The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
X-6050 FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD WASHINGTON May 28, 1928. ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE T O T H E FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD SUBJECT: QUESTION WHETHER COURTS TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF REGULATIONS OF FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD Dear Sir: Counsel for various Federal reserve "banks frequently request this o f f i c e to furnish them with c e r t i f i e d copies of the regulations of the Federal Reserve Board, for use in l i t i g a t i o n . In view of the decision in Capital Grain and Feed Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. 3 Fed.(2nd) 614, to the e f f e c t that a regulation of the Federal Reserve Board i s not such a departmental action as w i l l be j u d i c i a l l y noticed without pleading, this undoubtedly i s a wise precaution in any case in which a Federal reserve "bank r e l i e s upon the regul a t i o n s of the Federal Reserve Board. For your information, however, I am enclosing herewith an extract from a very able a r t i c l e on "Statutes and Statutory Construction" contained in Federal Statutes Annotated, (2nd Ed.) 21, from which i t appears that the courts w i l l take j u d i c i a l zx)tice of departmental regulations. I personally believe that, in the i n t e r e s t of the entire Federal Reserve System, we should endeavor to e s t a b l i s h the principle that the courts should take j u d i c i a l notice of the regulations of the Federal Reserve Board. With kindest personal regards, I am, Very truly yours, Walter Wyatt, General Counsel. Enclosure. http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ TO ALL Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis FEDERAL RESERVE BANK COUNSEL. X-60E§-a/|6S EXTRACT FROM ARTICLE ON "STATUTES AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION". 1 Federal Statutes Annotated (2d Edition) 21. "Departmental regulations. - The general rule i s that 'wherever by the express language of any act of Congress, power i s entrusted to either of the principal departments of government to prescribe rules and regulations for the transaction of business in which the public i s i n t e r e s t e d , and in respect to which they have a right to p a r t i c i p a t e , and by which they are to be controlled, the rules and regulations prescribed in pursuance of such authority become a mass of that body of public records of which the courts take j u d i c i a l n o t i c e . 1 (Citing Caha v. U. S . , 152 U.S. 222, 14 S. Ct. 513, 38 U.S. (L. eel.) 415, where Mr. J u s t i c e Brewer said: 'Without attempting to notice a l l the cases bearing upon the general question of public notice we may refer to the following: U« S. v. Teschmaker, 22 How. 405, 16 U.S. (L. ed.) 353; Romero v. U <S., 1 Wall. 721, 17 U.S. (L. ed.) 627; Armstrong v. U. S . , 13 Wall. 154, 20 tt.S. (L. ed.) 614; Jones v. U. S . , 137 U.S. 202, 11 S. Ct. 80, 34 U.S. (L. ed.) 691; Knight v. U. S. Land Assoc., 142 U.S. 169, 12 S. Ct. 258, 35 U.S. (L. ed.) 974; Jenkins v . Collard, 145 U.S. 546, 12 S. Ct. 868, 36 U.S. (L. ed.) 812. 1 To the same point see, Bruce v. U . S . , (C.C.A.) 202 Fed. 98; U.S. v . Van Wert, 195 Fed. 974; U.S. v. L o u i s v i l l e , e t c . , R. Co., 165 Fed. 936; U.S. v. Moody, 164 Fed. 269; Numberger v. U . S . , (C.C.A.) 156 Fed. 721; U.S. v. Burkett, 150 Fed. 208; Wilkins v. U . S . , (C.C.A.) 96 Fed. 837; U.S. v. Flournoy Live-Stock, e t c . , Co., 71 Fed. 578. See further in the same l i n e The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 696, 20 S. Ct. 290, 44 U.S. (L. ed.) 320; Heath v. Wallace, 138 U.S. 584, 11 S. Ct. 380, 34 U.S. (L. ed.) 1063; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Groeck, 68 Fed. 612.) Such rules and regulations duly prescribed have the force of law. (Citiftg. U.S. v. Eaton, 144 U.S. 688, 12 S. Ct. 764, 36 U.S. (L. ed.) 591; Wilkins v . U . S . , (C.C.A.) 96 Fed. 841.)
@FedFRASER