Now, would the GSA be authorized to proceed and use any part of that $58 million to fix up the courtroom?

Mr. FORD. It is my understanding that if the judgeship bill, which I believe this committee has approved, and has waived the restriction against Kalamazoo, GSA can use whatever money is needed out of the independent offices appropriation bill for that purpose.

Mr. ROGERS. That is of this $58 million?

Mr. FORD. That is my understanding. But they cannot do it unless there is a waiver granted either in a specific case or on a broad basis. Mr. ROGERS. That is the waiver which is in this bill.

Mr. FORD. The waiver that is in this bill would once and for all waive any further congressional review but the waiver in the omnibus bill which this committee has approved specifically waives the restriction against Kalamazoo. I am in complete accord with that specific action, after reviewing the situation with the two Federal judges and getting their personal recommendation.

Mr. CELLER. In other words, you are a little concerned that you might have a judge who might shift headquarters, as it were, to a place where there wasn't the greatest bulk of legal business?

Mr. FORD. Providing he was the senior judge and he wanted to live in his hometown and hold court there.

Mr. CELLER. I just asked counsel if there were ever such cases and we know no such cases where a judge has arbitrarily moved the headquarters of the court, as it were, to some place that suits his own whim and caprice, and in disregard of the real amount of business done in the district.

Mr. FORD. I know of no case but in the case that I am familiar with, the senior judge, Judge Star, comes from Grand Rapids and, of course, that has been the traditional place of holding court.

Judge Kent was appointed to the bench in 1954. He lives in Kalamazoo, which is 50 miles away. There was some apprehension among the legal profession in Grand Rapids that if Judge Star retires, and he may do so within the next year or two, that then Judge Kent would become the senior judge and that with the new facilities in Kalamazoo he might conceivably establish Kalamazoo rather than Grand Rapids as the principal seat of the court.

Mr. CELLER. Has he indicated by any action or words that he would do anything like that?

Mr. FORD. No, but when this problem first arose he assured the Grand Rapids Bar Association that that was not his intent and under no circumstances would he do so. As a consequence the Grand Rapids Bar Association withdrew any opposition that they had to the establishment of new facilities in Kalamazoo. That was, I think, a fair apprehension that they might have without any such assurance from Judge Kent. He has given it and I am positive that his word is good and so the problem has been resolved.

However, I think this requirement of a second look by the Congress helps to resolve some of these problems that are in the minds of lawyers and litigants and certainly in the minds of Members of the House who are on the Appropriations Committee where we give the executive branch a lump sum of money and pretty much leave the expenditures to the discretion and will of the courts and GSA. Mr. CELLER. Would this be sufficient-if we pass this bill-I don't know what we will do, but if we approve it, put something in the re

60806-60 -2

port that would indicate to that judge whom you are concerned over that he shouldn't make any such move unless the business of the court justified it.

Mr. FORD. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, I am not critical of Judge Kent because he and I have sat down and worked this problem out. There is no animosity or enmity at all, but it was a legitimate area for questioning by me and by lawyers in the Grand Rapids

area.

As I understand it, in the committee report on your omnibus judge bill, you either intend to or have put a paragraph in there specifically saying that the seat of the court should not be moved from Grand Rapids to Kalamazoo.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, you may remember that when we had considered the omnibus judge bill in the subcommittee, I believe it was your suggestion that we seek to forestall any movement in the nature that Mr. Ford fears by appropriate language of the report.

Mr. FORD. Except the report.

Mr. CELLER. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. CELLER. You have heard the statement of the gentleman from Michigan.

Wouldn't it be good to have an admonition to any judge? We could have the final word if he didn't abide by the suggestion.

Mr. FORD. Certainly a wise judge would bear that in mind, I would think.

Mr. CELLER. Counsel wishes to ask you one or two questions.
Mr. FORD. Surely.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Ford, did the judge indicate to you any source of his authority to change the seat of the court himself?

Mr. FORD. No; he did not so indicate. He was only answering the apprehensions of some of the lawyers in the Grand Rapids area, and in so answering, he categorically said that under no circumstances would it be his intention if he became senior judge to move the principal seat of the court.

Mr. FOLEY. There may be some question as to his authority as the chief judge of the district to do that individually.

Mr. FORD. He never said that he did. Some of the people were fearful that he might.

Mr. FOLEY. Normally, that would be determined under the rules of the district court issued by the court, not by the chief judge, and finally, as the best assurance, the judicial council of that circuit could issue an order saying you must maintain that court at Grand Rapids. That assurance is in title 28, under the power of the judicial council. Mr. FORD. I have every assurance that he does not intend to do it arbitrarily or otherwise but that was a legitimate area of inquiry, I felt.

Mr. CELLER. I am sure it is the wishes of the committee to compliment you in every respect for your efforts. I am quite sure that we can give you satisfactory service in that regard in one way or another. Mr. FORD. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.

It has been a privilege to testify and I certainly express my gratitude for the help and assistance of the committee and the staff.

Mr. CELLER. Now, we have with us our distinguished colleague from Michigan, Mr. Elford Cederberg.

STATEMENT OF HON. ELFORD CEDERBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before your subcommittee on this legislation.

I am very definitely opposed to it because I think it takes away from Congress control that should be tightened rather than relaxed.

As a member of the Subcommittee on State, Justice, and Judiciary, I think we have in testimony this year brought out why this is the case. As I read this bill it says:

Court shall be held only at places where Federal court quarters and accommodulations are available or become available as the result of acquisition, construction, or alteration of a building, or where suitable quarters and accommodations are furnished without cost to the United States.

I think the change "or become available as a result of acquisition, construction, or alteration of a building" is rather important. Mr. CELLER. That is the new language.

Mr. CEDERBERG. That is the new language and that is the language which I think shouldn't be adopted because Congress then abdicates its right to look into the establishment of new court facilities.

We already have in the United States 245 active judgeships. We have 506 courtrooms and we are contemplating 45 more. So we will have 551 courtrooms and 245 judges.

Now, no one contends that you should only have one courtroom for each judge because we recognize there are geographical considerations throughout the entire United States.

I have looked at one of them, and Alaska is an interesting one. We have one judge and we have five courtrooms. We have two courtrooms in Anchorage, Alaska, and only one judge.

I think a lot of this happens because Congress doesn't have an opportunity or doesn't really look into the problem.

Now, my colleague, Mr. Ford, referred to the

Mr. CELLER. You will have other than Federal and district judges hearing cases. You will have Commissioners in in Alaska. They have to have some place to hold court.

Mr. CEDERBERG. That may well be.

The thing that I think is important for Congress to determine is the geographical location of courts within States so as to best serve the litigants as well as the lawyers, and too often, I find we have located the courts and the court facilities to suit the judge and not the litigants.

Mr. CELLER. May I interject a point there?

At the last Judicial Conference, I made a statement to the effect that there ought to be a revamping of our circuits and districts. They were defined many, many years ago. There are so many changes that have occurred with the shifting of populations and technological advances of one sort or another, industrial changes, as probably would require an entire change of the geographic lines.

understand now the study is being made by the Judicial Conference on that very matter which dovetails exactly into what you are indicating.

Mr. CEDERBERG. I think that is very important.

Another thing I find in the hearings is a lack of determination as to who has authority, whether General Services Administration has

authority, the administrator of the courts or whether the judges of a given judicial district.

Mr. ROGERS. Well now, may I interrupt you there?

Mr. CEDERBERG. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. As I indicated to Representative Ford a moment ago, the independence offices bill carried $58 million for maintenance and repair. Now, you are a member of the Appropriations Committee. Most of the departments are required to come in and justify the need for the money, for approval.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Yes, I think that is true.

Mr. ROGERS. And don't you think-do you want more authority than you find the Congress has given in that instance?

In other words, I don't feel that you or any other member of Appropriations Committee is going to reach out and say, here, GSA, is $58 million, go out and spend it.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Let me give you an example.

I think it is better to get specific examples so we can show just exactly how I think Congress has lost its right to review this.

We will go to the eastern district of Michigan because that is the one I am most familiar with. However, I am sure there are other examples.

We have in the eastern district of Michigan two places in which court is held, the city of Detroit, the city of Bay City-although the Congress did also authorize, I think, in about 1954, Flint, Mich.

At that time Congress appropriated money to built court facilities at Flint, Mich. Flint is exactly 45 miles from the city of Bay City where court is held at the present time. There were 59 trial days last year, I believe, at that court, and the city of Detroit is also about 60 miles from Flint. The courtroom at Bay City is empty, let's say, three-quarters of the time.

Now, I can't understand why the Federal Government should invest $200,000 to $250,000 to build a court facility in an area where it isn't needed.

Now, let me give you another specific example

Mr. ROGERS. Well now, in that example, didn't Congress authorize the money that is to be spent?

Mr. CEDERBERG. Congress authorized court to sit at Flint.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. CEDERBERG. In the judgeship bill, the one that we passed, the last judgeship bill?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. CEDERBERG. And the Appropriations Committee in a lump sum as you said did appropriate and it did list that money could be spent at Flint. But to show you what happened, the judges of the district could never agree that court should be held at Flint.

As a matter of fact, they didn't think that it ought to be held there. So, finally, the circuit decided it for them. Then this matter came up because construction of a new post office building would leave some space available and the original appropriation expired so General Services Administration took the money out of the repair and renovation fund and are contemplating construction of this facility at that location.

The reason I think that Congress ought to look in all of these specifically is that I met with the chief judge of the eastern district of Michigan, and he told me specifically that the judges didn't have any intentions of holding court at Flint.

What they needed was more bankruptcy space. What they needed was an office for the judge. Yet they are putting in complete quarters.

When this happens in all these areas then we get a demand for an assistant district attorney and for all of the supporting personnel which happens to come before our subcommittee.

As another example, it just so happens that the new judge that was appointed lived in this town. Now, we have three courtrooms contemplated for the State of Michigan. By some coincidence they all happen to be in the three home towns of the new judges that were appointed.

As another example, in the city of Port Huron, Mich., we had a courtroom there some years ago. The court didn't do enough business so they boarded it up, divided it into other offices. The new judge, one of the new judges, a very distinguished and able jurist, came from that city. So the judges then decided that they ought to put new courtroom facilities in Port Huron, in other words, reactivate this old chamber, which would cost considerable amount of money. In the meantime, while this was going on, the judge is promoted to the circuit court of appeals. So then there was some question as to whether or not they needed the courtroom facility.

On one day the judges said we don't need it, we are going to stop this construction. Later, they decided that, well, we may try some admiralty cases, so now they are going ahead. This is not in my congressional district, but I am interested in it as a Member of Congress. They have decided that they are going to reactivate this. They won't try enough cases over there in a year-well, they anticipate, I think, within 5 years getting up to enough cases to get to the Bay City courtroom load which was 59 trial days last year.

What I am saying is I think this is the time when Congress ought to take a good, hard look at the way the judiciary is spending money. I think they are too independent in matters of administration. Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask our colleague this question.

Is Port Huron scheduled to be the home station or the place of duty of the judge in question, the district judge in question? Mr. CEDERBERG. There isn't any district judge there now.

gone to the circuit court of appeals.

Mr. FOLEY. He was elevated to the circuit court of appeals.
Mr. CEDERBERG. He has gone to the circuit court of appeals.
Mr. McCULLOCH. Was that to be his home station?

He has

Mr. CEDERBERG. Well, I suppose it would have been. He is in Detroit now, which is 45 miles away.

Mr. McCULLOCH. If it had been his home station, regardless of the fact that he tried only a half dozen cases there each year, if he had court in some other city in the district, he would draw an expense allowance in accordance with law.

Mr. CEDERBERG. That is exactly right.

Now, here is the problem, too. You assign a judge at Port Huron, Mich. The majority of his cases will be tried in Detroit, which is