ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1945

96127

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEVENTY-EIGHTH CONG

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE JUDICIARY

STANF

APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1945

APR

3 a 1944

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1944

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

CLARENCE CANNON, Missouri, Chairman

CLIFTON A. WOODRUM, Virginia
LOUIS LUDLOW, Indiana
MALCOLM C. TARVER, Georgia
JED JOHNSON, Oklahoma

J. BUELL SNYDER, Pennsylvania
EMMET O'NEAL, Kentucky

JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, New York
LOUIS C. RABAUT, Michigan
JOE STARNES, Alabama

JOHN H. KERR, North Carolina
GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas
HARRY R. SHEPPARD, California
BUTLER B. HARE, South Carolina
ALBERT THOMAS, Texas
JOE HENDRICKS, Florida
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, Ohio

JOHN M. COFFEE, Washington
W. F. NORRELL, Arkansas

ALBERT GORE, Tennessee

ELMER H. WENE, New Jersey

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico

JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi

JOHN TABER, New York

RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH, Massachusetts
WILLIAM P. LAMBERTSON, Kansas

D. LANE POWERS, New Jersey
ALBERT E. CARTER, California
CHARLES A. PLUMLEY, Vermont
EVERETT M. DIRKSEN, Illinois
ALBERT J. ENGEL, Michigan
KARL STEFAN, Nebraska

FRANCIS H. CASE, South Dakota
FRANK B. KEEFE, Wisconsin
NOBLE J. JOHNSON, Indiana
ROBERT F. JONES, Ohio
BEN F. JENSEN, Iowa

H. CARL ANDERSEN, Minnesota
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho
WALTER C. PLOESER, Missouri
HARVE TIBBOTT, Pennsylvania

THOMAS J. O'BRIEN, Illinois

JAMES M. CURLEY, Massachusetts

MARCELLUS C. SHEILD, Clerk

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE-JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS EMMET O'NEAL, Kentucky, Chairman

JOE HENDRICKS, Florida ALBERT GORE, Tennessee MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, Ohio

NOBLE J. JOHNSON, Indiana WALTER C. PLOESER, Missouri HARVE TIBBOTT, Pennsylvania

THE JUDICIARY APPROPRIATION BILL, 1945

HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE EMMET O'NEAL (CHAIRMAN), JOE HENDRICKS, ALBERT GORE, MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, NOBLE J. JOHNSON, WALTER C. PLOESER, AND HARVE TIBBOTT, OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN CHARGE OF THE LEGISLATIVE-JUDICIARY APPROPRIATION BILL, 1945, ON THE DAYS FOLLOWING:

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1944.

STATEMENTS OF HENRY P. CHANDLER, DIRECTOR; ELMORE WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR; WILL SHAFROTH, CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF PROCEDURAL STUDIES AND STATISTICS; EDWIN L. COVEY, CHIEF OF THE BANKRUPTCY DIVISION; ROYAL E. JACKSON, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER; L. J. GROUT, CHIEF OF THE PROBATION DIVISION; HON. JOHN C. KNOX, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, NEW YORK, N. Y.; HON. ALBERT B. MARIS, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.; HON. JUSTIN MILLER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WASHINGTON, D. C.; AND HON. JOHN BIGGS, JR., UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE, WILMINGTON, DEL.

ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE HARVE TIBBOTT, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO MEMBERSHIP ON THE COMMITTEE

Mr. O'NEAL. Gentlemen, this is the first meeting of the LegislativeJudiciary Subcommittee on Appropriations, to consider appropriations for the fiscal year 1945. This morning we start with the part of the bill having to do with the judiciary and we have with us the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Mr. Chandler, whom we shall be glad to hear directly.

All of the members of this subcommittee were here during the hearings of last year, with the exception of Mr. Tibbott, of Pennsylvania, who has recently joined our committee. I am sure the committee finds it agreeable having Mr. Tibbott with us. We know we will receive valuable assistance from Mr. Tibbott and we will be pleased to have him contribute his abilities to the consideration of this bill. We welcome Mr. Tibbott to the committee.

Mr. TIBEOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Chandler, we should be very glad to have you proceed to make a general statement, following which we will take up the detailed items of the bill. You may proceed in your own way, Mr. Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, with your permission, I shall make a statement, which can be brief, of the general status of the business of the courts at the present time, and what seem to the Judicial Conference some of the significant trends in the handling of the judicial work. I think some picture of these conditions may afford a setting for more effective consideration of the money schedules.

In a general way, the business of the United States courts in 1943 stayed about level. There was a decline in the number of civil cases filed of 3.5 percent. There was an increase in the criminal cases filed of nearly 10 percent; although, strangely enough, the number of defendants involved was about 3 percent less than in the previous year. That was due to the fact, as I shall point out later, that there was a considerable decrease in the types of prosecutions which ordinarily involve a number of defendants, such as prosecutions for violation of the liquor laws, whereas the classes of criminal cases which increased, were mainly those in which there is ordinarily only a single defendantsuch as selective service cases.

There was a very marked decrease in bankruptcy proceedings, a decrease in the number of cases filed of 333 percent in the fiscal year 1943. That, of course, is a very gratifying condition from the standpoint of the general business health of the country. It creates some problems in the bankruptcy administration, and in the compensation of referees who are paid by fees, to which I shall refer a little later.

NUMBER OF NATURALIZATION CASES

There was an increase in naturalizations in 1943 of 17.4 percent, and the number of naturalization cases being handled this year is very large, indeed. This may be, from what I can learn from the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, perhaps a peak in the movement of this type of cases, although we cannot be very sure at this time.

TRENDS OF BUSINESS IN UNITED STATES COURTS

You may be interested to know what accounts in the main for the business to which I have referred; what are the largest categories of cases which make up the civil and criminal cases. In a general way, this is the fact: That the ordinary types of litigation in the Federal courts are decreasing in number; but cases relating to the war are rising sharply. For instance, in 1943 there were 16 percent fewer private civil cases filed than in 1942. (In referring to years I mean fiscal years unless I expressly indicate otherwise.) In the second half of 1943, compared with the corresponding period 2 years before, there

was a decrease of nearly one-third in cases brought into the Federal courts on account of diversity of citizenship, in the 84 districts in the States having only Federal jurisdiction (excluding the District of Columbia).

Between 1942 and 1913 there was a decline in suits brought in the 84 districts on account of injuries sustained in motor-vehicle accidents from 2,010 to 1,222, or 39 percent. On the other hand, during this same period there was a very marked increase in Government cases. Government civil cases brought in 1943 rose about 12 percent over the number in 1942; and of these civil cases of the Government a very large number were condemnation cases brought for the acquisition of property for use in one way or another in carrying on the war.

VOLUME OF CONDEMNATION CASES

The condemnation cases rose in the following marked degree. In 1941 there were 1,783 condemnation cases brought by the Government; in 1942, 3,880, more than twice as many; and in 1943, 4,971. You see, in 2 years the number of condemnation cases brought by the Government nearly trebled-not quite. The indications are that condemnation cases are now leveling off, that the number this year will be less than in 1943, although still rather high.

I have some information furnished by the Lands Division of the Department of Justice which I think will interest you. That Department received in the fiscal year 1941, for prosecution, 1,778 condemnation cases; in 1942, 3,818; in 1943, 4,683; and in the first half of 1914, 1,621. You will see, if that rate is sustained for the year, the number in 1944 will be something like 3,300, as compared with 4,600 the year before. The number in 1944 will apparently be lower than in either of the 2 previous years.

Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand, you say that in the first half of 1944 there were 1,600, and some?

Mr. CHANDLER. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you anticipating there?

Mr. CHANDLER. No; I am speaking about the fiscal year 1944.
Mr. JOHNSON. I beg your pardon?

Mr. CHANDLER. I am referring to the fiscal year unless I otherwise indicate. That is the last half of the calendar year 1943.

Now, a case is not an altogether informing unit in relation to condemnation cases That is, it does not give a clear conception of what is involved, because many cases involve a large number of tracts, each one of which may present a separate lawsuit. Often, of course, tracts may be grouped, or there may be a contest over a single tract. Normally in one condemnation case there will be the utmost diversity as to the number of tracts involved. The Lands Division has furnished information in reference to the number of tracts involved in suits in these corresponding periods, which is enlightening.

The number of tracts involved in cases received in 1941 was over 12,000 and I am just giving round numbers; in 1942 nearly 37,000, an increase of threefold; in 1943 about 44,000, and in the first half of this fiscal year 13,500, so that the number of tracts in condemnation cases received by the Lands Division will apparently be less in the fiscal year 1944 than in any previous year since 1941.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »