Mr. KLEINDIENST. Well, I think that, ideally, if we could all agree upon some valid system by which we would be guaranteed that the best qualified available lawyer or judge somehow or another came out of the system, taking into account the frailties of human beings, I think I would be interested in considering such a proposal. However, I also have a great respect for the "advice and consent" function of the U.S. Senate in relationship to Presidential appointments. It is a system that has existed for a long time. It is not perfect, because nothing that any of us do is perfect, and I would want to be sure that just for the sake of expeditious efficiency we did not find ourselves with something that did not have an appropriate check and balance.

Senator TYDINGS. In the District of Columbia's present situation, there is no senatorial courtesy other than that which extends to the Committee on the District of Columbia. I think the judicial nominating commission for the District of Columbia is worthwhile and should be studied.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. I think that is an area the Senate should explore independently.

Senator TYDINGS. Without your recommendations one way or the other?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. I think that would be one part of the process, Senator.

Senator TYDINGS. Well, I can take it then that the Department does not have a position on it one way or the other?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. No, except that I am now following the existing procedures of the Senate, so that so far as the advice and consent function is concerned, if a person is nominated to a District of Columbia position who resides outside the District, we advise and consult with the Senators from the State of the candidate's residence. If he resides in the District of Columbia, we do not advise and consult with any particular Senators at the present time.

Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Kleindienst, how are you coming with the Department's proposal with relationship to the District of Columbia courts which you mentioned in your prepared statement?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. This has been one of the most complex problems that we have faced. The President gave it a high priority. We have had two or three target dates that have been postponed. My last conference with the persons on my staff who are dealing with this was such that we can expect to have the Department's recommendations go to the President in the immediate future. I do not mean 3 or 4 weeks from now, but I am now talking in terms of days.

Senator TYDINGS. As you know, I have been trying to work with the Department of Justice.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Yes.

Senator TYDINGS. But we are somewhat pressed. We had hoped to begin hearings on the reorganization of the District of Columbia courts by the middle of May.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Right, I think that you should be able to, so far as we are concerned, Senator.

Senator TYDINGS. Fine.

As you know, I did not want to do it without your proposals in front of us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kleindienst.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Thank you. I appreciate your courtesy and the privilege of being here today.

Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Ellison.

We are delighted to welcome two such distinguished leaders of the American Bar and the District of Columbia Bar, Mr. Ellison and Mr. Pickering. And I know that you, Mr. Ellison, have been at work for a number of years trying to develop a broad range of proposals to improve the administration of justice here in the District of Columbia. I also realize that your Committee is composed of volunteers who have received no compensation whatsoever for the many long hours they devote to the problems of the District of Columbia courts and not to clients' problems. Your Committee's work is an invaluable service to the community, and I am delighted to personally thank both you and Mr. Pickering and to welcome you to this subcommittee's proceedings.

I have reviewed your statement, and we will incorporate it in its entirety in the record.

You may proceed in any fashion that you wish.

STATEMENT OF NEWELL W. ELLISON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT; ACCOMPANIED BY J. H. PICKERING

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With your permission I will read the statement. It is very short.

Senator TYDINGS. Fine.

Mr. ELLISON. My name is Newell W. Ellison, I am a lawyer and have practiced law in the District of Columbia for over 45 years.

I am chairman of the Committee on the Administration of Justice which was established by the Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit to study the courts of the District. Our Committee recently issued a series of recommendations for reorganization of the District of Columbia courts, and I would like to submit a copy of these recommendations for the record.

(The recommendations referred to follow :)

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF Our Courts, SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

The Committee on the Administration of Justice has conducted a reasonably detailed study of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions and has reached certain conclusions with respect to what needs to be done to advance the administration of justice in our courts. The problems we face are varied and many, and we have not reached conclusions with respect to all of them, but we submit the recommendations set forth below as representing our best judgment as to what should be done about some of them. No system is perfect, but the difficulties our courts finds themselves in today clearly indicate that changes are needed. We think the ones we recommend will better enable the courts to carry out their responsibility to the community which they serve.

In submitting these recommendations we pass for the time being the changes which should be made in the internal management of the courts themselves. These will be covered in a separate memorandum. Such changes, and they are many, do not for the most part require legislation. A revision of the courts' rules and procedures and practices which lie within the power of the courts themselves will do that job. We have made, and will continue to make, many recommendations in that field, but they do not go to the heart of the legislation which is necessary in order to meet many of the distressing problems we face.

JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS

We recognize that the workload of the United States District Court needs to be alleviated in some substantial way. The community is suffering particularly from a delay in the disposition of criminal cases coming before that Court. While the Court is concentrating on criminal cases, the civil docket is suffering and there is overall a dangerous accumulation of cases due to a lack of an adequate number of judges and supporting services in that Court.

Three suggestions have been made to relieve this congestion :

(1) Establish a new criminal court.

(2) Provide more judges for the United States District Court and leave the cases there.

(3) Transfer some of the jurisdiction of the United States District Court to the Court of General Sessions and give the latter Court more judges.

We oppose creating a new criminal court. We do not like the proliferation of courts because, as Roscoe Pound said:

"Multiplicity of courts is characteristic of archaic law." Moreover, a new court whose jurisdiction is confined to criminal cases would have difficulty in securing the services of the kind of judges that would be desirable.

Nor do we think the problem can best be solved by simply adding more judges to the United States District Court. Rather we think that the Court of General Sessions should be strengthened in many ways and become the local court of general jurisdiction to which ultimately most, if not all, of the local business of the United States District Court can be transferred.

Criminal Cases. The local criminal cases are to be found in Title 22 of the District of Columbia Code. The ends of justice will best be served, we believe, by transferring without delay a part of the offenses under Title 22 to the Court of General Sessions simultaneously with giving that Court additional judges and supporting personnel to enable it to meet its increased responsibility.

It is our firm view that those offenses which are of maximum seriousness to the community should remain for the present with the United States District Court for two reasons: In the first place, to transfer all of Title 22 at one time would likely produce chaotic conditions in the Court of General Sessions. The transfer of jurisdiction should be by stages so that the Court can master the additional responsibility thus entailed and give that Court an opportunity to build itself stronger in the community in other respects before it is called upon to assume the larger responsbility.

Our view does not rest alone from the fact that too speedy a transfer would result in chaotic conditions, for the plain fact is that the Court of General Sessions is not fully equipped at this time to carry out the responsibility to the community where the more serious crimes of violence are involved. While the Court includes some judges of excellent quality, the general level of competence of both the judges and supporting personnel must be raised before it is in a position to protect the community in these serious matters. It is for this reason that we urge that in filling the vacancies that now exist, and that will exist in the reasonably near future, the best possible qualified men and women be chosen. Without competent judges the community will suffer and the best system in the world will not work. As later discussed in these recommendations, it is essential to have improved provisions for selection, tenure and removal of these judges.

We therefore recommend that not all but part of the offenses covered by Title 22 be immediately transferred to the Court of General Sessions. And we attach as Exhibit A a memorandum setting forth those offenses which we think should now be transferred and those that should be retained at least for the time being by the United States District Court. If this change is made, it will result in approximately one-third of the present work load of the United States District Court under Title 22 being transferred to the Court of General Sessions.

Exhibit A also sets forth our recommendations as to when the remaining offenses under Title 22 should be transferred to the Court of General Sessions. Civil Cases. In addition to the transfer of this criminal jurisdiction, we think the following civil jurisdiction should be transferred immediately: (1) Exclusive jurisdiction over all litigation (whether at law or in equity) involving $25,000 or less, or relating to a subject matter having a value of $25,000 or less, not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, and concurrent jurisdiction with the United States District Court, only where the federal statutes give the district courts original jurisdiction. (2) Exclusive jurisdicton over all

automobile accident litigation and other personal injury (including malpractice) without regard to the amount involved where the accident occurs within the District of Columbia and both parties are residents of the District of Columbia. (3) Exclusive jurisdiction over all litigation brought by or against the Government of the District of Columbia or any of the officials of said Government, without regard to the amount involved and whether at law or in equity, unless removable under the federal statutes to the United States District Court, in which event it should have concurrent jurisdiction with that Court. (The principal reason for removal would be diversity of citizenship, treating the General Sessions Court as a state court within the federal removal statutes.) (4) Exclusive jurisdiction over all Mental Health and District Training School cases; although, for the time being the administration of incompetents' estates should remain with the District Court.

JUVENILE COURT

Last year we recommended that the Juvenile Court be transferred lock, stock and barrel to the Court of General Sessions as a new Division of that Court. We drafted a bill embodying our recommendations which was introduced in the Senate at our request by Senator Bible at S. 3683. The bill died with the end of the last Congress, and Senator Bible has just reintroduced the bill with unimportant changes as S. 1067. We believe strongly that the substance of this bill without any material modifications should be enacted into law.

The Juvenile Court has been in trouble for many, many years, and is at the moment in serious trouble. It lacks strength and cannot be adequately managed since it is not a part of the central court system of our city.

At the present time problems relating to the family unit are divided among the United States District Court, the Court of General Sessions and the Juvenile Court. As matters stand today it is entirely possible that there could be pending simultaneously in the Court of General Sessions and the Juvenile Court cases relating to members of the same family without that fact being brought to the attention of the judge attempting to frame a decree of disposition.

Such fragmentation of family problems among separate independent tribunals charged with the responsibility of adjusting family relations is bound to be inefficient, overlapping and costly. It should not be permitted to continue. The Juvenile Court should be a part of the court that has jurisdiction over domestic relations proceedings. In that way the advantages of a Family Court which deals with both juvenile and domestic relations problems will be obtained. Accordingly, it should be made a Division of the Court of General Sessions with the understanding that in appointing further judges to that Court persons who are equipped to handle Juvenile Court matters will be appointed in sufficient number so that the Chief Judge will always have at his disposal men and women who are competent in that field as well as in other fields.

The current trend throughout the country is in this direction. It is significant that the Juvenile Court of New York requested the Constitutional Convention of that State to make the Juvenile Court a part of its Supreme Court for reasons similar to those that prompted us to recommend that our Juvenile Court be made a part of our general court structure and be included in the Court of General Sessions.

Under our bill the rights of the juveniles are in no way modified or impaired, and the change will certainly strengthen the administration of that Court and provide competent and adequate judges to do the work.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS BRANCH

An anomaly exists in the Court of General Sessions which our court bill, S. 1067, will eliminate. The Domestic Relations Branch is in effect a court within a court. While it is nominally a part of the Court of General Sessions, it has its own clerks, its own list of judges, and is separately run from the Court in general. The Chief Judge of the Court of General Sessions has no power to rotate judges in and out of the Domestic Relations Branch. And the bill which Senator Bible has introduced would do away with this anomaly, make it a Division of the Court, and place all the judges in the same category. We attach as Exhibit B a copy of S. 1067 which incorporates the Juvenile Court as a part of the Court of General Sessions and places the Domestic Relations Branch under the jurisdiction of the Chief Judge. We strongly urge that the substance of this bill be enacted without any substantial changes.

30-079 0-69-7

ADDITIONAL JUDGES

If one-third of the work load of Title 22 and the additional civil jurisdiction are transferred to the court of General sessions as we recommend, that Court will have to have additional judges. We recommend ten more judges because we are convinced it represents the minimum needed by the Court to do its present work and assume this additional responsibility.

Last year we recommended that the Court be given five additional judges. Congress provided for only two. The Court really needed the five, and now they need at least seven more if this transfer of jurisdiction is made effective, so that they will need a minimum of ten additional judges.

By transferring a substantial part of the work load from the United States District Court to the Court of General Sessions as we recommend, it leaves the former Court in a position to make real headway in reducing to acceptable levels its backlog of cases.

Ultimately the District Court will have need of fewer judges than it now has, and we oppose adding to the present number since it would tend to add to the confusion. Rather, we think that any additional help which that Court needs for the moment be met by expanding the visiting judge program. It is not only the better way to meet any temporary need that may exist, but it can be done more speedily.

And if the Court modifies its procedures in line with suggestions we have made, we think that Court can effectively meet its obligations.

SUPPORTING PERSONNEL

If ten judges are added to the Court of General Sessions as we recommend, additional personnel will obviously be needed so that the new judges can function properly. We attach a memorandum marked Exhibit C setting forth the additional personnel which Chief Judge Greene of the Court of General Sessions thinks will be needed for his Court in the event they get ten additional judges.

OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEY

The United States Attorney has an authorized staff of 78 Assistant United States Attorneys. There are at present four vacancies. The Assistants engaged in criminal trial work in the United States District Court carry an average caseload of from 55 to 60 felony cases. In order to try the current indictments more expeditiously as well as to eliminate the backlog of 1,200 felony cases, the staff in the Criminal Division at the District Court should be substantially increased. The Criminal Division should also be reorganized and separate units created within the Division in order that special attention may be given to crimes of violence, fraud cases, and the elimination of the backlog.

Experienced prosecutors should be relieved of their trial assignments periodically and participate as instructors in a continuing training program in trial techniques to be conducted within the Office for the benefit of the less experienced prosecutors.

One of the most important sections in the Office of the United States Attorney is in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions which now has a staff of 18 Assistants most of whom are inexperienced in trial work, and the training instruction to which we referred should be focused primarily on training these assistants. Moreover, several additional Assistants are needed in that branch of the Office's work.

It seems clear to us that at least 20 additional Assistant United States Attorneys are needed immediately, and upon the creation of ten additional judgeships, as we recommend, it is estimated that 20 more prosecutors will be required. To these should be added non-professional personnel including secretaries, clerical help, law clerks, and trained investigators to support the additional prosecutors.

ADDITIONAL MARSHALS

The United States Marshals serve the United States District Court, the Court of General Sessions and the Juvenile Court.

The Marshal maintains order in the courtroom, transfers prisoners back and forth from jails to courtrooms for trials and other purposes. And he acts as Sheriff in serving process in civil and criminal cases.

A complement of 112 deputies and 30 temporary-duty deputies were authorized in 1968. If ten more judges are added to the Court of General Sessions, it is