I cannot avoid believing that the prejudice which exists in the minds of some gentlemen, against increasing the number of the judges of the Supreme Court to nine, arises from the circumstance that the appellate courts of the different States generally consist of a fewer number. But is there not a striking difference between the cases? It does not follow that because four or five may be a sufficient number in a single State where one uniform system of laws prevails, nine or ten would be too many on the bench of the Supreme Court, which administers the laws of twenty-four States, and decides questions arising under all the codes in use in the civilized world. Indeed, if four or five judges be not too many for the court of appeals in a State, it is a strong argument that nine or ten are not too great a number for the court of appeals of the Union. Upon the whole, I ask, would it be wise in this committee, disregarding the voice of experience, to destroy a system which has worked well in practice for forty years, and resort to a dangerous and untried experiment, merely from a vague apprehension that nine judges will destroy the usefulness and character of that court, which has been raised by seven to its present exalted elevation. It will, no doubt, be objected to this bill, as it has been upon a former occasion, that the present system cannot be permanent, and that, ere long, the judges of the Supreme Courts must, from necessity, be withdrawn from their circuits. To this objection there is a conclusive answer. We know that the system is now sufficient for the wants of the country, and let posterity provide for themselves. Let us not establish courts which are unnecessary in the present day, because we believe that hereafter they may be required to do the business of the country.