Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

}

71ST CONGRESS

2d Session

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 931

PROVIDING FOR TERMS OF DISTRICT COURT AT

EASTON, PA.

JUNE 17, 1930.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. OVERMAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 7926)

The Committee on the Judiciary, having considered the bill (H. R. 7926) to provide for terms of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to be held at Easton, Pa. reports the same favorably to the Senate without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

The effect and the desirability of this legislation is set out in the following excerpt from House Řeport No. 1349, Seventy-first Congress, second session:

This bill provides for two terms of the United States District Court for the Eastern Judicial District of Pennsylvania to be held at Easton, Pa. The Attorney General has written that he has no objection to the passage of the bill, and his letter, together with the inclosures sent to the committee, is printed herewith and made a part of this report, as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D. C., February 14, 1930. Hon. GEORGE S. GRAHAM, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I refer to your letter of the 20th ultimo, referring for my consideration and recommendation a bill (H. R. 7926) which would provide for terms of the United States district court to be held at Easton, in the eastern district of Pennsylvania.

The department's records show that a considerable amount of Federal court business originates in and about Easton, which is about 70 miles from Philadelphia.

United States District Judge J. Whitaker Thompson writes, under date of the 4th instant (copy of his letter inclosed herewith), that in his opinion favorable action on the bill is desirable in order to relieve such of the litigants in civil cases and defendants in criminal cases from being obliged to go to Philadelphia to have their cases heard; also that provision for terms at Easton would enable Judge Kirkpatrick, who resides at that place, to dispose of a considerable part of the local business without leaving his place of residence.

However, it appears from an office memorandum, dated the 11th instant (a copy of which is also inclosed), that there are no facilities for holding court at

[ocr errors]

Easton, and that, therefore, if terms of court are to be held there, it will be necessary either to rent suitable quarters or have the bill provide, as such bills frequently do, that space shall be furnished without expense to the Government. This memorandum also invites attention to the fact that if a stated term is provided for at Easton, that place would become the headquarters of Judge Kirkpatrick, and he would be entitled to his traveling expenses and maintenance, not exceeding $10 per day, when holding court in Philadelphia, and that such expenses would probably amount to a considerable sum in the course of each year. It is problematical whether, but possible that, this increased cost to the Government would be fully offset by such amounts as the Government and private litigants would save by the proposed new term.

In consideration of all the above, while not disposed to urge the enactment of the bill, the department would offer no objection to it, provided it shall be amended to include a provision that the holding of court at Easton shall be conditioned on the furnishing of suitable facilities therefor without expense to the United States. Respectfully,

William D. MITCHELL,

Attorney General.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Philadelphia, Pa., February 4, 1930. Hon. William D. MITCHELL,

Attorney General, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 30 (39 E 13-DDC), requesting an expression of my views as to the need or desirability of provision for terms of this court at Easton, as prescribed by the inclosed bill, H. R. 7926.

My opinion is that favorable action on this bill is desirable in order to relieve such of the litigants in the civil cases or defendants in criminal cases from being obliged to come to Philadelphia to have their cases heard. Further, its passage would enable Judge Kirkpatrick, who resides at Easton, to dispose of a considerable part of the local business without leaving his place of residence.

In addition to the reasons stated above, its passage would enable Judge
Kirkpatrick, whenever he holds court in Philadelphia, to be reimbursed for his
expenses of travel and maintenance, as provided in section 259, Judicial Code,
U. S. C. A., section 374.
Respectfully,

J. WHITAKER THOMPSON,

United States District Judge.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, January 3, 1929. Memorandum for Assistant Attorney General Sisson.

Referring to the attached copy of H. R. 7926, a bill to provide for terms of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to be held at Easton, Pa., I respectfully submit the following:

Terms of court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania are now held only at Philadelphia. Easton is located in the northern part of the eastern district, 70 miles from Philadelphia, and an examination of the marshal's accounts shows that a considerable amount of business originates in that locality. It is probable that a considerable saving would be effected to the Government and also to private litigants by the holding of terms of court at Easton. I accordingly recommend that the department approve the bill. Respectfully,

J. W. GARDNER, General Agent. Easton is about 70 miles from Philadelphia and, as the general agent of the Department of Justice points out, an examination of the marshal's accounts shows that a considerable amount of business originates in that locality. It is believed that a considerable saving will be effected to the Government and also to private litigants by the holding of terms of court at Easton.

The bill also has the approval of the district judges for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.

O

[blocks in formation]

Mr. BINGHAM, from the Committee on Territories and Insular

Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 4142)

The Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4142) to fix the salary of the Governor of the Territory of Alaska, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

The bill proposes to increase the salary of the Governor of Alaska from $7,000, as now fixed by law, to $10,000, which would make it conform to that received by the executive of the other Territory, Hawai.

Favorable attitude toward this proposed legislation on the part of the Secretary of the Interior is indicated by the following letter from that official, recommending that the bill receive favorable consideration:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Washington, May 3, 1930. Hon. HIRAM BINGHAM, Chairman Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs,

United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR BINGHAM: Your letter of April 24, 1930, has been received, inclosing, with request for an expression of opinion thereon, Senate bill 4142, to fix the salary of the Governor of the Territory of Alaska.

The salary of the Governor of Alaska is fixed at $7,000 in the act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1930, approved March 4, 1929, and the bill under consideration proposes to increase his salary to $10,000 per annum. The salary of the Governor of Hawaii, as fixed by law, is $10,000 per annum, and there is no good reason why the Governor of Alaska should not receive a similar amount. I recommend that the bill receive favorable consideration. Very truly yours,

RAY LYMAN WILBUR.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »