The early consideration and passage of the legislation proposed for the Canal Zone are recommended. Sincerely yours, PATRICK J. HURLEY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, Washington, D. C., December 19, 1930. Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of the 8th instant, with which you transmitted a copy of H. R. 14069 and requested such comment thereon as I might care to make. This bill would provide a new Civil Code for the Canal Zone and repeal the existing Civil Code. I am informed that the proposed new code, which consists of over 500 pages, seems to be based largely upon the Spanish law as successively adopted and modified by the Republic of Colombia, the Republic of Panama, and (for the Canal Zone) by the United States by various acts of Congress and Executive orders; but that it also contains much that is taken from the common law of England and from such statutes as the uniform negotiable instruments act, sale of goods act, etc., commonly in effect in our States. This department is not sufficiently familiar with the present laws in force in the Canal Zone to be able to tell definitely just wherein and to what extent the proposed code would change existing law; and to attempt any such comparison would, under the circumstances, require a great deal of time and original study. There is nothing in the proposed code, I am informed, of direct interest to or bearing upon the Department of Justice. There seems to be need for a codification of the civil laws effective in the Canal Zone, and I am aware of no reason why the proposed code should not be enacted. Respectfully, Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, WASHINGTON OFFICE, Washington, February 2, 1931. Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. PARKER: I have received copies of bills H. R. 16557 and H. R. 16558, the first one providing a new code of Civil Procedure for the Canal Zone, and the last one a new Civil Code for the Canal Zone, which were introduced to supersede bills H. R. 14085 and H. R. 14069, respectively. The typographical errors found in the original print have been corrected, and the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure recommended by the Secretary of War in his letter of December 22, 1930, have been incorporated therein. One typographical error has been found in bill H. R. 16557, which requires correction as follows: Page 163, line 13: Strike out "their" and insert in lieu thereof the word "the" before the word "plaintiff." Very respectfully, A. L. FLINT, Chief of Office. This bill is one of a number of bills that have been filed in accordance with the provisions of the act of May 17, 1928, authorizing the President to have the laws of the Canal Zone revised and codified. The bill presents a new Code of Civil Procedure for the Canal Zone, and is a complete restatement of the remedial law of the zone. It has been prepared in the same manner and by the same parties as has the proposed new Code of Civil Laws which is proposed in bill 16558 now pending. The Code of Civil Procedure now in force in the Canal Zone was promulgated by Executive Order of the President on March 22, 1907. It was drawn indirectly from the California Code of Civil Procedure, but there is some conflict of opinion as to whether it came by way of the Philippine or the Porto Rican Codes of Civil Procedure, but a considerable number of its provisions are traceable to the California Code. Regardless of its source, it is now considered quite defective and inadequate, especially in view of the many changes in the judiciary system of the Canal Zone and the adoption of the jury system of trials since this Code of Civil Procedure was put into effect. The provisions respecting the administration of estates have not proven adequate. It contains many conflicting sections. No sufficient provision is made in it for procedure in magistrates courts, which have civil jurisdiction up to $300. In many respects the existing code is incomplete. In view of the fact that a new civil code has been prepared and recommended to supplant the existing civil code of Colombia, it was thought desirable, in revising and codifying the laws of the zone, to prepare this new Code of Civil Procedure in order to insure completeness and consistency between the substantive and remedial law of the zone. The proposed code has been drawn directly from the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, as was the proposed Code of Civil Laws. It has 1,240 sections as compared with 821 sections in the present Civil Procedure Code of the zone, and as compared with 2,104 sections in the California Code of Civil Procedure from which it is drawn. The enactment of this new Code of Civil Procedure has been recommended by the President, the Secretary of War, the Governor of the Canal Zone, and by all of those who have been intrusted with the duty of revising the laws of the zone, as provided by the act of May 17, 1928. Its provisions have proven satisfactory in the State of California and the committee recommends that it be approved by the House. HR-71-3-VOL 268 3d Session No. 2868 CIVIL CODE FOR THE CANAL ZONE FEBRUARY 23, 1931.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. DENISON, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 16558] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 16558) to provide a new Civil Code for the Canal Zone and to repeal the existing code, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass. The bill has the approval of the President and the Secretary of War as will appear by the letters attached, as follows: Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 22, 1980. Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. PARKER: The receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 8, 1930, inclosing and requesting a report and comment upon bill H. R. 14085, entitled "A bill to provide a new Code of Civil Procedure for the Canal Zone and to repeal the existing Code of Civil Procedure," which was introduced by Mr. Denison. This is one of the proposals made for the revision of the laws of the Canal Zone recommended by me in a letter to the President dated June 5, 1930, and, in conformity with the provisions of the act of May 17, 1928 (45 Stat. 596), entitled "An act to revise and codify the laws of the Canal Zone," forwarded by him to the Congress with his message of June 9, 1930. The message and report submitted therewith were printed as House Document No. 460, Seventy-first Congress, second session. A statement of the reasons for recommending the enactment of a new Code of Civil Procedure for the Canal Zone, and the source of the text thereof, will be found on page 324 of that document. A Subsequent to the submission of the original report, it was found advisable to make certain changes in the provisions relating to the care of the insane. draft of the changes desired in sections 976 to 986, inclusive, beginning on page 466, line 16, and ending on page 472, line 15, was submitted to you with a letter dated September 18, 1930. In addition, a change in section 940, relative to the administration of estates by the public administrator, was recommended by me in a letter dated December 1, 1930, and forwarded to the Congress for consideration by the President with his message of December 4, 1930, published as House Document No. 675. The reasons for recommending the changes relating to the care of the insane were set forth in the letter of September 18, 1930, and the reasons for recommending a change in administration of estates will be found on page 6 of House Docu ment No. 675. These changes and some typographical errors in the bill as printed are indicated on the attached statement, and are incorporated in a copy of the bill which is returned herewith. The early consideration and passage of the legislation proposed for the Canal Zone are recommended. Sincerely yours, Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, PATRICK J. HURLEY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., December 26, 1930. Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of the 8th instant, in which you requested such comment as I might care to make upon H. R. 14085, a bill to provide a new Code of Civil Procedure for the Canal Zone and repeal the existing Code of Civil Procedure. I have caused this bill to be examined and while this examination has disclosed provisions quite unlike those to be found in statutes applicable in continental United States (which is rather to be expected in a code intended for a possession whose traditions and basic laws differ from ours), nothing has been found to which, apparently, this department would wish to take exception. The proposed code contains nothing, I am informed, of direct interest to or bearing upon the Department of Justice. As of possible interest to you, however, I quote the following from an office memorandum on the bill: "I have, however, noticed the following in paragraph 2 of section 26, appearing on page 9 which might well be clarified. The paragraph provides for the disqualification of a judge who is related to either party, or to an officer of an interested corporation, or to an attorney, counsel or agent of a party, 'by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree computed according to the rules of law.' Probably (though there is room for doubt) this world be construed as meaning according to the rules of the civil law. If that is what is intended it would be well to say so or, if the proposed Civil Code, now pending before Congress, is enacted, to make reference to the paragraphs thereof which provide for computing degrees of relationship for the purposes of that code. "Section 8 of the present Code of Civil Procedure made effective in 1907, provides for the disqualification of a judge related to a party 'within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, computed according to the rules of the civil law.' If there has been a subsequent amendment changing this, I don't have a copy of it. The relationship between collaterals stated according to the common law is often just one-half the number of degrees stated according to the civil law. Thus, first cousins are related in the fourth degree according to the civil law and within the second degree according to the common law; second cousins are related within the sixth degree according to the civil law and within the third degree according to the common law. Therefore, since the disqualifying degree of relationship is reduced in the proposed code from sixth to third, it seems all the more important that it be stated definitely by what rule the computation is to be made.' Respectfully, WILLIAM D. MITCHELL, This bill is one of a number of bills that have been prepared and filed in pursuance of the act of May 17, 1928 providing for the revision and codification of the laws of the Canal Zone. Immediately after the approval of that act an experienced codifier was employed by the President and the work of codifying the laws of the zone has been in progress continuously since that time. The act of 1928 authorized the President to report separately to Congress any revision or changes in existing law that were found to be necessary or desirable before presenting the completed code of all the laws to Congress for its approval. The district judge of the Canal Zone, the district attorney, the governor, and a revision committee appointed for that purpose cooperating with the codifier and members of the bar of the zone, have reported a number of revisions of existing laws |