The PRESIDENT: On February 10, 1931, you commended to the favorable consideration of the Congress my report requesting legislation authorizing an appropriation of $30,000 for participation by the United States Government in the second polar year program, August 1, 1932-August 31, 1933, which is printed as Senate Document No. 270, Seventy-first Congress, copy of which is inclosed. Pursuant to your recommendation, House Joint Resolution 502 was introduced and favorably reported by the Foreign Affairs Committee on February 17, 1931, House Report 270. A bill was also introduced in the Senate (S. 6173), and reported upon favorably by the Foreign Relations Committee on February 25, 1931, Senate Report 1774. This latter bill was passed by the Senate on February 26, 1931. No action was taken by the House of Representatives other than reporting favorably on its bill. During the time which has ensued since the adjournment of the Seventy-first Congress the work of preparation for the execution of the second polar year program has been carried forward by the governments and organizations interested therein. At a meeting of the International Commission for the Polar Year 1932-33, which was held at Innsbruck on February 25 and 26, 1931, the reports of the president of the commission and of the various national committees showed that despite the present world-wide unfavorable economic conditions participation already definitely arranged by many governments assures the realization of a mass of data of great improtance for geophysics and its practical applications. Unanimous agreement was taken at the Innsbruck meeting approving the proposal that the program at Arctic stations as already planned for the year August, 1932, to August, 1933, be carried out. Circular letters and reports dealing with detailed instructions for each field of observations, development of special instruments and equipment, method and style of publication, etc., have been issued regularly by the commission in order that knowledge of the plans and progress be kept up to date. The commission has demonstrated its determination to continue a serious preparation for the utmost profit and the most economic use of the opportunities for collection of useful and pertinent data during the period prescribed for the execution of the program. Of the stations proposed for the Arctic regions by the commission, 16 are already established, 14 are now assured, 6 are probable, and 5 are possible. Progress is also being made with regard to the stations in the Antarctic. Furthermore, the program will be carried out not only at the special stations which are included in the program, as indicated in my previous report to you on the subject, but also at 55 other existing observatories as well as at a number of observatories which are being established particularly because of the polar year in various parts of the Temperate and Torrid Zones. Thus the project involves over 100 widely distributed stations in all parts of the world. In view of the participation already definitely arranged by so many other governments, it becomes correspondingly more important that the United States take part as proposed in the occupation of the station near Fairbanks, Alaska, and that this Government assist in the widespread effort to assemble information and data which will be of valuable aid to the scientists of the world in the solution of problems of interest not only in the realm of science but which have a direct bearing on our every-day life. In my previous report on this subject I mentioned that the Secretary of Commerce, whose department is directly concerned in the project, supported the request that an appropriation be asked for this purpose. In this connection I desire to quote from a letter received from the Secretary of Commerce under date of November 9, 1931, in response to a request for his opinion as to the advisability of providing for participation of this Government in the second polar year program. The Secretary of Commerce's letter reads in part as follows: "I believe that both the intrinsic value of the results to be secured and the dominant international position of the United States make it desirable for this Nation to participate in the program as originally planned, and I so recommend." In view of the foregoing, I recommend that the Congress be requested to enact legislation authorizing an appropriation of $30,000 to be made available for participation by the United States Government in the second polar year program August 1, 1932, to August 31, 1933. As a matter of convenience a draft of a resolution to carry out this recommendation is hereto attached. Respectfully submitted. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, HENRY L. STIMSON. Washington, November 27, 1931. SENATE 72D CONGRESS 1st Session } { REPORT No. 163 TO DEFINE AND LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS SITTING IN EQUITY FEBRUARY 4, 1932.-Ordered to be printed Mr. NORRIS, from the Committeee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 935] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 935) to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and for other purposes, having had the same under consideration, beg leave to report as follows: We recommend that the bill be amended as hereinafter set forth, and, as so amended, that the bill be passed. The following amendments are recommended: 1. On page 2, line 10, after the word "wherefore", insert the following: "though he should be free to decline to associate with his fellows". 2. On page 3, line 1, after the word "enforceable", insert the words "in any court of the United States". 3. On page 3, line 3, after the word "any", insert the word "such". 4. On page 3, line 3, after the word "court", strike out the words "of the United States". 5. On page 3, line 22, strike out the word "cases" and insert, in lieu thereof, the words "any case". 6. On page 8, line 25, after the word "proceedings", insert the words "and on his filing the usual bond for costs". 7. On page 9, line 1, after the word "certify", insert the words "as in ordinary cases". 8. On page 9, line 1, strike out the word "entire". 9. On page 9, line 1, after the word "case", strike out the words "including a transcript of the evidence taken". 10. On page 9, line 9, strike out the word "where" and insert, in lieu thereof, the words "in which". 11. On page 9, line 10, strike out the words "indirect criminal". 12. On page 9, line 15, strike out the word "requirement" and insert, in lieu thereof, the word "right". 13. On page 9, line 15, after the word "not", strike out the words "be construed to". 14. On page 9, line 22, after the word "court", where it first appears in said line, strike out the words "is authorized to" and insert, in lieu thereof, the word "may". 15. On page 10, line 1, after the word "the", strike out the word "attack" and insert, in lieu thereof, the word "contempt". 16 On page 10, line 1, after the word "occurred", strike out the word "otherwise" and insert, in lieu thereof, the word "elsewhere". 17. On page 10, line 2, strike out the words "open court" and insert in lieu thereof the words "the presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere directly with the administration of justice". 18. On page 10, line 4, after the word "as", insert the word "is". 19. On page 10, line 4, after the word "provided", strike out down to and including the word "Code" in line 6, and insert in lieu thereof the words "by law". 20. On page 11, line 15, strike out the word "and" and insert in lieu thereof the word "or". 21. On page 11, line 24, after the word "any", strike out the word "provisions" and insert in lieu thereof the word "provision". 22. On page 11, line 24, after the word "act", strike out down to and including the word "circumstance" in line 25. 23. On page 11, line 25, after the word "held", insert the words "unconstitutional or otherwise". 24. On page 12, line 1, after the word "the" where it first appears in said line, strike out the word "remainder" and in lieu thereof insert the words "remaining provisions". 25. On page 12, line 1, after the word "act", strike out down to and including the word "circumstances" in line 2, page 12. The Committee on the Judiciary has been considering the subject of injunctions in labor disputes for several years, and this bill is a result of such study and consideration. In the Seventieth Congress, on December 12, 1927, the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Shipstead, introduced a bill on the subject (S. 1482). From that time to the present the Judiciary Committee, in one form or another, has had under consideration the question of limiting the jurisdiction of Federal courts in granting injunctions in labor disputes. In the Seventieth Congress the bill referred to (S. 1482) was referred to a subcommittee consisting of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Blaine; the Senator from Montana, Mr. Walsh; and the writer. This subcommittee held extensive and unlimited public hearings upon the bill. No limit was placed upon the hearings, and those who favored the legislation and those who were opposed to the legislation were heard without limitation. At the close of the hearings this subcommittee, in executive session, went over the hearings and discussed all phases of the proposed legislation. The subcommittee was unanimous in reaching the conclusion that some legislation on this subject was absolutely necessary in the public interest; but it likewise reached the conclusion that the bill under consideration did not fully meet the requirements. After further consideration this subcommittee called into consultation economists and attorneys who had made a special study of this particular subject. They invited Prof. Felix Frankfurter, of the law school of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; Herman Oliphant, former professor of law at Columbia University, now a member of the faculty of the institute of law, the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.; Prof. Francis B. Sayre, law school of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; Mr. Edwin E. Witte, chief of the legislative reference library, Madison Wis.; and Hon. Donald R. Richberg, attorney, of Chicago, Ill., to meet with the subcommittee for the purpose of giving further consideration to the subject and drafting proper legislation. As a result of such consultation and deliberation, the subcommittee prepared a substitute bill which, in its essential and material particulars, is practically the same as the bill now reported to the Senate (S. 935). The subcommittee reported this substitute to the full Committee on the Judiciary. After this report was made and after considerable consideration by the full Committee, various attorneys representing interests opposed to the enactment of the proposed bill requested further hearings upon the substitute bill recommended by the subcommittee. The Committee on the Judiciary, after considerable discussion, thereupon referred the entire matter back to the subcommittee, with instructions to hold further hearings upon the proposed substitute. In accordance with these directions, the subcommittee again held public hearings and gave to all persons who so desired an opportunity to be heard. At the close of the hearings, the subcommittee again reported the bill to the full committee, with the recommendation that the substitute be agreed to and that the bill, as thus amended, be favorably reported to the Senate. The proposed bill was the subject of consideration and discussion in the full committee for several weeks, but no final action was taken by the full committee during that session of the Seventieth Congress. At the second or short session of the Seventieth Congress, the bill was again taken up by the full committee, but no conclusion was reached and at the finai adjournment of the Congress the bill died upon the calendar of the committee without any action thereon. At the beginning of the regular session of the Seventy-first Congress, on the 9th day of December, 1929, the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Shipstead, again introduced his bill, this time known as S. 2497, which bill was in practically the same form as the bill, S. 1482, of the Seventieth Congress. The Judiciary Committee referred the bill to the same subcommittee which had handled the matter in the Seventieth Congress. This subcommittee, having given such extensive hearings and consideration to the bill in the Seventieth Congress, did not feel that additional hearings were necessary Nevertheless, upon application of attorneys representing corporations and organizations opposed to the enactment of this kind of legislation, limited hearings were again held and all interested parties were permitted to file written briefs. The subcommittee, after giving further consideration to the subject, and after making several amendments to the substitute bill previously prepared by the subcommittee, again reported the bill to the full committee with the recommendation that the amended sub |