materially increased over the number filed in 1958. Another factor not adequately reflected in the statistics is the protracted cases, both civil and criminal. One of our judges recently presided in a criminal action which consumed 7 weeks of trial. A number of other long cases await trial. During the past few months I have contacted judges in other districts and requested them to help us out. Because of similar problems in their jurisdictions, I have met with no success. While the adoption of modern procedures has been helpful, they are of minor value and not a substitute for judge power. The addition of a calendar commissioner to our supporting personnel has enabled us to so constitute our trial parts of the court as to avoid wastage of court time. Yesterday Judge Byers retired from active service. While he plans to take some cases, there is an indication that he will not contribute the same amount of time as in the past. This situation aggravates our problem. Within the past few years, several of the judges of this court retired. The time elapsed in replacing them has been an additional impediment in the dispatch of the business of the court. The enlargement of the jurisdiction of Federal district courts has and will undoubtedly increase the court's business. For example, it is estimated that the recent amendments to the National Labor Relations Act will double the number of cases in that field. As you know, there has been no increase in the number of judges in this court in 25 years. I respectfully plead for approval of the bill, adding two judges to this court. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE T. A. THOMPSON Mr. Chairman, the locations of traditional sittings of our Federal courts over the years have become as firmly entrenched in the minds of our people as have the sittings of our State legislatures in the respective State capitals. Except for vast population changes or other extreme situations, the location of these court sittings must remain inviolate. Amendment has been suggested to the legislation now under consideration which would, in effect, take from the Opelousas division of the western district of Louisiana whatever caseloads that would develop from approximately 120,000 people now being served by the Opelousas court division. This would represent, Mr. Chairman, the taking away from the Opelousas division almost 60 percent of the people now being served by this court sitting. Measuring distances in terms of parish seats of the three parishes sought to be removed from the Opelousas jurisdiction, I should mention that Lafayette Parish, with a population of almost 60,000 people and which is situated less than 25 miles from Opelousas, certainly faces no problems of travel or inconvenience insofar as the Opelousas sitting is concerned. The parish seat of Vermilion Parish is only 45 miles from the Opelousas court. This parish's population is 36,900. And St. Martin Parish, which parish seat is located approximately 40 miles from Opelousas, certainly presents no problems of distance to the court or other inconvenience to those who would practice before the Federal court. The present court sitting in Opelousas adequately serves approximately 260,000 people, with the farthest distance traveled from the parish seats being less than 45 miles. The Federal courthouse in Opelousas is now situated pro perly, not only because of the fact that it has traditionally been there, but Opelousas is also the parish seat of the heaviest populated parish in the entire area, having approximately 80,000 population. It is well known that our Federal judges, because of vast economic development and population growth, need assistance in handling the extremely heavy dockets. However, such a rearrangement as has been proposed, while it may serve the purpose of later securing an additional judge, certainly is not, in my opinion, the practical solution to the problem. Inasmuch as the proposed amendment transcends congressional district lines, I feel that I must recommend to your committee that certain areas where people now suffer great inconvenience and who are not considered in the proposed amendment who are located outside my district in the eastern judicial district should be studied prior to any determination. We now find a situation existing which involves three parishes whose total population exceeds 120,000 people, whose needs must be served through the New Orleans Federal court sitting, a distance ranging from 50 miles to in excess of 125 miles, which should certainly be looked into. I do not take issue, Mr. Chairman, with anyone who is attempting to serve his constituency in matters involving their convenience, but I must, for my own part, try to convince you that in order to do what is necessary to assist our Federal judges and our people and still not create an unbalanced situation, this matter must be gone into thoroughly. It is entirely possible that one additional division and judgeship could care for the overloaded dockets in both the eastern and western districts of Louisiana. This could be done by more thorough evaluation of the needs of Terrebonne, Lafourche, Assumption, Ascension, and other parishes lying between the Opelousas court sitting and the New Orleans court sitting. The proposed amendment which would create another court sitting within 24 miles of the Opelousas sitting would still not care for or remedy the serious situation which exists in these areas where in excess of 200,000 people could be better served. If such an evaluation is not made and if the proposed amendment creating this unbalance is made into law, you may well assume that the tremendous caseload in the eastern district would cause in the very near future legislation to be introduced for the purpose of creating yet an additional division. In my opinion, this would not be necessary if this entire situation is more thoroughly studied prior to any change in the existing divisional setup. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that the amendment proposed be deferred until this matter can be gone into more thoroughly with the view in mind of serving the needs of a greater number of people. It would be hard to comprehend how another court sitting could be established within 24 miles of an existing old court sitting which has for years served as the home of the Federal court. If this were allowed to occur, there would also be a great possibility of future threat to the actual existence of the Opelousas sitting, which, by the proposed action, would be reduced in scope of service to people by 60 percent. Such action, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope will not be taken by your committee. I thank you for the opportunity of expressing my views in this extremely important matter. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER ROGERS ON H.R. 1886, FEBRUARY 3, 1960 Mr. Chairman, the urgent need for an additional judge for the northern district of Texas increases daily. In fiscal 1958 this district had the largest number of civil cases filed per judgeship in the Nation, to wit, 612 per judge. The national average civil case disposition that year was 259. This data comes from the report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. It was released to the press September 23, 1958. I am using the year 1958 because I have not yet been able to complete compilations to date. In any event, it can be certain that the caseload has increased in the past 18 months. The statement has been made by Mr. Elmore Whitehurst answering to news reports that no other district in the Nation of the same population area is in worse shape regarding Federal judges. Mr. Whitehurst is the former Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The territory embraced in this district is approximately 92.955 square miles, which is approximately three times the size of the State of Indiana. It includes a population of some 3 million people, embraces 100 counties, and there are seven court divisions. Some of these divisions are more than 400 miles apart. It is very plain to the experienced eye of such men as the chairman and the members of the Judiciary Committee that this would be an overwhelming job for three young and vigorous men. In fact, a job that would be almost impossible under the most favorable conditions. The district now has three judges, one of whom is in his eighties. Last year Hon. Joseph B. Dooley, an outstanding judge and a man who has done an exhaustive task in trying to meet the requirements of this district along with the other two judges, suffered the misfortune of a broken hip. This totally incapacitated him for a substantial time and created a near crisis insofar as the handling of cases was concerned. Judge Dooley is back on the job at this time and doing his usual outstanding work. However, as I pointed out before, the impossibility of handling the workload is apparent from the statistics. The other two judges who have done such a wonderful job and who have contributed so much of their time and ability in addition to that which should be required in the ordinary trend of events, to wit, Hon. T. Whitfield Davidson and Hon. Joe Estes, extended themselves further during Judge Dooley's incapacity. For this and their continued efforts, all three judges deserve the highest acclaim of their countrymen. However, it would not be expected in all conscience that these three men should be required to continue the burden which they have been bearing. In 1922, at the time the last judgeship was created for the northern district of Texas, the total filings were 585 law and equity cases. During the 7 years immediately preceding 1958, there were 10,519 cases filed in the northern district; 1,837 were filed in 1958, and at the end of that year there were 1,008 civil cases pending as a backlog. Although assistance was had from Judge William H. Atwell, who continued in service after retirement until July 1958, in his 90th year, and from Judge Allred, who is now deceased, and Judges Hannay, Ingraham, and Sheehy, the continuing increase of the workload makes it imperative that we have at least one more judge and preferably two. I do not want to burden the committee with statistcis, but would point out that the population growth in the seven division point counties has been tremendous since 1922. Dallas County increased from 210,000 to 917.000; Fort Worth from 152,800 to 565,600; Amarillo from 16,710 to 120,500; Lubbock from 11,069 to 170,500; Abilene from 24,081 to 84,500; Wichita Falls from 72,911 to 132,200; San Angelo from 15,210 to 74,200. In conclusion I would point out the fact that is well known to the committee, and which, I am sure, it keeps constantly in mind. I refer to the indispensable element of a democracy, an adequate judicial system. Unless this is provided, the very underpinnings of our way of life will decay. Few people realize the small amount of the Federal budget that is allocated to our courts. It is completely out of proportion to the tremendous importance of this segment of our government which is the bulwark of protection for the rights, privileges, powers, and immunities guaranteed under our Constitution and the proper and legal exercise thereof. I respectfully urge early action by the committee on this legislation. STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE B. CARROLL REECE (FIRST DISTRICT, TENNESSEE) AND REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD H. BAKER (SECOND DISTRICT, TENNESSEE), JUSTIFYING THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL JUDGES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AND THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE We have heretofore appeared before the committee in behalf of bills which we introduced providing for the creation of additional judges for the eastern district of Tennessee, the middle district of Tennessee, and the western district of Tennessee, and have filed statistical data which we believe amply justifies these additional judgeships. The workload in each of the Tennessee district courts has been such as not only to retard the administration of justice, but has placed a strain on the judges that has become alarming to the bar. We call your especial attention to the attached telegram from Hon. William E. Miller, U.S. judge, middle district of Tennessee. The only way to give these judges adequate relief is to create these additional judgeships. The average number of cases per judge in each of these three districts is sometimes double, or more, the average per judge in other sections of the country, as is demonstrated by the statistical data attached hereto. We respectfully urge that these three additional judgeships be created for the State of Tennessee. Congressman CARROLL REECE, NASHVILLE, TENN., February 3, 1960. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: I have just been advised that a bill will come before the House tomorrow providing for an additional judgeship for middle Tennessee but on a temporary basis. I strongly urge that any additional judgeship for this district be made permanent and not temporary. As of December 31, 1959, there were 415 civil cases pending and 156 criminal cases with 265 defendants. This notwithstanding the fact that during calendar year 1959, 203 civil cases were disposed of and 405 defendants were disposed of in criminal cases. This district because of venue has major part of tax litigation for the State in both civil and criminal, ordinarily a time-consuming type of litigation. There is no reason whatever to believe that the heavy volume of work will not continue. On the contrary there is every reason to believe that it will steadily increase. As one example, condemnation cases involving approximately 700 separate tracts will be filed growing out of the Barkley Dam project beginning in 1961. The last judgeship for this district was on a temporary basis and it proved to be a serious mistake, Judge Davies having died within less than 2 years after the new judge was appointed. I feel that there is an imperative need for two permanent judges in middle Tennessee and that a temporary judgeship would be altogether unrealistic. I understand Judge Boyd of Memphis will appear before House Judiciary Committee on February 29 to present the entire picture for Tennessee showing the need for permanent judges in this and the other districts. I am presently engaged in preparing information for him pertaining to middle Tennessee. WILLIAM E. MILLER, In 1956 there were a total of 1,074 cases commenced in the eastern district, with 516 started in the middle district of Tennessee, and 534 in the western district. In the same year private civil cases begun in the eastern district were 488, while 120 were begun in the middle district and 147 commenced in the western district. The average in the 86 districts was 135. Further, the records show that on June 30, 1956, there were pending in east Tennessee, 271 private civil cases; in middle Tennessee, 66 private civil cases; and in west Tennessee, 144 private civil cases. To give you further need for extra judges in Tennessee, I quote statistics used from the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1956, unless otherwise indicated. Caseload per judgeship of cases filed during fiscal year ended June 30, 1956 (table X9 of report) It will be noted that the caseload per judgeship of criminal cases filed in the eastern district was 200, nearly double the average caseload per judgeship for all the 86 districts. The annual report of the Director also shows 107 criminal cases terminated per judgeship for all 86 districts, whereas 226 criminal cases, more than twice, were terminated per judgeship in the eastern district. Civil cases ordinarily consume more of a judge's time than do criminal cases. Further, according to the Quarterly Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, dated November 15, 1956, at page 4, "private civil cases, on the average, require about three times as much of the time of the judges as do civil cases in which the United States is a party." The U.S. district judges in the State of Tennessee have for some years been carrying a load far beyond that which could reasonably be expected of them and a load which is much greater than the average load of judges in other sections of the country. As an example I will give you some statistics with reference to east Tennessee, the area with which I am most familiar: Fiscal year 1955: Caseload per judgeship, civil cases Eastern Tennessee, northern and northeastern divisions_ Caseload per judgeship, diversity of citizenship cases Fiscal year 1955: 398 270 185 212 Eastern Tennessee, northern and northeastern divisions__. 218 197 6th circuit__ 80 86 districts__. 84 The following is a comparison of private civil cases terminated: The following is a comparison of private civil cases pending June 30, 1956: The following is a comparison of total civil cases tried: Eastern district_. Middle district_ Western district__ 102 39 38 The average per judgeship in all 86 districts is 25. These figures do not inIclude land condemnation, forfeitures, and habeas corpus cases. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN E. MOSS OF CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY 3, 1960, RE H.R. 2248 Mr. Chairman, I am here today as the author of H.R. 2248, which amends title 28 of the United States Code to provide for the appointment of one additional district judge for the northern district of California, to serve in the State capital at Sacramento. As some of you may remember, I have appeared before this subcommittee several times on this proposed bill in the last half dozen years. I make no excuses for my persistent efforts to get this legislation approved. For me to do so would, in a manner of speaking, be tantamount to my apologizing for those four proud words inscribed over the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court Building "Equal Justice Under Law." The comparison I use is not an idle or fanciful one. I make it in all seriousness. For in my view, unless there is an additional Federal district judge appointed to the northern district of California, to serve at Sacramento, the residents of 32 northern counties of my State will find themselves for years to come consigned to the status of second-class citizens. They will definitely not be able to enjoy the "equal justice" provision of our laws, guaranteed under the Constitution, because they will be denied prompt |