« ForrigeFortsett »
Hawaii and Puerto Rico are included as judicial districts of the United States, since in matters of jurisdiction, powers, and procedure, they are in all respects equal to other United States district courts. See sections 91 and 119.
The annual October term of the Supreme Court is preserved by the revision but as to all other courts the time, terms, and sessions are to be fixed by rule or order of court. The orderly and convenient dispatch of judicial business will not, under this revision, be circumscribed by artificial requirements for holding terms at arbitrary times having no relation to the condition of the calendar, the needs of the district or circuit or the volume of business.
The provisions of title 16, United States Code, 1940 edition, Conservation, relating to appointment, powers and duties of national park commissioners, are incorporated in chapter 43 of the revision. These commissioners are United States commissioners in all respects. Those who are appointed on a salary basis are continued on that basis. (See sec. 634.)
Some minor changes of existing law were necessary in revising provisions relating to jurisdiction of district courts. These are noted in the reviser's notes under sections 1332, 1335, 1338, 1344, 1346, 1352, and 1359.
So also, minor changes were made in the provisions regulating the venue of district courts in order to clarify ambiguities or to reconcile conflicts. These are reflected in the reviser's notes under sections 1391-1406.
The procedure for removal of causes from State courts to Federal courts is greatly simplified. (See secs. 1441-1450.) Under existing law the removal petition must be filed with the State court which has no discretion to pass upon it but must forward the record to the Federal court. Revised section 1446 provides for the filing of the removal petition in the United States district court in the first instance. This is in accordance with recommendations of United States District Judges Calvin W. Chestnut and T. Waties Waring and approved by the Committee of the Judicial Conference on the Revision of the Judicial Code.
The Tax Court, for the first time, is brought into the Judicial Code. (See sections 271-275, 911, 1621, 2551-2559.)
Qualifications of jurors in Federal courts are made uniform in all districts by section 1861 in conformity with recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
The principal changes in provisions relating to fees of United States commissioners or marshals were made in sections 633 and 1921. The fee list of each is considerably simplified and abbreviated.
The reviser's note under section 1871 contains the following recommendation of the advisory committee to Congress:
The advisory committee to the former House Committee on Revision of the Laws in revision of this title, recommended a careful study of the compensation of witnesses and jurors. Furthermore, provision should be made for the subsistence of jurors and witnesses serving at such distance from their homes as precludes daily travel to and from the court.
The Supreme Court of the United States under section 2073 is given the same power to make Admiralty Rules which it has with respect to Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure.
Important changes in the mechanics of procedure for review were necessary for good revision. The most important of these is the provision of section 2109 for disposition of cases in the Supreme Court where a quorum of qualified Justices is not available. This section is in part adapted from section 29 of title 15, Commerce and Trade, and section 45 of title 49, Transportation, of the United States Code.
The second paragraph of the revised section provides for the disposition of cases for which a quorum is not available and in which one appellate review has been had by affirmance of the judgment below with the same effect as upon affirmance by a divided court. This will facilitate disposition of such litigation.
The habeas corpus chapter has been rewritten to conform with legislation pending in Congress and approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States. (See H. R. 4232, 4233, and S. 1451, 1452, 79th Cong.)
AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
The text of the revision of title 28 of the United States Code is entirely comprised in section 1 of the bill.
Section 2 (p. 165 of the bill) is a saving provision which preserves the status of the chief justices of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Court of Claims, and the presiding judge of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals as chief judges of their respective courts.
Sections 3-31 are amendments of sections in titles other than title 28, which will make such sections conform with provisions of this revision.
Section 32 makes applicable the terms, United States court of appeals, United States district court, chief judge, chief justice, and presiding judge to all statutes in which the older terminology still
Section 33 provides against any inference of a legislative construction by reason of the classification of any section in a particular chapter or by reason of the captions or catch lines used throughout the title.
Section 34 is the usual separability provision.
Sections 35 and 36 provide for the specific repeal of all laws incorporated in the revision and other superseded and obsolete provisions relating to the courts. The schedule was carefully checked and rechecked many times. This method of specific repeal will relieve the courts of the burdensome task of ferreting out implied repeals.
REVISER'S NOTES AND TABLES
The reviser's notes are keyed to sections of the revision and explain in detail every change made in text. References to court decisions are supplied wherever necessary or appropriate.
To facilitate the work of all those interested in the revision, reference tables are incorporated. These show the distribution of sections from the United States Code, Judicial Code, Revised Statutes, Statutes at Large, District of Columbia Code, and other sources of this revision.
REPORT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The following letter from the Attorney General was received by the chairman of the committee:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Hon. EARL C. MICHENER,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for my views concerning a bill (H. R. 2055) to revise, codify, and enact into law title 28 of the United States Code entitled "Judicial Code and Judiciary."
The present United States Code, consisting of 50 titles, is a compilation of permanent statutory law of the United States. While it is presently extensively valuable for practical purposes, its usefulness is somewhat circumscribed by the fact that all of it has never been codified. Accordingly, the bulk of its text establishes only prima facie the text of the statutory law of the United States. The bill under consideration is part of the plan for the enactment of the United States Code into law. The bill would take this step with respect to title 28 of the code. While the Judicial Code of 1911 (36 Stat. 1087) has had some amendments since its enactment, many of the provisions now contained in title 28 are not a part of the Judicial Code.
The bill would eliminate much of the archaic language employed in the old statutes. By substituting plain language for awkward terms, reconciling laws, omitting superseded sections, and consolidating provisions which deal with the same subject, the bill would modernize and bring up to date the laws relating to the judiciary and to judicial procedure in much the same manner as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have done in their field. In addition, as has frequently been pointed out, title 28 would become a law itself instead of only prima facie law, so that lawyers would be spared the work of going to the original statute when it is essential to have the exact text of a particular law. Each of these objectives is commendable and desirable.
You will remember the discussions between members of the staff of the committee and of the Department last month at which the Department made some suggestions with reference to minor corrections of errors and omissions then in the draft of the bill being considered by your committee.
I am advised that this conference agreed upon a number of corrections and changes and that these corrections and changes have now been incorporated in the bill with the one exception of the portion declaring the Tax Court to be "a court of record."
Further consideration of the problem relating to the Tax Court leads me to the conclusion that the incorporation in chapter 13, section 271, et seq., of the bill declaring the administrative agency now known as the Tax Court of the United States to "constitute a court of record known as the United States Tax Court" is not objectionable.
You are therefore advised that the Department of Justice has no objection to the incorporation in the bill of appropriate language declaring the Tax Court of the United States to be a court of record.
TOM C. CLARK, Attorney General.
Reviser's notes, explaining in detail the revision of each section of the Federal
Preceding the notes is an analysis of the six parts making up the revised title.
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate is provided by
advised that many of the early records mentioned in this section were
SECTION 41-SECTION REVISED
Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., § 211, and section 864 of title