STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE. The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 9054) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, and for other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conference committee and submitted in the accompanying conference report as to each of the amendments of the Senate, namely: Amendment No. 44: This amendment amends section 14 of the food-control act, approved August 10, 1917, by fixing the guaranteed minimum price of wheat for the crop 1918 at $2.50 per bushel, based on No. 2 northern spring or its equivalent; said price to be paid at the local elevator or the local railway market. The conferees have been unable to agree as to this amendment. A. F. LEVER, G. N. HAUGEN, J. C. MCLAUGHLIN, Managers on the part of the House. O ELECTRICAL COMMUNICATING SYSTEMS. JULY 4, 1918.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. SIMS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. J. Res. 309.] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 163) to insure the continuous operation of electrical communicating systems, to guard the secrecy of war dispatches, and prevent communications between public enemies, having considered the same, report thereon with amendment and as so amended recommended that it pass. Amend the bill as follows: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: "That the President in time of war is authorized and empowered to supervise or to take possession and assume control of any telegraph, telephone, marine cable, or radio system or systems, or any part thereof, and to operate the same in such manner as may be needful or desirable for the duration of the war, which supervision, possession, control, or operation shall not extend beyond the date of the proclamation by the President of the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace: Provided, That just compensation shall be made for such supervision, possession, control, or operation." Amend the title so as to read: "To authorize the President, in time of war, to supervise or take possession and assume control of any telegraph, telephone, marine cable, or radio system or systems or any part thereof and to operate the same in such manner as may be needful or desirable for the duration of the war, and to provide just compensation therefor." ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE. JULY 5, 1918.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. NEELY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 1836.] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1836) to provide for the appointment of a district judge in the middle judicial district of the State of Tennessee, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report it to the house with the recommendation that.it do pass. The State of Tennessee is divided into the eastern, western, and middle judicial districts. The eastern and western districts each has a judge. The middle district being without a judge, court is therein held by Judge Sanford, of the western district. The last annual report of the Attorney General shows that, for the fiscal year 1917, there were in the middle district of Tennessee 102 cases pending, 191 commenced, and 159 terminated. During the fiscal year 1916 there were 51 cases pending in this district, and for several years immediately prior to 1916 there were pending an average of 50 to 60 cases per year. It thus appears that during the year 1917 there was an increase of almost 100 per cent in the number of pending cases over any year recently preceding 1917, and that the docket in the middle district is becoming congested at a rapid rate. The following letter, written to Hon. Joseph W. Byrns from Hon. Lee Douglass, United States attorney for the middle district of Tennessee (found at p. 9 of the record of the hearings in this matter), concisely sets forth the more material facts upon which the committee bases its recommendations in the premises: HON. JOSEPH W. BYRNS, COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I acknowledge your letter of January 3, in which you ask me to write 'you, giving information as to the present amount of business in the district court at Nashville and Cookeville, etc. I am very glad, indeed, to give you this information, but before making any use of this letter I wish you would kindly get the permission of my superior, the Attorney General, which I am quite sure he would be glad to give. H R-65-2-vol 2-47 On the occasion of the former attempted passage of the act to create a new judgeship for the middle district of Tennessee, I wrote a letter to the Attorney General which I understand was filed with the Judiciary Committee, and inasmuch as portions of same were published in dispatches from Washington I feel I am not violating any etiquette in inclosing you herewith a copy of this letter. You will notice that this letter is quite comprehensive, and covers the matter fully up to June 23, 1916. On page 2 of that letter you will notice that I inserted statistics from the published annual reports of the Attorney General showing the number of cases pending, commenced, and terminated in this district for the fiscal years 1913 and 1914, when my predecessor was in office, and for the fiscal years 1915 and 1916, during my administration. These statistics were as follows: You will note the increase in business in the fiscal years 1915 and 1916. There has recently been published the Annual Report of the Attorney General for the year 1917. The statistics, as shown by this report for the fiscal year 1917 in the middle district of Tennessee, are as follows: Pending, 102; commenced, 191; terminated, 159. You will see from this that the volume of business for the year ending June 30, 1917 (which was the fiscal year covered by the above), is substantially the same as the two preceding fiscal years, with this significant fact that there were pending in 1917, 102 cases, whereas there were pending in 1916, 51 cases, and for the preceding years practically between 50 and 60 cases. In other words, the number of cases pending, due to continuances, etc., is over 100 per cent more than any preceding year. I may say also that as the Attorney General's report was for the year ended June 30, 1917, it included but one term of court since the declaration of war, and that term was at Cookeville, and so shortly after the declaration of war that practically no cases growing out of a violation of the war statutes were ready for submission to the grand jury. The espionage act, the selective-service act, the food-control bill, etc., have all been passed since the last term of court embraced in the Attorney General's report, and, of course, this report gives no record in the prosecutions under these various acts. These acts have served to largely increase the criminal business of the district court, which, as I said in my letter of June 23, and which was shown by the record, had steadily increased theretofore. While there was noticeable at the last term of court a small falling off in the number of prosecutions for bootlegging cases (carrying on the business of a retail liquor dealer without Government stamp), nevertheless this was more than offset by the number of prosecutions for violation of the Reed amendment. There were 23 cases at the last term for violation of this last-mentioned statute, and considerable time was consumed in the trial of these cases. As long as Kentucky is wet and Tennessee is dry these prosecutions are going to be inevitable, for the profit in the illicit transportation of the whisky is so great as to tempt many people to violate the law. At the Cookeville term last April we found it necessary to hold court for the same time as that referred to in my letter of June 23, 1916, and in addition it was necessary for Judge Sanford to hold night sessions. Of course, I do not know except by reference to the Attorney General's report of the volume of business that devolves upon Judge Sanford in holding his terms of court in the eastern district at Chattanooga, Knoxville, and Greenville. However, I think I can safely say from what he has told me that there has been no decrease in the volume of business at any of these places. An examination of the Attorney General's report shows, however, that my statement in my letter of June 23 still applies when applied to the present. The statement was that there were more criminal prosecutions pending, commenced, and terminated in either the middle or eastern district, presided over by Judge Sanford, than in the western district, presided over by Judge McCall. In other words, Judge Sanford, in his court, actually has more criminal business to dispose of in either one of his two districts than Judge McCall has in his entire district. The Attorney General's report for 1917 shows that in the eastern district there were pending 135 cases, there were commenced 153 cases, and there were terminated 170 cases. I |