tage, over their only competitor. And the way to get that advantage existed solely and only because of the clause in the statute which this bill would repeal.

PRESENT LAW MAKES PROPERTY RIGHTS MORE VALUABLE THAN HUMAN RIGHTS

Under existing law the nonresident is given an unfair advantage for his property, an advantage which does not accrue in favor of his personal liberty. His property rights, in other words, are given more consideration and are surrounded with more safeguards than are the rights of life itself.

If his business is incorporated in a foreign State and he has a personal dispute or a controversy with his neighbor which leads to litigation, and the amount involved is more than $3,000, he is given the advantage denied to his opponent of taking his controversy into the Federal court. If, on the other hand, an inhabitant of one State crosses the line and commits a crime, murder, for instance, the law does not consider even his life as valuable as it would consider $3,000 of his property. After he has committed a crime he escapes to his own State, but he is extradited. He is taken by force across the line, back into the State where it is alleged the crime was committed. He can not then plead in court that he is a nonresident of the State where he is to be tried. If his property were at issue he could make this plea and have the case removed to the Federal court. But nothing but his life is at stake and the law, as it now exists, does not consider that valuable enough to give him the privilege of going into Federal court. He can not plead that as a nonresident criminal who is to be tried for crime, he will face a jury which has a prejudice against him because he lives in another State. He is compelled, when his life is at stake, to disregard this sacred right. He must stand trial before a State judge-a judge perhaps not appointed for life, but elected by the people, a fact which these fortunate corporations so often say they do not like. In other words, he has violated a State law and he is to be tried under the laws of the State where it is alleged he violated the laws. He is tried before a jury, and the question of State prejudice never arises. Indeed, it is never thought of, for the very reason that it does not exist.

These people who are so jealous of the rights of property on account of State prejudice when a nonresident is involved, have never yet proposed that when a man commits murder in a State where he does not reside, he should have the same right which they ask for property, the right to transfer his case to the Federal courts. These gentlemen who are so much afraid of State prejudice when it comes to property have never yet given a thought to that terrible prejudice as it might affect human freedom or human life. Where nothing but a human life is at stake, no transfer to Federal courts can take place. Such a blessed privilege and unfair advantage is given only to property.

RELIEF OF FEDERAL COURTS FROM CONGESTION

The congestion in our Federal district courts is acknowledged by all. That of itself is often a denial of justice. All classes of our citizens have recently become interested in various proposals for the relief of the

congestion in our Federal district courts. The President of the United States has sent official messages to Congress on the subject. He has appointed a commission composed of eminent jurists and other able, patriotic scholars. The question has received the attention of the leading members of the bar throughout the entire country. Federal judges from the Supreme Court down have lent their assistance in trying to devise some plan by which the Federal courts can be relieved from a large amount of the work now upon Federal judicial dockets.

Why not do this by letting State courts settle State controverises and confine Federal courts to the settlement of Federal questions? When a State question arises under a State statute, why not let the courts of that State settle that controversy, whether the controversy is between citizens of one State or citizens of two different States? Why not be logical and let the State courts try controversies arising under State laws within their borders instead of permitting a few privileged persons who do business in a State to take their controversies into Federal courts and thus burden Federal judges with the settlement of State questions and the control of lawsuits arising entirely and solely out of controversies under State laws?

Of all the suggestions which have been made from any source there is none which will bring as much relief as would the enactment of this proposed bill. It is estimated that the work of the Federal judiciary would be decreased from 25 to 40 per cent if this bill should be enacted into law. Not only would this relief for the Federal judiciary take place, but it would do it without any injustice of any kind coming to any person or corporation.

We are continually met with the demand for more judges, and if we provided for enough district judges to do all the work of the district courts and keep the dockets of these courts up to date, it would require a very large number of additional judges, prosecuting attorneys, United States marshals, and all other officials which necessarily go to the establishment and maintenance of courts of justice.

If all the cases involving diverse citizenship should be left for the State courts, where they fairly and honestly belong, this congestion in Federal courts would be relieved, the demand for more Federal judges would disappear, and all this would occur without any injustice to anyone. Every logical reason seems to point to the step which this bill proposes to take, and there is no reason now existing why the jurisdiction which this bill would take away from Federal courts should be retained. Many of the matters which the United States courts are trying, arising entirely within the jurisdiction of a State, and controversies coming up exactly the same as controversies arise between citizens of the same State, would, if this bill becomes a law, be left to the State courts for adjudication, There is no good or logical reason why this proposed bill should not become a law.

The Judiciary Committee of the Senate has twice reported favorably to the Senate a bill identical or very similar to S. 939, recommended for passage.

In order to get definite and first hand information as to just now much relief would come to Federal courts if such a bill as is now proposed were enacted, the writer wrote to every district judge in the United States. The following is a copy of that letter:

Hon..

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 29, 1930.

United States District Judge, MY DEAR Judge : The Judiliary Committee of the Senate has twice reported to the Senate bills proposing to take away from the Federal courts jurisdiction in cases arising solely under the diversity of citizenship clause of the Federal law. (U. S. C., title 28, sec. 41, par. 1.)

Considerable discussion has arisen in regard to the number of cases which get into Federal courts on account of this provision of the statute. In order to get direct, first-hand information on this subject, I am writing this letter to all of the district judges in the United States.

Will you please let me know how many civil cases were filed in your court during the clendar year 1929, and how many of these cases were in your court on account of the diversity of citizenship clause in the law?

Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter, I am,

Very truly yours,

G. W. NORRIS, Chairman Judiciary Committee.

This law, as will be observed, eliminates criminal cases and all civil cases except such as arise under that clause of the statute which the proposed bill would eliminate.

From the replies which I have received from these letters I have had compiled the following table, showing how many civil cases were filed in the various district courts of the United States during the calendar year 1929, and of these cases how many came into the respective Federal district courts by virtue of the diversity of citizenship clause, the one which this proposed bill would repeal. The first column in the table gives the entire number of civil cases filed during the calendar year 1929. The second column gives the number of these cases which were filed under the statute which this bill proposes to repeal.

It will be observed from this table the indications are that if this bill becomes a law it would reduce the civil cases in Federal courts by 27.7 per cent. This substantiates the claim above made, that of all the remedies which have been proposed to relieve congestion in Federal courts, this bill would go much further than any which has been proposed.

In this connection, and as bearing directly on this point, quotations made from a letter written by Hon. William Clark, one of the Federal district judges in the State of New Jersey, is exceedingly illuminating. Judge Clark says:

I would estimate the percentage of reduction which will be effected by the passage of the bill as about 33% per cent. I say this because our work is about equally divided between the law, equity, and admiralty matters. As most of our equity work is in the patent law, the contemplated reduction on that side would be approximately equal to the present constitutional and admiralty work.

It has always seemed extraordinary to me that in all this somewhat uninformed talk with respect to congestion in the United States courts, the question of abolition of the diversity jurisdiction is never emphasized.

In another letter Judge Clark says:

I am making herein a short classification of and commentary on the work of the April civil term over which I have just finished presiding.

In that term the judge tried 17 civil cases. It is remarkable that every one of these 17 cases was in his court by virtue of the diverse citizenship clause of existing law. It should be noted that in every one of these 17 cases, it was the law of New Jersey which Judge Clark was called upon to administer. Every dispute and every case should have been tried in the State courts.

Of these 17 cases, 7 were automobile accidents and 1 the death of a little girl to whom an anesthetic had been administered. One was a suit for commissions on the sale of underwear. One was for the construction of a water-supply system and one for the recovery of an amount claimed to be due for flooring in a public building. Three cases were grade-crossing accidents, 1 "attractive nuisance," 1 for platform injury, and 1 a slander suit.

Congress is importuned right now to provide for additional Federal judges in the State of New Jersey, and a wonderfully good showing has been made in that regard before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. In that State, as Judge Clark has said, there is a great deal of admiralty business, but there is no doubt but that if Congress would pass this law there would be no necessity whatever for additional Federal judges in that State.

It is perfectly apparent to every student of the subject that some relief must be sought for the congested condition of our Federal courts. We can not go on continually adding more judges. If we can divide the judiciary power of the country, giving to State courts jurisdiction over State matters and Federal courts jurisdiction over Federal matters we will rapidly approach a proper division of the jurisdiction which will give the necessary relief.

An illuminating presentation of this subject from a very high source is an article entitled "Distribution of Judicial Power Between United States and State Courts," contained in the Cornell Law Quarterly for June, 1928. This article was written by Hon. Felix Frankfurter, professor of law in the Harvard Law School. In this article Professor Frankfurter says:

One hundred and forty years ago there began a great debate concerning the functions of the national courts under the new Union. What should be the scope of their authority? What their relation to the State courts? Intermittently, that debate has continued throughout our history, and now, * * * we are at the beginning of another important stage of the discussion. Nothing but good can come from a reexamination of the purposes to be served by the Federal courts. Their historic contributions, above all their share in molding the loosely knit States into a nation, have rooted the United States courts deeply into our national consciousness. They need not fear fair scrutiny.

It is proper to inquire into the appropriateness of the existing distribution of judicial power, just as the substance of law is revised from time to time in response to new needs. Whatever survives such an inquiry can only help to strengthen the judicial system. Especially is this true of the Federal judiciary.

The happy relation of States to Nation-our abiding political problem-is in no small measure dependent on the wisdom with which the scope and limits of the Federal courts are determined.

They are not technical issues, nor within the special province of lawyers. The formulation of the compromises demand legal skill, and of a high order. But the bases of adjustment must be evolved by statesmen, and ought both to enlist and to satisfy public understanding.