seeks damages of $50,000. As yet, the case is not on the trial list; however, in view of the litigation, it is not likely to be settled and will most likely result in a long trial.

Civil 8037.-Evelyn Smith, ancillary administratrix of the Estate of Emerson B. Smith, etc. v. Danbury School of Aeronautics, Inc.

Death action case. Complaint filed on October 24, 1959, alleging negligence in the management, operation, maintenance, and inspection of aircraft, resulting in the death of the plaintiff's decedents. Plaintiffs in their prayer for relief seek $450,000 damages. The parties are now utilizing the discovery procedure provided by the Federal civil rules. The case does not appear to be ready for the trial list.

Civil 8067.-Paul Hardeman, Inc. v. Aries Associates, Inc., et al.

Breach of contract. Complaint filed November 6, 1959, alleging that the defendant has breached its agreement pertaining to the use of a patented process involving the manufacture of high-purity silicon. Plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $1 million. The case is at issue and appears ready for the trial list. Criminal 9798.-United States of America v. James O. McCue, Jr. Criminal 9799.-United States of America v. James O. McCue, Sr.

Defendants in these cases are charged in the indictments on three counts of violating the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (making false statements in reference to income tax liability). The court has already decided a number of motions in these cases. Additional motions have been heard in which the court has reserved decision. The cases have been assigned for trial on March 15, 1960. Most likely, the trial will require at least 10 days of the court's time.

JANUARY 29, 1960.

STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE E. WALSH, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great honor to be here, which I appreciate very much having the opportunity of presenting a statement here and also having the opportunity of hearing the distinguished gentlemen who preceded me; I have learned a great deal.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of any bill that any of us could testify in support of with greater earnestness and sincerity. I do not labor the point because I know this committee has, as you have pointed out in your opening statement, in each Congress recommended relief, and so I simply say that however good your grounds were in past years for recommending additional judges, they are now even better.

The backlog in the Federal courts is now almost 75,000 combined criminal and civil cases. This means that if there were only two parties in each suit, which is not usually the case, but if we only had two persons who were concerned in these lawsuits, that would mean there would be 150,000 people awaiting justice at this moment, something to which they are entitled as of right and which at this moment is being withheld from them, and in some districts it will be withheld for 3 or 4 years and even more

The CHAIRMAN. If I may interrupt at this point, you probably realize that one of the reasons that actuated the proponents of this bill was a pledge given by Attorney General Rogers that one-half of these judges would be appointed, if the enactment of the bill were had, from one political persuasion and the other half from the other political persuasion; in other words, one-half would be Democrats and one-half Republicans.

There was in mind, of course, the imbalance of the judgeships that had been created with reference to political persuasions of the judges which has disturbed a number of people, notably during the Roosevelt administration. That was attempted to be cured and I think it has been substantially cured by the comparatively recent appointments during the present administration.

I do not know whether the imbalance has been absolutely cured, but it is now on the way to cure.

Now, in order to avoid any untoward situation along those lines, this sort of pledge should be given by the Attorney General, and I want the record to show that.

Am I correct in that assertion?

Mr. WALSH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Insofar as we have been able to find, no one denies the critical need for more judges and the only possible reason for delaying action would be that there was suspicion that one party or the other would profit politically by such action at one time or another.

To avoid any distortion of this picture on politics the Attorney General was authorized that as to the judgeships in this bill, appointments would be made on a bipartisan basis, that is, there would be a division between the two parties and each party would get an equal number of the judgeships.

Now, recognizing that bipartisanship may not be a complete substitute for nonpartisanship in the bigger picture, it is going to come out just about the same, and we think by that assurance we guarantee that the men who are picked to fill these vacancies will be men of the highest caliber and there will be no political partisanship to entangle this bill at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and when you use the term "Democrat," I hope that you are using the term not in the synthetic sense, namely, Eisenhower Democrats.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that when we approach a person seeking him to serve on the bench, we are not going to ask him whether he voted for President Eisenhower or for Mr. Stevenson, regardless of which party

The CHAIRMAN. On the other hand, however, we have the right to inquire whether the gentleman is a true Democrat, and I think that consideration is going to be very important, probably it is going to be of paramount importance, because it is the other body which will or will not confirm.

Mr. WALSH. I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, they will be satisfied, and that everyone who closely watches the administrative action which follows this bill, if it is enacted, will be satisfied with the good faith and the spirit in which this pledge is carried out. There are no weasel words in it.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I would like to comment at this point, I certainly hope we are not going to get into a position where we inquire whether or not someone voted for someone before being considered for one of these judgeships. If I thought that were part of the general understanding I would be most unhappy.

Mr. WALSH. Congressman McCulloch, I don't think that was the chairman's intention. I think he simply wanted to be sure that the spirit as well as the letter of the commitment was endorsed, and we herewith do so.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Well, that is good. I am sure that the litigants all over this country will be very pleased by the decision, which has been delayed so long.

Mr. WALSH. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Mr. ROGERS. Do I understand that the spirit and the letter of the agreement is that the selections would be made on the basis of trying to equalize the political parties on the bench in the States as well as throughout the United States?

Mr. WALSH. Congressman Rogers, any attempt to subdivide this or to labor this pledge, I think would break down. In other words, we will have to whatever number of vacancies there may be created by this bill will have to be looked at as a whole in the national interest, and the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, I have no doubt, will watch with the greatest care the way in which the President exercises his responsibility.

Mr. ROGERS. Under H.R. 6159 if it were enacted and these judgeships were appointed, there would be approximately 40 district judges and 5 circuit judges, which would be 45 judges.

Mr. WALSH. I thought it was 43.

Mr. ROGERS. I believe there would be created at least 45 Federal judgeships.

Mr. WALSH. Forty-three or forty-five, yes.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, from your response to my questions, is it at this time appropriate that I may say or suggest that the decision not be made in respective sections of the country but as an overall picture.

In the State of Colorado, we now have two Republican judges and if we put in a third, and it could be that we will get a third Republican judge in Colorado?

Mr. WALSH. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. And the recommendation could be that vacancy should be filled by a Republican, and you have no assurance, however, that the passage of this bill will insure that the State of Colorado has

Mr. WALSH. That is correct, there is no assurance as to the manner in which any individual vacancy will be filled either as to party or as to identity. That is the thing that we are consistently going to avoid. We would rather have no bill than get into that kind of a proposal.

On the other hand, we do feel that in the most sincere national interest there is a gain to the country to divorce this bill from politics in the cynical sense. The fact that this bill is going to be used as a laboratory for bipartisan appointments to see if the standard of the appointees can be improved by the incorporation of that principle, we think offers an additional gloss to the bill which we hope will make it even more interesting to the Congress.

Mr. ROGERS. And of course in all of those appointments of the Department of Justice there will be confirmation in the Senate.

Mr. WALSH. Obviously there is going to have to be concurrent action by the President and the Judiciary Committee in the Senate with respect to this group.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes; thank you.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Walsh, do I understand that as of now the existing judgeships are filled approximately evenly as to the two parties? Mr. WALSH. This idea of party affiliation of the judge is not always too easy to fix

Mr. MEADER. But if they are appointed under a Republican administration

Mr. WALSH. The number of Democratic appointees is still greater than the number of Republican appointees.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the percentage?

Mr. WALSH. It is about 48 percent Republican and 52 percent Democratic at the moment.

Mr. MEADER. As of now?

Mr. WALSH. Yes, sir. And, aside from this bill the President has consistently stated he does not think it is ever right for the public to get the impression that all of the members of the Federal judiciary come from one party and he does not intend to let the balance go above 60 percent in any event, therefore, as we approach 50 percent, the number of bipartisanship judicial appointments is going to rise, anyhow, as far as President Eisenhower is concerned, because you cannot wait until it has got up to 59 percent Republican, for instance, and then appoint all from the other party. It would be much better to start balancing as soon as the 50 percent point has been reached. Mr. MEADER. How many vacancies are there at the present time? Mr. WALSH. At the present time I think there are eight. Mr. MEADER. And if those eight judgeships were filled by Republicans, that would just about make it 50-50, is that correct?

Mr. WALSH. Yes; it would just about come out 50-50.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Have those vacancies existed for very long? Mr. WALSH. No; most of them came into being during the fall. There are four nominees that we had up in the Senate last session and they were not confirmed, so those four are now resubmitted. The oldest vacancy, aside from those, is the vacancy in the southern district of Florida which came into existence last May.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I would like to take the opportunity to say that I think the Department of Justice has done a particularly good job on submitting nominations for these vacancies and it should be commended.

Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much.

Now, getting back to my statement, I realize, Mr. Chairman, that you and this committee are fully familiar with the general problems. I know that Mr. Foley has done a great deal of preliminary work for these hearings and I do not want to labor statistics very much, but just a few points need to be made.

The Judicial Conference has concluded that 6 months is the ideal waiting time for a case to come to trial. The median case, that is,

the middle case in any district should move from the complaint to trial in 6 months.

Well, out of 86 districts, there are only 4 where that is true today. Sixty-three percent of the civil cases tried in 1959 had been pending more than 1 year and 28 percent had been pending more than 2 years. Now, in Brooklyn which the chairman knows better than I, the median case, that is the middle case, took almost 4 years to go from the complaint to disposition. That means half of the cases take longer.

To meet that situation the Judicial Conference gathered together as many visiting judges as it could and sent them to Brooklyn last spring and throughout the summer, with the result that they have temporarily knocked down that backlog but the trend that caused it originally I think is still there.

In the southern district of New York the median case takes almost 27 months.

When I was up there that court pitched in and at one point almost had the calendar current so that when you asked for a trial you could get one. There was a few months lag but not very much. Now the increase in filings has so piled up that it takes 18 months.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, isn't that the penalty for having your dockets current? Lawyers rush to get in their cases quickly and add them to the dockets?

Mr. WALSH. Well, as far as the diversity cases, if they couldn't get to the State court they might file there, but that is not the real trouble. When you have a current calendar you can dispose of them almost twice as fast than if you have a backlog, for if the lawyers know that the dockets are current, then they are more prone to settle. If they feel that they are going to trial tomorrow, so to speak, they know that the bluffing period has come to an end and actually settlements result in 85 percent of the cases.

But if they know that they are not going to come into trial for 18 or 19 months, then they do not get very serious in settlement. They will wait. Maybe a witness will die or something may happen to shift the strength of the case from one side to the other and they will wait and see. And once your calendar begins to pile up, after 9 or 10 months it goes up very rapidly to 18 or 19 months.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I have a question, Mr. Walsh.

Do you know if there are statistics available to show the median time between the filing and disposition of cases in the courts of general jurisdiction in the various States?

Mr. WALSH. We cannot get that, I do not think, for all States. We can get it for several.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Will you get the information on several key States?

Mr. WALSH. Yes, sir. The Attorney General has been trying to get that but the States do not have uniform reporting on these matters. We have given to you for whatever it may be worth-we have tried not to duplicate the statistics that you will get from Mr. Olney's office figures from U.S. Attorneys' offices showing cases presently awaiting trial. On one of these mimeographed sheets which have been submitted are listed the criminal and civil cases, which, they assure me,