Fred M. Vinson

“ The initial appearance of § 1404 (a) was in the Second Draft of the Code, adopted by the meeting of May, 1945. Its text has remained unchanged. It was accompanied by a reviser's note, which recited that 'Subsection (a) is new. It was drafted in accordance with a memorandum of Mar. 7, 1945, from the author of Moore's Federal Practice, stating that recognition should be given the doctrine of forum non conveniens. ”

“ Justice DOUGLAS, including the venue provisions, § 12, of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 22, involved in our decision in United States v. National City Lines, 334 U.S. 573, 68 S.Ct. 1169, 92 L.Ed. 1584.
The legislative history, for example, of the Clayton Act venue provisions demonstrates that the change § 1404 (a) is said to have made was more than the mere removal of a judicial gloss. I think we should not now impugn the validity of our decisions in National City Lines, supra, and in Kepner and Miles [40] by characterizing each as a mere 'judicial gloss' upon the pertinent statute. ”

“ Nevertheless, we need not rest our decision on it solely. For the legislative history does not support petitioner's position. Petitioner's argument is based on these twin premises: Congress intended no 'controversial change' to be incorporated in the Code; and § 1404 (a) is such a change.
To establish the former premise, petitioner cites a number of statements by legislative leaders in charge of the Code revision. ”

“ Since the petition for mandamus and prohibition must be denied because of the view we must take as to the meaning of § 1404 (a) and its applicability to this case, we need not decide whether denial might be placed on other grounds also. 'Mandamus, prohibition and injunction against judges are drastic and extraordinary remedies. ”

“ A 127 (1946) .↑ The reviser's notes make clear that the phrase was substituted for 'suit,' formerly used in various venue statutes, in the light of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 2, 28 U.S.C.A.: 'There shall be one form of action to be known as 'civil action."↑ Section 1394 deals with any civil action 'by a national banking association to enjoin the Comptroller of the Currency' ”

“ V-VI (1936) ; Kefauver and Levin, A Twentieth-Century Congress 114-53 (1947) ; Luce, Legislative Procedure, cc. IV-VIII (1922) ; Walker, The Legislative Process, c. 11 (1948) .↑ Hearings before House Committee on the Judiciary on H.R. 1600 and H.R. 2055, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1947) .↑ Expressly reciting the reference to the Kepner case in the reviser's notes: Braucher, The Inconvenient Federal Forum, 60 Harv.L.Rev. 908, 933 (July, 1947) ; Note, New Limitations on Choice of Federal Forum, 15 U. of Chi.L.Rev. 332, 341, n. 54 (Winter (March) , 1948) ”