Mr. MORRIS. They want to get some process which will speed up and improve the actual decision of cases.

The CHAIRMAN. Are they in favor of this bill, or not?

Mr. MORRIS. If you will let me answer the question, I will say that here is the best-considered proposal that has been made, which puts the authority and responsibility in a satisfactory place. That is the virtue of this proposal. The authority goes into the courts, where the members of the bar would like to see the authority placed, and the bill, in detail, gives the responsibility as well as the authority to do the job.

If I may take another instance, which is

The CHAIRMAN. The statement you have just made, you make as your own opinion, but I want to ask you, is that opinion shared by the members of the bar, so far as you know?

Mr. MORRIS. Yes. There was a situation just a few years ago in which a district-court judge was hopelessly in arrears in his decisions. The senior circuit judge endeavored to get this man to speed up, and he was unable to do so. In the Conference of the Senior Circuit Judges the senior circuit judge said to the associate justices: "I am unable to pick up this situation," and detailed what the situation was. The Chief Justice then replied: "You tell that district-court judge that, if he does not remedy this situation, I will write him a letter, and I will not be at all hesitant about making the contents of the letter public." There followed, as a result, probably within 6 months, a completely current calendar in the court of that district judge. I cite that to illustrate the benefit of publicity that follows from data which is currently filed, and the comment which may be made by the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, as well as the conferences within the circuits. There is one other proposal that the bar strongly supports, which is provided for in this bill, and that is the kind of judicial conference which has been held in Judge Parker's fourth circuit. That is a project which we have, as the American Bar Association, proposed for years. We are very enthusiastic about it, and we think it will be a great aid. In that respect, I do not think there was a dissenting voice in the bar in supporting this bill.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I do not know that you are the proper person to answer this question, but I would like to refer to it, anyway. There is one unusual situation, perhaps an analogy, in this bill. The bill includes the United States Customs Court, and, I think, appears to treat the United States Customs Court as any other court in the judicial system of this country, and yet the United States Customs Court is set up under the tariff bill and is continued under the tariff bill. Justice GRONER. It does not apply to it, except as to the budget, as to its own budget. It provides that the judges shall make their budget and submit it to you, but the judicial conference which is followed through, and everything here-that function has no relation to the customs court and no authority over it and no membership

in it.

Mr. HOLTZOFF. I wonder if I may supplement that? It treats the budget of the customs court in the same way as the budgets of all the other courts which are prepared by the Department of Justice. It would be rather anomalous to leave the customs court out of this bill, because then, for the customs court, the budget function would continue in the Department of Justice.

Mr. MORRIS. You will find that the only reference to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and to the Court of Claims occurs on page 4, lines 16 to 19, inclusive, and relates only to the estimates. of the Budget, as Judge Groner said.

Mr. CHANDLER. Why should not the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals be subject to this conference's work?

Justice GRONER. They are, Congressman Chandler. They are covered on page 6, section 307.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. If that is the case and the customs court is made subject to the provisions of this bill, is there any reason why the suggestion, which has been made, should not be carried out, and then the customs court be given a judicial status as well as the other courts in this country?

Justice GRONER. That, of course, is a matter for Congress.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. As I say, this inquiry may be outside of this bill, but I thought perhaps you had some views on the subject.

Mr. CHANDLER. I would like to ask Mr. Holtzoff one question. Mr. Holtzoff, with reference to the examiners in the Department of Justice, who go around to the district courts-how many are there now over the United States and how is their work divided?

Mr. HOLTZOFF. I am not sure of the exact number of examiners, but something like seven or eight. They travel around the country to examine the financial records very largely, as well as the other records of the offices of the clerks of the courts and of the marshals and United States attorneys and referees in bankruptcy.

Now, some of their work, or all of their work, except that relating to marshals and United States attorneys, would be taken over by this proposed administrative officer, so that the large part, if not all of these examiners, would necessarily be transferred to the new establishment.

Mr. CHANDLER. Then they would take over the additional duties provided by this bill, which they have not heretofore performed, although they visit the same courts all of the time?

Mr. HOLTZOFF. Yes. There are some duties that would be performed under this bill that are not now performed by anybody, and I think one of the things this bill would accomplish would be to have those duties performed.

Mr. CHANDLER. You have those examiners going all over the United States. Would it not be better to divide the country up into sections and assign one man to each section on circuit so that a man could give more time, and make more frequent investigations of the district courts in each circuit.

Mr. HOLTZOFF. Well, the frequency of those examinations depends upon the number of examiners, and the number of examiners depends on the amount of money that the Committee on Appropriations votes for this particular purpose. I think that we could well use, to good advantage, a much greater number of examiners, because, if we had more examiners, the examinations of the various districts could be much more frequent.

Mr. WALTER. Is it not a fact that, when a man is conducting an examination in one particular court, he can go on with additional things that would otherwise not have been done? In other words, he is in my court today and does his job, and he cannot leave town until

late in the afternoon, and he would have ample time to do this additional work?

Mr. HOLTZOFF. That is quite right.

Mr. MICHENER. The American Bar Association is in favor of this bill, I take it?

Mr. HOLTZOFF. Yes, it is.

Mr. MICHENER. There is another bar association, to which I do not belong; do you know about that?

Mr. HOLTZOFF. No.

Mr. MICHENER. That is the Guild. Do you know what the attitude of that organization is with reference to this legislation?

Mr. HOLTZOFF. I do not know that they have expressed themselves, one way or another, but I think it is entirely fair to say that the American Bar Association and the American Judicature Society represent the sentiment of the organized bar of the country. The American Bar Association has something like 30,000 members, and

Mr. MICHENER. I am quite familiar with it.

Mr. MORRIS. I do not know what the view of the Guild is.

Justice GRONER. One of the members of the committee was the newly appointed judge in the sixth circuit, Professor Arrant, who is the president of the Association of Deans of Law Schools, and he circulated it with them.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Groner, if you have no other witnesses you can put on, we will be glad to hear from our former colleague here.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRED M. VINSON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Justice VINSON. Gentlemen, it is really good to be with you.

I need but say that I feel that this bill is a forward step. You have heard the efforts that have gone into the growth of the bill, its evolution. It only awaits the hands of experts, experts in legislation, experts in the drafting of legislation, the painstaking scrutiny the capable, patriotic effort of a great Committee of Congress to bring forth what I think will be considered a landmark in the judicial process.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I have this notion about this particular bit of legislation: It has come from the bench and the bar, and they are pretty well agreed on it. I believe, unless you gentlemen have some other suggestion now, unless you have some eleventh-hour suggestion to make, that has grown out of your thinking I believe the general disposition of the committee, in the absence of some pretty definite notion on our part, will be to let this bill go through pretty much as it is. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I believe that is so, and I make the observation for the particular purpose of suggesting to you gentlemen that, if you do have anything that has occurred to you, that you believe would be beneficial, it would be very good for you to let the committee have the benefit of that information. I do not mean now, but later, of course.

Justice GRONER. If anything occurs to us, Mr. Chairman, we will communicate it to you; but we have said, in a very abbreviated and condensed form, but to an understanding audience, everything we

care to say on the subject and we regard it as submitted to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, and the committee is very much interested in the general subject matter of this legislation.

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put into the record the endorsement of this bill by the American Judicature Society, which is an organization devoting its efforts, among other objectives, to the improvement in the administration of justice. This endorsement appears in the February 1939 number of the society's publication.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be done.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY
(Herbert Harley, editor)

(SUMNERS)-ASHURST BILL CAN CONSERVE JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Since the last preceding number of this Journal was published the plans formulated by the conference of senior circuit judges for the perfection of the (Sumners)-Ashurst bill have been carried out, and the bill awaits action by the Congress. We have no hesitation in declaring this measure to be the most important one ever drafted for the improvement of either State of Federal judicature. As told in following pages the bill provides means for continuing knowledge as to all phases of administration. It provides for quarterly reports on the operation of each of the numerous district courts. This is the necessary basis of policy. It provides for an annual conference of the district circuit judges in each circuit as well as the annual conference of senior circuit judges with the chief justice. It provides the ideal mode of dealing with the management of the multitudinous affairs of the most extensive judicial system that has ever existed. It makes of the entire system with all its judges and clerks an integrated body, aware of its own needs in administration, and empowered to take such steps as are indicated for economy of time, effort, and expense. From these factors the lawyers, judges, litigants and the entire body politic will immensely profit. To this must be added the leadership which will speedily and profoundly encourage similar coordination of courts in the States. I

In the plan now perfected there emerges for the first time an answer to the concern always heretofore felt as to the safety of entrusting great powers to isolated judges, subject to no check except appeal according to law, and subject to suspicion in spite of good conduct and wise decisions. There comes an answer to the concern always felt regarding life tenure subject only to a mode of retirement so drastic that it can never take the place of continuous supervision. It has been declared that if Congress should submit an amendment to the Constitution making the office of United States judge elective, that amendment would surely be approved. At least it would be a mighty hard thing for the bar at the present time to refute the arguments of demagogues.

The Sumners-Ashurst bill has the virtues above ascribed to it, and in addition as complete assurance as we can have of buttressing judicial independence. Aside from delegated rule-making power, which is at present enabling the Federal judiciary to better meet proper demands, there is no way to fortify judicial independence equal to that of enabling the judges to perform their work under judicial supervision. There are countless ways of weakening judicial independence; fortunately we have now found the most effective way of reinforcing independence in the essential judicial function. Its example will undoubtedly bring similar benefit to the State systems.

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that it would be of aid to the committee in the study of this bill if relevant parts of the report of the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges were put into the record, and I would like to ask permission for that to be done. The CHAIRMAN. Granted.

(Thereupon the committee adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.)

REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, SEPTEMBER SESSION, 1938

State of the dockets Number of cases begun, disposed of, and pending in the Federal district courts.-The Attorney General submitted to the Conference a report of the condition of the dockets of the district courts for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, as compared with the previous fiscal year. Each circuit judge also presented to the Conference a detailed report, by districts, of the work of the courts in his circuit.

The report of the Attorney General disclosed the following comparison of criminal and civil cases (exclusive of bankruptcy cases) commenced and terminated during the fiscal year 1937 and 1938:

We noted last year the decrease in the number of cases pending in the district courts at the close of the fiscal year, and the figures for the year ending June 30, 1938, show a further decrease, as follows:

Arrearages Delays in the disposition of cases.-We called attention last year to the improvement that had been made with respect to the approximate time required to reach the trial of cases after joinder of issue. While in the fiscal year 1934 there were only 31 districts of which it could be said that all cases in which issue had been joined and which were ready for trial could be tried not later than the term following the joinder of issue, it appeared last year that this was true of 68 of the 84 districts, exclusive of the District of Columbia. Substantially the same may be said this year.

The Attorney General points out that the tabulations showing the minimum length of time between joinder of issue and opportunity for trial do not adequately disclose the real state of the dockets with respect to arrearages and delays. The Attorney General notes the misnomer, in previous tabulations, in describing dockets as "current" merely because cases can be tried at the term following joinder of issue. Thus, it is observed that there are many districts in which the trial dockets are up to date and yet litigants may have to wait from 6 months to a year after issue is joined in order to obtain trial. This is said to be due principally to long intervals in certain districts between terms of court. And the tabulations above mentioned do not take into account the cases continued at the request of the parties or the period that is absorbed by preliminary proceedings before joinder of issue.

In order to give a more adequate picture of the state of the dockets, the Attorney General has submitted a table-now presented to the Conference for the first time showing the status of the civil csaes pending on June 30, 1938. From this table it appears that of the 35,872 civil cases pending on that date there were only 11,660 that had been pending for 6 months or less, while 24,212, or 67 percent, had been pending for 6 months or over; 18,017, cases, or 50.2 percent, for a year or more; 11,374 cases, or 32 percent, for 2 years or more; 7,741 cases, or 22 percent, for 3 years of more; 5,910 cases, or 16 percent for 4 years or more; and 4,720 cases, or 13 percent, for 5 years or more.

The Attorney General classifies the delays as being of three types: (1) Those between the beginning of suit and joinder of issue, (2) those between joinder of issue and trial, and (3) those in the disposition of matters that have been submitted to the court. The Attorney General feels justified in expecting that the first sort of delay will be substantially reduced as a result of the adoption of the new Rules