of the United States Code will reflect the change made by this Act in the number of judgeships for the district of Nevada, such table is amended to read as follows with respect to such district:

"Districts

*

Nevada_.

Judges

[H.R. 3457, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend section 102(b)(1) of title 28 of the United States Code to provide that a term of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan shall be held at Lansing

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second sentence of section 102(b)(1) of title 28 of the United States Code is amended by striking out "Mason" and inserting in lieu thereof "Lansing".

[H.R. 3490, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To provide for the appointment of two additional district judges for the district of Connecticut

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two additional district judges for the district of Connecticut. In order that the table contained in section 133 of title 28 of the United States Code will reflect the change made by this Act in the number of judgeships for the district of Connecticut, such table is amended to read as follows with respect to such district: "Districts "Connecticut__.

Judges 4".

[H.R. 3870, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL Creating an additional temporary circuit judgship for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional circuit judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The first vacancy occurring in the office of circuit judge on such court shall not be filled.

[H.R. 4375, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To provide for the appointment of an additional district judge for the western district of Texas

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an additional district judge for the western district of Texas. In order that the table contained in section 133 of title 28 of the United States Code will reflect the change made by this Act in the number of judgeships for the western district of Texas, such table is amended to read as follows with respect to such district:

[H.R. 4535, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To establish an additional judicial district within the State of Florida

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 89 of title 28 of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

"S 89. Florida

"Florida is divided into three judicial districts to be known as the northern, middle, and southern districts of Florida.

"Northern District

"(a) The northern district comprises the counties of Alachua Bay, Calhoun, Columbia, Dixie, Escambria, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Suwannee, Taylor, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington.

"Court for the northern district shall be held at Tallahassee, Pensacola, Marianna, Gainesville, Panama City, and Live Oak.

"Middle District

"(b) The middle district comprises the counties of Baker, Bradford, Brevard, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, De Soto, Duval, Flagler, Hardee, Hernando, Hillsborough,, Lake, Manatee, Marion, Nassau, Orange, Osceola Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Saint Johns, Sarasota, Seminole, Sumter, Union and Volusia. "Court for the middle district shall be held at Jacksonville Ocala, Tampa, Fernandina, and Orlando.

"Southern District

"(c) The southern district comprises the counties of Broward, Collier, Dade, Glades, Hendry, Highlands, Indian River, Lee, Martin, Monroe, Okeechobee, Palm Beach, and Saint Lucie.

"Court for the southern district shall be held at Key West, Fort Pierce, West Palm Beach, Miami, and Fort Myers."

SEC. 2. (a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional judgeship for the middle district of Florida and two additional judgeships for the southern district of Florida.

(b) Hereafter the district judge for the northern and southern districts of Florida shall be the district judge for the northern, middle, and southern districts of Florida.

SEC. 3. The table contained in section 133 of title 28 of the United States Code is amended as follows with respect to the State of Florida :

A BILL To authorize United States district court sessions at Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and Waterbury, Connecticut

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second sentence of section 86, title 28, of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

"Court shall be held at Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and Waterbury.”

[H.R. 8396, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To provide for the holding of a term of court for the Northeastern Division of the Northern District of Alabama at Decatur

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second sentence of section 81(a) (2) of title 28, United States Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Court for the Northeastern Division shall be held at Huntsville and Decatur".

[H.R. 9577, 86th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To waive section 142 of title 28, United States Code, with respect to the holding of court at Kalamazoo, Michigan, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the limitations and restrictions contained in section 142 of title 28 of the United States Code shall be waived with respect to the holding of court at Kalamazoo, Michigan, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

[H.J. Res. 160, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION To amend section 84 (a) (2) of title 28 of the United State Code

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 84(a) (2) of title 28 of the United States Code be amended to read as follows:

"(2) The southern division comprises the counties of Marin, Monterey, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz. Court for the southern division shall be held at San Francisco.

"(3) The eastern division comprises the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. Court for the eastern division shall be held at the county seat of Alameda County."

[H.J. Res. 165. 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION To amend section 84(a)(2) of title 28 of the United States Code

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 84(a) (2) of title 28 of the United States Code be amended to read as follows:

"(2) The southern division comprises the counties of Marin, Monterey, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz. Court for the southern division shall be held at San Francisco.

"(3) The eastern division comprises the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. Court for the eastern division shall be held at the county seat of Alameda County."

The CHAIRMAN. The bill which the Chair has offered, H.R. 6159, creates 5 new judges for the courts of appeals and 40 new district judges would be created.

In addition, four district judges now temporary will be made per

manent.

The Judicial Conference of the United States has clearly indicated the need for additional judicial manpower. The congested calendars of the Federal courts throughout the United States are proof of the urgent necessity for the immediate creation and appointment of these new judgeships.

As of June 30, 1959, there were pending on the dockets of the Federal district courts 69,796 cases on the civil side, and 7,727 criminal cases, for a total caseload of 71,523 cases.

In the U.S. courts of appeals there were 2,034 cases pending on June 30, 1959.

This inordinate backlog and congestion of Federal court calendars make for utter injustice and oftentimes litigants are forced to compromise their cases because of the urgent need for finances and there are instances where in a criminal case a defendant is unable to furnish bail and he remains in jail awaiting trial.

During the last several sessions of Congress, this committee has reported out in at least every Congress since the 81st Congress an

omnibus judgeship bill. On two occasions it was enacted into law. The last new judgeships created in the Federal judiciary was in 1954. This committee has, also, during that same period of time reported and has enacted into law several various bills designed to improve the internal judiciary machinery. The purpose behind such legislation was to furnish the tools to Federal judges to cut down on court congestion. That the judges have done so, and the tools have been of assistance to them, is attested to by the fact that more cases have been handled in the last 2 years by our Federal judges than ever before, but nevertheless the backlog continues to mount, primarily because of the increase in the number of cases being filed in our courts today. Both our expanding national economy and population has imposed upon the Federal judiciary system an increased burden. Therefore, the judgeships which I propose in my bill are an absolute necessity, and a minimum necessity at that, if the problems arising out of congested dockets and judicial delay are to be solved.

Now, a number of Members of the Congress are present here this morning, and we have with us also Deputy Attorney General Judge Lawrence Walsh. It is hoped to continue the hearings tomorrow and later on in the month until we shall conclude them.

Meanwhile, I notice that our distinguished colleague from Kansas, Mr. Rees, is here, and we would be glad to hear from him at this time. I hope that the Members will realize we have so many Members to be heard and that they will try to make their remarks as brief as possible, and then insert in the record any extensions of those remarks. Mr. Rees, we shall be glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD H. REES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of coming over and talking to this committee briefly in respect particularly to H.R. 1162.

I appear here this morning in support of legislation to provide for one additional judgeship for Kansas. I have introduced H.R. 1162, which, if approved by the committee and the Congress, would provide for the creation of an additional judgeship. It is my understanding that this committee is considering an omnibus bill that would, if approved, include my legislation.

In 1954 the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended the creation of an additional judgeship for Kansas. The Conference has reaffirmed this recommendation at subsequent meetings.

For many years Kansas had only one district judge. In 1949 a permanent additional Federal judgeship was created for our State, so we have only two judges at the present time.

Since 1951 civil cases filed in the district courts of Kansas have tripled in number. Last year more than 800 civil cases were filed in the district courts of Kansas as compared with 573, 10 years ago. In 1956 the median time interval from the date of filing to the disposition of civil cases was approximately 14 months. It is more now-I think about 20 months.

We are having difficulty in getting cases tried in our State even with the assistance from visiting judges. As a matter of fact, the average time of trial would be much greater except for the assistance

of visiting judges. During 1956 six different judges were called into our State to relieve the overcrowded judicial docket.

The civil-case load of 400 cases per judge per year for Kansas is the fourth largest of 86 districts throughout the Nation. The national average is 225 cases. It should also be observed that the load of criminal cases is higher than the comparative average throughout the country.

Other States with populations similar to Kansas have three or four judges while our State has two. The State of Washington, with a population slightly higher than Kansas, has four judges. Oklahoma, with less population, has five judges. Oregon, Arkansas, West Virginia, also with less population than our State, have had three judges for a long time. Our two present judges are overworked in their attempt to dispose of cases presently on the docket. I should like to add that both of our judges are hard-working, sincere, capable judges. Kansas also has an unusual number of habeas corpus cases. This because the Federal penitentiary is located within our State. The average, I am informed, is 90 cases. Kansas had more than 150 last year. Legislation providing for an additional judgeship for Kansas has the approval of both of our present judges.

I hope that because of the urgent need for this legislation, it will receive prompt approval by this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rees.

Mr. REES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I notice that Senator Bible has come into the room. He has come with our distinguished Representative from Nevada, Representative Baring. Would you both come forward, please?

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER S. BARING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. ALAN BIBLE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. BARING. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to come before your committee today on my bill H.R. 3443, and I have the distinct honor this morning to introduce our senior Senator from Nevada, Senator Bible, who will testify on this bill.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Congressman Baring and I again welcome this opportunity of appearing before your committee. On January 27 of last year Congressman Baring introduced H.R. 3443, which was a bill to provide for the appointment of an additional district judge for the district of Nevada. My distinguished junior colleague and myself had at a slightly earlier date introduced a companion bill in the Senate of the United States.

At this time I wish to express to the members of this committee my continuing interest in this legislation. I believe it is necessary and that it is really justified.

As most of the members know, Nevada until a few years ago was a "one judge State." As the result of Public Law 294 of the 83d Congress, a temporary district judge was authorized to help out in the conduct of the judicial business of the district of Nevada. So, when