The CHAIRMAN. You will compromise on four, wouldn't you? Mr. LINDSAY. Of course, I will, Mr. Chairman. I will have to settle for four, if that is what it takes to get this bill through, although we should have six.

I hope that all persons who are interested in this subject and have some knowledge of it will join in backing this bill. If four judges are all that the southern district in the Congress wisdom can get, I will have to settle for it.

In any event, the present situation is intolerable and, as always, it is the public that is hurt. When the public must wait for 3 years to get a trial, it is small wonder that they lose confidence in the entire judicial system.

In my judgment, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is time to quit playing politics, and I say that it is high time that we had a bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Mr. TOLL. How many of these 38,000 cases you referred to in the southern district are negligence cases?

Mr. LINDSAY. I don't have the report in front of me that I circulated among the members of the committee. I left it in my office, but a good portion of them, you will find, are negligence cases, which is true in any trial court. A lot of these are Jones Act cases; there is a greater percentage of those here than in any other court, of course.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you got anything in the report for the negligence cases in New York?

Mr. FOLEY. Yes; 977 negligence cases.

Mr. TOLL. What percentage is that of the total number of casesone-half?

Mr. LINDSAY. Oh, no, it would be about 10 percent.

Mr. TOLL. Do you think that it is possible that you could cure this situation by changing the judicial qualifications so as to get these cases into the State courts and out of the Federal courts? You will recall we had a bill enacted on the diversity jurisdiction. How has that worked out?

The CHAIRMAN. It is too soon to know the real factors in that situation.

Mr. LINDSAY. I think that the chairman is right, Mr. Toll. The Congress just got through enacting that bill which tightens up diversity jurisdiction in our Federal courts, insofar as defendants or plaintiffs are concerned and especially corporations. There is a proposal, as you know, at the present time to close the door even further by declaring corporations citizens of all States where they are qualified to do business. But I think I would agree with the chairman that having just recently enacted this last bit of legislation, perhaps a little time should go by before we rush into an additional change.

Mr. TOLL. But a reduction of the personal injury cases would reduce the need for Federal judgeships, would it not?

Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, because in the southern district they are taking some extraordinary measures on this, by having pretrial procedures, forcing litigants to discuss terms of settlement with each other and that kind of thing, which is done in any good court with a tremendous backlog.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Congressman William H. Avery of the State of Kansas.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. AVERY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. AVERY. Mr. Chairman, I appear before the committee this morning in support of legislation providing a new Federal judge for the State of Kansas.

Although I have a bill before your committee, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 323, I am directly supporting that bill; I want to give equal endorsement to the bill introduced by the chairman, the omnibus bill, commonly described as H.R. 6159.

The CHAIRMAN. It may help you if I were to tell you that the Judicial Conference has recommended that for Kansas.

Mr. AVERY. The Judicial Conference had recommended a third Federal judgeship for Kansas in 1954 and has reaffirmed that position, Mr. Chairman, at every single meeting whenever the subject came before their meeting.

The CHAIRMAN. And speaking for myself, not necessarily for the committee, I think a judge is needed there.

Mr. AVERY. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. In view of the Chairman's statement, I see no need to further impose upon the time of the committee and I would merely like to say that in connection with my statement I ask unanimous consent that it be filed with the committee. I would also like to file a resolution passed by the Kansas State Bar Association on May 9, 1959, whereby the bar association unanimously, even though it is bipartisan, endorsed the recommendation of the Judicial Conference for the third Federal judge for the District of Kansas.

Just let me point out that the caseload per judge is about double in Kansas to what it is on the national average.

Mr. Chairman, if there are no further questions, I would like to file my statement and resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. You have that permission to file.

Thank you very much.

(The material referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM H. AVERY IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 4181, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A THIRD DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this subcommittee in further support of legislation to authorize a third judgeship to the District of Kansas. As has been stated previously, to this committee; this additional judgeship was recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States in 1954 and has been reaffirmed at each meeting since this matter was under consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the record will be replete with statistical evidence to support the need for the extra judgeship. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has prepared compelling evidence to prove the vital need for this additional judgeship. I prefer, therefore, to address my remarks as a layman rather than as an attorney.

Unique to Kansas is the fact that a maximum security Federal penitentiary with a population of over 2,000 inmates is located at Leavenworth. Although the present judges have not recently held court in Leavenworth due to unsuitable quarters, we have assurances that court will be held in Leavenworth, perhaps later this year. A new Federal building is nearing completion in the city of Leavenworth and when such is completed, a regular term of court will be held there. This will substantially improve the lag on the docket as habeas corpus matters may be dispensed with on a more nearly current schedule. This Leavenworth term of court will reduce the cost of litigation to the Federal Government as under present schedule the petitioner as well as counsel, must travel to Kansas City.

From the standpoint of public need, flood control projects now under construction and others scheduled to follow, have considerably increased the docket of the court. In Kansas, reservoir projects present a considerably different land acquisition than in most of the sites for comparable projects. By this I mean that the reservoir projects in most States built to date have rarely displaced any towns and most of the other land has been in sizable tracts. Contrast this if you will with the Tuttle Creek project in Riley County that necessitated the acquisition in fee or by easement of 1,800 separate tracts, included 3 incorporated cities. Applying the usual formula of contract-condemnation averages, the docket of the Federal court is obviously going to be loaded beyond previous experience. Although approximately half of the Tuttle Creek tracts have been acquired, other projects are underway so that the burden of the court will not be much reduced in the next 10 years in respect to condemnation cases. Kansas military installations have also required additional land in recent years. This need has further increased the workload of the Federal court. In reviewing statistics briefly, I note that West Virginia, Arkansas, Oregon, and Delaware have a smaller population than Kansas and presently have three judges. Oklahoma, with a population about the same as Kansas, has 5 judges. The present Federal district judges in Kansas, the Honorable Delmas Hill and the Honorable Arthur Stanley, have rendered outstanding service in reducing the docket. In 1959 the Kansas judges commenced 477 cases each compared to the national average of 215. For criminal cases the Kansas rate of cases commenced per judge is 139, and the national average 108. Their continuing effort to keep the docket as current as possible is evidenced by the fact that the median of filing to disposition of Federal cases is 13.8 for Kansas, compared to 15.3 for the national median.

The total cases filed in Kansas for 1959 per judge is 954 compared to 559 for the nationtal average per judge.

In summary the caseload per judge for Kansas is about double that of the average Federal judge. I urge the committee to take early action on this bill as we seem to get almost to the finish line every year, Mr. Chairman, but something always intervenes to prevent passage of the Houses of Congress. I have no pride in authorship. If there is to be an omnibus bill, I certainly give it my full support.

As a part of the hearing I want to include a resolution of the Kansas Bar Association. This is a nonpartisan association and the resolution was unanimously approved. It was transmitted to me by the late Senator William M. Beall, then president of the Kansas Bar Association. Senator Beall was one of the finest lawyers in the Middle West.

"RESOLUTION

"Whereas the judiciary is one of the most important branches of Government, and the foundation of human rights; and

"Whereas fundamentally the judiciary is intended to be, and should be, wholly divorced from partisan politics; and

"Whereas it is highly desirable that litigation be thoroughly and expeditiously disposed of in the Federal courts, and the citizens of Kansas, and those resorting to the Federal courts in Kansas are entitled to have their cases thoroughly and expeditiously disposed of; and

"Whereas the caseload of the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas is such that said judges cannot thoroughly and expeditiously handle the volume of pending cases in a thorough and expeditious manner without continuing to work an undue hardship on the present two Federal judges in Kansas; and

"Whereas the caseload of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas continues to increase; and

"Whereas an additional Federal judge is badly needed in Kansas to afford litigants the legal rights to which they are justly entitled;

"Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Bar Association of the State of Kansas at its annual meeting held in Hutchinson, Kans., May 7 to May 9, 1959, inclusive, That we urge each of our U.S. Senators from Kansas to use their best efforts to promote legislation to provide a third U.S. district judge for the State of Kansas; be it further "Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be signed by the president and attested by the secretary and mailed to each other member of the Kansas delegation in Congress, and also to each member of the Judicial Committee of the House and the Senate."

Adopted this 9th day of May 1959.

Attest:

BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS,
WILLIAM M. BEALL, President.

JOHN W. SHUART,
Executive Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Congressman Monagan.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN S. MONAGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear here first of all in support of H.R. 3490 which in effect provides for the authorization of two additional judges for the district of Connecticut.

It is my information that the Judicial Conference has approved this addition and that the omnibus bill also contains the same additional number of judges and I therefore also support that bill.

The reason for the addition is the increase in the population of the State which is now approximately 2,500,000 or 10 times that of the State of Nevada.

Also, the increase over the past number of years of the number of cases that are pending on the docket. I have and I would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, letters from Judge Smith, the senior district judge, including a table which sets forth the median time intervals from issue to trial of civil cases, which shows an increase of some 4.7 months in 1951, to 19.9 months in 1959; also, tables of cases pending; of civil cases, of bankrupty cases, and of criminal

cases.

The civil cases, for example, show an increase from 180 cases pending in 1940 to 779 cases pending in 1960.

Included in Judge Smith's letters is a statement of the type of case that is pending.

Also I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that it has been necessary in recent years to have the assistance of judges from other courts; not only district courts, and Judge Gibson from Vermont and Judge Ryan from the southern distdict of New York, and Judge Leibell; but also of Judges Moore, Clark, Hincks, and Swan of the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit. So on the basis of the cases pending and the efficiency with which the court operates it seems clear to me from the evidence that these judges are required. I hope the committee will act favorably on this bill or on the omnibus bill.

The CHAIRMAN. What about the places where court is held in Connecticut?

Mr. MONAGAN. As to the place of holding court, the basis for supporting that bill, Mr. Chairman, is that as a matter of geography— for instance, Fairfield County is one county in the southwestern corner of the State that has a population of approximately 500,000 people. The existing court places for holding court are in Hartford and New Haven, which are right in the center of the State.

The district of Waterbury and the area surrounding it would have approximately 300,000 people. So as a matter of convenience for the bar and the litigants involved, it seems to be these additional places should be authorized.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. McCULLOCH. How far in miles would be the nearest of the new places from an existing place where court is held?

Mr. MONAGAN. Well, that would be about 30 miles. In Connecticut, however, it is not a question of mileage. It is a question of population and of the incidence of litigation.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, one other question. What percentage of the cases would or do arise in the territory where you propose new courts?

Mr. MONAGAN. I do not have that figure, I am sorry to say.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Would that be available without too much trouble?

Mr. MONAGAN. I will try to get it, Mr. McCulloch.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any local organizations that sponsored this change of place of holding court?

Mr. MONAGAN. I have no communication but my recollection is that the Bar Association of Fairfield County and the Bridgeport bar favored it and I am sure that would be true of the Litchfield and New Haven County bars as well.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the attitude of the local district judges? Mr. MONAGAN. The judges would be willing, and I talked to Judge Smith about it

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I did not mean willing; do they approve it? Mr. MONAGAN. Well, I think it would be tied in to some extent with the fact that additional judges were appointed.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MEADER. Have any estimates been made of the total cost, the initial outlay and the annual additional cost-let me ask you, are there facilities available in your State?

Mr. MONAGAN. Well, there are some State court facilities available. Whether that would be practical, I don't know. But there are no Federal court facilities available at the present time.

Mr. FOLEY. Congressman, on that point raised by Congressman Meader, I am sure you are acquainted with section 142 of title 28 which reads as follows:

Court shall be held only at places where Federal courts and accommodations are available or suitable accommodations are furnished without cost to the United States.

Now this ban would apply even though the Congress has authorized the court to sit in new places; but it cannot sit unless suitable Federal