It the Supreme Court of the United States, it is necessary to apply to the clerk of the Circuit Court, who makes out a transcript of the record, and, if it is a writ of error, annexes it to the writ, and that operates as a return of the writ. Then, counsel should take that transcript, whether it be annexed to the writ of error, or simply a transcript of the proceedings in equity or admiralty, on appeal, and forward it to the clerk of the Supreme Court at Washington. This may be done at any time. is not necessary that it should be sent to him in term time; it is not necessary that he should enter it on his calendar in term time. The practice is for him to receive it, and enter it whenever it is sent. It must be sent within the first six days of the term to which it is returnable; otherwise a motion to dismiss the appeal or writ of error may be made; but it may be sent at any time during vacation. It must be accompanied, according to the rules of the court, by a bond, in the sum of two hundred dollars, with sufficient surety to secure the fees of the clerk, a provision which was found to be necessary, because, in so large a country as ours, these records coming from so great distances, the clerk could not be reasonably secure of being paid his fees without some bond or deposit of money; and he accepts money in lieu of the bond, if it is desired. There are two contingencies in which it may be necessary to use other processes, after the writ of error, or the appeal, is entered. Suppose, for instance, that a portion of the record has been omitted by mistake. A party on examining the record finds that something is not there which should be there, and which is important to him. He has a right at the first term of the court to suggest that there is a diminution of the record, as it is technically termed, and move for a writ of certiorari, to be directed to the clerk of the court below, directing him to send up what he failed to send the first time; and that is necessary, in ordinary practice, quite frequently. I might mention in this same connection, that each Friday of the term is set apart as "motion day," and on that day counsel, by giving notice to their opponents, can be heard upon any motion, either to dismiss a writ of error, or an appeal, for want of jurisdiction, or a motion for a writ of certiorari, or any other motion necessary in a cause.1 There is another class of appeals which you may hereafter be interested to understand, and that is, from the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims, you are aware, is established by Congress, at Washington, for the purpose of adjudicating on certain classes of claims against the government, and it is a court of great importance, and disposes of very large amounts of property. I will give you a reference to the statutes by which it was established: 14 Statutes at Large, 9, 44; 15 Statutes at Large, 75. These are the laws by which the present constitution of that court is regulated. It was originally established by an act, which is now repealed, in 10 Statutes at Large, 612, and there have been two acts of amendment which it is important to consider, if you look into the subject. One is 1 By rule of the Supreme Court, motion day is now Monday. found in 12 Statutes at Large, 765; the other is in 14 Statutes at Large, 9, I have already given you that. Now, there have been some decisions of the Supreme Court upon the construction of those laws. which it may be useful for you, if you look into this subject, to read. They are Gordon v. The United States, 2 Wallace, 561; Ex parte Zellner, 9 Wallace, 244; De Groot v. The United States, 5 Wallace, 419; and The United States v. Adams, 9 Wallace, 661. If you have any occasion to inquire into the constitution of this court, and the mode by which it is connected with the Supreme Court by way of appeal, I believe you will find that these references will give you the necessary information.1 There is only one other topic about which I will say a few words, and that is the courts of the Territories. The laws of Congress organizing the different Territories from time to time have always provided for the constitution of appropriate courts in those Territories; but it is settled that these are not courts of the United States under the Constitution of the United States. They are what are called "Congressional Courts," established by force of the authority conferred on Congress to make all needful rules and regulations concerning the territory and other property of the United States. The judges of those courts do not hold during good behavior; they hold for a term of years. And there are various other provisions in the acts constituting the courts, which distinguish them from the courts 1 See §§ 707, 708 of the Revised Statutes. [See also United States v. Jones, 119 U. S. 477.] of the United States. Nevertheless, there is an appeal from the highest courts of the Territories to the Supreme Court of the United States, and you will find this subject treated historically, and with great clearness, by the present Chief Justice, in the case of Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wallace, 434, where he shows what the nature of these courts is, how they are constituted, how they differ from courts under the Constitution of the United States, and how they have been regulated, historically and actually, from the very origin of the government.1 1 See §§ 702, 703 of the Revised Statutes. [See also supra, p. 79. The appeal now lies, in some cases, as we have seen, to the Circuit Court of Appeals; and this is true of cases brought in the Circuit Court by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, Topeka, &c. R. R. Co., 149 U. S. 264.] CHAPTER IV. THE CIRCUIT COURTS. THE original constitution of the Circuit Courts of of the country and the great increase of business of these courts have led, from time to time, to some changes; not in the structure and plan of the courts themselves, but to some expansion of their powers, and of the means for working them, to which reference may hereafter be made in the course of these lectures. But my present object is to describe to you what the general plan of these courts now is, without adverting to the changes which have been made in their structure since they were first established. I ought, however, to say, I think, that there has been no substantial change in the general structure and plan of these courts, or their relations to other courts, since they were established; and certainly the fact that this plan has been found to continue applicable and preferable under such vast changes of circumstances as have occurred between 1789 and the present day, shows, in the most conclusive manner, the wisdom of those by whom the plan was originally framed. And this general plan has not remained the same from want |