The Evening standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1910-1913, 1910-12-06
MESSAGE


| interest OF the general welfare of the
people and extending Its activities
( into avenues plainly Within its consti-
tutional Jurisdiction, but which 1t has
not been thought wise OF necessary
/ foS the general government hereto
fore to occupy.
| am giud to say that under the ap-
propr,ations made for the department
tho attorney general has 80 improved
lis organization that vast amount
Of litigation OF a civil and criminal
: cf aracter has been disposed of during
tho current year. / invite especial al
tention TO the prosecutions under the
federal law Of the So-called bucket
shops" ana of those schemes to de-
! fraud in VIII ch the use OF the mail Is
an essential part of the fraudulent
conspiracy. prosecutions which have
snyed Ignorant and weak members OF
he pubic and are saving them hun
dIeds OF millions of dollars. The vlo-
lations OF thc antitrust law present
perhaps the most important litigation
before the department. and the num-
ber OF cases hled shows the activity
Of the government IN enforcing that
statute
National incorporation.
In a special message last year
brought to the attention OF congress
the proprlety and wisdom Of enactlng
q general law providing Tor the incor-
poratlon OF industrial and other COM
! panies engaged In interstate COM
I perce.
judicial Procedure.
On great crying need In the United
I States is cheapening the cost OF liti-
cation by simplifying judicial proce-
| Gure and eXpeditipg final Judgment.
| Under present conditions, the poor
/ man is at woeiul disadvantage In
| legal contest with corporation or
rich opponent. The necessity for the
reform exists both in the United
States courts and in all state courts.
In order 10 oring it about, however, 1t
naturally falls 10 the general govern
ment by Its example to furnish d
Model to all states.
A legislative commission, appointed
by resolution of congress to revise the
procedure In the United States courts,
Eas as yet made no report
Under the law. the supreme court
OF the United States has the power
a:ld is given the duty TO frame the
equity rules Of procedure which are
TO obtain in the federal courts of first
irstance In view of the heavy bur-
den OF pressing Legislation that that
court has TO carry. with une or two
of its members inoapacitated through
lll-health. 1t has not been able to take
up problems of improving the equity
procedure. which has practically re-
NAMED the same since the organiza.
ton of the court In 1889. II is reason
able to expect that, with all the vacan-
cIes upon the court filled. 1t will take
up the question of cheapening and
simplifying the procedure in equity in
the court OF the United States. The
equity business Is much more the m
pcTtant IN the federal courts, and !
may add the more expensive. ! am
strongly convinced that the best meth
cd of improving judicial procedure at
law Is to empower the supreme court
TO do II through the medium OF the
rules OF the court. as In equity. This
Is the way 1t has been done In Eng
i2nd and thoroughly done. The SIM
Illcity and expedition OF procedure In
the English courts today make model
ior the reform of other systems.
cannot conceive any higher duty that
the supreme court could perform than
in leading the way 10 simpliticauon
OF procedure In the United States
courts.
Relief Of Supreme Court from Un-
necessary Appeals.
No man ought to have, as a matter
o. right. a review OF his case by the
supreme court. He should be satisfied
hy one hearing before a court OF first
instance and one review by court of
appeals, The proper and chief useful
ness OF the supreme court, and eSpe-
cally the supreme court OF the United
States. is, in the cases which have
come before II, so to eEpound the law.
aud especially the fundamental law
the cons stitution-as to furnish prece-
dents for the inferior courts In future
litigation, and for the executive ofli-
GERS In the construction OF statutes
and the performance of their legal
duties. Therefore, any provisions for
review oil cases by the supreme court
that cast upon that court the duty Of
passing on questions Of evidence and
the construction of particular forms
oI 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 fuDc-
ton, which makes 1t SO important a
part OF the framework of our govern
ment The supreme court Is now car
rylng burden of appeals OF this kind,
and | earnestly urge that 1t be re-
Ipoved
The statutes respecting the review
b. the supreme court of the United
States OF decisions of the court of ap-
peals of the District OF Columbia ought
to be so amended as to place that
court in the same position with re-
spect TO the review of its decisions as
that OF the various United States cir
cult courts of appeals The act OF
March 2. 1907. authorizing appeals by
the government from certain judg-
nents In criminal cases where the de-
fendant has not been put in jeopardy,
within the meaning of the oonstitu-
ton, should be amended in order that
sdch appeals should be taken 10 the
circuit court OF appeals Instead OF to
the supreme court IN all cases except
those involving the construction of
the constitution or the constitutional
ity Of a statute, with the same power
in the supreme court to review on
certiorari as is now exercised by that
court over determinations of the sew
oral circuit court OF aDpealS ADDealS