« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
ADDITIONAL JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN AND SOUTH
ERN DISTRICTS OF CALIFORNIA.
JANUARY 23, 1907.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union and ordered to be printed.
Mr. ALEXANDER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
[To accompany H. R. 23394.)
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred House bill 23394, report the same back with sundry amendments and recommend the same do
pass. From the facts submitted to your committee it is evident that there is urgent necessity for the appointment of an additional district judge in California. That the need of such additional judge is immediate is fully indicated in the attached correspondence, which is made a part of this report.
Your committee reports the following amendments:
In line 5 add the letter “s” to the word "court; so that it shall be plural instead of singular. After the syllable“ ern,” in line 6, add the words “and southern.”
After the word " district," where it appears the first time in line 6, add the letters," so that it will be plural instead of singular.
Strike out the word “district,” where it appears the second time in line 6, and insert in lieu thereof the words State of California."
In line 8, after the word “judge,” insert the letter “s; " so that it will be plural instead of singular.
In line 9, after the word “district,” insert the letter "s; " so that it will be plural instead of singular.
Amend the title so as to read: “To provide for an additional judge for the northern and southern districts of California.”
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
San Francisco, Cal., March 15, 1906. DEAR SIB: 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,
WM. B. GILBERT.
WM. W. MORBOW.
Washington, D. O.
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 Departnient 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. Respectfully,
CHARLES J. BONAPABTE,
Attorney-General. Hon. JOHN J. JENKINS,
Chairman Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.
59TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. I REPORT 2d Session.
EXTENSION OF TIME TO CERTAIN HOMESTEAD
JANUARY 24, 1907.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
Mr. GRONNA, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the
[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.
CHANGING TERMS OF COURT IN NORTHERN DISTRICT
JANUABY 24, 1907.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BIRDSALL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
[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.