U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Baltimore, Md., February 12, 1960. To Mr. WARREN OLNEY III, Mr. WILLIAM L. ELLIS, Mr. C. AUBREY GASQUE, Mr. JOHN C. AIRHART, Mr. WILL SHAFROTH, and Mr. JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, Jr.: For your information, I enclose a copy of a letter and memorandum, submitted on behalf of the judicial council for the fourth circuit, which have been sent to the Committees on Judicial Statistics and Court Administration of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Copies of the enclosed were sent also to the Committees on Supporting Personnel and Revision of the Laws. Sincerely, Hon. HARVEY M. JOHNSON, Chairman, Commitee on Judicial Statistics, Chairman, Committe on Court Administration: SIMON E. SOBELOFF. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Baltimore, Md., February 12, 1960. On behalf of the judicial council of the fourth circuit, I have the honor to present for the consideration of your committees at their approaching meetings, a memorandum designed to show the need of our Court of Appeals for two additional judges, instead of one, as heretofore recommended. This memorandum has the approval of the circuit council, and the statistical discussion therein contained is based upon data which the Administrative Office has made available to your committees. With respect to the additional district judgeships in the fourth circuit, you will recall that the Judicial Conference of the United States has heretofore recommended two new judgeships in Maryland and one new roving judge for North Carolina and another for South Carolina. The supporting statistics have been repeatedly considered and found satisfactory by the Judicial Conference of the United States, and examination of more recent data supplied by the Administrative Office satisfies me and my associates in the judicial council of this circuit that the need exists for each of these recommended additional judgeships. We appreciate the consideration shown us by your committees in the past, and ask your continued support. Sincerely, 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 THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT As originally enacted, the Judicial Code of 1911 provided for three judgeships for the fourth circuit and there has been no change in the number of judges since that time.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, 1959-113 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 cir cumstances, 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 figure 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 the 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. Mr. WILL SHAFORTH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, February 18, 1960. Chief of the Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR WILL: I am enclosing copy of resolution adopted on Wednesday, February 17, by the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit. I realize that this is rather late but it was impossible to secure the expression of all of the active members of our court until this time. I have discussed the matter with Judge Biggs and have sent him a copy of the resolution. I have also written Judge Harvey M. Johnson, enclosing a copy of the resolution and advising him that both Judge Boyd and I will be in New Orleans and that Judge Boyd will be available for discussion with the committee on statistics at the meeting on Sunday. With all good wishes, I am Most sincerely yours, THOMAS F. MCALLISTER, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. RESOLUTION Whereas the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit has made extensive investigation into the need for additional district judges in the State of Tennessee; and Whereas said investigation reveals a steady increase through the years in the number of both civil and criminal cases in each of the three judicial districts of that State, same being greatly in excess of the national average shown in the reports of the Director of the Administrative Office; and Whereas though the judges of the three Tennessee districts aforesaid have been diligent in the discharge of their duties with respect to the added burdens aforesaid, nevertheless, additional judges are necessary if the business of the district courts of that State is to be transacted properly: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit recommends that provision be made in any legislation pending before the Congress for an additional full-time judge for each of the three judicial districts of the State of Tennessee. Approved this day of February 1960. Chief Judge. CHAMBERS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICTS OF FLORIDA, Tampa, Fla., February 10, 1960. Mr. WILL SHAFROTH, Chief of Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SHAFROTH: Reply to your letter of February 3 has awaited the requested views of the other judges of this district. Judge Choate is scheduled to appear and testify at the committee hearings on February 29, and I am sure that he will adequately present the case for the district. Judge Simpson suggests, and I agree, that there could be no more eloquent argument for this additional judgeship for the southern district of Florida than the figures in the Administrative Office, reflecting a criminal caseload double the national average, and a civil caseload half again as large as the national average. If these facts would not be persuasive to the committee, then I can't imagine what would. I trust this meets the request of your letter of February 3. Hon. WILL SHAFROTH, GEO. W. WHITEHURST, Chief Judge, Southern District of Florida. U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, Newton, N.C., February 9, 1960. Chief of the Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics, Administrative Office, U.S. Courts, Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SHAFROTH: I am home today from my court at Charlotte due to certain settlements which affected our calendar for today, but return again for reconvening on tomorrow morning. My court has been in session since January 25, and it looks as though we will run until the 12th of March, when I will be compelled to adjourn so that I can convene my regular Statesville term. This gives me the opportunity to write you in response to your letter of February 3. On occasion during the past several years I have written Judge Sobeloff and others expressing my ideas and thoughts about the need for additional judges in our country, particularly for the need of an additional one in North Carolina, and I assume that my letters are on file. I am still of such opinion and am very hopeful that the Congress will name an additional judge for North Carolina. All of the available statistics that I have seen indicate such need and frankly I don't believe there are those in the Congress who would challenge this statement if they were familiar at all with the unusual increase in the caseload in North Carolina. Since I was named to this position in February of 1949, I have tried every case in the western district of North Carolina that has been tried with the possible exception of a few noncontested matters which Judge Webb, in the late years of his life disposed of and one case in which I was disqualified, wherein Judge Hayes sat. So you can see that for approximately 12 years have been right busy and in addition to that, in order to convenience others, like Judge Hayes during his heart attack and Judge Gilliam during his period of incapacity-all of which adds up to the fact that I have held court fairly continuously. I need not cite the statistics as the schedule forwarded me by you which is available to everyone carries all of that information. Unhesitatingly I recommend an additional judge for North Carolina, and in that of course would sponsor the omnibus bill now before the committee. I hope this answers your inquiry. With sentiments of esteem, Hon. WILL SHAFROTH, WILSON WARLICK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, Chief, Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SHAFROTH: Thank you for your letter of February 3, 1960, advising that the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings in February on the omnibus judgeship bill, and requesting a statement from me as to the present need in this district. Chief Judge Sobeloff wrote me about this matter some time ago and I wrote him on December 29, 1959. I believe he wanted the letter for the use of Judge Biggs when he appeared before the committee. The statistics you enclosed in your letter speak more eloquently concerning the need for additional judgeships in this State, and particularly the need for additional help in this district, than I could posssibly write. I need only to point out to you certain facts gleaned from these statistics. The civil caseload in this district approximates the national average. The criminal caseload is between five and six times the national average. In 1959, we had a total of 158 civil and criminal trials as contrasted to the national average of 40 per judge. It is true that a large number of our criminal cases involve the violation of Internal Revenue laws relating to liquor, but I call your attention to the fact that we had 129 criminal trials last year as against the national average of 12 per judge. A good number of these criminal trials involve conspiracies and tax frauds that consume from 3 days to a week. Additionally, we had 29 civil trials as contrasted to the national average of 28 per judge. Another significant factor is that we had eight patent suits, which is generally known to be time-consuming litigation, as against the national average of three per judge. I believe the figures pointed out above will more than demonstrate the need for additional help in this district. Actually, so much of my time is taken in the trial of criminal cases and hearing motions and taking evidence in civil cases that I have little time to devote to opinions. If I can supply any additional information in connection with this most vital need, I shall be happy to do so. Cordially yours, EDWIN M. STANLEY, U.S. District Judge. U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, Mr. WILL SHAFROTH, Chief, Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SHAFROTH: This will acknowledge your letter of February 3 with the material enclosed, which is very helpful. We need four judges in Maryland. Judge Chesnut is working every week and Judge Watkins and I are only able to keep our work up to date by working most nights and most weekends. Our situation is really worse than the figures indicate. The drop off in business between fiscal year 1958 and fiscal year 1959, which was less in Maryland than in most other districts where additional judges have been requested, was largely due to a drop off in small cases, most of which are settled without trial or pretrial in this district. During the first half of fiscal year 1960 you will note that our business, and particularly our private civil case business, has resumed its increase. We are scraping the botton of the barrel and trying to force lawyers to try their cases sooner than they wish in order to get jury cases for Judge Chesnut to try, while the long, troublesome, nonjury cases, patent, antitrust, Miller Act, and the like, which Judge Watkins and I hear are piling up. A major reason for the piling up of these big civil cases is the unusual large amount of time Judge Watkins and I have had to spend on long criminal cases this fall. The number of criminal cases has increased in the last few years and the number of long cases which must be tried has increased. We need the two judges, but is is absolutely imperative that we get at once the one judge called for by the compromise bill of last year. Cordially yours, ROSZEL C. THOMSEN, Chief Judge. WILL SHAFROTH, Esq., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, Manchester, N.H., February 8, 1960. Chief of the Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics, DEAR MR. SHAFROTH: This letter is in reply to your letter of February 3 requesting my comments with reference to the need for additonal judgeships for the first circuit. While there is need for an additional judgeship for the district of Massachusetts, as provided in H.R. 6159 introduced at the 1st session of the 86th Congress, there is in my opinion an even more crying need for an additional district judge for the district of Puerto Rico. Not only do the statistics warrant an additional judgeship for that district, but there is also need for an additional judge in Puerto Rico now that the justices of the supreme court of Puerto Rico decline appointment by the President to serve as district judges in the absence or disability of the district judge. I enclose a copy of my letter of November 16 last to Hon. John Biggs, Jr., chairman of the Committee on Court Administration (I sent a similar letter to then Chief Judge Clark, chairman of the Committee on Judicial Statistics), describing the need for an additional judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. I also enclose a copy of the statistical data included with those letters. The letter and the data, I think, speak for themselves. I understand that Judge Biggs' committee and the Committee on Judicial Statistics, now headed by Chief Judge Johnsen, are meeting some time this month and I have high hopes of favorable action by those committees followed by favorable action in March by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Any assistance which you might see fit to render in obtaining another judgeship for Puerto Rico will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, PETER WOODBURY, Chief Judge. NOVEMBER 16, 1959. Hon. JOHN BIGGS, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Court Administration, DEAR JOHN: In my opinion, and in the opinion of Judge Clemente Ruiz-Nazario (see office copy of his letter to me of October 27, 1959, enclosed herewith), there is immediate need for an additional judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. To indicate the need for an additional judge for that court I have prepared from the reports of the Director of the Administrative Office to the Judicial Conference of the United States, and enclose herewith, a table covering the years 1955 to 1959, inclusive, which clearly shows that on the basis of cases filed the workload of the district judge in Puerto Rico is not only far above the national average but has also increased steadily and substantially over the past 5 years. The figures speak for themselves and perhaps there is no need for me to elaborate upon them. I might add, however, that the population of Puerto Rico continues to increase and the economy of Puerto Rico is rapidly expanding industrially. It is, therefore, quite evident that in the years to come |