difficult and important litigation, making the greatest demand on the time of the court. The only congestion of criminal business in the Federal courts of Kentucky is in Louisville. The criminal docket of this court is enormous, and getting worse all the time. It is well known that the same number of cases scattered through a number of courts and terms can be more easily handled than if they are concentrated in one Court. This is evidenced by the fact that, in the western district, in 1926, there were 326 jury trials in criminal cases, while in the eastern district there were only 162. That is what produces congestion and taxes the court almost beyond the point of endurance. This situation results from the ability of lawyers in these cases to secure repeated delays in trials by insisting upon jury trials, an opportunity not presented where the docket is light. This explains the small number of jury trials in the eastern district, as compared with double the number in the western district. The conditions-small dockets scattered over numerous terms at various points-do not invite this strategy of defense in the eastern district. The proposed new bill will give no relief to the western district except to take away about one-third of the criminal business on the Louisville docket, which is not sufficient to solve the grave problem now there existing, especially when it is remembered that the criminal docket in Louisville-because of the liquor cases incident to a large city-will probably increase for an indefinite time. Because of the congestion of business-both criminal and civil-in Louisville, no new district could afford relief except to make Louisville a district by itself, which no one advocates or regards as feasible. The bankruptcy docket in the western district is heavier than in the eastern district; and growing heavier all the time: and again, the natural incident of the conditions in the large city of the State. Most income tax cases are now brought in the western district. The western district civil business is larger, particularly in Louisville, because the bar is accustomed to going into the Federal court with such business. This is simply the natural tendency arising from the conditions. A considerable item of recent civil business in the Federal courts comes from the removal of insurance cases. This business is heavier in the western district than in the eastern district, and will probably increase in proportion. The final word in making this comparison lies in the fact that the eastern district has no congestion, either criminal or civil, while the western district is almost "swamped.' There is no danger of misconstruing this comparison as to the personal equation, as it is well known that Judge Dawson's energy and diligence are almost beyond human strength, and, in an effort to keep his court functioning with some degree of promptness, he has "sandwiched in" special terms of court wherever he could find an opportunity. And still the congestion grows. THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM If the above analysis shows that a new district is not needed, then it seems obvious that an additional judge is needed. The greatest need for help is in the western district, but an additional judge can serve both districts if help should be required in the eastern district. The situation in Kentucky calls for flexibility of treatment, as it is now in a developing stage. An additional judge could serve where needed at any time, and this could be decided in conference between the three judges, with the supervision, if needed, of the senior circuit judge of the circuit. The manner of assigning the new judge is only a detail; it is his availability to serve where help is needed that is important. It will certainly be better to have a judge who can serve where the business is located, anywhere in the State, than to have a new district, not justified by any practical reason, in which the judge will be left idle a large part of the time. Will the latter situation not exist, if the judge of the eastern district can give and is now giving adequate attention to all the business of that district, and the new district takes away only a negligible fraction of the business of the western district? The creation of an additional judge (rather than a new district) is also advisable from the standpoint of economy, as it involves only the salary of the judge and his secretary, while a new district will also involve something like 25 or 30 new Federal employees. If an additional judgeship is now created, a new district can be created at any time in the future that it is found that the needed relief is not resulting from his labors; while, if a new district is created, experience teaches that, no matter how unwise it may prove to be, it can not be abolished. Also, an additional judgeship can be created for a limited time, or for the tenure of the first appointee, until the dockets are put in better shape and the problem dealt with by experience; but the creation of a new district is a permanent, fixed status which does not yield to future adjustment. It is submitted that the following points be considered by the committee: (1) No relief is now needed in the eastern district, as the business of that district, as now constituted, is kept up more than adequately, and conditions are such that the business of this district will probably not increase. (2) The establishment of terms of court at several additional places in the present eastern district will solve the problem of convenience and expense due to present remoteness of certain sections from the places of holding court. (3) The creation of a new district will give practically no relief to the western district, which district is now badly in need of help, and will increasingly need help because the business is growing. (4) The creation of an additional judge, to serve over the entire State, will give help wherever and whenever needed, at considerable economy of expense (as compared with a new district), and with as flexibility as to future adjustments that will be impossible with a new district. Respectfully submitted. LOUISVILLE, KY., February 1, 1927. FRANK M. Drake, President Louisville Bar Association. Mrs. LANGLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Robert Blackburn, Representative in Congress from the seventh district of Kentucky, wishes to have a moment at this time. Representative ROBERT BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I shall make but a brief trespass. This is a copy of a letter which Judge Cochran wrote to the chairman, Mr. Christopherson, and this paper which I now hand to the chairman is a brief which I have prepared on the subject. I now ask that the committee may hear Judge Samuel M. Wilson. STATEMENT OF JUDGE SAMUEL M. WILSON Judge WILSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am glad to avail myself of the privilege now offered of filing the protest of the members of the Bar Association of Lebanon, Ky., against the passage of the bill now pending in Congress to create another Federal judicial district in Kentucky. I also offer for the notice of the committee the following resolution, which is presented by the Harlan County Bar Association, of Kentucky, which I will read. Resolution of Harlan County Bar Association, on the new Federal court district The following resolution was presented by the committee of the bar appointed for that purpose: Resolved, That it is the sense of the Harlan County bar that another Federal court district in Kentucky is not a necessity; that the eastern district of Kentucky, presided over by Judge A. M. J. Cochran, is adequately functioning and taking care of all necessary business in the eastern district of Kentucky, from which the new proposed district is to be carved; that Harlan County has 75,000 population and is furnishing 75 or 80 per cent of the business of the Federal court of London, Ky., and that Harlan County is satisfied with the way and manner in which business is handled in the eastern district of Kentucky by the presiding judge and district attorney; that the bar does not see any practical necessity for such a district at this time, which will only mean the creation of new offices and new positions and an added expense to this Government; and we recommend that our objections to such action be now thus recorded. The above resolution was presented by a committee of the bar appointed by Judge D. C. Jones, as chairman, comprised of J. G. Forester, E. H. Johnson, and J. B. Snyder. The resolution passed by a vote of 20 to 4, on April 4, 1930. Harlan County lies in the proposed new district, and in the heart of a great coal development. I also wish to file a certified copy of a resolution of the Boyd County Bar Association, passed at a meeting held in the city of Catlettsburg on December 14, 1929. I also wish to file with the committee a copy of an editorial entitled "The Proposed Judicial District", which appeared in the Lexington Leader on Friday afternoon, April 4, 1930. I wish to offer to the committee this further exhibit which is addressed to "The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives", and as it is brief I will read it: We, the undesigned practicing attorneys and members of the Winchester, Ky., bar, take this method of requesting that the present Federal districts of Kentucky be not changed or divided. We practice in the Federal court of the eastern district of Kentucky, and feel that we are familiar with the litigation in that district, and do not believe that there is any need of an additional district at this time. We are not so familiar with the situation in the western district, but from our information we understand that that district does not need any change. This is signed by a list of prominent attorneys and members of the Winchester bar of Clark County, now in the eastern district. I also hand to the chairman this map of Kentucky, showing the proposed division of the State into these Federal districts. Also protests against the creation of the proposed district from leading attorneys of the Lebanon bar (Marion County) and the Boyd County Bar Association. Marion County is in the western district, and Boyd County is the present eastern district. Hon. CHAS. A. CHRISTOPHERSON, LEBANON, KY., April 4, 1930. Chairman Subcommittee, House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee, Washington, D. Ć. DEAR SIR: We, the undersigned, members of the Lebanon, Ky., bar and in the western district of Kentucky respectfully protest against the passage of the bill now pending in Congress to create another Federal judicial district for Kentucky, and as cause of our protest assign the following: First. There is no real cause or general sentiment for such district, and this is strongly attested by the fact that the present judge of the eastern district, as we are advised, is opposed to such proposed district. Second. Our county (Marion) is now located in the western district and is only 67 miles from Louisville, which is easily reached by motor and rail, making it convenient and inexpensive for jurors and others having business in the Federal court at Louisville, and all our business and social relations are now and have been for many years established with Louisville. H. S. MCELROY. P. K. MCELROY, Attorney. RESOLUTIONS OF HARLAN COUNTY BAR ON NEW FEDERAL COURT DISTRICT The following resolution was presented by the committee of the bar appointed for that purpose: "Resolved, That it is the sense of the Harlan County Bar that another Federal court district in Kentucky is not a necessity; that the eastern district of Kentucky, presided over by Judge A. M. J. Cochran, is adequately functioning and taking care of all necessary business in the eastern district of Kentucky, from which the new proposed district is to be carved; that Harlan County has 75,000 population and is furnishing 75 or 80 per cent of the business of the Federal court at London, Ky., and that Harlan County is satisfied with the way and manner in which business is handled in the eastern district of Kentucky by the presiding judge and district attorney; that the bar does not see any practical necessity for such a district at this time, which will only mean the creation of new offices and new positions and an added expense to this Government, and we recommend that our objections to such action be now thus recorded.” The above resolution was presented by a committee that the bar appointed by Judge D. C. Jones as chairman, comprised of J. G. Forester, E. H. Johnson, and J. B. Snyder. A vote being had upon the said resolution, the result was: For the resolution, 20; against it, 4. This the 4th day of April, 1930. JUDGE D. C. JONES, Chairman, Harland County Bar. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOYD COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION HELD IN THE CITY OF CATLETTSBURG, KY., DECEMBER 14, 1929 On motion duly seconded, it was unanimously Resolved, That the Boyd County Bar Association is opposed to the creation of a third judicial district in the State of Kentucky, and believing that the creation of such a district is unwise and unnecessary, recommends the defeat of the bill now pending before the Congress of the United States (H. R. 5624), providing for the creation of such a district. Resolved, further, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Attorney General of the United States, and the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and to the Representative of the Ninth Congressional District. STATE OF KENTUCKY, Boyd County: I, C. G. Yagn, secretary of the Boyd County Bar Association, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Boyd County Bar Association, held in the city of Catlettsburg, Ky., on the 14th day of December, 1929. C. G. YAGN, Secretary. THE PROPOSED JUDICIAL DISTRICT Mrs. Katherine Langley, of the tenth district, has been endeavoring to secure from the Government approval of her plan to create a new Federal judicial district in Kentucky, dividing the district over which Judge Cochran has for so long presided. Only one Representative from Kentucky is supporting Mrs. Langley, Mr. Finley. Mr. Walker, so far, has not expressed himself. All the other members of the Kentucky delegation in the House are opposed to the plan. Moreover both Judge Dawson and Judge Cochran have testified that there is no excuse for establishing an additional district in Kentucky. Neither of the Federal judges in the State need any such relief, according to their own statements. What, then, is the genesis of this movement? Evidently it grows out of some political ambition. Some one will have to be appointed to fill the place if another district is created. Those most competent to form an opinion and the mass of the people of this State are against the project espoused by Mrs. Langley. There is no justification for any such undertaking. It would be a misfortune if the plan carried. There is little danger, however, that it will be adopted. All who have an interest in defeating the scheme should make their attitude known. The Lexington Leader holds that until Judge Dawson and Judge Cochran, or their successors some time in the future, find that the work to be done in the Federal courts as now constituted has become overwhelming, and agree that another district should be established, there is no justificatoin for such a project as that which Mrs. Langley is advocating. Political patronage seems to this time to be the moving argument. It is to the credit of Congressman Blackburn and a majority of the Kentucky Representatives that they are opposing the plan. To the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives: We, the undersigned practicing attorneys and members of the Winchester, Ky., bar, take this method of requesting that the present Federal districts of Kentucky be not changed or divided. We practice in the Fderal court of the eastern district of Kentucky, and feel that we are familiar with the litigation in that district, and do not believe that there is any need of an additional district at this time. We are not so familiar with the situation in the western district, but from our information we understand that that district does not need any change. I would like the committee, before I begin, to have before it the road map of Kentucky which I have just handed to the chairman. It is issued by the State road commission of 1929, with the districts outlined with colored pencil like we have here on this large map on the blackboard. The map shows certain cities of the State, including the city of Lexington. I would like to call the attention of the committee particularly to the main highways that center at Lexington; and as I proceed I will try to indicate the main highways that penetrate all this eastern and southeastern section of Kentucky. This map also indicates clearly the number of counties that will be allotted to each of the three districts in the bill. The State of Kentucky contains only 120 counties. We have an unusually large number of counties-a_ fact pointed out by John Fiske, in his book Civil Government. In all, there are 53 counties in the western district, and 67 counties in the eastern district, as now constituted. By the proposed rearrangement there would be 43 counties in the western district, 10 less than now, and 41 in the eastern district, as rearranged by this plan, and 36 counties in the proposed southern district. I ask the committee to notice the relation of those figures. Judge WILSON. At present the western district contains 53 counties and the eastern district 67. If rearranged according to the 3district plan, the western district would contain 43 counties, the easteern district 41, and the proposed southern district 36 counties. Having those figures before you, I ask the committee to notice that by the bill 5 places are prepared for the western district with its 43 counties; 4 places in the eastern district, with its 41 counties; and 8 places are generously provided for the 36 counties of the proposed southern district. I would like to have it understood at the outset, if the committee please, that I am not here on my own motion. I was delegated to appear with Mr. F. S. Yantis, of the city of Lexington, on behalf of the Lexington bar, and also on behalf of the board of commerce of the city of Lexington. Without elaborating that, I would like to say, we are here on behalf of the State of Kentucky. 109067-30-SER 6- -3 |