Mr. ROGERS. And, of course, if that was your bill, if this bill was adopted to provide for a judge and the judge's term would be assigned within the district.

Mr. CHENOWETH. And the northern district would take care of Denver, Grand Junction, Montrose, and Sterling.

The CHAIRMAN. A new district would mean an entirely new entourage with a clerk and a bailiff and a new U.S. attorney and so forth. Mr. CHENOWETH. I feel that is needed. We need this service in southern Colorado. The lawyers and the bar association are very much interested.

Mr. MEADER. I think the record should contain some evidence of the volume of business anticipated for this new district that you would create to justify the expense involved in creating a new district with its headquarters and all the entourage. Do you have such evidence? Mr. CHENOWETH. I rather suspect it would be difficult to obtain such figures and to anticipate what the volume of business would be. Mr. MEADER. There should be some estimate.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I would say that the Pueblo Bar Association has about 75 members. We have some other areas in southern Colorado where considerable Federal litigation originates. I have no record of the amount of cases from southern Colorado which are now being filed in the Denver court.

Mr. MEADER. It would be necessary to have another district court in Pueblo but before this committee could recommend it to the House there should be some records or some facts upon which we could say this is a justifiable expenditure.

Mr. CHENOWETH. We would have to go to the Denver docket and check the cases which originated in the southern part of Colorado.

Mr. MEADER. Don't you think it would be reasonable for the House to call this committee to account on supplying the House with evidence that there would be sufficient volume there to justify creating a new headquarters for a district judge with the district attorney and all that?

Mr. CHENOWETH. The lawyers in the different bar associations all feel that there is sufficient business for a district judge to be located in Pueblo.

Mr. MEADER. I mean to give some facts on which to base it.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I am not sure just what statistics are available but I will be glad to see what can be obtained.

Mr. ROGERS. You would have to go to the clerk's office in Denver and then search as to the cases filed from the counties that he has cases from in which you want to set up a district. That research would be

necessary.

Mr. CHENOWETH. That is what would have to be done.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Thank you very, much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We have our distinguished member of our own committee, Mr. Loser, from Tennessee.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. CARLTON LOSER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Mr. LOSER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you gentlemen this morning. I have before the committee a bill creating an additional judgeship for the middle district of Tennessee. I support the bill of the distinguished chairman, H.R. 6159, with one exception. The chairman's bill provides for an additional district judge for the middle district of Tennessee, but there is a provision to the effect that the first vacancy occurring in the office of the district judge shall not be filled. I would like to say to the committee that we are not asking for an additional judge. We are asking that we regain the status that we formerly occupied. In other words, for a number of years we had two district judges in middle Tennessee and one of them was a temporary judge and the judge of that court died about 3 years ago, and since that time we have had the single judge.

I would like to read to the committee a short telegram.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to state that the Judicial Conference recommended one additional judge for the eastern district and one judge for the middle and western districts and in the omnibus bill you have one permanent judge for the eastern district and one permanent judge for the western district and one temporary judge for the middle district.

Mr. LOSER. Yes, that is provided in your bill and I will be happy to support it, but the recommendation-I am having some difficulty about the recommendation of the Judicial Conference, and I am reading from this report of the proceedings of the special session and it seems they have it in their recommendation. However, on page 5 there is provided that there be one additional judgeship for the middle and western districts of Tennessee in lieu of its previous recommendations. Nothing is recommended for eastern Tennessee.

Now let me read you this telegram which pretty well illustrates our situation. This telegram comes from Judge William E. Miller. He is the middle Tennessee district judge. The telegram reads:

I have just been advised that a bill will come before the House tomorrow providing for an additional judge for middle Tennessee but on a temporary basis. I strongly urge that any additional judge for this district be made permanent and not temporary. As of December 31, 1959, there were 415 civil cases pending and 156 criminal cases with 265 defendants. This notwithstanding the fact that during calendar year 1959, 203 civil cases were disposed of and 405 defendants were disposed of in criminal cases. This district because of venue has major part of tax litigation for the State, both civil and criminal, ordinarily a timeconsuming type of litigation. There is no reason whatever to believe that the heavy volume of work will not continue. On the contrary there is every reason to believe that it will steadily increase. As one example, condemnation cases involving approximately 700 separate tracts will be filed growing out of the Barkley Dam project beginning in 1961. The last judgeship for this district was on a temporary basis and it proved to be a serious mistake, Judge Davies having died within less than 2 years after the new judge was appointed. I feel that there is an imperative need for two permanent judges in middle Tennessee and that a temporary judgeship would be altogether unrealistic. I understand Judge Boyd of Memphis will appear before House Judiciary Committee on February 29 to present the entire picture for Tennessee, showing the need for permanent judges in this and the other districts. I am presently engaged in preparing information for him pertaining to middle Tennessee.

And that was signed by William E. Miller, U.S. district judge. I might say to the committee that the capital city of the State is located in the middle division of Tennessee and the litigation here is extremely heavy and I hope that this subcommittee will see fit to make this additional judge for this division of the State a permanent judge rather than a temporary judge.

I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to appear here and I hope that when the full committee comes to consider these several bills that I will occupy a comparable favorable position that my friend, Mr. Rogers from Colorado, occupies, as was indicated by our distinguished chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. When they made this temporary judge of the middle district the judge died?

Mr. LOSER. We had two judges in middle Tennessee up until 2 years ago but one of them did die; yes.

Mr. ROGERS. One of them was temporary?

Mr. LOSER. Yes. The permanent judge died and the bill provided that whenever a vacancy occurred in either court it would not be filled. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Judge.

Mr. LOSER. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness will be a representative from Iowa, the distinguished gentleman Mr. Hoeven.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES B. HOEVEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE EIGHTH DISTRICT OF IOWA

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear here in behalf of H.R. 2877 providing for a roving judge in the State of Iowa. It is my understanding that the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended an additional judicial position to serve both districts. This is I think the third or fourth of a series of similar bills that I have introduced in prior conferences. It is generally recognized that these two judges in Iowa are overburdened and are in need of relief and assistance. One factor which contributes to the difficulty of the situation is the number of places in which, pursuant to statute, they hold court and the large amount of travel involved. For instance, in each district terms of court are held in six different cities. Now in the northern district, terms are held in Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, Waterloo, Sioux City, Fort Dodge, and Mason City. In the southern district, court is held in Des Moines, Keokuk, Council Bluffs, Creston, Davenport, and Ottumwa. It is approximately 300 miles from Dubuque to Sioux City in the northern district and an equal distance from Davenport to Council Bluffs in the southern district. Each judge must make at least two trips through his district each year to handle the regular business besides special trips to hold additional sessions when the work requires. This places a great strain upon the energies of the two judges. And I wish to call to the attention of the subcommittee in particular the high population of the State of Iowa for only two Federal judges. The average population per district judgeship in the eighth circuit in which Iowa belongs is 670,000.

Whereas each of the districts in Iowa have a population of more than 1,300,000. This is nearly twice the average population per district judgeship in the eighth circuit, and the population of the two districts of Iowa is higher than the population of any judicial district in the United States with only two judges. One of the judges is 66 years of age and he is severely taxed in his work. He has talked to me personally about it. That is Judge Henry N. Graven of the northern district. And Judge Edwin R. Hicklin has just retired on account of ill health and there is a vacancy there at the present time. It is the consensus of opinion of all lawyers of the Iowa Bar Association and concurred in by the judicial conference that Iowa should have a judgeship which could serve both districts.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a statement from the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Paul G. Rogers which will be inserted.

(Prepared statement of Hon. Paul G. Rogers, Sixth District of Florida follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL G. ROGERS, MEMBER OF CONGRESS,
ON H.R. 4535 FEBRUARY 2, 1960

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee; thank you for giving me an opportunity to appear this afternoon and comment briefly on my bill, H.R. 4535, which provides for the establishment of an additional judicial district within the State of Florida, the creation of one judgeship for this new district, and two additional judgeships for the southern district of Florida.

Mr. Chairman, Florida is one of the fastest growing States in the union. The Bureau of the Census has estimated that, as of July 1, 1959, the population of Florida was approximately 4,761,000. Based on average annual increases over the last few years, it is reasonable to assume that by July 1 of this year, Florida's population will border on 5 million people.

The great majority of these people are situated within the Southern District of Florida which stretches from Jacksonville to the north to Key West in the south and includes every major population center in the State with the exception of Pensacola. The principal places of holding court in the district are Miami, Jacksonville, and Tampa.

Present law provides for only four judges in the southern district and a roving judge to serve the entire State. However, due to the heavy caseload in the southern district, the roving judge spends almost all of his time there. In addition, there is presently one vacancy in this district which is unfilled.

With the unprecedented growth that Florida is experiencing, there also comes a corresponding increase in litigation. The civil caseload in the southern district is extremely heavy. The number of U.S. cases commenced during 1959, on a caseload per judgeship basis, was 46 percent above the national average. In private cases, the district's 1959 average was 40 percent above the national average. Diversity of citizenship cases commenced during 1959 were up approximately 40 percent above the national average. The number of admiralty cases commenced was almost 200 percent above the national average.

The criminal caseload in the southern district is exceptionally heavy. Again, on a caseload per judgeship basis, 213 cases were commenced per judgeship as opposed to the national average of 108 cases, an increase of almost 100 percent above the national average. Ten years ago, the average number of criminal cases commenced per judge was 18 less than the national average. As of June 30, 1959, the southern district had 622 criminal cases pending, the highest among all district courts in the country.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the facts I have stated indicate the need for additional Federal judgeships in the southern district of Florida. The present number of statutory judgeships is simply not sufficient to serve our rapidly expanding population, a figure which has doubled in the last 10 years and which is expected to approximate 6.4 million by 1975.

In addition to our permanent residents, Florida's many and varied tourist attractions annually attract millions of seasonal visitors. Besides the litigation that falls in the wake of interstate travel, courts in the district must deal with international travelers and maritime matters. To hear crowded dockets last year, seven different visiting judges from as far away as Oklahoma and Ohio spent a total of 289 days in the district.

In addition to providing judgeships for the southern district, this bill establishes a new judicial district to be known as the Middle District of Florida. This district, comprising 28 counties, would be serviced by one judge with the aid of a roving judge assigned to all three districts of Florida.

In closing, let me say again, Mr. Chairman, that our need for additional judgeships is acute. With the tremendous backlog of pending litigation and our ballooning population, I fear that unless some relief is provided, the Federal judicial process in the southern district of Florida will be seriously hampered. Thank you again for letting me appear today and I respectfully request that the committee consider this legislation favorably.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a statement from the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Rhodes, which will be inserted in the record at this point.

(Statement of Hon. John J. Rhodes, First District of Arizona follows.)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. RHODES, FIRST DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Sate of Arizona is the most rapidly growing State in the Union by percentage. The workload of the Federal courts in the State has increased proportionately. It is my feeling that Arizona needs a third Federal judge now. In a short length of time this need will probably become desperate.

I ask that the enclosed letter with the enclosure from Mr. Jack D. H. Hays, U.S. attorney for the district of Arizona, be included in the record at this point. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, Phoenix, January 29, 1960.

Hon. JOHN J. RHODES,
House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR JOHN: In view of the fact that the Allison income tax case will resume Monday and Bill Holohan and I are deeply involved in the prosecution of that case, I will at once attempt to set forth the information on the Arizona courts as requested by telephone today. In the event that this information is not detailed enough, please phone us and we will try to be more explicit. The following information is rather general in nature.

The court at Phoenix is presently setting cases for trial in November. From past experience, it can reasonably be presumed that when this session of court ends at the end of June, cases will be set well into the spring of 1961. In other words, we will be about a year behind at that time. An examination of the trial calendar indicates that there are very few days which are not allocated to specific cases. One must bear in mind that some of these cases will have to be reset to a later date to handle jail cases as they arise from day to day. This situation will be further complicated by the fact that in the latter part of March a criminal antitrust suit (U.S.A. v. Arizona Consolidated Masonry and Plastering Contractors' Association) will commence, which undoubtedly will take a month. The civil end of this case has not even been set for trial yet. There are 26 negligence action cases involving Mexican nationals, which are presently riding the calendar and have not been set. Judge Ling is attempting to get an outside judge in to try these cases while he is handling his current calendar. In addition to the Mexican national cases, there is another case which it is anticipated will take over 2 weeks, which the judge is hoping can be handled by an outside judge.

From the foregoing it can be seen that the addition of the second courtroom at Phoenix has helped to alleviate, in a small way, the problem of congestion. This courtroom can be effectively used however, only when a judge is available. We are further hampered by the fact that even when a judge is available,