APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1955 HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE-JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS FRED E. BUSBEY, Illinois FRANK T. BOW, Ohio SAM COON, Oregon MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, Ohio GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama Ross P. POPE, Executive Secretary to Subcommittee Temporarily assigned. Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 46870 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON: 1954 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS JOHN TABER, New York, Chairman RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH, Massachusetts CLARENCE CANNON, Missouri BEN F. JENSEN, Iowa H. CARL ANDERSEN, Minnesota WALT HORAN, Washington GORDON CANFIELD, New Jersey IVOR D. FENTON, Pennsylvania JOHN PHILLIPS, California ERRETT P. SCRIVNER, Kansas FREDERIC R. COUDERT, JR., New York NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire BENJAMIN F. JAMES, Pennsylvania HAMER H. BUDGE, Idaho CHARLES R. JONAS, North Carolina OTTO KRUEGER, North Dakota SAM COON, Oregon MELVIN R. LAIRD, Wisconsin ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas HARRY R. SHEPPARD, California MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, Ohio W. F. NORRELL, Arkansas JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama J. VAUGHAN GARY, Virginia JOHN E. FOGARTY, Rhode Island ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ, New Mexico OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana ALFRED D. SIEMINSKI, New Jersey GEORGE Y. HARVEY, Clerk KENNETH SPRANKLE, Assistant Clerk LEGISLATIVE-JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1955 TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1954. COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES WITNESSES HON. JOHN BIGGS, CHIEF JUDGE, THIRD CIRCUIT HON. ALBERT B. MARIS, JUDGE, THIRD CIRCUIT HENRY P. CHANDLER, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, UNITED STATES COURTS ELMORE WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS LOUIS J. SHARP, CHIEF, DIVISION OF PROBATION EDWIN L. COVEY, CHIEF, DIVISION OF BANKRUPTCY Mr. HORAN. The committee will come to order. We are very privileged to have with us Judge Biggs of the Court of Appeals, Third Circuit; Henry P. Chandler, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; Elmore Whitehurst, Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; Louis J. Sharp, Chief of the Division of Probation; Edwin L. Covey, Chief of the Division of Bankruptcy; and John C. Brown, the budget and accounting officer, for the courts of appeals, district courts, and other judicial services, which we are to begin hearings with now. We will insert in the record at this point pages 65 and 66 of the justifications. (The information is as follows:) Courts of appeals, district courts, and other judicial services Mr. HORAN. Do you have any general statement to make, Judge Biggs or Mr. Chandler? Judge BIGGS. I think Mr. Chandler desires to make a statement. Mr. CHANDLER. I have a brief general statement. GENERAL STATEMENT This statement can be brief, because this committee, in its consideration of the appropriations for the current fiscal year, became acquainted with most of the problems which will be put before you at this time. In fact, the estimates for this year follow closely, with 1 or 2 exceptions which will be pointed out in connection with particular appropriations, the pattern of the appropriations for the current year. There is one principal exception. The committee will remember that last year I laid stress in my opening statement on the very heavy load of business of the Federal courts and the absolute necessity in order to obtain anything approaching reasonable promptness in the dispatch of litigation to have additional judges. A bill has been passed, as I think the committee knows, Public Law 294, which was approved on February 10 last. That provides for 30 additional judges throughout the United States; 3 circuit judges and 27 district judges. The principal addition to the appropriations for this year over last year is to defray the cost of the additional judges and their supporting personnel and necessary expenses. Mr. HORAN. Do I understand, Mr. Chandler, that these estimates anticipated the passage of this bill? Mr. CHANDLER. The bill has been passed. The estimates did not anticipate the passage. There is a supplemental estimate. I am sorry that the bill was passed so late that it was impossible to put the tiems into the original justifications. As far as we can, we shall show the relation between the supplemental and the original justifications. Mr. Bow. On page 65, where you provide for your judges, you have included the expenses of the new judges? Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir. Mr. Bow. The figures we are working on now for fiscal 1955 contain all the expenses of the new judges? Mr. CHANDLER. That is right. WORKLOAD Gentlemen of the committee, if you will permit me I would like to make a brief statement of the business of the courts of appeals and the district courts this year in relation to last year. I can say only that the heavy load which then existed has been slightly increased, although I am happy to say in nothing like the proportion over the previous year. We are hopeful that with the new judges, when they are appointed, although they will not meet the need in all instances, we shall be able to go a long way toward improving the currency of the court calendars. I have here just a few simple tables. I will ask Mr. Brown to put them before you. They will indicate the situation. COURTS OF APPEALS In the courts of appeals, for instance, the cases filed went up last year to 3,226 from 3,079 the year before. The cases filed in the first half of this year were 1,735 as compared with 1,574 in the first half of 1953. You see, that indicates still a rising trend. When we look at the cases pending at the end of the first half of 1953, which was December 31, 1952, and the first half of 1954, which was December 31, 1953, you see the steady rise in the cases pending, which was the factor that indicated the great need for increasing the judicial personnel of the courts of appeals. Let us turn from that for a minute, if we may, to the district courts. DISTRICT COURTS Before I refer to the figures I can say that in general the increase in the number of cases brought in the district courts in 1953 over 1952 was not repeated in the current fiscal year of 1954. It is not being repeated, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, principally because of a condition to which you called our attention last year; namely, that a good many regulatory agencies have been abolished. Consequently, there are fewer United States cases; namely, cases relating to price and rent regulation. On the other hand, the cases which really put the load upon the district courtsnamely, civil cases between private litigants-are going up slightly this year, although in nothing like the proportion they did last year. If those tables can be passed out I will call your attention to the trend. If you will look at that table of civil cases filed in the district courts, you will be impressed that the number of all civil cases dropped from 32,769 in the first half of 1953 to 29,257 in the first half of 1954. Now, that decline in civil cases of all kinds is nearly all accounted for by the decline in Government cases, which dropped more than 3,000. On the other hand, the private cases went up a little. There was a decrease, to be more specific, in the price and rent suits, from 2,430 in the first half of 1953 to 70 in the first half of 1954. So far as the criminal cases are concerned, it is really interesting to note that the number of criminal cases in the Federal courts has not varied very greatly for a period of 10 or 12 years. There have been times when the number has gone up somewhat, and then there have |