The Detroit times., 1910-12-07

made on behalf Of the govsrnment OF
duties fraduientiy withhald.l pubnc
lands improperly patented. nnes ana
penalties for trespass. prosecutions and
convictions under the antitrust law.
and prosecutions under the Interstate
commerce law ! invite especial atten-
ton 10 the prosecutions under the FED
eral law OF the so-called bucket
shops" and Of those schemes 10 de-
fraud i'm which the use of the mail IN
an essential part OF the fraudulent
cor spiTacy, prosecutions which have
saved ignorant and weak members OF
the public and are saving them hum
dreds of millions of dollars. The vio-
laticns OF the antitrust law present
perhaps the most important litigation
before the department, and the number
OF onses iiled shows the activity OF the
government In enforcing that statute.
National incorporation.
In special message last year i
| brought to- the attention OF congress
/ the propriety and wisdom of enacting
u general Jaw providing for the incor-
poration OF Industrial and other COM
panies engaged In interstate com
merce. and | renew my recommendation
| in that behalf.
i invite the attention of congress 10
the great number OF claims which, at
the instance of congress, have been
considered by the court OF claims ana
decided To be valid claims against the
government The delay that occurs In
the payment Of the money due under
the claims Injuries the reputation OF
the government as an honest debtor.
claims which come 10 congress with
the Judgment apd approval or the
court Of claims should be- promptly
paid.
One great crying need In the United
states Is cheapening the cost OF litiga-
! ton by simplifying judicial procedure
and eNpeditlng final Judgment. Under
present conditions the Ioor man Is AT
"a FI.4ff al ttSn a .t.y in Ing
test with a corporation or rich OPP
ponent The necessity for the reform
eAists bot hin United states courts ana
I'm all state courts. In order To bring
II about however, II naturally fails TO
the general government by its example
TO furnish model TO all states.
legislative commission appointed by
joint resolution Of congress to revise
the procedure In the United states
courts has as vet 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 OF procedure which are to obtain
i'm the federal courts OF first instance.
In view of the heavy burden OF press
in6 litigation which that court has had
TO carry. with one or two OF it's mem
bers incapacitated through ill-health. II
has not been able to take up problems
OF improving the equity procedure,
which has practically remained the
| same since the Organization of the court
In 1888. IL liz reasonable TO expect that
with all the vacancies upon the court
iilled, il will take UP the question or
che apening and simplifying the pro-
cedure In equity In the courts OF tne
United states. The equity business ls
much the more important in the fed-
eral courts. and l may add much the
more expensive. j am strongly con-
viEced that the best method OF improv-
ing judicial procedure at law Is 10 en-
power the supreme court to do IL
through the medium OF the rules OF the
7 Ii. ..tls II 10 he ~
in which IL has been done in England.
and thoroughly done. The simplicity
and expedition of procedure In the
English courts today make n model for
the reform of other systems.
Several OF the lord chancellors OF
England ind Of the chief justices have
left their lasting impress upon the his
tory OF their country by their construc-
tive ability In proposing and securing
the passage OF remedial Legislation at
fecting law REFORMS. | can not con-
ceive any higher duty that the supreme
court could perform than H. leading the
way TO a sImplitication Of procedure In
the United states courts.
Relief OF Supreme Court From Tn
necessary Apperis.
No mar ought to have, as a matter
Of right review of his case by the
supreme court. lie should be satisfied
by one hearing before II court OF first
ir stance and one review by court OF
appeals The proper and chief useful
ness OF the supreme court. and espc-
ciaily OF the supreme court OF the
United states, is in the cases which
come before IL. so to expound the
law. and especially the fundamental
law--the Constitution--as to furnish
precedents for the inferior courts In
future litigation End for the executive
offit.rs In the construction OF statutes
and the performance of their legal
duties. Therefore any provisions for
review OF cases by the supreme court
that cast upon that court the duty of
passing on questions of evidence and
the construction Of particular forms Of
instruments. like indictments. or wills.
or contracts. decisions not OF general
application or Importance. merely clog
and burden the court and render more
difficult It's higher function. which
makes 1t SO important "a part OF the
framework OF our government. The
supreme court Is row carrying an un-
necessary burden OF appeals of this
kind, and | earnestly urge that Ii be
removed.
The statutes respecting the review
by the supreme court Of the United
states of decisions of the court Of APP
ps ais Of the District of Columbia ought
to be so amended as to place that court
In the same position with respect TO
the review OF ils decisions as that OF
the various United States circuit courts
OF appeals. The act OF March e 1907
authorizing appeals by the government
fTom certain Judgments in criminal
cases where the defendant has not been
put III jeopardy, Wllnln tine meaning
OF the Constitution should be amended
so that such appeals should he taken
to the circuit courts OF appeals instead
of to the supreme court In all cases eX-
cept those involving the construction
OF the Constitution or the constitution
atty OF statute, with the same power
in the supreme court to review on GER
tiorari al IL now exercised by that
court over determinations OF the sew
eral circuit courts OF appeals Appeals
II ON the United States court in Porto
Rico should also run to the circuit
courts OF appeals OF the third circuit
instead of to the supreme court. These
relieve tho supreme court OF the con-
sidcration OF about so cases annually,
and would be in harmony with the
theory OF review which led to the es-
Establishment OF the circuit courts of
appeals and which / have stated above
had before II the question of reducing
the burden OF litigation involved In
reversals on review and new trials or
re-heGrinRs and In frivolous appeals in
habeas corpus and criminal cases
Their recommendations have been emf
bodied in bills now pending In con-
gress The recommendations are not
radical. but they will accomplish much
If adopted into law, and | earnestly
recommend the passage of the bills EN-
bodying them
Injunction Bill.
| wish to renew my urgent recon-
mendatiou made IN my last annual mes
sage In faVor OF the passage or a law
which shall regulate the Issuing OF In
functions i'm equity without notice In
accordance with the best practice now
In vogue i'm the courts OF the United
states. I regard this OF especial i'm
portence. first because IL has been