UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, DEAR SIR: The proper disposition of the business of the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit requires all of the time of the circuit judges. Yet Judge Morrow, by reason of pressing business in the circuit court for the northern district of California, has not been able to sit a single day in the court of appeals for the present term, which will end on Monday next. Another district judge for the northern district of California for the purpose of holding the circuit court at San Francisco is an immediate, urgent, and imperative necessity. Occasionally Judge Morrow succeeds in getting a district judge of the outside districts to come to San Francisco and hold the circuit court for a time, but such aid amounts to but little, for the reason that it is only occasionally that it can be had at all, and even then the members of the bar of San Francisco are reluctant to try their cases before such judges, because of the difficulty in getting orders and the settlement of bills of exceptions after their departure for their homes. What is urgently needed is a provision for another district judge for the northern district of California to hold the circuit court, for the calendar of that court, already overcrowded, is becoming more so every day, with no other hope of relief. Such being the fact, we feel it our duty to bring the matter to your attention, in the hope that you and your committee may deem it a proper case for the authorization of another district judge for the specific purpose indicated. Very respectfully, yours, Hon. JOHN J. JENKINS, WM. B. GILBERT. Chairman Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, January 12, 1907. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, inclosing a copy of H. R. 23394, "to provide for an additional district judge for the northern district of California,” and asking if the Department has anything to say with reference to the bill. In reply you are advised that the Department has investigated the necessity for an additional district judge in the northern district of California and has found the need to be imperative. It is therefore recommended that this bill be passed. Your attention is invited to a report transmitted to Mr. Alexander, of the committee, by this Department on December 7, 1906, bearing upon this subject. CHARLES J. BONAPARTE, Attorney-General. Respectfully, Hon. JOHN J. JENKINS, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. EXTENSION OF TIME TO CERTAIN HOMESTEAD ENTRYMEN. JANUARY 24, 1907.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. GRONNA, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. R. 86.] The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R. 86) granting an extension of time to certain homestead entrymen, having had the same under consideration, respectfully submit the following report and recommend that said resolution do pass with the following amendments: After the word "entry," in line 3, insert the following: "Including persons who have filed soldier's declaratory statements. After the word "the," in line 5, strike out the words "six months." After the word " them," in line 10, add the following: Provided, That this extension of time shall not shorten either the period of commutation or of actual residence under the homestead law: Provided further, That the provisions of joint resolution 81, approved January eighteenth, nineteen hundred and seven, shall apply to the State of Idaho. On January 15 joint resolution (S. R. 61) authorizing temporary leaves of absence for homestead settlers passed this House and was on January 18 approved. It seems, however, that the wording used in said resolution is liable to be construed so as to exclude those who have not made actual residence upon their homesteads, including those who have made soldier's declaratory statements. After careful examination your committee finds that many filings have been recently made on lands upon the public domain quite distant from any railroad, and on account of the unusual severe climatic conditions now existing in many of the Northwestern States we find that it would be impossible for these claimants to go upon their lands at the present time. O 59TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 2d Session. CHANGING TERMS OF COURT IN NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. JANUARY 24, 1907.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. BIRDSALL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 24281.] The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration House bill 24281, report the same back to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. The bill simply changes the time for the holding of the terms of court in the northern district of Iowa and is recommended by the presiding judge for the better convenience of the people of the district. 2d Session. No. 6708. REGULATING INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN CERTAIN CASES. JANUARY 24, 1907.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. LITTLEFIELD, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 13655.] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred House bill 13655, which reads as follows: A BILL To limit the effect of the regulation of commerce between the several States and Territories in certain cases. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the interstate-commerce character of all shipments of intoxicating liquors, including ale, wine, and beer, from one State or Territory into another State or Territory shall terminate immediately. upon their arrival within the boundary of the State or Territory in which the place of destination is situated and before the delivery of said liquors to the consignee, and said liquors and all corporations and persons engaged in such shipment shall then become subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquors had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise: Provided, That shipments of such liquors entirely through a State or Territory and not intended for delivery therein shall not be subject to the provisions of this act, nor shall this act authorize the infringement of the right of common carriers to continuously transport such merchandise from without such State to a station therein. SEC. 2. That in all such shipments to be paid for on delivery, commonly called C. O. D. shipments, the sale shall be held to be made at the place of destination or where the money is paid or the goods delivered. having had the same under consideration, make the following report: This bill does not present a new question to the Congress. The necessity for such legislation as it proposes has been declared by the House of Representatives upon several occasions. The principle upon which this measure is based was necessarily involved when Congress passed the Wilson Act of August 8, 1890. The main purpose of this bill was approved by a practically unanimous report of H R-59-2-Vol 1-26 the Judiciary Committee on the so-called Hepburn interstate liquor bill. (See Congressional Record, 2d sess., 57th Cong., p. 1327.) This bill seeks to supplement the act of August 8, 1890, commonly referred to as the Wilson law. The Wilson law having been sustained by decisions of the United States Supreme Court, this bill does not in any wise amend it or any part of it, but is simply supplemental thereto. The words "before the delivery of said goods to the consignee and "all corporations and persons engaged in such shipment shall then become subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquors had been produced in such State or Territory and the C. O. D. section," etc., contain the substantial additions to the act of August 8, 1890, and constitute the substantial changes in existing law. The proviso" that shipments of such liquors entirely through a State or Territory and not intended for delivery therein shall not be subject to the provisions of this act, nor shall this act authorize the infringement of the right of common carriers to continuously transport such merchandise from without such State to a station therein was placed in the bill in order that there might be no question about the interference with trans-State shipments which were to pass entirely through a State and which were not intended for delivery therein, and so that the ordinary right of a common carrier to transport merchandise through or to a station within such State without being held up at the State line could not be interfered with. Section 2 of the bill makes the situs of such sales which are to be paid for on delivery, and commonly called " C. O. D. shipments," "the place of destination, or where the money is paid or the goods delivered," and in this the common practice of the commercial world is followed, as the consignor of such shipments has and intends to retain control over the property in them until their delivery to the consignee upon the payment of the price of the goods and the transportation charges. It is a well-accepted fact that the States, under what are known as their "police powers," have full control within their own borders of all those subjects which affect the health, morals, peace, and prosperity of their citizens. It is equally well accepted that the Congress of the United States, under section 8 of Article I of the Federal Constitution, has exclusive power to regulate "commerce among the several States." The constitutional questions respecting the exercise of these several powers by the States and the Federal Government have arisen by reason of the difficulty in determining the exact line of demarcation in vari ous cases. It may be noted that every argument made in behalf of the exclusive power of Congress over interstate commerce in cases where there is apparently the slightest conflict between untrammeled interstate commerce and the police regulations of a State recites or assumes the well-established fact that one of the most potent inducements which led to the formation of the Constitution was the commercial confusion that existed in the country when the States were separate and independent. |