexamined and reversed or 

 affirmed, in the Supreme Court of the United 

 States, upon writ of error, without regard to 

 the sum or value in controversy in such action. 

 In the House, on March 12th, the bill was 

 amended by adding the following section, and 



SEO. 2. And le it, further enacted, That so much 

 of the act approved February 5, 1867, entitled " An 

 act to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of 

 the United States, approved September 24, 1789," as 

 authorizes an appeal from the judgment of the cir- 

 cuit court to the Supreme Court of the United States, 

 or the exercise of any such jurisdiction by said Su- 



Ereme Court on appeals which have been or may 

 ereafter be taken, be, and the same is hereby, re- 

 pealed. 



On the same day, the Senate concurred in 

 the amendment, by the following vote : 



YEAS Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chan- 

 dler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Drake, Edmunds, 

 Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harlan, 

 Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of 

 Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Pomeroy, Ramsey. Ross, 

 Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Van 

 Winkle, Wade, Willey, and Williams 32. 



NAYS Messrs. Buckalew, Fowler, Hendricks, Mo- 

 Creery, Norton, and Vickers 6. 



ABSENT Messrs. Bayard, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, 

 Dixon, Doolittle, Johnson, Morton, Nye, Patterson 

 of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Sauls- 

 bury, Sherman, Thayer, Wilson, and Yates 16. 



On March 25th, the President returned the 

 bill, with his objections, as follows : 

 To the Senate of the United States : 



I have considered, with such care as the pressure 

 of other duties has permitted, a bill entitled " An. 

 act to amend an act entitled * An act to amend the Ju- 

 diciary Act passed the 24th of September, 1789.' " 

 Not being able to approve all its provisions, 1 here- 

 with return it to the Senate, in which House it origi- 

 nated, with a brief statement of my objections. 



The first section of the bill meets my approbation, 

 as, for the purpose of protecting the rights of prop- 

 erty from the erroneous decisions of inferior judicial 

 tribunals, it provides means for obtaining uniformity 

 by appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States in 

 cases which have now become very numerous and of 

 much public interest, and in which such remedy is 

 not now allowed. The second section, however, 

 takes away the right of appeal to that court in cases 

 which involve the life and liberty of the citizen, and 

 leaves them exposed to the judgment of numerous 

 inferior tribunals. It is apparent that the two sec- 

 tions were conceived in a very different spirit, and I 

 regret that my objection to one imposes upon me 

 the necessity of withholding my sanction from the 

 other. 



I cannot give my assent to a measure which pro- 

 poses to deprive any person, " restrained of his or her 

 liberty in violation of the Constitution, or of ay 

 treaty or law of the United ^States," from the right 

 of appeal to the highest judicial authority known to 

 our Government. To " secure the blessings of lib- 

 erty to ourselves and our posterity" is one of the de- 

 clared objects of the Federal Constitution. To as- 

 sure these, guarantees are provided in the same 

 instrument, as well against " unreasonable searches 

 and seizures " as against the suspension of the priv- 



