on the trial of any criminal proceeding in which the United States are parties or are interested, may compel such person to give recognizance, with or without sureties, at his discretion, to appear to testify therein.... 28 U.S.C. § 659 (1928) (repealed 1948) (emphasis added). However, the court was “unable to accept” the legislative history because it “should ... be hesitant to say that the Supreme Court intended Rule 46(b) to be so designed that federal law-enforcement agencies can be frustrated by the flight of a prospective witness whose testimony is indispensable to the securing of an indictment.” Bacon, 449 F.2d at 940 (emphasis added). When there is clear evidence about the intent of the drafters, there is no reason to be “hesitant” as to what the drafters intended. Id. (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). The court’s concern about
holding that the restatement second of contracts is the source from which the court would be inclined to fashion a federal common law rule since those principles represent the prevailing view among the states holding that because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be either the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder recognizing that the advisory committee note expressly states that the rule is substantially a restatement of existing law  holding that application note 6 is not mandatory recognizing rule