MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING IN THE WORLD.

Lloyd's Register returns show that on June 30, 1919, there were 2,526 merchant vessels (each of 100 gross tons or over), aggregating 8,017,767 gross tons, under construction in the world's shipyards.

Before the war the largest tonnage under construction in the world was 3,445,000 gross tons, on June 30, 1913. On that date merchant ships under construction in yards of the United Kingdom numbered 543, of 2,003,241 gross tons.

Lloyd's detailed figures of merchant shipbuilding on June 30, 1919, are as follows:

a Including 52 ferroconcrete vessels of 62,323 gross tons.

The foregoing table does not include shipbuilding in Germany, as the figures for that country are not yet available.

***

66th CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 1st Session.

PATENT TO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 8, SHERIDAN COUNTY, ΜΟΝΤΑΝΑ.

NOVEMBER 7, 1919.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed.

Mr. RHODES, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the

following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. 2709.]'

This Senate bill, having been favorably considered by your committee. is submitted with the recommendation that it do pass, without amendment.

The bill provides for the issuance of a patent to school district No. 8, Sheridan County, Mont., for block 1, in Wakea town site. Under the authorization of the Government the Secretary of the Interior is directed to set apart for public-school purposes not exceeding one block of unappropriated land in each town site, and to cause patents to be issued therefor to the various districts within such sites on the filing of proper application. The authority for this action is. therefore granted under the provisions of this law. The Senate has added a provision which is accepted by your committee, as follows:

Provided, That Indian children residing in such school districts shall at all times be received in schools used and maintained for public-school purposes in the town sites covered by this act, on equal terms with white children.

Amendment to the title by changing the word "township" to the words "town site" is also accepted by your committee.

The bill is indorsed by the Secretary of the Interior to the Senate, as follows:

SEPTEMBER 8, 1919.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I have the honor to refer again to your letter of August 13, 1919, inclosing for report copy of Senate 2709, a bill to authorize the issuance of patents for lands used for public school purposes within the several town sites on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana.

Section 1 of the bill authorizes the issuance of a patent to school district No. 8, Sheridan County, for block 1 in Wakea town site. Section 2 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to set apart for public school purposes not exceeding one block of unappropriated land in each town site and to cause patents to be issued therefor to the school districts within such town sites, respectively, upon their filing application therefor, such lots or blocks to be used and maintained for public school purposes.

The town sites within the Fort Peck Reservation are 11 in number, and with 3 exceptions the lands embraced therein have not been surveyed into lots and blocks as authorized by section 14 of the act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stat. L., 558-563). The lots in the three surveyed town sites were offered for sale to the public in 1916. No lots were sold, and the sales were adjourned.

I am not advised as to the present conditions with respect to the need for school facilities within any of the town sites affected by Senate 2709, with the exception of the town site of Wakea, in which case it appears that school district No. 8 has made application to purchase block No. 1. This application, however, has not been acted upon.

I believe that the legislation proposed is a step in the right direction and that the results to be obtained in the event of its passage, and providing of course the town sites are eventually opened and occupied as such, will be in the interests of the Indians as well as the public generally.

In order, however, that Indian children may not be deprived of the right to attend such public schools as may be established in the town sites covered by the bill, I suggest that the bill be amended by the addition of the following proviso to section 2: "Provided, That Indian children residing in such school districts shall at all times be received in schools used and maintained for public school purposes in the town sites covered by this act, on equal terms with white children."

The title should be corrected by inserting in place of the word "township" the words "town site."

If the bill is amended as herein suggested, I shall be glad if it is enacted into law. Cordially, yours,

Hon. CHARLES CURTIS,

(Signed) F. K. LANE, Secretary.

Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.

After full consideration of these facts before it, your committee recommends that the bill do pass.

CONGRESS

SERVICE OF PROCESS IN CAUSES REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT TO A UNITED STATES COURT.

NOVEMBER 8, 1919.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. WHALEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 10207.]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 10207) providing for service of process in causes removed from a State court to a United States court, has considered the same and reports thereon with recommendation that it do pass.

Under the present law if one or more of the defendants is not served with citation prior to the time the cause is removed, or if the service of process or the process itself is defective on any one or more of the defendants, such process can not be corrected in the Federal court after removal nor can new process be issued. The plaintiff in such cases must either dismiss the cause entirely or dismiss as to the party upon whom service has not been perfected. This entails what seems to be a useless expense.

We quote the following from Simpkins, "A Federal Equity Suit," as shown on page 841:

Whatever may be the defects of service, a State officer can not amend after removal. (Tallman v. B. & O. Ry. Co., 45 Fed., 156; Hawkins v. Peirce, 79 Fed., 452.) Nor has the Federal court after removal any power to issue process to perfect the service of a State court. (Stowe v. Santa Fe R. R. Co., 117 Fed., 368.) Therefore the Federal court must, in the absence of proper service, dismiss the case, because if the State court had no jurisdiction it can not take any. But this dismissing the case will not prevent the State court from again taking jurisdiction on same cause of action. (Gassman v. Jarvis, 100 Fed., 146; Texas Cotton Products Co. v. Starnes, 128 Fed., 183.)

This filing and dismissing of causes in the Federal court is an expensive matter, and there does not seem to be any reason why the law should not be amended as suggested. In other words, to allow the completion of service in the Federal courts. The bill does not undertake to confer more jurisdiction, but simply to complete the process and avoid the necessity of dismissing, paying the costs, and refiling.

HR-66-1-vol 2-39