The citizen-Republican. (Scotland, Bon Homme County, S.D.) 1???-19??, 1910-12-08

work done and to consult with MIN on
the ground as to certain problems Wh1ch
are likely to arise in the near future. The
progress Of the work is most satisfactory,
If no unexpected obstacle presents itself,
the time fixed by Colonel Goethals, to
Mate ' Of q oast. J s7 HslSs o. N''i'ii' = seSl
Among the questions arising for pres
ent solution is the decision whether the
canal shall be fortified. | have already
stated to the congress that | strongly
favor fertilization and l now reiterate this
opinion and ask your consideration of the
subject in the light of the report already
before you made by a competent board.
If. in our discretion, we believe modern
Notifications to be necessary to the ade-
quate protection and policing of the canal,
then 1t is our duty to construct them. We
have built the canal. 1t is Our property.
BY convention we nave indicated our de-
sire for, and indeed undertaken, its uni
versal and equal use. 1t is also well
known that one of the chief objects in the
construction of the canal has been to in
crease the military effectiveness of our
navy.
Failure to fortify the canal would leave
the attainment of both these aims in the
position of rights and Obligations which
we should be powerless to enforce and
which could never in any other way be
absolutely s~afeguarded against a desper-
ate and irresponsible enemy.
National Incorporation.
In q special message last year I brought
to the attention of congress the propriety
and wisdom of enacting a general law pro-
viding for the Incorporation of Industrial
and other companies engaged in inter-
state commerce, and l renew my recon-
mendation in hat behalf.
judiciary Procedure.
One great crying need in the United
States is c~heapening the cost of litigation
by simplifying judicial procedure and ex-
conditions the poor man is at a woeful
disadvantage in a legal contest with a
corporation or a rich opponent: The nee
States courts and in all state courts. In
order to bring it about, however, it natur-
ally falls to the general government by
states. A legislative commission appoint
ed by joint resolution of congress to re-
wise the procedure in the United States
courts has as yet made no report.
Under the law the supreme court of
the United States has the power and is
given the duty to frame the equity rules
or procedure which are to obtain in the
federal courts of first instance. In view
Of the heavy burden of pressing litigation
which that court has had to carry, with
one or two of its members incapacitated
to take up problems of improving the
equity procedure, which has practically
remained the same since the organization
CT the court in 1883, It is reasonable to
expect that with all the vacancies upon
the court filled, it VIII take up the ques-
tlon or cheapening and simplifying the
procedure IN equity in the courts of the
United States. The equity business is
much the more important in the federal
courts, andi l may add much the more ex-
penslVe. l am strongly convinced that the
pest method of improving judicial pro-
cedure at law is to empower the supreme
court TO do It through the medium Of the
rules OF the court, as in equity. This is
the way IN which it has been done in
Pllclty and expedition of procedure in the
Engnsh courts today make a model for
the reform Of other systems.
Several OF the lord chancellors of Eng
Iand and of the chief justices have left
Their lasting impress upon the history of
their country by their constructive abil-
OF remedial legislation effecting law re-
forms. l can not conceive any higher duty
mat e. the me supreme court could perform than
procedure in the United States courts.
Relief of Supreme Court.
No man ought to lave. as a matter of
right, a review of his case by the supreme
court. He should be satisfied by one hear
ing before a court of first instance and
proper and chief usefulness of the supreme
court, and especially of the supreme court
or the United States, is, in the cases which
especially the fundamental law-the con-
stltution-as to furnish precedents for the
inferior courts in future litigation and for
the executive officers in the construction
or statutes and the performance of their
legal duties. Therefore, any provisions
Tor review of cases by the supreme court
passing on questions of evidence and the
construction of particular forms of instru-
menIs, IKE indictments. or wills, or con-
tracts, decisions not of general applica-
ton or Importance, merely clog and bur
den the court and render more difficult its
higher function, which makes it SO import
ant q part or the framework Of our gov
eminent. The supreme court is now car
rying an unnecessary burden of appeals
OF this kind, and I earnestly urge thai it
be removed.
TIL statutes respecting the review by
the supreme court of the United States
OF decisions of the court of appeals of the
District of Columbia ought to be SO amend
ed as to place that court in the same
position with respect to the review of it's
decisions as that of the various United
states circuit courts of appeals. TIL act
of March 2. 1907, authorizing appeals by
the government for certain judgments in
criminal cases where the defendant has
not been put IN Jeopardy, within the mean
ing OF the constitution, should be amend
ed so that such appeals should be taken
to the circuit courts of appeals instead of
to the supreme court in all cases except
constitution or the constitutionality OF a
statute, with the same power in the SUI
pislIie aoafxs % IsvsSw on ssrttioraI as ! is
limitations of the several circuit courts of
appeals. Appeals from the United States
court In Porto Rico should also run to
49, " Nll1 VI
circuit instead of to the supreme court.
These suggested changes would, I am adj
yised, relieve the supreme court OF the
consideration Of about so cases annually,
and would be In harmony with the theory
of review which led to the establishment
of the circuit courts of appeals and which
I have state above.
injunction Bill.
I wish to renew my urgent recommends
ton made IN my last annual message IL
favor of the passage of a law which shall
regulate the issuing of %injunctions in
equity without notice in accordance with
the best practice now in vogue in the
courts of the United States. | regard this
of especial Importance. first because it
has been promised, and second because 1t
will deprive those who now complain of
certain alleged abuses In the improper
issuing Of inJunctions without notice Of
any real GROUND for further amendment
and will take away all semblance of sup
port for the extremely radical legislation
they propose, which will be most PERM
cious IL adopted, will sap the foundations
of judicial power, and legalize that cruel
social instrument, the secondary boycott.
I further recommend to eongress the
increase In the salaries of tho federal