72D CONGRESS 1st Session

}

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 507

PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

APRIL 4 (calendar day, APRIL 5), 1932.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. HEBERT, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1335]

A bill to provide for the appointment of two additional district judges for the District of New Jersey.

The bill provides as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two additional district judges for the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey, who shall reside in such district, and whose compensation, duties, and powers shall be the same as now provided by law for other district judges. A vacancy occurring at any time in the office of the district judges herein provided for is authorized to be filled.

The committee recommends an amendment to provide for one additional district judge in lieu of two additional district judges as provided in the bill, and therefore that the bill be amended so as to read as follows:

In line 4, "one" instead of "two"; line 5, "judge" instead of "judges"; line 9, "judge" instead of "judges", so that the bill will read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional district judge for the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey, who shall reside in such district, and whose compensation, duties, and powers shall be the same as now provided by law for other district judges. A vacancy occurring at any time in the office of the district judge herein provided for is authorized to be filled.

And your committee recommends that said bill as amended do pass. Up to the time of the death of Mr. Justice William A. Runyon, who was appointed as an additional judge in this district under he

SR-72-1-VOL 1-61

provisions of the act of Congress approved September 13, 1922 (U. S. C. A., title 28, sec. 3), there were four judges sitting in this district. Following is a copy of a letter addressed to Senator Kean, of New Jersey, by Mr. Justice Buffington, senior United States district court judge for the third judicial district, under date of February 17, 1932:

Hon. HAMILTON F. KEAN,

United States Senator, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR KEAN: I note with interest that you have introduced legislation looking toward the recreation of the Federal judgeship vacated by the late William A. Runyon when he died, in November of 1931. He was appointed on December 30, 1922, by virtue of the act of Congress (U. S. C. A., title 28, sec. 3, p. 6). Under the provisions of this act no successor could be appointed. At the time of the passage of this act it was contemplated that the creation of this judgeship would relieve the then congestion in the district court. It was thought this congestion was more or less temporary by reason of the prohibition law and other abnormal business conditions. On the contrary, since 1922 the business of the court has increased, and the judges are overworked. For instance, since 1928, on the criminal side of the court, the increase in cases terminated, jury trials, penalties and fines imposed, etc., amount to over 100 per cent, and the civil business of the Government before the court has increased in like proportion.

The civil private business in the United States Court for the District of New Jersey is steadily mounting in volume in view of the fact that New Jersey lies between the metropolitan areas of New York and Pennsylvania. The close business and financial relationship between the three States makes a large amount of litigation, due to diversity of citizenship, and many of these suits are brought in the United States court for New Jersey. Then, too, the coast line of the State provides abundant admiralty litigation, cognizable only in the Federal court.

At the present time it is with great difficulty and much overwork that three judges are carrying on the civil business.

In order to transact the Government criminal and civil business as distinguished from the private litigation above referred to at least one judge of the court should be available for its work at all times during the year. Since June of 1931 it has been necessary to bring into the district of New Jersey two judges from the middle district of Pennsylvania and a judge from each of the respective districts following, to wit: Ohio, South Carolina, Georgia, and Montana. They held court all summer and did four months' work.

Although there is a present accumulation of hundreds of Government cases ready for trial besides a steady daily increase of current cases, there have been no jury trials for the Government since last November; and the present term, which began on February 8, will be only of short duration. The local judges are overwhelmed with the litigation of private parties and during this busy season of the year, by reason of the necessity of every Federal judge to be available in his own district, it is impossible for any judge to be brought to New Jersey.

Our judicial conference in Washington this fall-consisting of the chief justice and the presiding judges of the respective circuit courts of appeal-recommended the judgeship held by Judge Runyon to be made permanent.

Prompt action on this legislation is highly desirable, for, if a judge is to be appointed, he should function at once. Otherwise the summer vacations will be upon us and the fall dockets will be so congested with litigation in the district of New Jersey as to cause a regrettable situation.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Hon. George W. Norris, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Hon. Felix Hebert, chairman of subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Hon. Randolph H. Perkins, of the House of Representatives.

Respectfully yours,

Senior United States Circuit Judge, Third Circuit.

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1931, it appears that 6 judges from outside this district heard cases in New Jersey during a total period of 23 weeks and 2 days. The report of the Attorney General for the year 1931 contains the following data at page 199:

From the foregoing it will be seen that a total of 3,381 cases were disposed of in this court during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1931. The population of New Jersey at the time of the decennial census of 1920 was 3,155,900. At the decennial census of 1930 it was 4,041,334.

Representatives of the Federal Bar Association of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut call attention to the congested conditions of the calendar in this court and say that it has been impossible to hold a sufficient number of criminal trials; there have been no criminal trials since November, 1931, up to January, 1932, and that there could be but two weeks of criminal trials in February, 1932. They further represent that 500 cases have been listed for trial for the February term.

Having in mind the location of New Jersey, between the congested population centers of New York and Philadelphia, and the increase in its population during the last decade, it is fair to conclude that the business of this court will not decrease in volume, but on the contrary it will probably increase very materially.

The filling of this vacancy by the appointment of a permanent judge was recommended by the judicial conference at its October session, 1931. (See Attorney General's Report 1931, p. 7.)

O

APRIL 4 (calendar day, APRIL 5), 1932.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. BANKHEAD, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. J. Res. 131]

The Committee on Agriculture and Foresty, to which was referred the resolution (S. J. Res. 131) providing for relief for the stormstricken areas of Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky, having considered the same recommend that the resolution do pass. This measure provides for an appropriation of $5,000,000 for relief of the tornado-stricken areas of Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. In the last two weeks these States have suffered from destructive windstorms. They have devastated wide sections of country, destroying homes, barns, silos, stock, seed, corn, roads, churches, and schoolhouses. More than 300 people were killed and many thousands were injured. Hospitals are not able to take care of the wounded.

A part of these stricken sections have suffered from two years successive droughts. The people were already in desperate financial straits.

It appears that the Red Cross is doing excellent work in the emergency. On account of the lack of credit facilities, it is necessary that additional funds be supplied in order to aid in rebuilding the homes and houses and to aid thousands of farmers to engage in their work. The Governor of Alabama has stated that the State and local communities are wholly unable to meet the situation.

The committee believes from the evidence that the $5,000,000 made immediately available will be of great assistance and that this amount is imperatively needed. The money is authorized for the purpose of making loans by the Secretary of Agriculture for rehabilitation purposes.

The resolution is the same in substance as the legislation passed to aid Porto Rico after the storm there. The loans to be made to any one individual are limited to $5,000. In the Porto Rican bill the