which should be the subject of appeal were never taken up because of the expense involved in traveling to and from sessions of the court held elsewhere and at long distances from Salt Lake. Under existing law (Judicial Code, section 126) the Circuit Court in the Tenth Circuit is required to hold sessions annually in Denver, Colo., Wichita, Kans., and Oklahoma City, Okla. The proposal to hold sessions in Salt Lake City as provided by the bill was submitted by the chairman of the committee, Senator Norris, to the Attorney General for a report thereon. Under date of February 1, 1932, the Attorney General replied to the inquiry of the chairman as follows: Hon. GEORGE W. NORRIS, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR: Referring further to S. 2232, a bill to amend section 126 of the Judicial Code so as to require a term of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to be held at Salt Lake City, and all appellate proceedings from Utah to be heard and disposed of at that place, I beg leave to say that the proposed additional term would entail considerable additional expense to the Government (as will appear from the copy of an office memorandum inclosed herewith) and that, even if Congress shall ultimately decide that such legislation is desirable, it is not absolutely essential at this time, and in view of the present financial situation I recommend against its enactment now. In the opinion of Senior Circuit Judge Robert E. Lewis, of the tenth circuit (expressed in a letter of the 27th ultimo, a copy of which is also inclosed herewith), there is no public necessity for the proposed term at Salt Lake City and the necessary expense of establishing and holding the court there seem hardly justified; but if Congress should deem it wise to provide for the hearing of Utah cases at Salt Lake City, Judge Lewis calls attention to the undesirability of requiring that such cases be also "disposed of" at that place. Respectfully, WILLIAM D. MITCHELL, Attorney General. Accompanying the letter of the Attorney General was a memorandum signed by J. W. Gardner, general agent and chief clerk in the Department of Justice. A copy of said memorandum is subjoined. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, January 25, 1932. Memorandum for Assistant Attorney General Sisson: I have no information as to whether it is or is not desirable that this be done, but I assume that Judge Lewis will furnish full information on this point. I do wish to say, however, that there are no quarters for said court in the Federal building, and that none of the circuit judges for the tenth circuit reside at Salt Lake City. It would therefore be necessary to rent quarters and pay the expenses of the judges in going to, attending upon, and returning from Salt Lake City. A similar situation arose at Kansas City, and we are now paying $7,500 per annum for the rental of quarters for the circuit court of appeals at that place. If cheaper quarters could not be obtained at Salt Lake City, and if the traveling expenses amounted to $1,000 per annum, we would have an annual additional expense of about $8,500 to provide for. Respectfully, J. W. GARDNER, General Agent and Chief Clerk. In addition to the above documents there is submitted a letter from Judge Robert E. Lewis, of the tenth circuit, under date of January 27, 1932, addressed to the chairman of the Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, who considered the bill. Hon. FELIX HEBERT, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: Mr. Irvin, assistant clerk to your subcommittee for consideration of Senate bill 2232 to amend section 126 of the Judicial Code in providing for a term of the court of appeals at Salt Lake City, in the tenth circuit, has sent me a copy of the said proposed bill, and asked that I give my recommendation in reference thereto. Since the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was established, now almost three years ago, it has docketed 610 cases, 33 of which came from the district of Utah, and of the 33, seven have been dismissed without submission on their merits. I am disposed to believe that the expense of making provision for an annual session of the court at Salt Lake City and the holding of such terms are not justified in public interests. Less than 6 per cent of the cases in the court of appeals thus far have come from Utah. One of the circuit judges lives in Oklahoma and one in Kansas. There are now three terms of the court held at Denver, Wichita, and in Oklahoma. I feel that unnecessary terms interfere with rather than expedite the disposal of cases. The Utah cases are usually heard at Denver, and all of them would be heard there at the request of counsel. They have never gone to Oklahoma, and I think that once, without objection, Utah cases were heard in Wichita. I see no public necessity for the term of court at Salt Lake City, and therefore advise against it. With regards, I am, ROBT. E. LEWIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Your committee reached the conclusion, notwithstanding the objections contained in the letter of the Attorney General and the accompanying documents, that sessions of the court should be held at Salt Lake City once each year, but that it would be inadvisable to provide arbitrarily for the disposition of all cases arising in that city at such sessions. Therefore they recommend that so much of the bill as would require the circuit court of appeals of that circuit to hear and dispose of all cases arising in Salt Lake City at that place be deleted so as to leave the court free to exercise its own discretion so far as the disposal of cases is concerned. It will be noted that the Attorney General reaches the conclusion that such legislation is not absolutely essential at this time and he intimates that the holding of this additional term would entail considerable additional expense to the Government. In the memorandum submitted by H. W. Gardner, general agent and chief clerk of the Department of Justice, a copy of which is made a part of this report, he states that there are no quarters for the holding of sessions of said court in Salt Lake City, and that no member of the court resides there. We are informed that a new Federal building now nearing completion has very commodious quarters, of which the court may avail itself for holding sessions, and that in addition there is a complete law library to which the court may have access at all times. It follows then that the estimate of expense contained in the memorandum submitted by Mr. Gardner is far in excess of the amount which will be required in the event the court hold sessions in Salt Lake City. The most it would cost would be the traveling expenses of the judges going to and coming from Salt Lake City. These are estimated at $1,000 per annum, and this would appear to be the limit of any expense involved. In the letter addressed to the chairman of the subcommittee by Judge Lewis, of the tenth circuit, copy of which is made a part of this report, he expresses the opinion that a term of court is not needed at Salt Lake City. In this view he is at variance with all of the attorneys practicing in Salt Lake City who appeared at the hearing of the bill. In addition Judge Lewis questions the propriety of requiring all appeal cases to be heard and disposed of at Salt Lake City. Your committee is in accord with his views on the latter point, as there seems to be no necessity or reason for such a provision. Your committee has reached the conclusion, however, that litigants in the circuit who are domiciled in or near Salt Lake City are subjected to undue hardships and expense as they are required under existing conditions to travel long distances for the hearing of their cases on appeal and that better facilities should be afforded them than they now enjoy. Therefore it recommends its elimination from the bill. Your committee recommends that the bill as amended do pass. O DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED WHEAT TO RELIEVE DISTRESS FEBRUARY 24, 1932.-Ordered to be printed Mr. NORBECK, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. J. Res. 110] The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to which was referred the bill (S. J. Res. 110), authorizing the distribution of Governmentowned wheat to the American National Red Cross and other organizations for relief of distress, has considered the same and report favorably thereon with the recommendation: that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF BILL This bill proposes a donation to the American Red Cross of not exceeding 5,000,000 bushels of wheat by the Farm Board, subject to the judgment and approval of the President of the United States. It is to be available in the areas that suffered from crop failures in 1931, and may be used for human food or for feed for livestock. The Farm Board will bear none of the expense of processing or transportation. They are to keep a record and have credit on the books against their revolving fund. The severe winter, following a devastating destruction by heat and grasshoppers, closed the ordinary avenues of credit, and created such a shortage of food that thousands of people, formerly prosperous, are now dependent upon relief measures. The American Red Cross are assisting more than 10,000 people in South Dakota alone. In an agricultural State the family is so dependent upon its domestic livestock, and the Red Cross has found it necessary to extend its first relief to the saving of milch cows-in fact, the need for livestock feed has become the most pressing. The request for this comes from Hon. Warren Green, the governor of the State, who has sent the following message: The farmers of this State are in desperate plight because of grasshopper and drought damage as well as the rigorous winter. The feed supply will need to be augmented for those farmers that are unable to secure feed loans. From two to five million bushels of Farm Board wheat could be used to meet the needs of these unfortunate farmers. This grain should be at the disposal of the Red Cross organization from whose headquarters I have just returned. They are desperately trying to meet the needs of the State and have spent thousands of dollars already for livestock feed. Mr. Albert Evans, at the head of the National Red Cross for South Dakota, with headquarters at Mitchell, S. Dak., wires on February 20 in part as follows: Loss of livestock increasing each day. Snow can not possibly disappear under best conditions for three weeks. If all of the feed shipped into the State from relief funds from all sources could be segregated to the two smallest counties in the State it would not be sufficient to carry those counties to May 1. Multiply the amount we have already received twenty-five times and unless a large portion of that received within 10 days the loss of livestock will be appalling. Mr. D. B. Gurney, of Yankton, S. Dak., who successfully raised large sums last year for the Arkansas relief, and has already raised more than $100,000 for the relief of the South Dakota situation, wires in part as follows: Farm Board probably only source that could give quick service 2,000,000 bushels grain within three weeks. The State Chamber of Commerce wires as follows: If possible Congress should authorize release two and one-half million bushels of Farm Board wheat for feed purposes South Dakota. This estimate represents conclusions of surveys made of requirements for 60 days. This amount needed in addition to feed donated and purchased. Severe winter weather has increased needs enormously and many new applications are received daily. The Farm Bureau Federation, the State Farmers' Union, and the Grange all express the need of help. The State Bankers Association makes even a more alarming report and thinks that 5,000,000 bushels are necessary. |