Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

jurisdictions, possess and exercise all the powers conferred by existing law upon the marshals and district attorneys of the United States, respectively.

(p) That all other officers of any of the district courts created or constituted by this act holding any office in a district other than that of his residence shall cease to be such officers when their successors are appointed and qualified.

(q) That the office of marshal and district attorney in each of said districts, deputy marshals and assistant district attorneys, and all other officers authorized by law and made necessary by the creation of said three districts and the provisions of this act, and all vacancies created thereby in any of said districts as constituted by this act, shall be filled in the manner provided by existing law. The salaries, pay, fees, and allowances of the judges, district attorneys, marshals, clerks, and other officers in said districts, until changed under the provisions of existing law, shall be the same, respectively, as now fixed by law for such officers in the judicial districts of Kentucky as heretofore constituted.

(r) That all causes and proceedings of every name and nature, civil and criminal, now pending in the courts of the eastern judicial district of Kentucky and the western judicial district of Kentucky, as heretofore constituted, respectively, whereof the courts of the southern judicial district of Kentucky as hereby constituted would have had jurisdiction if said latter district and the courts thereof had been constituted when said causes or proceedings were instituted, shall be, and are hereby, transferred to and the same shall be proceeded with in the southern judicial district of Kentucky as hereby constituted, and jursidiction thereof is hereby transferred to and vested in the courts of said southern judicial district and the judge thereof, and the records and proceedings therein and relating to said proceedings and causes herein and hereby transferred shall be certified and transferred thereto: Provided, That all motions and causes submitted and all causes and proceedings, both civil and criminal, including proceedings in bankruptcy, now pending in said eastern judicial district of Kentucky, and said western judicial district of Kentucky, respectively, as heretofore constituted, in which the evidence has been taken in whole or in part before the present district judge of either of the judicial districts of Kentucky as heretofore constituted, or taken in whole or in part and submitted and passed upon by the judge of either of said districts, shall be proceeded with and disposed of in the district and by the judge of the court having jursidiction of said cause or proceeding prior to the passage of this act.

'(8) That the terms of said courts shall not be limited to any particular number of days nor shall it be necessary to adjourn by reason of the intervention of a term elsewhere; but the court intervening may be adjourned until the business of the court in session is concluded.

"(t) That all prosecutions for crimes or offenses hereafter committed in any of said districts shall be cognizable within the district in which committed, and all prosecutions for crimes or offenses committed before the passage of this act in which indictments have not been found or proceedings instituted shall be cognizable within the district as hereby constituted in which such crimes or offenses were committed. "(u) That all laws and parts of laws, so far as inconsistent with provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed.

"(v) That this Act shall take effect thirty days after its passage and approval."

We respectfully differ with the majority of the committee on the method they have adopted to grant relief from crowded court conditions in Kentucky. Some relief may be justified, but if those affected are to be consulted or believed it should be given by the naming of an additional district judge to serve the whole State and not by the creation of a new district.

Eight of the eleven Members of the House from that State are urging that the appointment be made for the whole State. The Kentucky State Bar Association, in April last, by almost unanimous vote, urged the appointment of a judge for the State at large. Both the presiding district judges in that State and the senior circuit judge of the circuit are protesting the creation of the district and requesting that the additional judge be assigned to both districts. It is a practice of our committee to require the indorsement of the judges affected as well as the senior circuit judge before changes are made.

Judge A. M. J. Cochran of the eastern district of Kentucky advises us that he is keeping up with the work of his court, that the work is falling off instead of increasing, and that relief is not needed where this district is proposed. Judge Charles I. Dawson of the western division of Kentucky states that his district can not well be divided because of the location of the city of Louisville in the extreme eastern part of it; but that the business of his district is increasing rapidly and he is greatly in need of help. The reason assigned for the shift in burden of litigation to the western division is that Louisville is the center of most of the civil litigation on account of its industrial importance and the Federal tax cases all arise there. The new district arrangement will not relieve this western district to any appreciable extent. Because of the geographical conditions of the State we think it impractical to divide Kentucky into three districts in any equitable

way.

The respective numbers of cases listed in each of the two districts seem to be misleading in that many times the judge of the eastern district has a defendant docketed in three or four different cases, whereas in the western district said defendant would have only one case listed against him and all matters tried and settled under the one-case style.

Several judgeships have been created to serve more than one district as the needs demanded and have proven highly satisfactory, as testified to by the judges so arranged in South Carolina, Alabama, and elsewhere. Places can be added for holding court as they are needed under this plan, just as they are provided under a new district, and with much more economy as to officials and employees than a new district would require.

Hon. Maurice H. Thatcher of the fifth Kentucky district has introduced H. R. 11638, to provide for an additional district judge for the eastern and western districts of Kentucky, and in our view this measure should be reported out and passed in preference to the

creation of a new district and the setting up of additional machinery incident thereto. It provides all necessary additional places for holding court in both districts and would best serve the interests of the whole State. It would be in response to the wishes of 8 out of 11 Members of the House from that State, of all the judges affected, of the State bar association, of the Attorney General's opinion formerly expressed, and to the apparent needs of both existing districts, whereas the enactment of this bill reported would only give relief to the district where it is least needed.

Respectfully submitted.

HATTON W. SUMNERS.
ANDREW J. MONTAGUE.
WILLIAM C. HAMMER.

GORDON BROWNING.

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS MEMORIAL LIGHTHOUSE

MAY 23, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. TEMPLE, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. J. Res. 255]

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 255) authorizing the appropriation of the sum of $871,655 as the contribution of the United States toward the Christopher Columbus Memorial Lighthouse at Santo Domingo, having considered the resolution, reports it to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

The proposal that the governments and peoples of the Western Hemisphere unite in the construction of a suitable memorial to Christopher Columbus has been discussed both in North America and in South America for many years. It was approved by the Fifth International Conference of the Pan American Union at Santiago de Chile, which unanimously adopted the following resolution:

Whereas a monument has not yet been erected in America to perpetuate the collective sentiment of gratitude, admiration, and thanksgiving toward Christopher Columbus, discoverer of America and benefactor of humanity; and

Whereas the city of Santo Domingo, in ancient Hispaniola, now the capital of the Dominican Republic, was the scene of the glories and the misfortunes of that remarkable man and, therefore, is intimately associated with his history; The Fifth International Conference of American States resolves:

To recommend that the Governments of the American Republics honor the memory of Christopher Columbus, by the erection of a monumental lighthouse which will bear his name, on the coast at Santo Domingo, capital of the Dominican Republic, and which shall be built with the cooperation of the Governments and people of America, and any others who may so desire.

By a concurrent resolution passed January 27, 1927, the Congress of the United States expressed its approval of the project and requested that the several Ŝtates of the Pan American Union be notified through the usual diplomatic channels of our desire to participate in the movement. The resolution referred to is as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States approves the international project

advocated at the Pan American Conference, held at Santiago de Chile, April, 1924, to erect a memorial lighthouse at Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, to Christopher Columbus, and that the several States participating in that conference be notified through the usual diplomatic channels of the desire of the people of the United States to participate in this movement to honor the memory of the great navigator and discoverer.

Passed January 27, 1927 (44 Stat. 1987).

In accordance with this request made by both House of Congress the Department of State on April 27, 1927, instructed its diplomatic representatives situated in the countries participating in the Fifth Pan American Conference to inform the governments to which they were accredited that the Congress had approved the project.

On November 18, 1926, the Dominican minister announced that his Government had settled upon a sum of $300,000 for administration, preliminary expenses, and architectural prizes.

On March 2, 1927, he requested the governing board of the Pan American Union to take the necessary steps for the realization of this project. As a result of subsequent inquiries to the various interested governments a permanent committee on the Columbus Memorial Lighthouse was selected to consider this proposition. This committee consisted of the diplomatic representatives of the Dominican, Cuban, and Honduran Republics at Washington. A summary of the essential recommendations of this committee which were adopted by the governing board of the Pan American Union on May 2, 1928, follows: It was recommended that

1. The respective countries be requested to undertake the formation of national committees in each country.

2. The sum of $4,000,000 be used as a basis in determining contributions for financing the construction of the lighthouse.

3. The Governments of the American Republics be asked to contribute such sums toward the erection of the memorial as they may deem appropriate.

4. Each member of the governing board ascertain the amount which his government is willing to contribute toward the erection of the monument.

5. The difference between the sum contributed by the governments which are members of the Pan American Union, together with those which are not members of the Union, and the amount of $4,000,000 be apportioned among the countries which are members of the Union to be raised by popular subscription.

It was the plan of the permanent committee appointed by our own Secretary of State, Mr. Kellogg, who was chairman of the governing board of the Pan American Union, that $1,500,000 be collected from the governments of the American Republics, apportioned among them on the basis of population, which is the basis of apportioning appropriations for the maintenance of the Pan American Union. On this basis, the share of the United States is $871,655, the amount this resolution proposes to authorize.

The resolution provides that no part of this sum shall be paid until the Secretary of State has received satisfactory assurances that the full amount necessary for the completion of the essential features of the project has been contributed or subscribed.

The Pan American Union's permanent committee on the Columbus Memorial Lighthouse engaged as its technical advisor Mr. Albert Kelsey, one of the architects of the Pan American Building in Washington.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »