concerning the matter of two additional circuit judges on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The statistical data in support of this proposal has been furnished the committee by the Administrative Office, and the appropriate subcommittees of the Judicial Conference of the United States have approved the recommendation.

With appreciation for the courteous hearing granted me by the committee, I am,

Sincerely yours,

SIMON E. SOBELOFF.

THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

As originally enacted, the Judicial Code of 1911 provided for three judgeships for the fourth circuit and there has been no change in the number of judges since that time. Court is held in Richmond, Baltimore, and in Charlotte and Asheville, N.C. The circuit includes the States of Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. This is one of two circuits in the country which still have only three judges, the other circuit being the first, which includes the New England States. However, the caseload in the fourth circuit in recent years has been from 60 to 100 percent higher than that in the first circuit.

The Judicial Conference has in the past recommended an additional judgeship for this court owing to the heavy load which it has been carrying, 74 cases per judge in 1959 compared with the national average of 55. The cases filed in this court in the fiscal year 1959 were 223, the number terminated was 210 and the pending caseload at the end of the year was 82. During the first half of the fiscal year 1960-which is the period ending on December 31, 1959113 cases were filed, which is about the same number as during the like period of the previous year; 106 were terminated, which compared with 104 in the first half of the fiscal year 1959, and the pending load was 89 at the end of the period compared with 79 the year previous.

In spite of this very heavy caseload, the court has been disposing of its business promptly. The median time from filing of complete record to final disposition in 1959 was 4.3 months, compared to the national median of 6.7 months. This accomplishment has been made possible primarily by two circumstances, without which even the maximum industry of the circuit judges would have been insufficient.

The first is the invaluable assistance of retired Judge Morris A. Soper who is now 87 years old, and who, by reason of extraordinary vigor of mind and body, has been bearing a full share of the court's burden. But even this remarkable man cannot be expected to carry on indefinitely. If his assistance should be withdrawn, the provision of a fourth judge would do no more than replace Judge Soper, without any net increase in the court's manpower.

The second factor which has enabled the fourth circuit to manage its heavy workload with the present number of judges is that it has drawn heavily upon its district judges. Chief Judge Parker, despite his extraordinary productive power and administrative ability, found himself compelled to resort to the borrowing of district judges for service on the court of appeals. His successor has also found it necessary to call upon district judges to a great extent. Although it is recognized that benefits are to be derived from occasional participation by district judges in appellate work, the circuit judges think that the practice should not be availed of as extensively as the court has been obliged to do. It unduly interrupts district judges in their own work and it sacrifices a measure of the continuity of decision desirable in an appellate court.

Taking the figures for the 1959 fiscal year, if we had a fourth judgeship in this court, the caseload per judge would still have been 56. This is still above what the average caseload per judge for all circuits would be if the four additional circuit judgeships heretofore recommended by the Judicial Conference for the court of appeals had existed in 1959.

If, using 1959 figures, we compute caseload on the basis of five judges in the 4th circuit, the per capita figures would be 45, substantially in line with the majority of circuits; 47 for the 1st circuit, 42 for the 3d, 45 for the 6th, 50 for the 7th, 50 for the 9th, and 46 for the 10th. It would be significantly exceeded only by the second, fifth, and District of Columbia circuits.

Other than Judge Soper, the fourth circuit has no retired judge able to assist, and the ages of the present judges do not offer any prospect of early retirements to increase the available supply of manpower.

The judges of the fourth circuit do not complain that their duties are exacting; but, when the business is of such volume as to crowd out the opportunity for reasonable relaxation and to keep abreast of essential outside reading, they feel that the pace cannot be maintained without ultimate injury to health and the quality of the work.

To improve the situation, the judicial council of the fourth circuit asks that the Judicial Conference recommend two instead of one additional judge for that circuit.

(Short recess.)

Mr. TOLL. The next witness is Chief Judge Richard T. Rives, U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Judicial Circuit.

STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE RICHARD T. RIVES, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Judge RIVES. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to particularly thank you for the privilege of appearing before you.

This fifth circuit which I represent is composed of all of the States surrounding the gulf the six and one that does not touch the gulf, Georgia-seven States of the Deep South, and the Canal Zone.

It is aptly named as the fifth circuit because it comprises about a fifth of the total number of districts of the 86 districts, and it handles just about a fifth of the total number of cases. It is really a big

circuit.

My testimony would be almost a repetition of that given by Judge Lumbard of the second circuit and Judge Sobeloff of the fourth circuit, and since they have testified before me I think my testimony may be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

As to the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit the caseload per judgeship has been over the past 5 years about 79 compared with the national average of 55. Or, in other words, the fifth circuit had 40 percent more cases per judgeship in the court of appeals than the average and it was exceeded only by the second circuit. I believe they rank in the number of cases per judgeship, the second, fifth, fourth, and then on down. Actually, the fifth had a larger number of total cases than in any other circuit.

We sit in the fifth circuit, in the circuit court, an average of about 14 weeks per year actually hearing arguments. We hear arguments in 16 cases per week. That means each judge sits that much. This means each judge hears arguments in about 224 cases. If you divide that by three, there are about 74 cases that fall to each judge.

Of course he does not write that many opinions. Many of them can be disposed of by per curiams and dismissals, but the opinions average considerably over 55 per judge. Meaning that each judge, week in and week out, must prepare an average of more than one opinion per week to keep up with the pressure of the work. So far we have kept up with it. By the time we meet in the fall each year we have disposed of all of the cases that were argued the preceding year.

The median time from filing of the complete record to final disposition this past year has been 612 months in the fifth circuit which was slightly below the national average, a little bit better than it was last year. We are unfortunate in the fifth circuit not having any retired judges who are able to help us. Judge Holmes has suffered

a stroke and has been completely disabled for over 2 years. Judge Borah, while he retired at a young age, has just actually retired and has not tried any cases since he did retire.

The conference recommendation for the fifth circuit was to increase the number of judges in the court of appeals from seven to eight. In line with the second circuit which wish to get nine, a total of nine, the judicial council of the fifth circuit has unanimously recommended that that figure be nine and we went before the subcommittees of the Conference last week in New Orleans, the Committee on Court Administration, and they approved the request and it will be submitted to the Conference when it meets March 10, for a total of nine judges. If we were successful in getting a total of nine judges our averages per judge would be 60, 60 cases per judge compared with a national average of 55. So we really need the nine judges. It would enable us to have three panels of three each. We could function much more efficiently with nine judges.

I hope that the increase of two will be recommended by Conference and that the Congress will agree with it.

I think our judges on the fifth circuit have been doing an unusually good job. I may say the first gentleman who testified here spoke of the division of judges among the parties. That certainly does not worry us in the fifth circuit. I am the last one to be appointed from the Democratic ranks; there have been five appointed from the Republican ranks since, and I may say they are all splendid lawyers and splendid judges and that we do not know the difference, so far as judging, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, it is all the same. Just as long as they give us good men we do not care, and they are doing a splendid job.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go into detail as to the various districts in this bill. The Conference has recommended one additional judgship for the southern district of Florida. Judge Choate is here to speak for that district and I am going to skip it because Judge Choate can speak firsthand.

It has recommended two additional judges for the eastern district of Louisiana. I would like to brag a little bit about the eastern district of Louisiana. That district is simply a marvelous demonstration of efficient judicial administration. Judge Christenberry and Judge Wright, the two judges in that district, together with the help of only three visiting judges for short periods last year disposed of 1,385 cases. The number of cases decreased 10 percent last year from 1,616, but nevertheless the pending caseload at the end of the year went up to 2,789, almost 1,400 cases per judge. The caseload per judgeship of civil cases filed was 808, or almost four times the national average, and with the two additional judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference it would be reduced to about twice the national average. But they think they can come out all right with two additional judges.

There is one additional judgeship recommended for the southern district of Mississippi, one additional judgeship recommended for the northern district of Texas, which is Fort Worth and Dallas and that section of Texas. That northern district is really larger than the State of Indiana.

There is one temporary judgeship in the middle district of Georgia that is recommended to be made permanent, and, in addition, this

pending bill, H.R. 6159, has a judgeship for the southern district of Texas and one for the western district of Texas.

The statistics on each one of these district courts have been carefully compiled and a statement made that I have been over, and have been over the statistics, too, and I am in full accord with them. Each one of these districts is above the national average and I would say that each is justified, thoroughly justified, and that the creation of these additional judgeships will add greatly to the efficient administration of justice in each one of these circuits-districts.

Mr. McCULLOCH. You are now speaking of the southern and the western districts for Texas?

Judge RIVES. We need the judge more in the western-I would say this-we need the judge more, in my opinion, in the western district of Texas than we do in the southern district of Texas. The western district of Texas will again come before the Conference which is meeting here in March. The southern district is slightly above the national average and while I do not press that as much as I do the others, I think it is justified, sir.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Do you think that this committee would be fully justified in recommending an additional judge for both the southern and western districts of Texas at this time?

Judge RIVES. In my opinion, it would; yes, sir.

Mr. TOLL. Thank you very much, Judge Rives, for your fine presentation.

Judge RIVES. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Judge Rives the same general question that I asked Judge Sobeloff.

What is the average annual vacation for the judges of the court of appeals in your circuit?

Judge RIVES. I think most of them are pretty much in line with myself. I speak directly of myself. I have a little cottage down on the coast, 160 miles south of my hometown of Montgomery, Ala., that I go to for 1 month. I have out in my backyard, however, a library and workshop that I spend a large part of that month working in. I do get in some fishing during the month, also. But I take 1 month down there during the summer. I think most of our court of appeals judges are pretty much in line with that. I take that month but I would say I spend approximately a third of my time working during that month.

Mr. McCULLOUGH. How about the district judges within your circuit? Judge RIVES. They vary, of course. Some of them are much more hard pressed than others. I would say their average vacation is probably about a month. They are certainly not any 2 or 3 months. I do not think any of them take anything of that kind.

Mr. TOLL. Thank you very much.

The next witness is Chief Judge William J. Campbell of the northern district of Illinois.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL

Judge CAMPBELL. Thank you.

The southern district has only two judges and sits in middle Illinois, but the eastern district of Illinois which sits in the southern part of Illinois has also two judges.

I am appearing, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, on behalf of that portion of the bill before you that gives two additional district judges to the northern district of Illinois.

I shall only briefly advert to one or two matters and then answer any questions that the committee might have.

I think the statistical information is before you and has been furnished by the Administrative Office.

Briefly, with reference to our district, it points out that on January 31, 1960, this is a little later than the information that you have, there were 2,469 civil cases pending in our district, or a caseload per judge of 308 cases.

This, with the comparable 10 metropolitan districts, where the average is 221 cases per judge. If these 2 new judges are given us and appointed, it will bring our caseload down to 247 civil cases per judge. The report of the Administrative Office shows the caseload per judge of all 86 districts in the United States at 250.

It also shows that the southern district of New York, the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and the northern District of Illinois had 49 percent of the cases filed in the 12 largest metropolitan districts, 45 percent of the cases terminated and 59 percent of the cases pending in all of the United States yet had only 37 percent of the judgeships.

In the year, fiscal year 1959, our district closed 2,409 civil cases, a figure exceeded only in the southern district of New York and eastern district of Pennsylvania, both of which have a greater number of judges than we have.

This is an average of 301 terminations per judgship in our district, compared with a national average of 236.

Mr. TOLL. Excuse me.

May I interrupt you a moment? This is the vote that Congressman O'Brien came over for.

(A brief recess was taken.)

Mr. ROGERS. Pardon us. You heard the bells ring. So proceed, Judge.

Judge CAMPBELL. Thank you.

I will conclude in a very few moments, Mr. Chairman. I was pointing out that our terminations in the northern district of Illinois last year were 301 per judgeship, as compared with a national average of 236, which I think indicates that the judges are working. I should also call attention to the fact that during the fiscal year 1959 one of our judges was out practically the entire year with illness.

The pending cases I have called or classified and with the leave of the chairman, I think I would like to leave that statement and it can be incorporated in the record in event the chairman desires

Mr. ROGERS. All right, sir.

Thank you, we will incorporate it.

FEBRUARY 15, 1960.

On January 31, 1960, there were 2,469 civil cases pending in the northern district of Illinois, a caseload per judge of 308 cases. The Administrative Office in its latest annual report, dated September 1959, showed a caseload per judge of 321 cases in the 12 large metropolitan districts having a large volume of civil cases and 5 or more judges, but if the southern district of New York and the eastern district of Pennsylvania, with their enormous backlog of 14,929 cases are excluded, the caseload per judge for the remaining 10 metropolitan districts is 221 cases. The appointment of 2 new judges for this district will bring our caseload down to 247 cases per judge.