« PrécédentContinuer »
Immigration in his last annual report, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1931, makes the following recommendations on page 65:
Fourth. That omission from section 15 of the immigration act of 1924 of authority to require bond in appropriate cases in connection with the admission of immigrant students be remedied. Liberality should be extended to those who seek to avail themselves of our educational faculties; but at the same time there should be authority, in the interest of good administration, where that course is desirable, to exact a bond from immigrant students admitted, conditioned for their departure from the United States. The present situation works to the disadvantage of the alien in obliging the port officials to exclude in a doubtful case; whereas, if bond were possible, doubts might be resolved in favor of the applicant in many instances without jeopardy to the accomplishment of the general purposes of the act.
Fifth. That section 15 of the immigration act of 1924 be amended so as to require servants of Government officials, now admitted under diplomatic immunity, to depart from the country upon failure to maintain the status under which admitted.
In compliance with paragraph 2A of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in the existing law made by the bill are shown as follows: Existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman (plain type in this manuscript); new matter is printed in italics (underscored in the manuscript).
SEC. 15. The admission to the United States of an alien excepted from the class of immigrants by clause (1) (except a Government official and his family), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6) of section 3, or declared to be a non-quota immigrant by subdivision (e) of section 4, shall be for such time as may be by regulations prescribed, and under such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed (including, when deemed necessary for the classes mentioned in clause (2), (3), (4), or (6) of section 3 and subdivision (e) of section 4, the giving of bond with sufficient surety, in such sum and containing such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed) to insure that, at the expiration of such time or upon failure to maintain the status under which admitted, he will depart from the United States.
AMEND THE JUDICIAL CODE
FEBRUARY 26, 1932.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. MONTAGUE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted
[To accompany H. R. 4624)
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred H. R. 4624, having considered the same, orders it to be favorably reported with the recommendation that the bill do pass.
The bill is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Judicial Code, approved March 3, 1911, is hereby amended by adding after section 274C thereof a new section to be numbered 274D, as follows:
“Sec. 274D. (1) In cases of actual controversy the courts of the United States shall have power upon petition, declaration, complaint, or other appropriate pleadings to declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party petitioning for such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be prayed, and such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and be reviewable as such.
“(2) Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief. If the application be deemed sufficient, the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party, whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaration, to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.
“(3) When a declaration of right or the granting of further relief based thereon shall involve the determination of issues of fact triable by a jury such issues may be submitted to a jury in the form of interrogatories, with proper instructions by the court, whether a general verdict be required or not."
The bill fairly discloses its purpose and scope. It extends the judicial power for the rendition of what is known as "declaratory judgments,” a procedure which has been substantially adopted in some form by 27 of the American States, by Great Britain for nearly 40 years, by Scotland for nearly 400 years, by several European nations, and by India, Australia, and Canada, and wherever adopted it has given pronounced satisfaction in that it has accomplished most wholesome simplification and expedition in the administration of justice. Indeed, the delay in the exercise of this power and procedure
by all of the States and by the Federal Government is difficult to appreciate.
The principle involved in this form of procedure is to confer upon the courts the power to exercise in some instances preventive relief, a function now performed rather clumsily by our equitable proceedings and inadequately by the law courts.
A most simple and striking definition of the procedure is thus made by Professor Borchard, of the Yale University School of Law. He writes:
The declaratory judgment, it will be recalled, enables parties who are uncertain of their legal rights, and are pecuniarily or otherwise prejudiced by actual or potential adverse claims by others, to invoke the aid of the courts for the determination of their rights before an injury has been done.
Therefore, this form of preventive relief is distinguishable from curative relief in that the latter is incapable of redress until an injury has occurred or the contract broken.
The bill under consideration does not exhaust the principles involved in support of “declaratory judgments," but is a modified effort to secure relief by such procedure. The first section confines relief to actual, not potential, controversies; and the procedure may be invoked whether or not further consequential relief should be had, though a declaratory judgment has the force and effect of a final judgment or decree. Again, large discretion is conferred upon the courts as to whether or not they will administer justice by this procedure.
The “declaratory judgment" is a useful procedure in determining jural rights, obligations, and privileges, but may be applied to the ascertainment of almost any determinative fact or law. The declaration of a status was perhaps the earliest exercise of this procedure, such as the legality of marriage, the construction of written instruments, and the validity of statutes. It is intended to save tedious and costly litigation by ascertaining at the outset the controlling fact or law involved, thus either concluding the litigation or thereafter confining it within more precise limitations. If the meaning of a contract is controverted, for example, it may be needless to break it in order to obtain authoritative construction of the instrument, thus saving time and cost. These and other instances, together
. with the successful experience of the States which have used the procedure, make it most desirable that this legislation should be enacted.
In accordance with the rule there is printed below a copy of the law, showing in italics the new language.
Sec. 274A. In case any United States court shall find that a suit at law should have been brought in equity or a suit in equity should have been brought at law, the court shall order any amendments to the pleadings which may be necessary to conform them to the proper practice. Any party to the suit shall have the right, at any stage of the cause, to amend his pleadings so as to obviate the objection that his suit was not brought on the right side of the court. The cause shall proceed and be determined upon such amended pleadings. All testimony taken before such amendment, if preserved, shall stand as testimony in the cause with like effect as if the pleadings had been originally in the amended form. (Title 28, sec. 397, U. S. C.)
Sec. 274B. In all actions at law equitable defenses may be interposed by answer, plea, or replication without the necessity of filing a bill on the equity side of the court. The defendant shall have the same rights in such case as if he had filed a bill embodying the defense of seeking the relief prayed for in such
answer or plea. Equitable relief respecting the subject matter of the suit may thus be obtained by answer or plea. In case affirmative relief is prayed in such answer or plea, the plaintiff shall file a replication. Review of the judgment or decree entered in such case shall be regulated by rule of court. Whether such review be sought by writ of error or by appeal the appellate court shall have full power to render such judgment upon the record as law and justice shall require. (Title 28, sec. 398, U. S. C.)
Sec. 274C. Where, in any suit brought in or removed from any State court to any district of the United States, the jurisdiction of the district court is based upon the diverse citizenship of the parties, and such diverse citizenship in fact existed at the time the suit was brought or removed, though defectively alleged, either party may amend at any stage of the proceedings and in the appellate court upon such terms as the court may impose, so as to show on the record such diverse citizenship and jurisdiction, and thereupon such suit shall be proceeded with the same as though the diverse citizenship had been fully and correctly pleaded at the inception of the suit, or, if it be a removed case, in the petition for removal. (Title 28, sec. 399, U. S. c.)
Sec. 274D. (1) In cases of actual controversy the courts of the United States shall have power, upon petition, declaration, complaint, or other appropriate pleadings, to declare rights and other legal relations any interested party petitioning for such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be prayed, and such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and be reviewable as such.
(2) Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief. If the application be deemed sufficient, the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party, whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaration, to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.
(3) When a declaration of right or the granting of further relief based thereon shall involve the determination of issues of faci triable by a jury, such issues may be submitted to a jury in the form of interrogatories, with proper instructions by the court whether a general verdict be required or not.