and proper trial as a result of a hopelessly crowded Federal district court calendar. Almost unbelievably, one lone district judge sitting in Sacramento hears practically all the Federal cases-criminal, civil, admiralty, and bankruptcy-in this vast area of northern Caifornia. The population of those 32 counties today is 1,942,500, which is an increase of 522,000 residents in the past 10 years, but the number of judges remains the same. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the population of this are served by only one judge is more than nine times that of the State of Nevada, which has two Federal judges. The district judge at Sacramento, with very little assistance from an occasional visiting judge, annually is forced to dispose of from 2 to 21⁄2 times the amount of work accomplished by the average Federal district judge across the Nation. In 1959, for example, in the district court at Sacramento a total of 184 civil cases were filed, of which 150 were closed during the year; 271 criminal cases were filed and 332 closed: 1 admiralty case was filed and 4 closed; 53 petitions for writs of habeas corpus were filed and 53 closed; and 26 contested naturalization cases were filed and 26 closed. Cases pending in the court at Sacramento as of December 31, 1959, were as follows: Civil, 475; criminal, 107; bankruptcy, 2,418; and admiralty 2. Based on the average rate at which court calendars in California have been cleared in the past, conservative estimates are that it will take at least 3 years to hear the cases currently pending. It is a grave indictment of our judicial processes that, through no fault of their own, innocent men are forced to languish for long periods in jail until their cases can be heard. It is a gross injustice that plaintiffs in civil suits are forced to settle out of court at great financial loss because they cannot afford to wait their day in court. Every day that goes by in northern California without the appointment of a second Federal district judge to serve in the State capital spells a more congested court calendar. This, in turn, inevitably means needless loss of personal liberty and reputation to innocent men, and unnecessary financial difficulties to others. I feel sure the members of this subcommittee agree with me that these are matters to ponder deeply. I ask you to help put an end to these injustices by approving H.R. 2248. At a later date, I should like again to address this subcommittee on the subject of the proposed creation of another division in the northern district of California. I am firmly against this proposal-along with the California Judicial Council, and practically all of the State bar association members who practice outside of Alameda County-as a wasteful, artificial and completely unnecessary procedure. But more on this subject later. For the nonce, I should like to close my remarks with a most persuasive quotation from Chief Justice Warren: "Justice delayed is justice denied." SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN E. MOSS OF CALIFORNIA, MARCH 3, 1960, RE H.R. 2248 Mr. Chairman, I am furnishing these further facts and figures to the subcommittee as a supplement to my statement of February 3, 1960, relating to H.R. 2248. In my previous statement to your subcommittee I pointed out that, almost unbelievably, one lone district judge sitting in Sacramento hears practically all the Federal cases-criminal, civil, admiralty and bankruptcy-in an area comprising 32 northern California counties, with an estimated population of 1,942,000. With only very occasional assistance from a visiting judge, this single Federal jurist in the northern divisino of the northern district of California annually disposes of from 2 to 21⁄2 times the amount of work accomplished by the average U.S. district judge. But regardless of this phenomental workload, each year the number of pending cases continues to mount ever higher. In this connection, I should like to call your attention to the following table, which compares the number of Federal court cases filed in fiscal 1959 at Sacramento, where there is one Federal judge; at San Francisco, where there are six Federal judges, and at San Diego, where there are two Federal judges. I ask you to note that with one Federal judge sitting at Sacramento there were a total of 2,252 cases filed in fiscal 1959. In comparison San Diego, with two Federal judges was called upon to handle only 1,947 cases, or less than one-half as many per judge as was handled by the Federal jurist at Sacramento. At San Francisco where six judges sit, a total of 4,778 cases were filed, which figures out to about 797 cases per judge, as compared to more than 21⁄2 times that number handled by the judge at Sacramento. The calendar in the Sacramento Federal court is now so congested that, based on the average rate at which Federal court calendars in California have been cleared in the past, it will take at least 3 years to hear the pending cases-maybe more than this. In the face of Sacramento's jammed court docket, which annually denies prompt and proper trial to many residents of northern California, legislation has been introduced and is currently before this subcommittee providing for the creation of an eastern division of the northern district of California. In view of these figures and for other cogent reasons which I shall set forth in this statement, I ask the subcommittee to disapprove the creation of a new eastern division of the northern district of California at Oakland, Calif. Actually, I am informed that if a new eastern division were created, two-thirds of the time of the judge assigned to sit there would be virtually wasted since the docket could not be expected to take up more than about one-third of his time. And in order to set up this new jurist in an eastern division the United States would have to find at least an additional $150,000 annually for operation and maintenance of the court alone. In addition, in excess of $600,000 would be required for the construction of necessary courtroom facilities in the new division, including courtrooms, judges' chambers, offices for personnel, and for the U.S. attorney, probation officer, marshal, and clerk. Just to give this subcommittee an idea of how much business an Oakland court could be expected to turn out in the course of a year, I have obtained a statement of the civil, admiralty, and criminal business of the northern district of California for the period from July 1, 1957, to June 30, 1958. This shows that a total number of 864 civil cases were filed during this period, plus 219 admiralty cases, or a grand total of 1,083 cases. Of this number 162 of the civil and admiralty cases had venue in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and thus could properly be considered to be the business of the proposed eastern division. The total number of criminal cases filed during the period from July 1, 1957, to June 30, 1958, in the southern division of the northern district totaled 484. Of these, the number which had venue in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties totaled 84. It is pointed out in this connection that at least one-third of all the civil cases included in these figures were small claims cases, for which a special department has been set up in the U.S. attorney's office. These are all facts and figures that are germane to the proposal to create a new eastern division. I have only one more comment regarding proposal to change the status quo in the northern division of California. When the affected Federal judges unanimously condemn the creation of a new eastern division as a hindrance rather than a help to the speedy and efficient administration of justice in northern California, then I suggest that this subcommittee consider carefully whether a new, expensive judicial division is needed in Oakland or whether it is the wiser course to assign a permanent judge at Sacramento to unsnarl a court calendar that is fast becoming a disgrace. STATEMENT OF CLEM MILler, Member oF CONGRESS, FIRST DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY 3, 1960 Mr. Chairman, I am here as a supporter of H.R. 2248, which would provide for the appointment of an additional district judge for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, to serve at Sacramento. I am particularly interested in this bill because six counties in the congressional district I represent-which is the First District of California-are embraced in the northern district's northern division, which division has its offices at Sacramento. I agree with my colleague, the Honorable John Moss of California-the author of H.R. 2248-that until there is one additional judge appointed to the northern district of California, to serve at Sacramento, the citizens of the counties served by this court will be denied their share of America's equal justice. This is because the court has not grown with the population of its district and with its workload. I am concerned that the rights of residents of Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Napa, and Sonoma Counties to the speedy-trial guarantees of the sixth amendment be realized. The sixth amendment states that an accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial in the district wherein the crime shall have been committed. The litigants in civil cases are equally interested in prompt trial. The 32-county northern division is one of the Nation's fastest growing regions. In the last 10 years it has grown more than 26 percent to a present population of nearly 2 million. I am impressed with Congressman Moss's testimony that the population of the area served by this court by one Federal trial judge is more than nine times that of the State of Nevada, which has two Federal trial judges. I am impressed with his testimony that the district judge at Sacramento has more than twice the average workload of his colleagues. I am impressed with his testimony that the calendar backlog of this court is such that it will take at least 3 years to hear cases now pending. I am impressed with Congressman Moss's reminder of the truth that justice delayed is justice denied. In the interest of justice for the citizens of my district who are served by the district court at Sacramento, I urge that H.R. 2248 be reported favorably by this committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN HAROLD T. (Bizz) JOHNSON OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, I am here today to testify on behalf of H.R. 2248, introduced by my colleague, Congressman John Moss of California. This legislation would amend title 28 of the United States Code to provide for the appointment of an additional Federal judge for the northern district of California to serve in the State capitol, Sacramento. I am vitally concerned because many of the 32 counties in the area served by the northern division of the northern district of California are within the limits of the Second Congressional District. A single judge serves an area with a population of 1,942,500. More than that, this area is one which has many unique problems for the Federal courts. Within the boundaries of the northern California judiciary district are most of the Federal water projects now being developed within the State of California, including the northern portion of the Central Valley project. There are currently pending 45 separate Army engineer projects within the region involved in addition to several major developments by the Bureau of Reclamation all of which add up to several hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work going on or planned in the area. Many of the major military installations are within the limits of the northern Sacramento division. To list a few, most of which you may be familiar, there are Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Travis Air Force Base, Mather Air Force Base, McClellan Air Force Base, Beale Air Force Base, Sharpe Depot, Stockton Annex of the Oakland Naval Supply Depot, the Signal Depot Sacramento, Benicia and Herlong Armories. With this tremendous amount of Federal activity within the area, the number of eminent domain actions being filed are far above normal. At present it would take 6 months of continuous trial to clear up the eminent domain cases now pending before the court and not yet set for trial. As you know, eminent domain litigations draw second trial priority behind criminal matters. Civil litigation has third priority. Although the lone district judge now sitting in Sacramento sandwiches in an occasional civil case whenever he has the opportunity, the caseload of civil and eminent domain litigation currently before the court is so great that a civil filing made today theoretically would never be tried if it followed its normal schedule on the calendar. In northern California there are eight judges, seven of them sitting in San Francisco and one in Sacramento. The one in Sacramento carries 35 percent of the total workload. The judge now sitting in Sacramento averages 550 dispositions a year. Nearly 3 times the national average for Federal judges, which is below 200 dispositions a year. This situation is not a recent thing nor is it the fault of any individual. It is a matter that has developed because of the tremendous population growth in the last two decades. The growth is continuing and the difficulties are being compounded. This situation precludes for the residents of the northern California judiciary division the equal justice guaranteed under the Constitution because the hopelessly crowded court calendar prohibits speedy trial. I urge the appointment of another Federal district judge for the Sacramento area in order that we may eliminate what Chief Justice Warren refers to as: "Justice delayed is justice denied." STATEMENT OF JOHN BELL WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 980, FEBRUARY 3, 1960 Mr. Chairman, the need for an additional judge for the southern district, southern Mississippi, has been demonstrated time and time again. Bills have been pending before this committee since the 1st session of the 84th Congress. Action is needed very badly. The court calendar is growing more congested each year. A second judgeship for this jurisdiction is strongly supported by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Department of Justice, Mississippi State Bar Association, county bar associations in this district, Mississippi Members of Congress, and individuals having business with the court. The following statement and tables, prepared by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, prove conclusively the need for this additional judge. I ask permission that the statement and tables be placed in the record following my remarks. Also, I ask that there be included a letter that I have received from Hon. S. C. Mize, U.S. judge, southern district, Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the committee recognizes the emergency nature of my appeal for approval of H.R. 980, or a similar bill. It should be enacted into law without delay. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to restate my views on this important legislation. THE JUDICIAL BUSINESS OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI The southern district of Mississippi has one judge. The Judicial Code of 1911 provided for one judge to divide his time between the northern and southern districts; then, by the act of March 1, 1929 (45 Stat. 1422), a judgeship was created for the northern district and the existing judgeship was limited to the southern district. There are five divisions with five places of holding court in the district: Jackson, Meridian, Vicksburg, Hattiesburg, and Biloxi. Judge S. C. Mize holds court regularly in all five divisions, and the places of holding court are widely spaced through the southern district, making considerable travel necessary. A visit to each division in one continuous trip would cover about 500 miles. This travel is an added burden on the one judge in the district. The volume of civil business in this district is very heavy. For the 6-year period beginning with fiscal year 1953 through 1958, the average number of civil cases commenced each year was 514. During the same 6-year period private civil 54935-60- -12 cases averaged 279 per year. This heavy private caseload is especially significant because private civil cases take up to three times as long to dispose of as do civil cases in which the United States is a party. During 1959 the number of private cases commenced was reduced one-third, primarily because of the effect of the Jurisdictional Act of July 25, 1958, which eliminated diversity of citizenship cases from Federal jurisdiction where the amount claimed was $10,000 or less. However, this reduced 1959 figure was 45 percent above the national average of private cases commenced per judgeship. To illustrate the size of the caseload in the southern district of Mississippi, the following table compares the total civil caseload per judgeship for the district with the national average and the averages of several metropolitan districts. It will be seen that with rare exception, the southern Mississippi averages are higher than for the other districts. Civil cases commenced per judgeship National Missis- New York, Illinois, Michigan, California, Florida, northern southern southern northern eastern Fiscal year average sippi, southern On June 30, 1959, there were 448 civil cases pending undisposed of in the district. This figure included 139 cases in which the United States is a party and 309 private cases. Among the backlog of private cases were 70 insurance and other contract cases and 139 personal injury actions under the diversity jurisdiction. CRIMINAL CASELOAD IS HEAVY In addition to the heavy civil caseload, the district has a very large criminal caseload, which takes up a substantial part of the single judge's time. In the fiscal year 1959, 304 criminal cases involving 370 defendants were commenced. This is about three times as many criminal cases as are commenced per judgeship nationally. The most common offense is the violation of the internal revenue tax on alcohol. Next in frequency is the interstate theft of motor vehicles followed by fraud and other types of theft. Attached are statistical tables that reflect the business of this district for the last 19 years, as well as comparisons with the average caseloads per judgeship in the 86 districts. Respectfully submitted. ORIN S. THIEL, Assistant Chief, Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics, JANUARY 29, 1960. |