« ZurückWeiter »
The said resolution of the said board of county commissioners and the statement of the bar association of southwestern Colorado are herewith submitted, as follows:
Whereas there is now pending before Congress a bill (H. R. 22) to amend the laws
relating to the judiciary and to establish a term of the Federal court in the city of Durango; La Plata County, Colo.: Now therefore be it
Resolved by the board of county commissioners of said La Plata County, That in consideration of the passage of said bill and establishing a term of the Federal court in the city of Durango, La Plata ('ounty, Colo., said La Plata County hereby agrees to furnish court room for the holding of said term of court, including fuel. light, heat, and janitor service, free and without expense to the Government, until such time as a public building may be constructed in the city of Durango. Passed and approved this 10th day of March, A. D. 1916.
A. E. REECE, Chairman. Attest:
OLIVE ORME, County Clerk. STATE OF COLORADO,
County of La Plata, I, Olive Orme, county clerk within and for said La Plata County, do hereby certify the above to be a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by the board of county commissioners of said La Plata County on the 10th day of March, A. D. 1916. In testimony whereof I have hereunto affixed my name and the seal of said county at Durango, Colo., this 10th day of March, A. D. 1916. (SEAL.]
OLIVE ORME, County Clerk and Recorder.
DURANGO, Colo., March 11, 1916. To the DURANGO EXCHANGE,
Durango, Colo. GENTLEMEN: The Southwestern Bar Association is very much interested in the establishment of a Federal court at Durango, and at your suggestion has taken up the matter of the lill introduced l y Mr. Taylor for that purpose, together with the suggestions made by Judge Robert E. Lewis. A canvass of the bar association and a study of the conditions show:
1. That the meml ers of the 1 ar to a man are unwilling to accept any provision which does not fix a definite, regular term of court to be held here if there is any business to be transacted,
2. They have no desire to cause expense or to compel the attendance of the court and officials when there is no business to transact, and to the end that the suggestions made by Judge Lewis may le met they are willing that the lill be so amended as to provide:
(a) That when there are no cases to be tried and no business to be transacted the term may be continued or adjourned by the judge in chambers at Denver.
(b) That jurors for each term may be selected from such counties as the judge may designate.
3. The board of county commissioners have by resolution agreed to furnish a courtroom, light, heat, and janitor service, without expense to the Government until such time as a public building may be constructed. Provision for such construction has been made and the site has been purchased. A certified copy of said resolution is herewith transmitted.
4. An office of the district clerk in Durango is maintained in the courthouse. The clerk is in attendance there every day and is available in all business hours. If he were also appointed clerk of the United States court the expense of that office would be nominal, and business could be transacted as readily and promptly as at the offices in Denver and Pueblo.
Under these conditions we feel that the establishment of a term of court here will not involve any considerable expense or serious inconvenience to the judge and court officials, and we think there is no valid objection to the establishment of such court.
The greater part of this district is distant from Denver at least 500 miles. It takes practically 24 hours to get to Denver from Durango, and a day longer from some other
portions of the district. It takes substantially the same time and almost the same cost to reach Pueblo, and the only train service to Pueblo lands us there at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning and makes us leave there at about midnight. It takes as long to reach Montrose, and because of higher rates over the Southern Railroad the expense is about as great as to reach Denver, and the conveniences of travel are very linnited. Under these conditions it is preferable to transact the Federal court business from this district at Denver rather than at Montrose or Pueblo, and it is a hardship which should not be imposed upon our people to require them to attend at any of these places.
The bar association has been una! le to get any complete data as to the business from this section which has been transacted in the Federal court. It has no record of such business outside of this county, and has no complete record of the business here. Reports made by a part only of the local attorneys to our committee show that they have been interested in the last few years in some 150 matters in the Federal court. The United States commissioner at this place has had upward of 125 cases from 1907 to this time. There are other commissioners in the district and several other counties which would be included in a Federal district to be formed, and the amount of business from these counties has been considerable. At one time, when the mining business was active, there were some 40 mining cases from Dolores County alone pending in the Federal court. During last summer there was tried in Denver a case from this section where more than 150 witnesses were taken to Denver. We think it will appear that the costs to the Government in its cases against the Porter Fuel Co., the New Mexico Lumber Co., the Pagosa Lumber Co., the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Co., and other cases where a large number of witnesses were required, would maintain a local court here for a great many years. It has happened that most of the larger cases, involving the greatest expense and the largest number of witnesses, arising in this section have not been heard by Judge Lewis, but have been heard by Judges Trieber, Riner, Marshall, and others. For this reason, proba' ly, Judge Lewis is not fully aware of the extent of the business actually arising in this section.
We suggest, further, that in all probability the Federal court business hereafter will increase rather than diminish, for the following reasons:
1. There is a land office here, within whose jurisdiction all kinds of public-land business is transacted, and from which before long appeals to the courts will probably be allowed.
2. There are two Indian reservations, with separate agencies, schools, and irriga-
4. There are a large number of mining districts now again actively engaged in
5. There are several national banks having the right in certain cases to sue and be sued in Federal courts.
6. The counties, schools, cities, towns, irrigation districts, power plants, mines, and industrial corporations have outstanding large issues of bonds held by nonresidents.
7. There are a large number of irrigation ditches and projected irrigation ditches, heading in Colorado and covering New Mexico lands. It can readily be seen that this condition is certain to furnish a very considerable business for the Federal courts.
8. There are seven large rivers rísing in Colorado and running into New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, and California, and interstate questions as to rights to the use of water and as to respective priorities are continually arising.
9. Important questions are arising as to the priority of the Indians as to the right to use water as against the whites who have made actual. prior usage. These ques tions will arise as to practically all of our streams, and before long must be settled in the Federal courts. 10. This section is geographically and commercially intimately connected with Dorthwestern New Mexico and southeastern Utah, both rapidly growing and developing communities, and controversies arising out of these relations between citizens of different States must result from this intercourse.
To the above matters may be added the facts that there is a large power plant owned and operated by a foreign corporation, which covers a large part of the territory of this district; that a considerable quantity of land has been sold by the Government with coal and mineral rights reserved to the United States, that the Government
surveys of lands are very irregular and defective, and that the boundary line between Colorado and New Mexico has never been satisfactorily adjusted, and perhaps dozens of other circumstances from which Federal questions might arise.
In the course of our investigations a matter has come to our attention which we think should be mentioned. We find that several cases (particularly damage cases) have been removed from the local courts to the Federal courts, with the result that the plaintiff was unable to follow them there and to further prosecute them. We are not advised as to the inerits of these cases, but certain it is that their removal to Denver and Pueblo deprived the plaintiffs in these cases of the opportunity to have tried the question involved. This condition ought not to exist, and if for no other reason, there should be a Federal court within easy reach, where such cases might be tried.
We have a list of the title of something over 200 cases which we can furnish you if desired, and we will endeavor to get returns from other counties, which will largely increase the number. It has been impossible for us to make anything like a full list of the cases from this section, but we have found that a very considerable amount of business, some of which was very important, has originated from this section.
A very considerable number of the cases arising in this section have been in charge of Denver attorneys, and consequently are not found on the dockets of our local attorneys.
We ask you to join us in urging the passage of the bill and suggest that you concur
THE SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION,
CONGRESS, | HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
EXCLUSION OF LIQUORS FROM NATIONAL PARKS.
MARCH 30, 1916.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union and ordered to be printed. FEBRUARY 22, 1917.—The Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
discharged, referred to the House Calendar, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. HAYDEN, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted
[To accompany H. R. 6814.)
The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 6814, having had the same under consideration, report the same back to the House with amendments, with the recommendation that the bill do pass.
Amend by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting the following:
That from and after the approval of this act the issuance by any officer or employee of the United States to any lessee, permittee, concessioner, or other person, firm, or corporation whatsoever, of any permit or authority for the sale or dispensing of intoxicating liquors of any nd, including beer, ale, and wine, in any national park is berely prohibited; and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby directed to take all necessary measures to carry this act into full force and effect.
Amend the title so as to read:
This is primarily a safety measure. The national parks of the country have been opened to automobile travel, and though last year was practically the first season in which such traffic was permitted, the number of visitors who were conveyed through these parks by this means reached very large proportions.
As is well known, the roads in all national parks are necessarily very dangerous, and the safety of all the people who use these roads depends upon the care, skill, and sobriety of the chauffeur who guides the machines over them.
To permit the sale of intoxicating liquors in any national park is an invitation to disaster upon the mountain highways therein.
The principle of liquor restriction as a safety measure is well estab
A Pennsylvania statute (Act No. 410) makes it a misdemeanor for a driver of a traction engine to be intoxicated; while a law of Washington (ch. 165) extends the law of that State to cover intoxication of employees on highways and other public places as well as on streets.
The sale of intoxicants near lumber or other camps is prohibited by an act of the Michigan Legislature (No. 110), which makes it unlawful to sell or deliver intoxicating liquor at any lumber camp, sawmill, yard, or along the right of way of any railroad.
The bill was referred to the Secretary of the Interior, and his report on the same is printed herewith. It is as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, February 8, 1916. My Dear Mr. FERRIS: I have your letter of February 1, inclosing for report H. R. 6814 entitled “A bill to exclude intoxicating liquors from national parks and national forest reserves.
Drinking saloons and barrooms are not permitted upon Government lands within the national parks, but where hotel and permanent camp privileges have been granted in the parks it has been customary in States where prohibition is not in effect to permit the supplying of wines and liquors to guests at tables and in their rooms. hibition States the State law has been followed.
As the bill covers also forest reserves, it is suggested that it be called to the attention of the Secretary of Agriculture. Cordially, yours,
FRANKLIN K. LANE,
Secretary. Hon. Scott FERRIS, Chairman, Committee on Public Lands,
House of Representatives.
A BILL To exclude intoxicating liquors from national parks and national forest reserves.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the sale, gift, manufacture, transportation, or possession of any spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of any kind for beverage purposes within any national park or national forest reserve of the United States is hereby prohibited. Whoever shall violate any provision of this act or cause the same to be violated shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both; and for any subsequent violation of this act shall be imprisoned not more than five years.