Page images
PDF
EPUB

courtroom personnel, namely, court reporter, Bailiff, clerk, etc., sometimes are not available.

With regard to the Tucson, Prescott and Globe Divisions, which are handled by Judge Walsh, there appears to be sufficient cases to keep Judge Wlash extremely busy, but mostly current. The Navajo-Hopi suit, which comes up before a three judge court at Prescott in May, probably will tie Judge Walsh up for over a month. This, of course, will mean a buildup of day-to-day criminal cases where the defendant is in jail. Judge Walsh was able to clear his calendar sutticiently to help Judge Ling by trying the Allison case, which is about to go into its third week. With the present workload, it appears that Judge Walsh does not have sufficient available time to be of any great assistance in reducing the congestion of the Phoenix Division. His problem is complicated by the distances involved in his divisions.

Following are some figures on the caseload:

[blocks in formation]

In fiscal 1958-59, the medium interval from filing to disposition on civil cases was 14.9 months. It normally took 10 months from the time a case was at issue to the commencement of trial.

In fiscal 1958-59, there were 747 defendants proceeded against and 34 proceedings were received by transfer. There were 126 pending July 1, 1958 and 119 pending June 30, 1959. The "wetback" cases these days make up a very small portion of the total criminal proceedings.

As is apparent a large volume of our work is criminal, and the court must process its criminal defendants at the expense of the civil calendar. The number of criminal cases has not increased materially in the last year or so, but with the population explosion this will not continue.

I am attaching a copy of the current court clerk's report which just went in to the Administrative Office for United States Courts.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed]

Breakdown of other active cases (category 5), by nature of suit (pending Dec. 31, 1959-filed before July 1, 1959)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small]

The CHAIRMAN. Representative Johansen of Michigan, we are very glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, my apologies for keeping the committee waiting. I have a brief statement and then will be glad to supplement it as the committee wishes.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary in support of my bill, H.R. 9577. This bill, if enacted, would waive section 142 of title 28, United States Code, with respect to the holding of court at Kalamazoo, Mich., by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

Briefly, the legislative background of this matter is as follows:

Public Law 294 of the 83d Congress, enacted in 1954-the omnibus judgeship bill-provided among other things with respect to the western district of Michigan for the creation of an extra (that is, second) district judgeship and also providing that "court shall be held in Kalamazoo" in addition to the existing seat of the court in Grand Rapids.

When this same legislation was before the Congress the previous year the 1st session of the 83d Congress-my distinguished predecessor, Hon. Paul W. Shafer, testified before a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on June 3, 1953, in favor of his own bill which incorporated these two provisions. He also spoke on the floor of the House July 30 of the same year supporting those provisions of the omnibus judgeship bill relating to the Federal judiciary in Michigan. And I might add that those provisions in the omnibus bill were substantially identical with the provisions of his bill.

Both before the Judiciary subcommittee and in his remarks on the floor Congressman Shafer included a report of the Special Committee of the Michigan Bar Association on U.S. District Courts in Michigan.

This report, among other things, specifically recommended that "regular terms of court be held * * * *in Kalamazoo."

Early in my first term in this House, in 1955-and I ask the indulgence of the committee in explaining this because of its interrelationship with the courtroom facility problem that I am talking about—I addressed myself to a threefold problem with respect to Kalamazoo the critical need for a new post office, the problem of eight Federal agencies located in rental property in the city of Kalamazoo, and the problem of making provision for the holding of district court in Kalamazoo if and when deemed desirable by the U.S. district judges and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The upshot of conferences with all principal parties involved including the Judiciary, the Post Office Department, and General Services Administration was a decision to build a new post office and to convert the old post office into a Federal building to meet the other objectives.

The new post office was opened last spring and for several months prior to its opening I had been urging GSA to expedite plans for the overall remodeling job. Last October I was belatedly advised— and I do not offer any ignorance on my part as an excuse for this tardy appearance before this subcommittee that the legislative waiver sought here today would be necessary with respect to the court facilities portion of this program.

While it is obvious, as I say, that this waiver relates only to the court facilities portion of the overall program we have in the mill in remodeling this building-and while there seem to be some differences of legal opinion with respect to the applicability of section 142 of title 28 of the United States Code to this particular situation in view of the fact that it involves no construction of a new building or of an addition to an existing Government-owned building-I respectfully request favorable consideration of this bill to clear up the matter beyond possible question.

The point is that with the authorization contained in the 1954 omnibus judgeship bill for holding court in Kalamazoo; with this Government-owned building now standing vacant except for four or five Federal agencies which were located in it when it was the post office, and with an urgent desire to effect economies by remodeling the building to accommodate the eight Federal agencies now in rental property, it does not seem wise or prudent to proceed with the remodeling program without providing the court facilities for which the waiver is here sought.

In that connection, and so that there will not be any present or future misunderstandings, I wish to report to this subcommittee that as a result of a conference held in Chicago last November 11, at my request, and with all of the involved parties represented, it was agreed to proceed with the contract for the architectural plans for the overall remodeling work including the courtroom space and facilities at once. That contract was let in December and work is progressing on the plans. The space and facilities being provided for in these plans are in accordance with the request, specifications and recommendations of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

As to justification on the basis of need with respect to these projected courtroom facilities in Kalamazoo-which would serve eight

southwestern Michigan counties totaling 800,000 population and including four in the Fourth Congressional District of the Hon. Clare E. Hoffman, I rely upon the original testimony in 1953 and 1954 including the Michigan Bar Association report; the plans and statements of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts heretofore over a period of 5 years and such statements as they may wish to make here today; and the statement of necessity made by Hon. W. Wallace Kent, U.S. district judge for the western district. Incidentally permit me to say that authorization for holding court in Kalamazoo voted in 1954 was concurrent with the creation of the judgeship now held by Judge Kent, who resides in Kalamazoo, so that there is no basis whatsoever for recent insinuations that the provision of this courtroom "is for the convenience of the resident judge."

I am making these foregoing statements because, unfortunately, there have been statements made by members of another committeewithout prior consultation with or notice to me-which charge that the work on architectural plans is premature; that proof of need, authorization and financing of the program still remains to be accomplished, and that this is an effort to accommodate a resident judge.

As to funds-I have been advised by General Services Administration for a period of at least a year and one-half that the funds for the overall remodeling job on the old post office have been appropriated and have been specifically allocated by GSA for this program.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any views of your colleagues on the Michigan delegation?

Mr. JOHANSEN. My colleague from the fourth district whose district includes four of the eight counties of this southern division, Mr. Hoffman, is strongly in favor of this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anybody opposed?

Mr. JOHANSEN. In order to answer that, Mr. Chairman, I would have to interpret some views of a colleague who is on another committee and who has raised some of these questions. In fact, two colleagues have raised some questions regarding the alleged prematureness of this architectural work. The questions go to a matter of general procedure, Mr. Chairman, rather than to this specific matter. The CHAIRMAN. Counsel wishes to ask a question.

Mr. FOLEY. Since Kalamazoo was authorized as a place of holding court in 1954 do you know whether or not the court has actually held a term there?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. FOLEY. Have they ever sat there?

Mr. JOHANSEN. No, because of no facilities.

Mr. FOLEY. How far is it from Grand Rapids?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Fifty miles.

Mr. FOLEY. And how about as to the authorization to hold court at Mason? Is court held there?

Mr. JOHANSEN. I have no knowledge as to that at all. I doubt it but that is not positive.

Mr. MEADER. I can answer that question. There is no court being held at Mason.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

54935-60-7

Mr. MEADER. As I understand it the architectural plans are being drawn to provide a space for a court.

Mr. JOHANSEN. That is correct. These are the overall architectural plans for the overall remodeling of the old post office and they are being drawn to provide that space; yes, sir.

Mr. MEADER. That would involve a courtroom and an office for the clerk of the court and perhaps for a marshal?

Mr. JOHANSEN. I believe it includes all three and a bankruptcy hearing room if my memory serves me right.

Mr. MEADER. How about district attorney facilities?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Frankly, my recollection is hazy on that point. The only thing I have before me is a letter on October 14 from General Services Administration giving the total square footage then under consideration which was still in negotiation but involving 6,662-7,060 square feet. It was somewhere between those two figures.

Mr. MEADER. What is the total square footage in the remodeled post office?

Mr. JOHANSEN. I regret I cannot give you that total figure. I do not have it. I will be glad to supply it for the record but I do not have it before me. I might say if it would cast any light on this point, Congressman, that the agencies that are to be brought into this building include large agencies such as the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Social Security, and they are maintaining a finance station for the Post Office in this downtown area, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice will have space in addition to two or three other agencies. They are major Federal agencies and will all be housed in this remodeled building.

Mr. MEADER. I might say to my colleague from the Third District of Michigan whom I respect very highly that we have had this problem with other Members of Congress who have testified here who want district courtroom facilities added. I recall yesterday we had our colleague from Connecticut who wanted to add two cities in Connecticut to the present two cities where court was being held. It seems to me that if this committee does report favorably on this that we have the obligation of defending the measure before the House of Representatives to have available information on the cost of the program. I think we will be asked and we should be prepared to answer what additional cost will be involved in establishing these additional courtroom facilities and the facilities for the entourage of the court, the marshal and the clerk and possibly U.S. district attorneys.

I presume before we get through with these hearings someone will have to provide that information but I thought I ought to say that I believe these are obligations in these hearings to have a factual record on the cost of these programs.

Mr. JOHANSEN. If I may with propriety address myself to the gentleman's remarks I would certainly say I concur completely with that. I have never at any time felt other than that way. The misunderstanding on my part insofar as this was concerned was based on the assumption that the requirement on that score had already been met, and I certainly associate myself with the gentleman's view and it is my understanding that the representative of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is prepared to provide that information.

« PreviousContinue »