PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT JUDGES JUNE 10, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. LANE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 4963] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 4963, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Shortly after the Eighty-first Congress convened several bills providing for the appointment of additional judges for various Federal circuit and district courts throughout the country were introduced as listed below: H. R. 18 by Mr. Hobbs H. R. 1948 by Mr. Walter H. R. 2834 by Mr. McKinnon On March 7, 9, and 11, 1949, Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary held hearings on those bills. After consideration of the evidence the subcommittee authorized its chairman to introduce a clean bill in omnibus form. That bill, H. R. 4861, which embodied most of the provisions of the previously listed bills, was reported favorably to the full committee. The full committee amended H. R. 4861 and ordered that it be reported in the form of a clean bill (H. R. 4963) which the subcom H. Repts., 81-1, vol. 4-38 mittee chairman introduced in accordance with the directive of the full committee. During its study and deliberation your committee considered not only the recommendations of both the Judicial Conferences of 1948 and 1949 and of the Attorney General, but also the testimony of the various circuit and district judges whose courts would be affected by this legislation. That knowledge was augmented by the statements of lawyers who practice in those courts. Your committee wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Mr. Henry P. Chandler, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and his staff for their cooperation in furnishing the committee with the data and statistics it had requested relative to the business of the courts. In its analysis of the need for increases in the personnel of the judiciary the committee was alert to the varied and deleterious results that inevitably flow from congested dockets and an overfatigued judiciary. Prompt disposition after reasonable deliberation must always characterize the American judicial system if equal justice under law is to be preserved. The evidence adduced on this legislation proved unequivocally the necessity for a method of expediting the disposal of litigation by the Federal judiciary. After consideration of such methods of dispatch of cases as pretrial conferences, the extensive use of discovery before trial by the examination of adverse parties and witnesses concerning the issue, and the temporary assignment of judges to those courts outside their circuits where congested calendars existed, it is the opinion of the committee that the sole remedy is an increase in the number of judges in those districts where congestion has existed and tends to increase. The initial investigatory action by the subcommittee was to ascertain the true condition of the dockets of the Federal courts. Statistics covering the dockets from 1940 to the first half of the fiscal year of 1949 furnished by the Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics, Administrative Office, United States Courts, were scrutinized. The cognizance, however, that bare statistics may not delineate the actual and fundamental conditions, a more penetrating analysis was accomplished by the interrogation of both lawyers and judges as to the particular types of cases and the length of time in disposing of individual cases. Generally, criminal cases are the least burdensome to the courts and their disposition is comparatively rapid Private civil cases, however, generally demand more time and effort on the part of the court than that of any other type of case. Therefore, in the appraisal of the need of a court for additional personnel help, the number of private civil cases filed is an impressive determinative. The over-all condition of the dockets in the various Federal courts is salutary in that a trial may be had within a reasonable time, particularly in criminal cases. There was over a 5-percent increase in the number of cases filed in the courts of appeals in 1948 over those of 1947, the civil cases filed in the district courts declined more than 20 percent, criminal cases decreased a little over 4 percent, and bankruptcy cases rose 41 percent in the corresponding years of 1947 and 1948. A significant feature of the figures on civil cases is that the decrease in the total figures is accounted for by the decrease in United States cases, mainly accounted for by the drop in price regulation cases of 11,634 from 1947 to 1948. For the same period, however, the time-consuming private civil cases increased by more than a thousand over the 1947 total so that such cases are about third more than in the prewar years. Another important factor revealed was that the median time for disposition in the district courts of tried civil cases increased for the first time in 3 years to a figure exceeding 9 months, namely 9.9 months. That increase becomes more indicative of the general condition when judged in connection with the fact that the courts tried more civil cases in 1948 than in 1947. In the general study of the problem, it was learned that the volume of all civil litigations as filed in the district courts has increased 32 percent and that of private civil cases by 38 percent since the years immediately preceding the war while the number of district judges has been increased from 189 on January 1, 1940, to 199 as of June 30, 1949, a 5 percent increase. Thus at the conclusion of the first half of the 1949 fiscal year the average case load per district judge was 205 total civil cases, 117 private civil, and 167 criminal cases. There were commenced in the district courts during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, 46,725 civil cases, 48,791 were terminated, leaving pending on June 30, 1948, 49,215, as compared to 51,281 pending on July 1, 1947. In criminal cases for the same dates, 33,300 were commenced, 33,573 terminated, leaving 7,851 pending on June 30, 1948, compared to 8,124 pending on July 1, 1947. In the United States Courts of Appeals in 1948 the number of cases filed increased from 2,615 in 1947 to 2,758, an interruption of a 5-year decline in the volume of litigation; 181 less cases were terminated in 1948 than in 1947 so that 1,673 were pending on June 30, 1948, compared to 1,492 pending on July 1, 1947. During the 1948 fiscal year 2,577 cases were terminated. While it is true that the total number of civil cases filed has decreased from a peak in 1946, mainly by virtue of the disappearance of price-regulation cases, the general trend of civil litigation over the past 10 years indicates that the over-all increase as compared to prewar volume will be permanent and not temporary. Moreover in the matter of private civil cases the increase over a period of years has been steady. In 1946, 22,141 such cases were on the dockets; in 1948, 30,344, an increase of one-third in such cases from 1946 to 1948. In 1941, only 21,931 private civil cases were filed. Thus the number of private civil cases filed in 1948 was approximately 50 percent greater than the number filed in 1941. It seems that the cause of this volume of litigation may be attributed to several factors and is not limited to any specific area. The combination of population increases, together with industrial and economic expansion have contributed somewhat. Particularly is this true in certain geographic areas such as California, Texas, and New York, where war production caused both population and industry to increase and expand. These factors are reflected in the specific types of cases that have been on the increase in the past few years. Moreover, the vast amount of Federal legislation enacted over the past several years is another contributing factor. Cases brought under such legislation as the Federal Tort Claims Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the Jones Act, and the antitrust acts have all increased and substantiate the reason for the increase in judicial personnel. However, in spite of the generally favorable condition of the current dockets in the Federal courts, there are certain exceptions where congested calendars have existed and continue to become worse in spite of various remedial attempts to alleviate the problem and avoid the denial of justice to the litigants involved which is occasioned by the delay. It is in these exceptional cases that the committee recommends 24 additional judgeships solely in order to carry out the true judicial function-the administration of justice. Those judgeships are as follows: JUDGES PROVIDED IN REPORTED BILL One circuit judge for the seventh circuit One circuit judge for the tenth circuit Three circuit judges for the District of Columbia circuit One circuit judge for the third circuit, provided that the first vacancy occurring in the office of circuit judge for the third circuit shall not be filled One district judge for the northern district of California One district judge for the southern district of California Two district judges for the district of the District of Columbia One district judge for the northern and southern districts of Florida One district judge for the northern district of Georgia One district judge for the district of Kansas One district judge for the district of New Jersey Four district judges for the southern district of New York One district judge for the district of Oregon One district judge for the southern district of Texas One district judge for the southern district of Texas, provided that the first vacancy occurring in the office of district judge for the southern district of Texas shall not be filled. Two district judges for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, provided that the first two vacancies occurring in the office of district judge for the eastern district of Pennsylvania shall not be filled. One district judge for the western district of Pennsylvania, provided that the first vacancy occurring in the office of district judge for the western district of Pennsylvania shall not be filled. The committee also recommends that the restriction, prohibiting the appointment of a successor to one of the incumbent district judges for the eastern and western districts of Missouri, when a vacancy occurs, be removed. RECOMMENDATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF In its report of 1948, the Judicial Conference said: It was the sense of the Conference that the following action in respect of judgeships throughout the judiciary should be recommended; that such recommendations contemplated the absolute minimum increase in judgeships necessary to adequately man the courts, and to provide for the continued efficient and orderly processing of the business of the courts. COURTS OF APPEALS CIRCUIT District of Columbia.-The creation of two additional judgeships. Third. The creation of one additional judgeship, with the proviso that the first vacancy occurring on the court shall remain unfilled. Seventh. The creation of one additional judgeship. DISTRICT COURTS DISTRICT Southern district of New York. The creation of four additional judgeships, one of which will provide for the filling of the vacancy created upon the retirement of the late Judge Woolsey, the filling of which has heretofore been prevented by statute. Eastern Pennsylvania.-The creation of two additional judgeships. Western Pennsylvania.-The creation of two additional judgeships, with the proviso that the first two vacancies occurring within the district shall remain unfilled. District of New Jersey.-The creation of one additional judgeship. Northern Georgia.-The creation of one additional judgeship. This will provide two permanent judgeships for this district, and restore the district to the status existing before the retirement of Judge Underwood. Northern and southern districts of Florida -The creation of one additional judgeship for the two districts. Southern Texas.-The creation of one additional judgeship, and providing that the official residence of the judge shall be in the southern one-half of the district. Eastern and western districts of Missouri.-Making permanent the present judgeship which is now held by Judge Duncan. Northern California.-The creation of two additional judgeships, and the filling of the existing vacancy in the district without further delay. Southern California.-The creation of one additional judgeship. In the Report of the Proceedings of a Special Meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States on March 24-25, 1949, it was stated: FEDERAL COURTS-JUDGESHIPS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Court of Appeals.-Chief Judge Stephens urged the Conference to reconsider its action with respect to additional judgeships for this court and to approve its request for three additional judgeships, in lieu of the two approved by the Conference at its September 1948 meeting. It was stated that, since the last meeting of the Conference, a further study of the subject matter had been made by the court and it was unanimous in the conclusion that three additional judges were not only needed but necessary if currency of docket was to be reached and maintained. In the court's opinion, the volume of present business was, in itself, sufficient justification for the requested increase in manpower, and, with the greater case docketing that an analysis of current and anticipated business in the lower courts of the circuit reflected, it was warranted. Upon consideration of the statistical data submitted and other relevant factors, the Conference recommended that there be created three additional permanent judgeships for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. District court.-Chief Judge Laws of the District Court, District of Columbia, appealed to the Conference to lend its approval to the bill recently introduced in the House of Representatives (H. R. 3239) providing for three additional permanent judgeships for this court. Statistics as to case load, median time averages, and other material data were submitted to and considered by the Conference. Relevant factors, impossible of reflection in the statistical presentation, were presented and stressed by Judge Laws and Chief Judge Stephens. A review of results achieved through the adoption of improved procedural methods, as well as the over-all operational plan, indicated a high degree of efficiency in the management and administration of the court's affairs. It was the view of the Conference that the three additional judgeships provided for this court under the provisions of H. R. 3239 were justified. The Corference, thereupon, approved the bill and recommended its prompt enactment. |