.

APRIL 3, 1812.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act providing for
the trial of causes pending in the respective district courts of the
United States, in case of the absence or disability of the judges
thereof," which bill was presented to me on the 25th of March past, I
now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it
originated, with the following objections:

Because the additional services imposed by the bill on the justices of
the Supreme Court of the United States are to be performed by them
rather in the quality of other judges of other courts, namely, judges of
the district courts, than in the quality of justices of the Supreme
Court. They are to hold the said district courts, and to do and perform
all acts relating to the said courts which are by law required of the
district judges. The bill therefore virtually appoints, for the time,
the justices of the Supreme Court to other distinct offices to which, if
compatible with their original offices, they ought to be appointed by
another than the legislative authority, in pursuance of legislative
provisions authorizing the appointments.

Because the appeal allowed by law for the decision of the district
courts to the circuit courts, whilst it corroborates the construction
which regards a judge of one court as clothed with a new office, by
being constituted a judge of the other, submits for correction erroneous
judgments, not to superior or other judges, but to the erring individual
himself, acting as sole judge in the appellate court.

Because the additional services to be required may, by distances of
place and by the casualties contemplated by the bill, become
disproportionate to the strength and health of the justices who are to
perform them, the additional services being, moreover, entitled to no
additional compensation, nor the additional expenses incurred to
reimbursement. In this view the bill appears to be contrary to equity,
as well as a precedent for modifications and extensions of judicial
services encroaching on the constitutional tenure of judicial offices.

Because, by referring to the President of the United States questions of
disability in the district judges and of the unreasonableness of
delaying the suits or causes pending in the district courts, and leaving
it with him in such causes to require the justices of the Supreme Court
to perform ad