PUBLIC BUILDING AT BATH, ME. FEBRUARY 9, 1915.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. GUDGER, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 1702.] The Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 1702) increasing the limit of cost of the Federal building at Bath, Me., having considered the same, beg to report thereon with the recommendation that the bill pass. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the expenditure of $10,000 in order that the work of extending and remodeling the public building at Bath may be completed. The act of May 30, 1908, authorized $35,000 for this purpose and the act of June 25, 1910, increased this amount to $55,000. In order to award the contract for the work within this limit of cost it was necessary to omit certain work, which was really needed to complete the building in a satisfactory manner. The Treasury Department estimates that $10,000 will be sufficient to do the work as originally planned. The report of the Treasury Department is as follows: TREASURY DEpartment, The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, House of Representatives. SIR: In compliance with your request for a report on H. R. 1702, first session Sixtythird Congress, introduced by Hon. Daniel J. McGillicuddy, which provides for an increase in the limit of cost for the enlargement, extension, etc., of the Federal building at Bath, Me., I have the honor to advise you as follows: In awarding the contract for the extension of this building it was necessary to omit work in connection with the approaches which was originally intended, and also some other items, in order to bring the amount within the balance available. It is estimated that an increase in the limit of $10,000 will be sufficient to complete the approach work along the lines originally contemplated, and also provide for certain desirable betterments. Respectfully, W. G. McADOO, Secretary. As the project is a small one and meritorious as well, the committee begs to recommend its passage. O HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND MARSHAL FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. FEBRUARY 10, 1915.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. FLOYD of Arkansas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 20894.] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 20894) to provide for the appointment of a district judge, district attorney, and marshal for the western district of South Carolina, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report it to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. South Carolina was divided into two judicial districts in 1823. At that time so much of the State as was embraced in the western district was sparsely settled and it was provided that the judge of the eastern district should be the judge for the western district until otherwise provided by law. The marshal and the district attorney of the eastern district were required to act as marshal and district attorney for the western district. What is denominated the western district is in what is known as the Piedmont section. The progress in that section has been marvelous and phenomenal in the last 20 or 30 years. Manufacturing has increased greatly. The western district of the State affords about three-fourths of all the criminal business in the State and nearly half the civil business. The civil business would increase several hundred per cent if the conditions were changed. The topography and the railroad schedules are such that in the principal cities of the western district an attorney could come to Washington and argue a motion by being away from home two nights and one day, but in order to make a motion in Charleston where the judge resides the lawyers must be out of their offices part of three days. The expense, the trouble, and the delay under the circumstances often amount to a denial of justice. The lawyers and the litigants have felt the hardships keenly for many years. ..... In the Fifty-seventh Congress a bill passed both branches of Congress for the holding of court at two additional places in the western district. The President vetoed the bill because it did not provide for an additional judge and other court officials to hold the courts. Thereupon, both in the Senate and in the House the Judiciary Committees reported a bill providing for holding the courts and creating the necessary additional offices, providing for the appointment of a district judge, marshal, and district attorney. The Senate bill passed, but on account of a filibuster over an election contest it remained on the Speaker's table without action. In the Fifty-eighth Congress the bill was again introduced, favorably reported, and passed by the House. It also passed the Senate with an amendment adding other places for holding court. It never came out of conference. The time has come when the relief so long withheld should be granted. By section 1 of the Judicial Code every judicial district in the United States has at least one judge, except the two districts of South Carolina, the two districts of Mississippi, and the eastern and middle districts of Tennessee. But the whole State of Tennessee, which is divided into three districts, has two judges. In Mississippi, while there is but one judge, each district has a district attorney, marshal, and other officers. The State of South Carolina is the only State in the Union which is divided into two judicial districts and yet has but one judge and one set of court officials. An examination of the records of the office of the clerk of the United States court in South Carolina will show that for the past 25 years three-fourths of the criminal cases and nearly one-half of the civil cases arose in the western district of South Carolina. The headquarters of the district court is at Charleston, where the judge, district attorney, and other officers of the court reside, and all the records of the court are kept there. This is about 250 miles from where the bulk of the business is. It is necessary, however, for a district judge to be in Charleston most of the time on account of the admiralty business arising on the seaboard. Important matters respecting shipping, maritime business, libeling, and detention of vessels, and other matters which require immediate attention are arising and likely to arise at any time. It is therefore manifestly impossible that the present district judge can do otherwise than remain most of the time at Charleston, nor can he spend any considerable portion of his time in the western district. At present only two terms of court are held in the western district, to wit, at Greenville in April and October. As soon as the term is completed the district judge is compelled to return to Charleston, so that the larger part of the year, whenever any matter comes up in the western district in bankruptcy, motions at chambers, and other matters, it becomes necessary for the attorneys and litigants to take long and extensive trips from one end of the State to the other. Prisoners who may be arrested in the western district on bench warrants have to be transported to Charleston at great expense to the Government for sentence or else lie in jail till court meets again in Greenville. In this statement no reflection is intended upon the present district judge, who is an able, hard-working judge, and does everything he can to minimize the disadvantages of the arrangement under the present law. Formerly a part of the business of South Carolina was conducted before the circuit judge. But under the Judicial Code the circuit court business is now transferred to the district court. The circuit judge therefore practically does not transact any of the business in this State, but his time is wholly taken up in the circuit court of appeals. Moreover, the district judge from this district is frequently called to sit in the circuit court of appeals. On such occasions there is no judge in South Carolina who can be reached in case of emergency. If South Carolina had a judge for each district, whenever one is called into the circuit court of appeals, provision could be made for the business of both districts to be transacted by the other, so that at all times there would be a judge within the State within reach. HR-63-3-vol 1-36 |