The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1910-12-06

Inmates for the expenses OF the depart
ment. His report shows the recoveries
made on behalf OF the government. OF
duties fradulently withheld. public
lands improperly patented, nnes and
penalties for trespass. prosecutions ana
convictions under the antitrust law,
and prosecutions under the Interstate
commerce law ! Invite especial atten-
tion 10 the. prosecutions under the FED
eral law OF the so-called bucket
shops" aud Of those schemes 10 de-
fraud In which the use of the mail IL
ar essential part OF the fraudulent
conspiracy prosecutions which have
saved ignorant and weak memLers or
the public and are saving them nun
dreds of millions OF dollars. The vio-
laticns OF the antitrust law present
4 peIhnps the most important litigation
before the department. and the number ,si.
of cases fled shows the activity OF the
/ government in enforcing that statute.
National Incorporation.
] In special message last year !
the propriety and wisdom OF enacting
a general law providing for the incor-
poration or Industrial and other com
panies engaged In interstate com
merce. and renew my recommendation
In that behalf.
| l invite the attention OF congress TO
| the great number OF claims which. At
I the instance OF congress. have been
I considered by the court or 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
and | earnestly recommend that those
claims which come 10 congress WIN
the judgment and approval OF the
court OF claims should be promptly
paid.
One great crying need In the United
| states In cheapeniEg the cost or ntlsa-
ton by simplifying judicial procedure
and aNpediting final Judgment. Under
present conditions che POOR man ~ AT
n wceful disadvantage in legal con-
test with corporation or "A rich OPP
/ ponent. The necessity for the reform
| exists bot hin United states courts ana
| In all state courts In order 10 bring
! IL about however. IL naturally falls 10
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 ana
| Is given the duty To frame the equity
rules of procedure which are to obtain
| In the federal courts OF first instance.
| In view OF the heavy burden OF press
! ing litigation which that court has had
bera incapacitatod through ill-health. II
has not been able TO take up problems
| OF Improving the equity Procedure
which has practically remained the
|
| In 1899. II Is reasonable to expect that
with all the vacancies upon the court
| filled. IL will take up the question or
che apening and simplifying the pro-
ce0ure In equity in the courts or the
| United States The equity business Is
| much the more important In the fed
eral courts. and | may add much the
| more expensive. | am strongly con-
viEced that the best method OF improv-
! ing judicial procedure at law Is TO em-
power the supreme court TO do IL
through the medium OF the rules OF the
court. as in equity This Is the way
in which IL has been done in England,
and thoroughly done. The simplicity
and expedition of procedure in the
English courts today make model for
| the reform OF other systems.
Several of the lord chancellors OF
England and 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 af-
fecting law reforms. can not con-
ceiye any higher duty that the supreme
way TO n simplihcation OF procedure In
the United states courts.
Relief of Supreme Court From Tn
necessary Appeals.
No mar ought to have. az a matter
OF right. n review of his case by the
supreme court. He should be satisfied
by one hearing before court OF first
! ir stance and one review by court OF
appeals. The proper and CHIEF useful
ness OF the supreme court, and espc-
cially OF the supreme court OF the
United states, is. In the cases which
come before II. so To expound tho
law, and especially the fundamental
| law--the CONSTITUTIONS TO furnish
! precedonts for the Inferior courts In
| future litigation and for the executive
Officers In the construction OF statutes
and the performance OF their LEGAL
duties Therefore. any prov isions Tor
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 Its higher function, which
makes II so important part OF the
framework OF our government The
| supreme court Is row carrying an un-
| necessary burden OF appeals of this
kind and I earnestly urge that IL be
removed
The statutes respecting the review
| by the supreme court or the United
States OF decisions OF the court OF APP
peals ~ the District OF Columbia ought
| to be so amended rs to place that court
| In the same position with respect to
the review OF lis decisions as that of
the various United States circuit courts
OF appeals. The net OF March 2. 1907.
authorizing appeals by the government
frcm certain judgments in criminal
| cases WncTt tne leIenuant mas not Dcfn
put in jeopardy. within the meaning
of the Constitution, should be amended
80 that such appeals should be taken
to the circuit courts OF appeals instead
OF to the supreme court In all cases eN-
| cept those involving the construction
| OF the Constitution or the constitution
ality OF statute. with the same power
/ in the supreme court to review on GER
| tiorari ga 10 now exercised by that
! court over determinations of the sew
| eral circuit courts OF appeals. Appeals
| from the United States court In Porto
Rico should also run to the circuit
| courts OF appeals OF the third circuit
instead of 10 the supreme court. These
suggested changes would / am advised.
relieve the supreme court of the con
| and would be IN harmony with the
theory OF review which led to the es-
tablishmcnt OF the circuit courts OF
appeals and which l have stated above.
| The American Bar association has
had before IL the question Of reducing
the burden OF litigation involved In
| reversals On review and new trials or
! re- hearings and In frivolous appeals in
| habeas corpus and criminal cases.
Their recon ne ndations have been EN-
bodied In bills now pending In con-
| gress. The recommendations are not
| radical but they Will accomplish much
! II adopted into law, and | earnestly
recommend the passage OF the bills EN-
bodying them.
Injunction BiII.
| | wish to renew my urgent recon-
mendatiob made IA my last annual mes
sage In favor OF the passage or "A law
which shall regulate the issuing OF In