63D CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Į REPORT 3d Session. No. 1215. LIFE-SAVING STATION, SIUSLAW RIVER, OREG. DECEMBER 12, 1914.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. LAFFERTY, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 8904.] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8904) to authorize the establishment of a life-saving station at the mouth of the Siuslaw River, Oreg., having considered the same, report thereon with amendment and as so amended recommend that it pass. The bill as amended has the approval of the Treasury Department, as will appear by the letter attached and which is made a part of this report. Amend the bill as follows: Add, page 1, line 7, after the word "recommend," the words "at a cost not to exceed $12,000." The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 12, 1914. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter transmitting bill H. R. 8904, Sixty-third Congress, first session, "To authorize the establishment of a life-saving station at the mouth of the Siuslaw River, Oreg.," and asking for the views of the department concerning the bill. The matter was referred to the General Superintendent of the Life-Saving Servce for his report, which has been received and is herewith transmitted with my concurrence. Respectfully, CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES LIFE-SAVING SERVICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge your reference for report of a letter of the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, transmitting bill H. R. 8904, "To authorize the establishment of a lifesaving station at the mouth of the Siuslaw River, Oreg.," and asking for the views of the department concerning the bill. Similar bills have heretofore from time to time been introduced in Congress, the last preceding one having been bill H. R. 1701, Sixty-second Congress, first session. In my report on that bill I reviewed my previous reports and reiterated the view that if the project then in process of execution for the improvement of the mouth of the Siuslaw River should be carried to completion the resulting increase in the amount of shipping passing in and out of the river would probably justify the establishment of the proposed station. From the latest report of the Chief of Engineers, War Department, it appears that the work being done at the mouth of the river will be prosecuted to completion. During the last fiscal year disasters to four registered vessels at the mouth of the Siuslaw River were reported to this office, one of which resulted in the total loss of the vessel. The estimated value of the vessels and cargoes involved was $160,500, and the loss was about $25,000. The conditions at the mouth of the river are dangerous to shipping, and the need of a life-saving station at that point appears to be established. Moreover, a life-saving station at the mouth of the Siuslaw River, midway between the Coquille River and Umpqua River stations, would be well located as one of the chain of stations on the Pacific coast for the protection of the great amount of shipping continually passing along the coast between the northern and southern ports. Respectfully, S. I. KIMBALL, General Superintendent. 63D CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. J REPORT 3d Session. No. 1216. BRIDGE ACROSS ST. LOUIS RIVER BETWEEN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN. DECEMBER 12, 1914.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. STEVENS of Minnesota, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 5325.] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 5325) authorizing the county of St. Louis to construct a bridge across the St. Louis River between Minnesota and Wisconsin, having considered the same, report thereon with an amendment and as so amended recommend that it pass. Amend the bill as follows: Page 1, line 7, strike out the words "public highway." The following is the report of the Senate Committee on Commerce: The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 5325) authorizing the county of St. Louis to construct a bridge across the St. Louis River between Minnesota and Wisconsin, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass without amendment. The bill has the approval of the Department of War, as will appear by the following letter, which is made a part of this report: [Second indorsement.] WAR DEPARTMENT, May 23, 1914. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Commerce, United States Senate. The Chief of Engineers reports that Senate bill 5325, Sixty-third Congress, second session, authorizing the county of St. Louis to construct a bridge across the St. Louis River between Minnesota and Wisconsin, makes ample provision for the protection of the interests committed to the War Department, and I know of no objection to the favorable consideration of the bill by Congress so far as those interests are concerned. HENRY BRECKINRIDGE, 63D CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 3d Session. } EXTENSION OF TIME FOR COMPLETION OF BRIDGE AT ST. LOUIS, MO. DECEMBER 12, 1914.-Referred to the House Cal ndar and ordered to be printed. Mr. DECKER, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 19424.] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 19424) to extend the time for the completion of the municipal bridge at St. Louis, Mo., having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass. The bill has the approval of the War Department, as will appear by the letter attached and which is made a part of this report. [Second indorsement.] WAR DEPARTMENT, December 10, 1914. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. The Chief of Engineers reports that the object of the accompanying bill (H. R. 19424, 63d Cong., 3d sess.) is to extend the time for completing the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Mo., originally authorized by an act of Congress approved June 25, 1906. Congress has heretofore extended the time for building this bridge, the last extension having been made by an act of Congress approved February 17, 1912. He states that the bridge is now entirely completed across the full waterway of the river, the land approaches alone remaining unfinished, and that the bill makes ample provision for the protection of the interests committed to the War Department. Concurring in the views expressed by the Chief of Engineers, I know of no objection to the favorable consideration of the bill by Congress, so far as the interests committed to this department are concerned. O HENRY BRECKINRIDGE, PROCEDURE IN UNITED STATES COURTS. DECEMBER 12, 1914.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. WEBB, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 12750.] The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration H. R. 12750, relating to procedure in United States courts, report the same back with the recommendation that it be amended as indicated below, and that as so amended the bill do pass. Amend as follows: Strike out all of said bill appearing on page 2, it being the last paragraph of the bill and indicated as lines 1 to 8, both inclusive. A bill embodying the same general features and intended generally to effect the same remedy was passed by the House in the Sixty-second Congress, but failed to pass the Senate. Hon. John W. Davis, in reporting the bill to the House in the Sixty-second Congress, said, in part: The bill as originally drawn was prepared by a committee of the American Bar Association, by which also it has been under discussion for five years. In an amended form it passed the House of Representatives unanimously on the 6th day of February, 1911, and in the message of the President sent to Congress on December 21, 1911, we find the following recommendation: "The American Bar Association has recommended to Congress several bills expediting procedure, one of which has already passed the House unanimously, February 6, 1911. This directs that no judgment should be set aside or reversed or new trial granted unless it appears to the court, after an examination of the entire case, that the error complained of has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties, and also provides for the submission of issues of fact to a jury, reserving questions of law for subsequent argument and decision. I hope this bill will pass the Senate and become a law, for it will simplify the procedure at law." Similar legislation to that now proposed has been adopted in Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin, and by constitutional amendment in California; has passed both houses of the legislature of the State of New York, and on the 2d day of April, 1912, was before the governor of that State for his signature. No doubt a similar rule has been applied without express statutory mandate in the courts of other States. The necessity for Federal legislation on this subject is well illustrated by a comparison of the language of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Railroad Company v. O'Reilly (158 U. S., 334) and its language in the |