Mr. MONTAGUE. And you would have one marshal? Mrs. LANGLEY. Yes. I might add, too-I do not believe Mr. Finley has brought it out-that two congressional districts, the tenth and the eleventh, comprisong eastern and southern Kentucky, the mountainous area, have now only one place for holding court, at London. The tenth district has none for holding court and there is only the one at London, in the eleventh district. Mr. MONTAGUE. You have now how many in that district-three? Mr. MONTAGUE. And you propose to have five more? Mr. MONTAGUE. Making eight altogether? Mrs. LANGLEY. Four in the eastern and eight in the southern districts. Mr. FINLEY. We think that they will pay for themselves, so to speak, in the saving of traveling expenses for Government witnesses, and in other ways. We think that they will justify themselves by the saving, as I said, in the travel of witnesses, and things of that sort. It will certainly expedite justice. Our contention, Mr. Chairman, is and our feeling is that distant justice is not justice at all. If my people in the eleventh district are compelled to get, in any way they can, from Clinton County across here [indicating] to the railroad or to a pike road-if they must come here and travel up on to Lexington, Ky., a distance of perhaps 125 miles, that is not in a full sense the justice that the American people are entitled to. Trial by jury in the vicinage is the rule in Kentucky, reserved in our Bill of Rights, and this condition does not conform to that. Whatever a man is charged with he is certainly entitled to the right to have his case tried in the vicinity, in the neighborhood and among the people where the crime was committed and under the present condition of affairs, it is not permitted. That does not take place. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. What is the chief industry in this new proposed district? Mr. FINLEY. Mining. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Coal mining? Mr. FINLAY. Coal mining. Here is a section of the State known as the "blue grass," a leveler section than our own which has had roadways through it for generations. Under the present system, here is a term of circuit court held at Richmond, one at Lexignton, and one at Franklin. It is 30 miles from Richmond to Lexington and 28 miles from Lexington to Franklin. Contrast that with what my people down in my section of the State have got to do. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Do you know whether this section contributes considerable civil business to the Federal courts? Mr. FINLEY. Yes; quite a lot of it. You see, the land titles in this section of the State by reason of the fact that the State was so long undeveloped and this section was so long undeveloped-the land titles became very much clouded and when these lands acquired a value by reason of the building of railroads up here [indicating on map] which developed the coal and the timber, litigation developed over land titles, and there is an enormous mass of land litigation and litigation growing out of the development of that section of the State. Mr. SWANSON. That litigation is in the State courts, is it not? Mr. FINLEY. No; much of it is in the Federal courts or at least some of it is in the Federal courts. Mr. STOBBS. How many different places are there located in this proposed district where the State courts now hold sessions? Mr. FINLEY. The State courts hold sessions in every county. Mr. STоBBS. In each county? Mr. FINLEY. In each county. Mr. STOBBS. You have county judges? Mr. FINLEY. You have a county judge for local business and we have a circuit judge. Mr. STOBBS. So there is a county seat as such? Mr. FINLEY. Yes. Mr. STOBBS. For transacting business? Mr. FINLEY. Yes; a State court in each one. Mr. SWANSON. What is the upper district called? Mr. FINLEY. That would be called the eastern district. That is the old eastern district and the judge in that district will be left in control. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. He lives within that area? Mr. FINLEY. He does. Mr. MONTAGUE. The judge who at present sits in the jurisdiction that covers this proposed district, in which does he live, the eastern or the western? Mr. FINLEY. He lives in Maysville. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. That is Judge Cochran? Mr. FINLEY. Yes; at Maysville. Mr. MONTAGUE. Which district is that, the eastern or the western district? Mr. FINLEY. That is the eastern district. Mrs. LANGLEY. The headquarters are at Covington, 250 miles from my home, Pikeville. Mr. FINLEY. The judge is quite old. He is a man-I want to say for the judge that he is wonderfully preserved, both as to faculties and powers. Mr. STOBBS. He tries a great amount of cases? Mr. FINLEY. He does. Mr. STOBBS. The record shows that? Mr. FINLEY. Yes. But, like myself, he is feeling the tooth of time. I have in a general way called attention to the fact of the lack of railroads in this vicinity. That is a very important factor in the case the lack of railroad facilities. Ten or a dozen counties in this proposed new district have not a foot of railroad in them, nor have they-many of them-any turnpike at all, no trolley lines, and no means of egress or ingress except mud roads. I should like to file these documents with the committee. Shall I call each one as I file them? Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. What are they, petitions? Mr. FINLAY. Petitions and resolutions from different bodies in my district. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. You may just hand them in and the committee will give them consideration. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Have you anything further, Mrs. Langley? Mrs. LANGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to file a letter from the judge of the present western district, Judge Dawson, and also a letter from Senator Barkley. Mr. STOBBS. Who is Judge Dawson? Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. The Federal judge in that district. Mr. STOBBS. Will you read that letter please? Mr. MONTAGUE. He is the United States judge? Mrs. LANGLEY. Yes. Mr. MONTAGUE. In that district? Mrs. LANGLEY. In the western district. Mrs. KATHERINE LANGLEY, M. C., Washington, D. C. [Reading:] LOUISVILLE, KY., April 3, 1930. DEAR MRS. LANGLEY: I have been asked to express my opinion as to what effect your proposed new district would have in relieving the docket in the western district of Kentucky, and I have written Congressman Thatcher at length about the situation in this district. I told him that in my judgment the new district will afford me no relief on the civil side of the docket, but would relieve me of about one-fourth of my criminal docket at Louisville. I may state that Louisville, in Jefferson County, is the biggest city in the State, has the largest population. I further suggested that I was afraid the creation of this district might close the door to future relief for the western district. I suggested to him that the proper way to solve the Kentucky situation is to create another judge instead of another district, such judge to have jurisdiction coextensive with both districts Mrs. LANGLEY. I wanted to ask, is it not true that if we do have the third district, any of the judges can be transferred or called to one of the other districts if needed? Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Yes. Mrs. LANGLEY. I feel that is the answer to that. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. A judge may be assigned to any district in the State or outside of the State. Mrs. LANGLEY. That would not close the door to western Kentucky, because if they need him he can be transferred, as I understand it. I do not want to be in the attitude of opposing the creation of additional Federal judicial machinery for Kentucky, but in justice to my own district I feel that another judge instead of another district is the solution, and I have requested Congressman Thatcher to lay my letter before the committee. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, CHARLES I. DAWSON. Then I have here petitions from my district, from Hazard, Ky., and so forth, which I would like to file. (The papers referred to are as follows:) Hon. KATHERINE LANGLEY, Wootton, HELM & WOOTON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MRS. LANGLEY: I am inclosing resolutions of the Hazard Bar Association and resolutions of the Hazard Rotary Club, which I have been directed to forward to you, requesting that you assist us in securing a third Federal judicial district for Kentucky, with a new Federal building for Hazard and terms of Federal court to be held at Hazard. As citizens of Hazard we are especially interested in securing a Federal building for this city and in securing terms of Federal court to be held at Hazard. We will greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, ROY HELM. RESOLUTION OF HAZARD BAR ASSOCIATION OF HAZARD, KY. At a meeting of the Hazard Bar Association of Hazard, Ky., on January 11, 1930, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: and Whereas the Federal Court dockets of Southeastern Kentucky are crowded; "Whereas there are no Federal courts near the people living in the upper Kentucky River Valley, the upper Cumberland River Valley, and the upper Big Sandy River Valley, and litigaion in Federal courts is on that account difficult and very expensive for them; and "Whereas the city of Hazard, Ky., is greatly in need of both a Federal building and a Federal court for the accommodation of people living in the Kentucky River Valley, Hazard being the largest city in the State of Kentucky without a Federal court building and a Federal post-office building, and the largest city in southeastern Kentucky: Therefore be it "Resolved, That we heartily commend the introduction in Congress of the recent bill for creating a new Federal district for southeastern Kentucky, and providing for the establishment of a Federal court at Hazard and for the erection of a Federal building at Hazard; be it further "Resolved, That we earnestly request the Kentucky Senators and Members of Congress to use their efforts and influence in securing a new Federal court to be located at Hazard, Ky., a new Federal building to be erected at Hazard, and a new Federal district for southeastern Kentucky; and be it further "Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to each of our United States Senators and to each Member of Congress from Kentucky." RESOLUTIONS OF THE HAZARD ROTARY CLUB, HAZARD, KY. At the regular Wednesday meeting of the Hazard Rotary Club, at the Y. M. C. A. Building in Hazard, Ky., on January 29, 1930, a motion was made that the club go on record as indorsing the new proposed Federal court district in eastern Kentucky, with new places for holding court at Pikeville, Hazard, and Pineville. This motion was duly seconded and after discussion, was carried by the affirmative vote of every member present, and a committee was appointed to draft suitable resolutions to forward to our Congressmen and Senators urging each of them to support the measure, which was accordingly done, as follows: "Resolved by the Rotary Club of Hazard, Ky., that-'Whereas a bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives at Washington by Mrs. Katherine Langley, Congresswoman from the tenth district of Kentucky, and in the United States Senate by Senator Frederick M. Sackett of Kentucky, creating a new Federal court district in the eastern part of Kentucky, and designating, among other places, Hazard and Pikeville as places of holding court; and "Whereas these cities, and especially the city of Hazard, are greatly in need of a Federal building for a post office and are in great need of a court to accommodate the people of the upper Kentucky River Valley, where a great part of the litigation, both civil and criminal, arises of which the Federal court has jurisdiction; and "Whereas the city of Hazard has the largest postal receipts of any city in the State of Kentucky not having a Federal building, and also being the largest city 109067-30-SER 6-2 and the most centrally located of any city upon the Kentucky River east of Lexington; and "Whereas the court dockets of the present eastern Kentucky district are very much congested, having more cases than any other docket in the United States, with the possible exception of two, our respective Congressmen and Senators are respectfully asked and urged to support this bill for the creation of a new Federal district and if it is impossible to secure the district, to establish a place of holding court at Hazard, Ky., and provide for the appointment of an extra Federal judge, to relieve the situation. " President Hazard Rotary Club. J. FOLEY SNYDER, Secreatry Hazard Rotary Club. CALLOWAY W. NAPIER, Committee. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMAN'S CLUB, HAZARD, KY. At a regular meeting of the Business and Professional Women's Club of Hazard, on January 21, 1930, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted, after a full discussion by the membership: "Resolved: "First. That we heartily commend the action of our Congresswoman, Mrs. Katherine Langley, in the introduction of the bill creating a new Federal district in eastern Kentucky and providing for the establishment of a Federal court at Hazard, and the erection of a Federal building to take care of the court business and the post office. "Second. That it is our earnest wish that each and all of the members of the Kentucky delegation in Congress assist and lend their support and influence to the passage of this measure, because we are in great need of a Post Office building at Hazard, this being the largest city in the State without a Federal court building and there being a Federal post-office building in every city in the State having postal receipts equal to those of Hazard; and because the establishment of a Federal court at Hazard would greatly expedite the enforcement of the prohibition laws and render the law more effective, thus bringing to the community more freedom from crime and lawlessness. "Third. It is further resolved that a copy of these resolutions be sent to Mrs. Katherine Langley, and to Hon. Alben W. Barkley, Jon. John M. Robsion, Senators, and Hon. W. B. Gregory, Hon. D. H. Kinchelo, Hon. Hohn W. Moore, Hon. J. D. Craddock, Hon. M. H. Thatcher, Hon. J. L. Newhall, Hon. Robert Blackburn, Hon. L. L. Walker, Hon. E. R. Kendall, and Hon. Charles Finley." NANCY CHAMBERS, President Hazard Business and Professional Woman's Club. LOTTIE HAYDON, Secretary. MARY HOOSAN, Chairman. Legislative Committee. Mrs. LANGLEY. Mr. Chairman, we have with us a rebuttal witI understand you will hear the opposition now. I have a gentleman from my congressional district I would like to put on as a rebuttal witness, and then after that we have amendments to this bill by two Members of Congress, with which I am in thorough accord. I think I would like to have them present these after the opposition closes their case, if that is agreeable to the members of the committee. Also we have a delegation here who want to present an amendment. The delegation is from Madisonville, Hopkinsville, and other places that are established as new places for holding court. |