Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 16, 1960.

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: You will recall that on February 2, I testified before your subcommittee in support of an additional judge for the western district of Texas. At that time, I inserted in the record certain documents in support thereof.

I send you herewith a copy of a resolution adopted by the San Antonio Bar Association on February 9, 1960. If your record has not as yet been closed, I will appreciate your including this resolution in the record. Sincerely yours,

RESOLUTION

PAUL J. KILDAY,
Member of Congress.

Be it remembered, that on February 9, 1960, in regular monthly meeting of the general membership of the San Antonio Bar Association there was duly made and seconded, and adopted by unanimous vote, the following resolution: "Whereas the docket of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has for a number of years been excessively heavy, and the delay of litigants in reaching trial or disposition of their cases has been unreasonably long and burdensome, and has resulted in substantial prejudice to their rights and property in many instances; and

"Whereas this condition is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice and seriously reflects upon the legal system of our country, and causes our citizens to lose respect for and confidence in the system of justice that is available to them for the redress of their injuries and protection of their rights; and "Whereas the bar of this district and of the city of San Antonio have emphatically and frequently urged and endorsed the creation of an additional judgeship for the western district of Texas in order to relieve the onerous condition that exists, and the Congress of the United States has not yet granted the relief to which the citizens of the district are entitled; and

"Whereas the Honorable Paul J. Kilday has been diligent and unceasing in his efforts to obtain for us the necessary judgeship, and has introduced in the Congress of the United States House Resolution 4375, which would create an additional judgeship for this district, and the said bill is now under consideration by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the San Antonio Bar Association does hereby urge the immediate enactment into law of House Resolution 4375, to provide the additional judgesehip which has been so urgently needed for several years; be it further "Resolved, That any other legislation proposed for the relief of the crowded condition of the Federal docket in this district, whether for the relief of this district alone or an omnibus bill, is likewise wholeheartedly endorsed for passage by this bar."

This is to certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the resolution passed and adopted by unanimous vote of the San Antonio Bar Association at its regular monthly meeting of the general membership held on Tuesday, January 9. 1960.

Attest:

ADRIAN A. SPEARS, President, San Antonio Bar Association.

BLAIR REEVES, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE ALGER, OF TEXAS

Mr. ALGER. I am merely following up the earlier appearance you graciously accorded me. I introduced bill H.R. 2319 hoping that even if the omnibus bill did not go through you might given consideration to this northern district to which you just alluded when you mentioned that the Judicial Conference had already recommended another judge.

The situation now is even worse than when I last appeared. 1 will submit this short two-page summary.

Mr. CELLER. We will be glad to accept your statement.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF BRUCE ALGER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, ON H.R. 2319 TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ONE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

I want to thank the members of this committee for this opportunity to appear, for the second time, to plead for some relief for the hard-pressed Federal judges in the northern district of Texas. Last year, at about the time I introduced H.R. 2319, I was privileged to come here and point up the almost desperate situation confronting that court, where three judges were struggling manfully to carry an inordinate caseload.

Those three sitting judges have done a really outstanding job; but, gentlemen, they are trying to paddle upstream against a torrent. While the Judicial Conference has recommended another judge for this district, and one is provided in the omnibus bill now before this committee, I want to stress that ours is an extremely unusual situation, and constitutes something of an emergency. I ask you to provide this additional judge to relieve the overwhelming load on the north Texas court, whatever disposition may be finally made of the omnibus bill. When last I was here, I pointed out that in the latest previous year for which records were then available, 1,837 civil cases had been filed in this district. That worked out to 612 cases per judge as against a nationwide average of 273. I am advised that, due to legislation lately enacted, the number of cases pending before all Federal courts has declined somewhat, since my earlier appearance here. That's been true of our area as well as elsewhere. However, the figures for fiscal 1959 show the caseload in our northern district of Texas still to be substantially heavier than the national average.

At that time, too, I cited the fact that the civil caseload in northern Texas exceeded that of the southern district of our State where four judges have long been sitting. Then, to compound the difficulty, one of the three judges who had been driving himself manfully, broke his leg and was forced to the sidelines for an extended period.

Gentlemen, by any standard, these men are due some help. Most important though-and more important than any other consideration, as I know you will agree is that an opportunity for justice in our Federal courts be afforded the more than 3 million people in a hundred counties, spreading over 93,000 square miles of Texas' northern district. If there be any truth in the axiom that "justice delayed is justice denied," then a very great many citizens in north Texas are being effectively denied justice by the inaction of Congress.

Much has been heard lately of "equality before the law" and of the dedication of so many Members of Congress to that very principle. I am confident then that this committee and this Congress, which can, by the simplest action, provide some of that equality of treatment to their fellow citizens in northern Texas, will act promptly to do so.

Mr. CELLER. Is there anyone else from Texas? (No response.)

Mr. CELLER. I will place in the record at this point a statement from our distinguished colleague from Florida, Mr. Dante Fascell. (The statement of Mr. Fascell follows:)

STATEMENT OF DANTE B. FASCELL, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FEBRUARY 2, 1960, IN SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, H.R. 1117

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appear today in support of my bill, H.R. 1117, which provides for the appointment of an additional district judge for the southern district of Florida.

I am convinced that there is a greater need for the appointment of a Federal district judge in the Miami area than any other place in the United States.

I am sure that statistics available to this committee will amply support that statement. In one period of 9 months, one of our judges in the Miami division tried seven and one-half times the total number of cases tried in the State of Delaware. This was also five times the number tried in the States of New Hampshire, Montana, or Nevada. This number of cases also exceeded the total cases tried in each of the following States: Mississippi, Arizona, Kansas, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Iowa, or New Mexico. In 1958 in the southern Florida district there were 207 jury trials which is only 3 trials less than the number held in the southern district of New York, which has the highest in the Nation. As of January 30, 1959, there were 1,600 cases awaiting trial in the southern district.

Florida is one of the fastest growing States in the Union. The census for 1960 will show that Florida's population has increased to more than 4 million people, a fantastic increase in population growth bringing a comparable increase in litigation in the district.

I am sure that the Judicial Conference will report that the present workload of the Federal court in this district is heavy and that the backlog of cases is excessive.

I respectfully request the committee's approval of my bill in the interest of justice and orderly processes.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Cramer, we will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. CRAMER, OF FLORIDA

Mr. CRAMER. Since the recommendation by the Judicial Conference the situation is our State has grown worse and the time interval for disposition of cases is worse. It has been my fundamental position that the people of the State of Florida are entitled to expeditious justice.

There is one aspect that I would like to explain briefly. I understand there are bills introduced by other members of the delegation calling for an additional district within the southern district of Florida.

It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to congratulate you, that you have requested the Judicial Conference to make a thorough study of the need for additional districts throughout the United States.

Mr. CELLER. How do you feel about that?

Mr. CRAMER. I feel that the Judicial Conference is the proper group to consider this matter on a long-range planned basis. There is no doubt in my mind that Florida needs an additional district, but the question is how it should be set up and divided. It should be according to a long-range plan.

I therefore feel we need immediate relief and that an additional judgeship should be approved in this session of Congress.

Mr. CELLER. We made a request of the Judicial Conference. We ought to get word from them soon.

Mr. CRAMER. I am confident that group will find that an additional district is needed. Our immediate need now is for at least one additional judge and if pressing for a new district would result in delaying action on this judgeship matter and thus denying immediate relief, I favor action now on more judges.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Cramer's statement will be inserted in the record as though read.

(Mr. Cramer's statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM C. CRAMER, FIRST DISTRICT, FLORIDA, CONCERNING AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

For the last three sessions of Congress, I have introduced a bill providing for an additional judge for the southern district of Florida, and during this Congress I introduced H.R. 493.

Last year Florida was included in the bills passed by the Senate and, of course, it is my purpose to convince this honorable subcommittee that Florida should certainly be included in any omnibus bill approved by it. Florida was also included in the bill passed by the Senate in 1957.

The past history alone of the legislation on the Senate side would certainly justify including Florida in any omnibus bill approved and, of course, the facts and figures concerning the caseload and the period it takes for disposition of cases further justifies the inclusion of the southern district of Florida.

I pointed out in the Congressional Record in 1958 that the following was the factual situation so far as the southern district of Florida is concerned, and that in analyzing the districts throughout the country, Florida had one of the most critical caseload situations. That information is as follows: In total cases the national average per judgeship was 236; the Florida average was 298. In private civil cases the national average was 151, and the Florida average 170 per judge. In criminal cases was shown the largest discrepancy, with the national average being 105, and the Florida average 214 per judge. The office of the U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida is highly indicative of the workload of the courts. This office has moved up in ranking of caseload as follows:

In 1955 the southern district ranked seventh.

In 1957 the southern district ranked fourth.

Civil cases pending in this office increased 20.58 percent during fiscal 1957 as compared to the year before and, in the same period, civil cases and all matters increased 41 percent.

I have offered these figures to indicate in a specific instance the importance of action now. The situation in Florida is worsening every day and I can see no reason for purely political delay that denies to the people their constitutional right of speedy trial.

Now, to bring these figures up to date the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts clearly shows the southern district of Florida as being one of the large metropolitan districts in which congestion in the Federal court dockets is concentrated-it being one of the 12 such districts. The report indicates "these districts in 1959 received 45 percent of all new civil cases filed in the total 86 districts throughout the country having only Federal jurisdiction."

The report continues "The metropolitan districts have individual problems of calendar control which are not found in the smaller districts. As a group, they have had a two-thirds increase in filings since 1941."

Considering Florida, specifically, it being a district presently with 5 judges, it has had, as of July 1, 1959, 1,321 civil cases pending, and also has a caseload per judge of 264 cases pending. This is the fourth largest pending caseload per judge of any district in the country. I am quick to point out, however, that this existing caseload per judge is not caused by failure of the existing judges to do their jobs, as is indicated by the fact that there were terminated during this same period 345 cases per judge which is the highest rate of case termination of any district among the congested metropolitan districts in the entire country. In July of 1958 there were pending 296 cases per judge, and there were filed 313 cases per judge, and there were terminated 345 cases per judge.

I call your attention further to the fact that in 1959 the average of cases pending throughout the country was 201, as compared to Florida's 264. Likewise, to indicate the efficiency of the court in an effort to expedite cases as much as possible, there were terminated 345 cases per judge as compared to the national average of 223, but still with the result, due to the tremendous continuing workload, which is indicated by the filing of 1,566 new civil cases alone, which is the fourth largest number of new cases filed among the metropolitan areas, that there remains a very critical need situation which justifies at least one additional judge.

It is my basic position that the people of the southern district of Florida are entitled to expeditious justice at the hands of the Federal court system and, of course, as one of the large metropolitan districts, the disposition period in Florida falls into the pattern of other large districts where "the period from filing to disposition exceeds 1 year in half of the cases tried within such metropolitan districts."

More specifically, in the southern district of Florida the time interval from filing to disposition of civil cases in which a trial was held in the year ending June 30, 1959, the total of such cases was 218, of which 103 required a 1- to 2-year interval and 30 required over 2 years, meaning 61 percent of the cases took more than 1 year.

The record in criminal cases per caseload is that there were pending 532 cases as of July 1, 1958, and 622 cases a year later, involving initially 741 defendants and a year later 897 defendants. Likewise, there were 1,237 cases commenced and 1,147 terminated, which shows a substantial increase in criminal cases for the last year.

I further call your attention to the fact that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts stated in its report to the Judiciary Committee as far back as February 13, 1957-and has repeated similar recommendations since that date-that "the Judicial Conference has recommended the creation of one additional judgeship for the southern district of Florida."

I am confident that the committee is familiar with other facts and circumstances justifying the inclusion of an additional judge for the southern district of Florida in any legislation being considered on this subject, and it is my hope that should the committee decide to vote out an omnibus bill that this district be included; and should the committee decide to vote out separate bills, I trust that my bill, H.R. 493, will be voted out favorably.

Of course, I take the same position as a member of the Judiciary Committee as regards other districts where this critical need exists, and I repeat that in my opinion the American people are entitled to expeditious justice through our Federal court system and certainly this committee has a tremendous responsibility in making certain that basic rights of individuals are not denied because of the unduly lengthy proceedings necessitated in many instances because of the inadequate number of Federal judges. Additional judges, where needed, including Florida, should be approved by Congress this session, there having already been too extended a delay in this matter.

Mr. CELLER. There are no other Members here so we will adjourn sine die until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning when we will hear Representatives Walter, Rogers of Colorado, Chenoweth, of Colorado, Hoeven, of Iowa, Baker, of Tennessee, Reece of Tennessee, Johansen, of Michigan, and Price, of Illinois.

There are also some other Members of Congress we will hear in the afternoon.

(Hearing adjourned at 2:25 p.m. until 10 a.m. Wednesday, February 3, 1960.)