In regard to the first point, the rate of interest claimed is 61⁄2 per cent and not 6 per cent as stated in the pending resolution. The amount advanced by the Norwegian Government upon which interest is claimed was 65,162.97 kroner, which had a value of $11,507.78 in United States gold at the time of the payment by the United States of the principal on July 13, 1925. At the rate of 61⁄2 per cent the interest amounts to 22,460.37 kroner from February 24, 1920, to July 13, 1925, the date of the payment of the principal. This sum in United States currency at the rate of exchange prevailing July 13, 1925 (1 kroner equals 0.1766) was equal to $3,966.50, or, at the mint rate of exchange, which is only 0.0013 above the current rate as of to-day (1 kroner equals 0.268), would equal $6,019.37. As to the second point, the interest upon the foregoing sum, 22,460.37 kroner (interest from July 13, 1925, to July 13, 1930), at 6% per cent is 7,299.75 kroner which, at the rate of exchange prevailing on July 13, 1925 (1 kroner equals 0.1766), is equal to $1,289.13, or, at the mint rate of exchange (1 kroner equals 0.268), would equal $1,956.33. The total amount of interest, therefore, amounts to 29,760.12 kroner, which is equal to $5,255.63 is computed at the rate of exchange prevailing July 13, 1925, when the principal was paid to Norway, or $7,975.70 if computed at the mint rate of exchange. In either case, therefore, the amount of $5,000 stated in the report of the department, contained in House Document No. 317, is incorrect, and should be $5,255.63 or $7,975.70, according to the rate of exchange employed. It would seem that inasmuch as the interest claimed is upon an amount in kroner and in order to purchase at present the number of kroner necessary to pay to the Norwegian Government in kroner the amount of the interest, the sum required would be $7,975.70. Therefore, the appropriation should apparently not be for $5,000, as erroneously stated in the report of the Department of State, but should be for the sum of $7,975.70, or, in order to allow for interest beyond July 13, 1930, if an appropriation should be delayed beyond that time, approximately $8,500. As to the third point, I am inclosing a redraft of the joint resolution which I believe sets out the points which the committee desired to have covered. I am also inclosing a statement showing in still further detail the manner in which the department has arrived at the figures hereinbefore stated. Hoping that the foregoing will satisfy the requirements of the committee, I am, Yours sincerely. WILBUR J. CARR. Norwegian claim for interest Amount advanced by Norwegian Government on Feb. 24, 1920. Total advanced by Norwegian Government.. TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN MAY 27. 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. MICHENER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT (To accompany H. R. 123501 The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 12350, after consideration, reports the same favorably and recommends that the bill do pass. This bill provides for one additional judge for the eastern district of Michigan. The population of this district in 1920 was 2,456,743, and the pending census will undoubtedly show a population of well over 3,000,000 inhabitants. There are at present three judges in this district. No fault can be found in this district with the hours worked by the judges or with the length of vacations taken by the judges. The judges in few, if any, districts in the country devote more time and work harder to keep up the calendars, than do the judges in the eastern district of Michigan. The business of the Federal court in this district is constantly increasing. In this district is centered the great automobile industry of the country, which necessarily brings much work to this court. In addition there is admiralty work because more tonnage passes through the Detroit River than through any one given point in the world. The proximity to the Canadian border brings many prohibition cases to this court, and a great city like Detroit with its great industries, inherently is a source of much litigation which must be disposed of in the Federal court. At the close of the fiscal year of June 30, 1928, there were pending in this district 468 United States civil cases; 1,241 cases were commenced during the year, and at the close of the year June 30, 1929, 659 cases were pending. Criminal prosecutions pending on June 30, 1928, were 379, while criminal prosecutions pending at close of June 30, 1929. were 410. In private litigation pending at the close of June 30, 1928, there were 529 cases, and at the close of June 30, 1929, there were 508 cases. At the close of the fiscal year 1928 there were pending 884 bankruptcy cases, and at the close of the fiscal year 1929 there were pending 761 bankruptcy cases. Representative Bachmann, of West Virginia, and a member of the Judiciary Committee, has within the last few weeks made a careful study of all of the judicial districts throughout the United States for the purpose of determining where real congestion in the courts exists, and where additional Federal judges are necessary to relieve this congestion. On April 22, 1930, Mr. Bachmann presented to the House the result of his study, and his conclusions are found in the Congressional Record of that date. At the request of Mr. Bachmann, the Department of Justice made inquiry from the presiding circuit judges of the several circuits, and photostatic copies of the replies of the presiding judges of the circuits were furnished to the Judiciary Committee. In answer to the inquiry asking for conditions in the eastern district of Michigan, the presiding circuit judge, Hon. Arthur C. Denison, wired the Department of Justice as follows: There is probably no escape from asking another judge at Detroit, where congestion is getting worse. In the opinion of the committee the congestion in the eastern district of Michigan requires one additional judge. The senior judge in the eastern district has wired as follows: In my opinion, criminal calendar is in arrears for one year and civil calendar two years. Regular court hours are six hours a day, we often hold court for longer than these regular hours. We try to get 1 month vacation each year, but in 19 years I have been able to take only 3 real vacations, 1 for 2 months and the other 2 for 1 month. Many patent cases are begun in other districts which could and should be brought here if we had more judges. I am confident that 2 judges could work hard with patent cases alone, 2 judges with criminal cases alone, and one judge with civil-law cases alone. We need more than one additional judge and no one familiar with the situation would question the need of at least one in order to give litigants the service to which they are entitled. ARTHUR J. TUTTLE, United States District Judge. O LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1931 MAY 27, 1930.-Ordered to be printed Mr. MURPHY, from the committee of conference, submitted the following CONFERENCE REPORT To accompany H. R. 11965] The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 11965) making appropriations for the legislative branch of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1931, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 11, 12, and 21. That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 23, and agree to the same. Amendment numbered 22: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 22, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: Restore the matter stricken out by said amendment, amended to read as follows: maintenance, repair, and operation of passenger motor vehicle, and exchange, care, operation, and maintenance of motor trucks; and the Senate agree to the same. The committee of conference have not agreed on amendments numbered 17 and 18. FRANK MURPHY, WM. P. HOLADAY, Managers on the part of the House. W. L. JONES, REED SMOOT, FRED HALE, E. S. BROUSSARD, ROYAL S. COPELAND, Managers on the part of the Senate. |