Mr. HORAN. We are exactly where we were last year on this item. This is a resubmission we are considering here. However, I do not like to see us allow an expenditure of a quarter million dollars that will admittedly have no utility whatsoever in case there is a new building constructed. It would be utterly foolish for us to allow this item if we knew there was going to be either a new building on that site or other facilities for the Court of Claims.

That brings up the very interesting point of what we would do with the Court of Claims while the construction was going on. It seemed to me that we are forced into the position of saying to the Court of Claims, "Will you not consider a new location, because you will have to move temporarily for 2 or 3 years even if we build you a new building?"

I wish, Mr. Lynn, in discussing this item with Judge Jones-and I assume you will because I have asked him to start proper procedures to correct this matter-that some consideration will be given to new quarters.

We can allow the money for the annual painting. We can allow the money for air conditioning. It will have to be on a per-unit basis so there will be some salvage, later, if we allow that.

Mr. LYNN. Yes, there would be salvage value.

Mr. HORAN. There would be some salvage if you had the restricted area air-conditioning units. Certainly, after 1 year's use they would have some value.

That is the position we are in and I am not happy about it. I wish we did not have this type of problem. I wish you would talk to Judge Jones and tell him we called you back for consultation. We are troubled about this item. We want to do what is right by the Court of Claims, but we are not going to at least I am not and I think my colleagues are more or less in agreement with me-I am very reluctant to just appropriate this money when we know it will not correct the problem in itself.

Mr. LYNN. It certainly is a problem.
Mr. HORAN. Thank you, gentlemen.

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1953.

COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER

JUDICIAL SERVICES

WITNESSES

HON. JOHN BIGGS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE, THIRD CIRCUIT

HENRY P. CHANDLER, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, UNITED STATES COURTS

ELMORE WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE, UNITED STATES COURTS

RICHARD A. CHAPPELL, CHIEF, DIVISION OF PROBATION
JOHN C. BROWN, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER
DARWIN ANDERSON, ASSISTANT

OFFICER

BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING

Mr. HORAN. The committee will come to order.

We have before us Mr. Henry Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. My exact title is Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

Mr. HORAN. We are going to hear the summary of the statements relating to appropriations for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and other judicial services which, I understand, is the bulk of your appropriation.

Mr. CHANDLER. That is correct.

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it is natural, and I think desirable, that these annual hearings on appropriations for agencies of the Government afford an opportunity to consider not only the amounts of money to be allotted from year to year but the policies of the agencies which are involved.

You, sir, have well said that the legislative branch, the Congress, and the judiciary, share to a considerable extent the responsibility for developing an operation of the courts that will be reasonably economical, but also will be efficient. I want to say that I really welcome the opportunity to put before you the needs, as I see them, of the Federal courts as a representative of the people, under a practice that has been established for probably more than a thousand years, if we go back to England.

INCREASE IN LITIGATION LOAD

In this general statement I am going to refer to only one condition. Other matters will come out in connection with discussion of the particular appropriations. The matter to which I refer is the fact that for a number of years now the load of litigation of the Federal courts, and particularly the district courts, which are the trial courts, has been increasing beyond any increase in the judicial staff with which to handle it.

There has been growing congestion and delay. I want to guard against a misunderstanding of that statement. I would not have you believe for a moment that there is congestion in all the courts of the United States. Happily there are many districts and many courts in which the business is still handled with reasonable promptness. But the overall load has been steadily going up. And the number of districts in which there is congestion and in which litigants suffer because they cannot obtain a prompt trial is increasing.

Now let me be more specific: I begin with the trend from 1952 to 1953, which is the latest period. Based upon the information that we have for the fiscal year 1953, and that is information concerning the load of the courts in the first three-quarters of the year ended March 31 last, it appears that the total number of civil cases broughtin the district courts, which last year went up 13 percent-over 1951, will go up 91⁄2 percent more over the base from which the courts started this year. The number of civil cases filed it appears, will go up from 58,428 to around 64,000 cases.

Mr. Bow. May I interrupt you, Mr. Chandler.

Did we enact into the law last year the change in jurisdictions? Mr. CHANDLER. You did not, sir. The judicial conference has recommended that the minimum amount

Mr. Bow. It seemed to me it passed the House.

Mr. WHITEHURST. But it was never acted upon by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CHANDLER. Bills of that nature are pending in the present Congress. I cannot give you at the moment the numbers, but they are pending?

Mr. Bow. Are you prepared to tell us, Mr. Chandler, to what extent that might decrease the caseload?

Mr. CHANDLER. I cannot tell you at the moment, sir, but I will say that while it is considered by the Judicial Conference, and I think every thoughtful person must consider, that such an increase would be logical in view of the fact of the decreased value of money since the limit of $3,000 was established, an increase in the minimum amount from $3,000 to $10,000 would bring about a comparatively slight decrease in the number of cases brought in the district courts. I can supply that for the record.

Mr. Bow. I wish you would supply that for the record.

Mr. CHANDLER. The Administrative Office, at the instance of a committee of the Judicial Conference, made a study of that matter, and that information will be supplied, sir.

(The data follows:)

The study referred to was made in the early part of the calendar year 1951. It indicated that if the amount of damages requisite for jurisdiction was raised from $3,000 to $10,000 in the civil cases subject to such a limit, the number of civil cases filed in the district courts would be reduced approximately 7.2 percent provided the damages claimed remained the same. The percentage was arrived at by computing the number of the 44,454 civil cases filed in the 86 district courts having solely Federal jurisdiction in the fiscal year 1950 which might be eliminated by the proposed increase in the minimum damages. That number was 3,181, constituting the percentage above stated.

It was pointed out in the study by the Administrative Office and in the report of the committee to the Judicial Conference that the actual reduction would doubtless be less than the theoretical reduction stated because litigants desiring to bring their cases in the Federal courts, would raise their claims to the new minimum whenever they could, particularly in cases sounding in tort. The study showed that previous increases in the jurisdictional amount appeared to have had little effect on the number of civil cases filed. The committee of the Judicial Conference in reporting to the Conference, said that it “does not think that this raising of the jurisdictional amount would appreciably lessen the load of work of the Federal courts."

While the increase then contemplated was to $7,500, the effect of an increase to the higher amount would probably not be greatly different. The report of the committee and illustrative tables are set forth at length in the report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on the bill (H. R. 3098) to raise the jurisdictional requirement to $10,000, which passed the House in the last Congress (H. Rep. 1506, 82d Cong., pp. 3-19).

Mr. CHANDLER. Before going on, I would comment that an increase in the minimum amount of damages to a conscientious attorney would eliminate cases based upon contract, where the amount of damages is relatively definite and falls above three thousand but below ten thousand dollars. In the cases which are now taking a considerable amount of effort and time of the district courts, namely suits based upon personal injuries, where the amount of damages is unliquidated, the change would probably have very little effect.

The criminal caseload, exclusive of suits brought on account of violations of the immigration laws, which are mainly confined to five districts on the southwestern border and do not affect most districts, is going up some. It appears that the number of normal criminal cases from which immigration cases are excluded, will rise something over 1,200, approximately 5 percent, from 24,803 to 26,069.

Mr. Bow. Is that rather general, Mr. Chandler?

Mr. CHANDLER. That seems to be rather general. At least last

year there was a similar increase, I think, of between 4 and 5 percent in criminal cases, exclusive of immigration cases, and it was pretty well distributed and related to a good many types of offenses.

Criminal cases under the law given priority in trial. I think you understand that criminal cases, therefore, are promptly tried unless there is some good reason to the contrary other than the business of the court. The criminal calendars are kept virtually current.

Now I come to the effect of the termination of price, rent, and other economic controls upon the business of the district courts.

Mr. HORAN. If I may interrupt, I wrote to you a letter asking you to explain what the effect of that would be.

Mr. CHANDLER. You did. It was a very timely question. I was glad that you brought it to my attention.

Mr. HORAN. Incidentally, we will have a controls bill on the floor next week, I understand, and I understand that controls are going to be greatly streamlined. I do not know just exactly what is in the bill, but it will be up next week.

Mr. CHANDLER. In the period beginning with 1942, which was the first year of the last war, the fiscal year 1942, there has been a very large number of cases brought in the Federal courts on account of price or rent controls, and during a few years violations of rationing laws. The total number of cases of that nature brought in the 11-year period from 1942 through 1952, was 115,187. You see, that is an average of over 10,000 cases a year. The greatest number came in 1945, 1946, and 1947, when the numbers were 29,000-I am giving round numbers now-29,000, 32,000, and 16,000.

Since 1947 there have been less than 10,000 of those cases annually on the civil side. The indications are that for the present year the number will fall short of 5,000, and be a little less than 8 percent of the estimated 64,000 civil cases brought in the district courts.

You will see that inasmuch as the increase in that number of those cases of all kinds over 1952 is 91⁄2 percent, the elimination of the control cases will not diminish the general load. It will, as far as it goes, but without these cases there is an increase in 1953 over 1952. By the way, there is a table which, if it will be of interest, I shall be very glad to have incorporated in the record, showing the number of such cases in each year on the civil side.

Mr. HORAN. Mr. Chairman, could we have this inserted?

Mr. Bow. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The table referred to follows:)

TABLE I.-Civil price, rent, and rationing cases commenced in the United States district courts, fiscal years 1942 to 1952, by fiscal year

Mr. CHANDLER. The number of criminal cases brought on account of these same laws has always been very much smaller than the number of civil cases. The principal activity on the criminal side was in the 5 years from 1943 through 1947. The highest number, 4,773 came in 1945. In the years since 1947 there have never been as many as 250 criminal cases based on those laws brought in 1 year, and in 1952 there were only 110. In the first three quarters of this year the number of such cases is 57, almost negligible in the volume of criminal cases.

Mr. Bow. Mr. Chandler, could you give us any idea as to the number of those cases that were actually tried and those that were disposed of by sentence?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. Without objection, table 2 of the criminal set of cases will be included in the record at this point.

(The table referred to follows:)

TABLE II. Criminal price, rent, and rationing cases commenced in the United States district courts, fiscal years 1942 to 1952, by fiscal year

! Criminal cases under this classification were so few for the fiscal year 1942 that they were not separately tabulated.

Mr. Bow. Most of those control laws were in effect, as I recall it, about 1943, and I assume by the time they set up agencies and began enforcement that you would begin to run practically into 1945.

Mr. CHANDLER. I think that we are all aware that in the last year of the war, and the year or two immediately following, there was the maximum activity to enforce the control regulations. Immediately upon peace, some of them, of course, were relaxed. But the number of cases seemed to run through the years 1945, 1946, and 1947.

Congressman Bow asked me a question which I was about to answer I have a table showing the method of disposition of these various cases. It is a fact that, while the number of cases based upon economic controls has not been proportionately a very high percentage of the civil and criminal cases of the district courts, yet in the demands upon the time and efforts of the judges the burden of these cases has been even less. That is because a very large number of them were decided without contest. The number of contested trials was small. Where there were trials, they were usually without a jury. Even where there was a jury, the issues were relatively simple.

I did not have this table mimeographed, but I can furnish it. If I might make a comment on it for a moment, of 102,301 such cases which were terminated in the period from July 1, 1944, to June 30,