Mr. Johnson, of Kentucky, stated the objects of his amendment. His plan was to extend the circuit system to all the Western States, upon the same principles that it rests upon in the other States. He spoke against the bill reported by the committee, as doing away the intimate and highly important connexion between the Supreme Court and the several District Courts.

Mr. Van Buren opposed the amendment, and stated the views of the committee in reporting the bill. He explained the difference between the present system and that proposed by the bill; and adverted to the absolute necessity, ere long, of some change in the judiciary system. He recapitulated the number of causes which had come before the Supreme Court, and been put off for want of time; and remarked that the proper administration of justice called loudly for some change. He also explained the propriety of some amendment, in regard to the Circuit Courts.

[. . .]

Mr. Van Buren wished the gentleman from Kentucky to separate the last section of his amendment, which respects the opinions of the court on questions involving the laws of the States—as that was a question distinct from the rest of his proposition.

Mr. Johnson assented to the course suggested by the gentleman from New York, and accordingly withdrew the last section of his amendment.

[. . .]

Mr. Van Buren replied to the arguments advanced in favor of the amendment, and Messrs. Johnson, of Kentucky, and Talbot, made a few further remarks.