York and Chicago and a few other places. In most places, there are either one or two judges. I do not know how it is in New York, but I have never heard before that there was any hesitation on the part of a senior judge, district judge, in dividing up the work equally among the judges, or in making a lazy judge work, but I think that would be taken care of under this general authority, because that lazy judge's work would be reported to the council, who would take the correct action.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute. The committee has had some opportunity or necessity to look into the phases of that matter. You are of the opinion that, probably, out of the activities of this organization, the studies on the ground of this organization, some recommendation might be made to systematically control the situation. In some of these big offices, we know there is very little discipline. I have in mind that there does not seem to be very much control. He does about as he pleases. But one of the reasons it seems to me that would support this sort of arrangement is that, by actual contact, you might be able to suggest some remedial action.

Justice GRONER. I think it is more than that. I think when the condition you have mentioned, Judge Sumners, exists, that would be a matter which, necessarily, would be brought to the attention of the council, rather than to the conference of judges, the annual conference, but the council of judges, and it would be corrected.

Will you hear Mr. Vanderbilt, who was former president of the American Bar Association?

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record a minute.

(Here followed discussion off the record.)

Justice GRONER. Mr. Vanderbilt has a case to argue in the Supreme Court, and he will have to go over there in a few minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Let him come around, now.

Mr. HEALEY. Just a moment, please. Judge, you do not attempt, in any way, to affect the present method of appointing attendants of the court, such as probation officers?

Justice GRONER. It has no relation to that, at all. That is absolutely left as it is.

STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR T. VANDERBILT, NEWARK, N. J.

Mr. VANDERBILT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I will try not to cover any of the ground that has been so fully covered by Judge Groner and Judge Parker, but there are a few points that I would like to emphasize.

This bill seems very general and very gentle, if I may use that word, in its provisions, but I think it has teeth in it that are longer and will cut deeper, if necessary, than you would suspect at first reading.

It

For example, there is the provision about quarterly statistics. is not a hard job to fix up an annual report that looks very good, but it takes a great deal more art and skill to fix one up four times a year than it does to make an annual report. So the provision as to quarterly statistics to go to the circuit court of appeals from each district is one of really vital importance.

Mr. CELLER. What page is that on, what section?

Mr. VANDERBILT. That is one page 3-clause (2), page 3.

That annual report, which is a public document, is also very important. Let met cite Pennsylvania as an instance. In 1937 the

legislature gave the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania full power over all matters of procedure. The chief justice called for a report on the decisions that were 6 months in arrears as of July 1. In November he published the report in which he divided the counties into two classes: Those that had no decisions delayed more than 6 months after hearing he called "grade A"; those where there were decisions more than 6 months in arrears-some up to 6 years in arrears-he called "grade B"; and here he named the judge, and he named the number of cases he was in arrears and the length of arrears of his oldest case.

Three months later, in February, he filed another report, as of the first of the year, and every county in Pennsylvania was a "grade A" county, except one. In other words, the mere publication of these reports had driven every judge into speeding up his work, except one. I think there will be concerted action in making statistical reports that are published.

Mr. GUYER. These are elected judges?

Mr. VANDERBILT. These are elected judges, but the same process would hold good as to any other kind, because no matter how delinquent a judge may be, he still likes the public at large to think he is doing a good job.

Now, the work of the judicial council that Judge Parker emphasized seems to me to be very important. You cannot expect a senior circuit judge to bear the burden alone of supervising the work of the district judges, but when he shares that burden with the other circuit judges, he is in a better position to bring pressure on district judges who otherwise might be quite irresponsive.

I

I think the judicial conference is a very important institution. have attended one of Judge Parker's conferences in the fourth circuit, and while they are quite informal they are very effective. They take a roll call and they see to it that all the delegates are there. The interchange of opinions between the bench and the bar is invaluable. There is one thing about the judicial conference that Judge Parker neglected to say, through oversight, I am sure. In addition to the sessions that are open and public, they have a closed session in which they meet to review their common problems, and in which they compare notes as to what is going on in the different districts.

In other words, those conferences, generally, have a very stimulating effect on the kind of judges that I think are in the mind of Congressman Chandler.

The respect which is given by this bill to the doctrine of the separation of powers has already been emphasized, but there is another principle that is just as important that I want to refer to. The bill, as it was drawn last year, gave all of the power to the Chief Justice and to the Supreme Court, centralizing all activity of the Administration offices in Washington. This new bill, it seems to me, is far preferable to the old bill, because, instead of centralizing everything in Washington and putting an impossible burden on the Chief Justice and his associates, it puts the power in the 11 circuits—including the Court of

Appeals here in the District as a circuit. The result is that the judges who are given the power, are much nearer to the scene and much more competent to judge as to whether or not a particular district judge is on the job than would be anyone in Washington. They, in turn, will be expected to make their report each September to the Judicial Conference, when it meets here in Washington with the Chief Justice. In this process it seems to me that the judicial branch is setting a good example to the rest of the country of getting its machinery functioning in the places where it can best function, namely, in the different judicial circuits, instead of being centralized in Washington.

I wanted to mention one fact in conclusion, so that you may have a notion of how earnestly the bar is in support of this bill. A couple of years ago, when there was considerable controversy with reference to the proposed enlargement of the Supreme Court and the various other measures that were suggested by the President relating to the courts, the American Bar Association took a referendum on every one of those proposals, and it also took a referendum of all of the lawyers in the country, whether they belonged to the American Bar Association or not, and in those two referenda, by an overwhelming majority, the lawyers of the country, whether or not they were members of the American Bar Association went on record in favor of this very type of bill, which would give the courts, through some system of administration set up within the judicial department, control of their own business affairs and make them responsible for the prompt administration of justice within the Judicial Department.

I cite this not to bring up any echoes of the old fight, but simply to show you that, in a period when the vote was negative on every other proposal of the seven that were submitted to the bar, on this one there was an overwhelming majority in favor of it.

So I think I am justified in saying, in conclusion, that there is no measure that I think of that will give more relief from indolent judges, from incompetent judges, from judges who are overworked and who do not seem to know how to give appropriate relief, that will be given this bill. We think that it is a great move forward, that it has great possibilities, and that it will do away with much of the misunderstanding, and some of the criticism that has been brought against some of the district judges.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Groner, it is now about 20 minutes to 1. We have one of our former colleagues here, and we would like to hear from him, if he has anything to say. We can not hold longer than 1 o'clock, possibly, without adjournment.

Justice GRONER. This is Mr. Holtzoff, the representative, the personal representative, of the Attorney General, and he has a letter from the present Attorney General, and I think it would be well to hear him very briefly.

The CHAIRMAN. That will conclude your presentation?

Justice GRONER. If you will give Mr. Holtzoff 5 minutes and Mr. Morris 5, then Judge Vinson will deliver our valedictory in 1 minute.

152802-39-ser. 5-3

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER HOLTZOFF, ESQ., SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. HOLTZOFF. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the first thing I should like to do, if I may, is to read a letter addressed to the chairman of this committee by the Attorney General:

Hon. HATTON W. SUMNERS,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

FEBRUARY 28, 1939.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: To my regret, owing to my absence from the city, I shall be unable to be present at the hearing to be conducted by the House Committee on the Judiciary, regarding the bill (H. R. 2973) to create an administrative establishment for the judicial branch of the Government.

The proposed legislation is intended to meet one of the vital needs of the Federal judicial system. An effective administrative machinery, such as is contemplated by the bill, should be an essential feature of the judicial branch of the Government. It could constitute an important factor in developing more efficient methods in the handling of judicial business, expediting the disposition of litigation, and eliminating law's delays. In addition, it would be in a position to handle such administrative matters as the preparation of the budget for the judiciary, the payment of salaries and expenses, the audit of accounts, the purchase of supplies, etc.

The enactment of the bill under consideration would constitute a far-reaching step in the direction of improving the administration of justice in the Federal

courts.

With kind regards,
Sincerely,

(Signed)

FRANK MURPHY, Attorney General.

In view of the galaxy of distinguished speakers you have had today, who have discussed this subject so comprehensively and convincingly, I am not going to trespass on the time of this committee. I just want to remind the committee as to the present legal situation.

The way the courts are organized today, every district judge is practically in a water-tight compartment, so to speak, if I may use the phrase that has been used here this morning by Judge Parker. The senior circuit judge has very little power other than moral suasion. The legal authority that is granted to him is very limited. He has only two powers. There is one satutory provision, which authorizes the senior circuit judge to assign business, or to pass upon the division of the business within the district, but only if the district judges do not agree among themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. We are familiar with those provisions.
Mr. HOLTZOFF. I beg your pardon?

The CHAIRMAN. We are familiar with those provisions.

Mr. HOLTZOFF. Yes, sir. The only other authority he has is to assign judges from one district to another. There is no administrative authority, other than that, in the Federal judicial system today. The judicial conference, which meets once a year, has merely an advisory function, even though its moral influence is great. Of legal authority it has none. The bill that has been discussed here would give administrative machinery to the Federal judicial system.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Morris.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. MORRIS, Esq., WASHINGTON D. C.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I speak on behalf of the committee on proposals relating to Federal courts of the American Bar Association. The vote that Mr. Vanderbilt spoke about, taken by the

American Bar Association, with respect to the project for the reformation of the Supreme Court, was 7 to 1 against. The vote taken at the same time was 10 to 7 in favor of this proposal with reference to the lower courts. Obviously, the members of the bar want to improve the processes of the lower courts. This bill is the outcome of that effort.

As we see it, it is designed to speed up and improve the processes of administration.

Justice GRONER. This particular bill was approved by the house of delegates?

Mr. MORRIS. I am speaking of the vote, now, Judge, that we took originally.

Justice GRONER. Yes; I know you are.

Mr. MORRIS. I think you made the point before, sir

The CHAIRMAN. I think there is a little confusion there. What was the vote on this particular bill?

Mr. MORRIS. The vote on this particular bill was taken by the house of delegates of the American Bar Association at Cleveland last summer. It was there in the form of the so-called Ashurst bill. It has since been worked up by the Joint Committee of the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges and the Attorney General into the bill you now have before you.

The CHAIRMAN. The other bill is the bill that you speak of, the Ashurst bill; is that the one that gives the Chief Justice the responsibility for auditing accounts, and things of that sort?

Mr. MORRIS. The Ashurst bill was passed upon by the house of delegates in Cleveland in principle. That was in the summer of 1938. In January 1939, at Chicago, this particular bill, as such, was definitely endorsed. So this bill, in toto, as it stands, has the approval of the house of delegates.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you say you do not put that in this bill? Mr. MORRIS. No. Justice Groner, I thought, told you that before. The CHAIRMAN. I was afraid the committee would be confused. This particular bill that we are now considering has the unanimous endorsement of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association?

Mr. MORRIS. And expressly.

The CHAIRMAN. It is endorsed by the members of the Supreme Court, I believe. Whether there were any exceptions to it, I do not know, but I think it was almost unanimously.

Justice GRONER. I will file the letter of the Chief Justice, in which he says as follows:

I return the administration bill. The changes that I had in mind have been made, and I think the bill is a good one in its present form.

Then he says various other things, which I think are unnecessary to go into the record, but there is no qualification of his complete approval, speaking for himself and the Court.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you think as to the sentiment of the lawyers of the country, as well as everybody else, Mr. Morris? What is the sentiment of the lawyers of the country, generally, with reference to this proposed bill?

Mr. MORRIS. I think there is no doubt that the bar wants to get some process which will speed up the work of the courts.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but we are talking about the bill before us?