this temporary judgeship was filled, we had two able judges serving the district and we had adequate judgeship power.

As the hearings on previous bills will show, the senior judge of the district of Nevada, the Honorable Roger T. Foley, for reasons of health, retired from the bench. Thereupon, Nevada reverted to a one judge State.

Prior to his resignation, I introduced legislation to make permanent this temporary judgeship, and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary included such a provision in the omnibus judgeship bills previously reported by the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, as I understand it, you have a permanent. judge there?

Senator BIBLE. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And there was previously a temporary judge? The temporary judge retired; is that correct?

Senator BABLE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Now you want an additional permanent judge? Senator BIBLE. In effect, that is right. We want to make the judgeship that was formerly temporary a permanent one so that we have two judges. We had one permanent judge.

The CHAIRMAN. You cannot make a temporary judgeship permanent when the temporary judgeship has expired and has gone by. Senator BIBLE. This is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. You want a new permanent judgeship?

Senator BIBLE. This is correct; and this is what our bill does-gives Nevada a second judgeship.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that the Senate reported out a bill last session.

Senator BIBLE. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that a permanent judgeship in that bill?
Senator BIBLE. It was a permanent judgeship in that bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Senator.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Since the retirement of Judge Foley, due to the provision of the law that the first vacancy occurring in that judicial district should not be filled, it is necessary now, in order to provide for two district judges within the district of Nevada, that legislation be enacted providing for an additional district judgeship for the district-which is a direct answer to your question.

As I indicated previously, the bill now before us, the bill we now have on the Senate side, is one to create a permanent judgeship, a second judge for the district of Nevada.

At this point let me say that most of the temporary judgeships now existing within the United States have been recommended as permanent judgeships by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Now, sir, this recommendation did not include the State of Nevada. It at one time did include the State of Utah, but I do not believe such is the case now.

Another exception was the temporary judgeship authorized for the State of South Dakota and, as you may remember, Mr. Chairman, during the 1st session of the 85th Congress, this temporary judgeship was made permanent, and this is Public Law 310 of the 85th Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. The Judicial Conference did not recommend permanent or temporary judgeship for the State of Nevada. Is that correct?

Senator BIBLE. This was the position. At the last meeting of the Judicial Conference, the membership of that Judicial Conference, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, has been enlarged and they had a vote. As best I could get it, the vote was 7 to 4 against making either permanent or temporary judgeship.

Mr. Chairman, there is right now just as much need and justification for an additional district judgeship in the district of Nevada as existed when the temporary judgeship was created, if not more. And let me say, Mr. Chairman, in this connection, that the Senate Judiciary Committee acted favorably on the proposition of two permanent district judgeships for the State of Nevada in both the 83d and the 84th Congresses and again in the 85th Congress, when they approved a bill, Senate bill 2714, for an additional district judgeship for my State-and as you have just commented, that bill, though it passed the Senate on August 30, 1957, was pending before this committee at the close of the Congress that year.

I want to state very candidly and very frankly that the caseload in the State of Nevada is not heavy, taken in comparison with other judicial districts. But let me hasten to say and to point out that this is not the all-compelling reason for the necessity for two judgeships in my State.

The real reason lies in the tremendous distances that must be traveled by these judges in order to even hold court. Evidence has been submitted to the Committee on the Judiciary in the form of letters from Judge Ross, the present judge, and from Judge Foley, the retired judge, which showed that a great amount of one judge's time is taken up just in traveling the vast distances necessary to hold court in my State.

For example, a judge traveling from Las Vegas to Carson City for trial must spend 1 day's traveling time to reach his destination and another day in return, so that if he has matters which can be concluded in Las Vegas in 1 day, he will have spent 3 days of his time in 1 day's work.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you hold court-Carson City?

Senator BIBLE. There are three places in the State of Nevada, Congressman Celler. Carson City is one of the places in which court is held in northern Nevada. Court is held in Las Vegas in southern Nevada and occasionally, rather infrequently, court is held in eastern Nevada in Elko, Nev., which is some 300 miles from Reno. Las Vegas is approximately 425 or 430 miles south of Carson City.

So, for all practical purposes, courts are held at either Las Vegas, which is a tremendously busy court, or Carson City in northern part of the State, in those two places.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MEADER. Senator, how many district judgeships do you have? Senator BIBLE. Well, district judges, we have 10 district judges, 10 judicial districts-let me correct that.

We have 10 judicial districts. In Reno we have three trial judges. In Las Vagas we have four, and we have just added the fifth. So we

would have a total of six key-what we call district judges, the actual trial judges, then the supreme court which is composed of three judges, this is the appellate circuit.

Mr. MEADER. Do you have any statistics on the caseload in the district courts in Nevada?

Senator BIBLE. I don't have them before me. They are readily available and could be supplied for the record.

Mr. MEADER. I think that our record should contain some information, Mr. Chairman, on the caseload, the backlog of these courts, the cases set for trial and such information so we could defend this bill if it gets to the floor.

Senator BIBLE. Yes, I will be glad to do that-you are talking now about State courts?

Mr. MEADER. No, I am speaking about Federal.

Senator BIBLE. Oh, I thought you meant the State courts. I misunderstood.

Mr. MEADER. I want to get some idea of the volume of legal business as a means of comparison, and so I thought I would ask you how many State courts you had and judges, because there may be some relationship between the volume of legal business in the State courts as compared to the Federal courts, and that is why I asked that question.

Senator BIBLE. Yes.

Mr. MEADER. But I was turning to another subject now, and ask if you have any information to provide the committee on the volume in the Federal courts.

Senator BIBLE. I do have, and I have that with me, and I am very happy to supply that for the record.

Mr. MEADER. Yes, because I believed if the committee should act favorably on your request we could use that kind of factual information to defend the bill on the floor of the House.

Senator BIBLE. Yes, and I certainly for one moment would not mislead this committee. The caseload in Nevada is not very high in comparison to caseloads in some other places. The cases commencing this year are considerably below the average of the caseloads in other Federal districts as compared to Nevada.

For instance, as I say later on in my statement, as compared to the States of New York, California, Pennsylvania, or Illinois, it is not large.

But one of the really important reasons, as I see it, as a practicing lawyer and as a man who has been before the Federal court many times during the time I was attorney general of the State of Nevada, one of the main reasons for a second judge in Nevada is these long geographical distances.

For example, if one should need a writ in the State of Nevada, and the judge had a trial in Carson City, he would be compelled to go to Las Vegas, some 500 miles or so, to get that writ.

The CHAIRMAN. Committee counsel has some figures that would be interesting for our record.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, this is from the annual report of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, for Nevada:

The total number of cases, 145; U.S. plaintiff total, 46; land condemnation, 17; Fair Labor Standards Act, 1; other enforcement suits, 2; Food and Drug Act, 1; liquor laws, 0; other, 0.

Under the heading of "Contracts," negotiable instruments, 6; other, 9; and under the general heading of "Other," 10.

The CHAIRMAN. Not a very impressive record, is it, sir?

Senator BIBLE. Well, you have not read further down the table as I have. We had 2 under the Employers' Liability Act; 7 under the Miller Act; 6 under the definition of diversity of citizenships-89; 9 real property cases; 20 personal injury cases, a total of 48 personal injury cases and 4 on the diversified cases-and this is the table that was furnished to me by the Administrative Office and it is just exactly what Mr. Foley was reading from, I am sure. This shows the cases pending in the District of Nevada as of June 30, 1959.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make abundantly clear that I am not here on plain, cold statistical records showing how the State of Nevada would compare with some of these other districts.

I am saying that the geography of the situation plus one additional factor, and I think this is very important that Nevada furnished at the time we had one permanent and one temporary judge, something in the nature of a backup judge. He is called into Los Angeles a great many times and he is called into San Francisco a great many times, and when Hawaii was in the transition stage, when it became a State, they had no Federal judges, so one of the two judges was called into the new State of Hawaii-one of those was the Federal judge of Nevada.

So, they have served a very valuable purpose, as I say, as a backup judge, and I think this is a most important factor that should be indicated to this very able committee.

Now I am very happy, Mr. Congressman, to put in the record all of the statistics that you have asked for. I have them here.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be very helpful, and I wish you would do that.

(The material referred to is as follows:)

TABLE B.-Civil cases pending in the district of Nevada by nature of suit,

Total cases_

U.S. plaintiff.

June 30, 1959

Land condemnation___

FLSA

Other enforcement_

Food and Drug Act.
Negotiable instruments_
Other contracts__
Other U.S. plaintiffs_.

U.S. defendant_____.

Habeas corpus....
Tort Claims Act..
Tax suits.__.

1 Employers' Liability Act--

2 Miller Act_.

1 Other Federal question_-_

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

TABLE 1.—Civil cases commenced and terminated, by fiscal year, and pending at the end of each year beginning with 1941

TABLE 2.-U.S. civil cases and criminal cases commenced and terminated, by fiscal year, and pending at the end of each year beginning with 1941

U.S. CIVIL CASES (UNITED STATES A PARTY)
[Price and rent control cases are in parentheses 1]

1 Price and rent control cases are separately listed from 1943 to 1953. In many of these years they constituted a large proportion of all civil cases commenced, although they required on the average a relatively small proportion of court time per case for disposition. They are included in the figure which they follow.