e end in view.

Why, sir, the members of the Supreme Court have in the history of
this country been employed in public service entirely distinct from
judicial function. Here lately the treaty of Washington was
negotiated by a member of the Supreme Court of the United States;
the venerable and learned Mr. Justice Nelson, of New York, was
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as one of the
Joint High Commission. Chief-Justice Jay was sent in 1794, while he
was chief-justice of the United States, as minister plenipotentiary
to England, and negotiated a treaty of permanent value and
importance to both countries. He was holding court in the city of
Philadelphia at the time that he was nominated and confirmed, as is
found by reference to his biography, and--

Without vacating his seat upon the bench he went to England,
negotiated the treaty which has since borne his name, and returned
to this country in the spring of the following year.

His successor was Chief-Justice Rutledge, and the next to him was
Chief-Justice Oliver Ellsworth. He, while holding the high place of
chief-justice, was nominated and confirmed as minister plenipotentiary
to Spain. By a law of Congress the chief-justice of the United
States is _ex_ _officio_ the president of the Board of Regents of
the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. Morton--I should like to ask the Senator, if it does not
interrupt him, whether he regards the five judges acting on this
commission as acting in their character as judges of the Supreme
Court, if that is their official character, and that this bill
simply enlarges their jurisdiction in that respect?

Mr. Bayard--Certainly not, Mr. President. They are not acting as
judges of the Supreme Court, and their powers and their jurisdiction
as judges of the Supreme Court are not in any degree involved; they
are simply performing functions under the government not
inconsistent, by the Constitution, or the law, or the policy of the
law, with the stations which they now hold. So I hold that the
employment of one or more of the Supreme Court judges in the matter
under discussion was appropriate legislation. We have early and high
authority in the majorities in both House and Senate in the bill of
1800, in both of which houses a bill was passed creating a
commission similar to that proposed by this bill and calling in the
chief-justice of the United States as the chairman of the grand
committee, as they called it