Kingsbury County independent. (DeSmet, Kingsbury County, S.D.) 1894-1929, 1910-12-16

the ground as to certain problems which
are likely to arise IN the near future. The
progress OF the work 10 most satisfactory.
If no unexpected obstacle presents itself.
the time fixed by Colonel Goethals. to-
wit, January !, 1916, and within the esti-
mate Of cost, $375, 600, BOO
Among the questions arising for pres
ent solution Is the decision whether the
cana shall be fortified. / have already
stated to the congress that 1 strongly
favor fertilization and / 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.
IL, In our discretion, we believe modern
fortifications to be necessary to the ade-
quate protection and policing of the canal,
then It is our duty to construct them. We
have built the canal 1t is our property.
BY convention we have indicated our de-
sire for, and indeed undertaken, Its uni
verssl and equal use. 1t Is also we'll
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 10 enforce and
which could never in ANY other way be
absolutely ~safeguarded against a desper-
ate and irresponsible enemy,
National Incorporation.
Il g spoc.a, message last year 7 brought
to the attention Of congress the propriety
and wisdom of enacting a general law pro-
viains fGT tie incorporation OK industrial!
n other companies engaged in inter-
state commerce, and / renew my recon-
In that behalf.
Judiciary Procedure.
One great crying need in the United
States Is cheapening the cost of litigation
by simplifying judicial procedure and ex-
final judgment. Under present
conditions the poor man is at a woeful
in a legal contest with a
corporation or a rich opponent. The nee
essity for the reform exists both In United
States courts and in all state courts. In
order to bring 1t about, however, 1t natur-
ally falls to the general government by
its example to furnish a model to all
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
OF 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
through Ill health, 1t has not been able
to take up problems of improving the
equity procedure, which has practically
the same since the organization
of the court In 1889. 1t is reasonable to
expect hat with all the vacancies upon
the court filled, 1t will tax up the ques-
ton OF 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 / may add much the more ex-
pensiVe. l am strongly convinced that the
pest method of improving judicial pro-
at law is to empower the supreme
TO do 1t through the medium OF the
rules of the court, as in equity. This is
the way In which 1t has been done in
England, and thoroughly done. The sim
plicity and expedition or procedure In the
English courts today make a model for
the reform Of other systems.
Several OF the lord chancellors OF Eng
and Of the chief justices nave left
their country by their constructive abil-
ity In proposing and securing the passage
remedial legislation effecting law re-
forms. l can not conceive any higher duty
mat the supreme court could perform than
In leading the way to a simplincation Of
procedure In the United States courts.
Relief of Supreme Court.
No man ought to have. 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
one review by a court OF appeals. The
and chief usefulness Of the supreme
court, and especially of the supreme court
OF the United States, is, In the cases which
come before x, sc &c GSpc1Ha the Law and
especially the fundamental law-the con-
stitution-as TO furnish precedents for the
courts in future litigation and for
executive officers IN the construction
OF statutes and the performance of their
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 instru-
like indictments, or Wills, or con-
frapfA daQiSinnG not nP unnorll nnnlino-
ton or Importance, merely clog n bur-
den the court and render more difficult its
function, which makes 1t SO import
ant a part OF the framework Of our gov
The supreme court Is now car
an unnecessary burden Of appeals
of this kind. and / earnestly urge that 1t
be removed.
The statutes respecting the review by
the supreme court OF the United States
OF decisions OF tff5 court OF appeals OF the
Of Columbia ought to be so amend
as 10 place that court in the same
with respect to the review of it's
circuit courts OF appeals. The act
of March 2. 1907, authorizing appeals by
the government for certain judgments In
cases where the defendant has
been put In jeopardy, within the mean
Of the constitution, should be amend
ed SO hat such appeals should be taken
TO the circuit courts of appeal instead OF
to the supreme court In all cases except
those involving the construction of the
constitution or the constitutionality Of a
with the same power In the SUI
preme court TO review on certiorari as is
exercised by that court over deter
Of the several 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 to the supreme court.
suggested changes would, / am adj
vised. relieve the supreme court or the
consideration Of about so cases annually.
and would be In harmony with the theory
of reyiSw which led to the establishment
of the circuit courts Of appeals and which
I nave state above.
Injunction Bill.
wish to renew my urgent recommended
ton made in my last annual message In
favor of the passage of q law which shall
~eguiat 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 II
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 AXE away all sembiance of sup
port for the extremely radical legislation
fhey propose which will be most perni-
cious IL adopted, will sap the foundations
OF judicial power, and legalize that cruel
social instrument, the secondary boycott.
7 further recommend to ngres the
OF the bill now pending for the
- 80 - A-E -