Whereas Alameda County is one of four counties in the United States with a population in excess of 700,000 in which no such court exists, and the only major seaport, commercial, industrial, and agricultural entity of its size without such a division; and

Whereas it is believed that the establishment of another division for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is inevitable and that such division will be established in northern California and in an area other than in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California; and

Whereas Oakland, the county seat of Alameda County, is the logical place for the holding of court for such eastern division, the conducting of Federal litigation and the transaction of all Federal Government business in which are involved the residents of our east bay counties; and

Whereby it is believed imperative that immediate and constructive action be taken in the interest of our community in view of the fact that the location for such court is not assured to the east bay and that there are now pending before the Congress of the United States bills for the establishment of an eastern division of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; and

Whereas this council has heretofore recommended the establishment of an eastern division of said court to be located in the county seat of Alameda County, and the need for said court is even greater today: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the Council of the City of Oakland, as follows:

1. That there be established an eastern division for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

2. That the court for said eastern division be held in a city of the east bay, preferably the county seat of Alameda County, Oakland.

Further resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to U.S. Senators Clair Engle and Thomas H. Kuchel, the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, and Congressmen Jeffery Cohelan and George P. Miller.

I certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Oakland, Calif., on February 18, 1960. GLADYS H. MURPHY, City Clerk. Per LIDA DARAY, Deputy.

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION No. 92620

Whereas on July 12, 1956, this board of supervisors, by Resolution No. 80502, requested the Veterans' Administration to give consideration to Alameda County as the location for the proposed veterans' hospital facility: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this board does and it hereby reaffirms its previous position in urging the Veterans' Administration to consider the location and erection of a veterans' hospital facility in the county of Alameda, State of California.

ALAMEDA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,
Oakland, Calif., February 16, 1960.

Hon. GEORGE P. MILLER,

Congressman, Eighth District, California,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLER: I have been requested by our board of directors to inform you that the board, at its meeting on February 4, 1960, again unanimously passed a resolution favoring the establishment of an eastern division of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, with court to be held at the county seat of Alameda County and for the creation of an additional judgeship for such division.

I believe this resolution is incorporated in House Joint Resolution Nos. 160 and 165 now before Congress.

We appreciate your continued help on behalf of this measure.

Very truly yours,

BURCHARD H. STYLES, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERY COHELAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to concur heartily in the remarks made by my distinguished colleague and I would also like to add this remark in connection with some of the colloquy going on.

I would certainly agree there is going to be some cost involved here, although I do not think that is our primary argument.

In my prepared statement, I will deal with this question. We assume the court would go into the post office.

I would quarrel with the figures in the previous record, Mr. Chairman. I doubt very much whether that would be the amount involved. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today in support of my joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 160, which is a companion to House Joint Resolution 165 authorized by my senior colleague, Congressman George P. Miller. This measure would create a third, or eastern division of the Northern District of the U.S. District Court in the State of California. That new division would comprise the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. My special interest is the measure stems from the fact that I represent the seventh Congressional District which encompasses the northern half of Alameda County.

Even apart from that special interest, it appears to me that every argument favors the enactment of this measure:

(1) The State of California needs at least one new district court division, probably more. California is the 2d largest State in terms of population, but, with its two districts ranks behind nine other States, and, with its five divisions, ranks 17th among all States. Furthermore, with court held in only six cities of the State, California ranks 25th in this respect.

(2) The establishment of a new eastern division would create a service area with some 1,230,000 population and would, therefore, be comparable to the remaining northern and southern divisions of the northern California district.

(3) Today Alameda County is one of only four counties in the United States with a population in excess of 700,000 and with no district court division for its people.

(4) Alameda County is the only major seaport, commercial, industrial, and agricultural entity of its size without a district court division.

In addition to these general arguments in favor of the establishment of a new court, there are more specific reasons why this court can and should be placed in Alameda County:

(1) Alameda County is the center of a distinct service area. This area, the "east bay" includes 1,467 square miles located on the continental side of San Franciso Bay, and is geographically cut off from the nearest district court in San Francisco by that bay which, in fact, acts as a barrier.

The result of the existing inaccessibility of a district court is that Alameda and Contra Costa County litigants (who are parties to over one-third of the civil cases and over one-half of the criminal matters

in the southern division court) are compelled to spend substantial additional time and money in such litigation. Usually a San Francisco attorney is associated when Alameda and Contra Costa County attorneys handle these cases.

(2) Space is available for the new court. No new construction is necessary. Quarters would be available in the post office building in Oakland, Alameda County, the county seat, which is within several blocks of other principal east bay courts. In fact, this building was constructed in contemplation of the possible installation of a courtroom in the future.

(3) The city of Oakland is the logical place for the new court, as House Joint Resolution 160 specifies, because it is the center of the east bay and the largest city therein, with a population of some 400,000 in contrast to that of the next largest city, Richmond in Contra Costa County, which has less than 100,000 people.

Let me also summarize the legislative history of this measure. Identical resolutions have been introduced in both the Senate and the House in the 83d, 84th, 85th, and now the 86th Congress. In that time, this measure has been passed by the Senate three different times. In the 85th Congress it was also approved by the House Judiciary Committee and included in the omnibus bill, H.R. 13672.

In closing, let me also reiterate that this measure has the full support of the Alameda and Contra Costa County Bar Associations, the Oakland City Council, the Oakland Chamber of Commerce and other organizations.

It is evident that everything points to the need for passage of this legislation. I urge the committee to report it favorably.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, in supplement, may I say that there are nine municipalities including Berkeley the seat of the University of California; Oakland, the biggest; Alameda, Richmond, and I could go on and name them, but I will not take your time. The others are less well known, but nevertheless constitute this area and these are, in effect, one metropolitan area. There is no physical distinction between them whatsoever.

They are just separate entities.

Mr. Chairman, how long will the record be open, may I ask?
The CHAIRMAN. It will be open for some time.

Mr. MILLER. I just received a letter from Mr. Gilbert the chairman of the Committee on Federal Reports of the Alameda County Bar Association, and he offered to come back here, if necessary. I thought I might have Mr. Calden prepare a statement for the record if he may be allowed to insert it later.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. There will be plenty of time. Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both.

We have our distinguished colleague of the committee, Mr. Lindsay, here with us. I understand he wants to introduce Mr. Mansfield of the bar association in New York.

We are happy to have both of you to come here today.