posals that were there. That was what he suggested. I don't think he suggested this committee should submit it.

Mr. AUTRY. That is right.

Senator ERVIN. It is somewhat difficult to say what

Attorney General KATZENBACH. I have never seen the American Law Institute do this frankly. They decided their projects that they are going to work on, and I have never known them to comment on other pieces of legislation. They comment on things, the drafts that that are preparing, the model codes that they are doing, the restatements, and so forth. That has been their activity rather than commenting on legislation. So I thought it was rather an innovation that they should even consider it.

Senator ERVIN. I will renew my disclaimer of having any authority to speak for the Chief Justice or to interpret the meaning of his remarks. But the New York Times for May the 19th does state that:

Chief Justice Earl Warren warned today that "ill-advised" proposals pending in Congress to bar racial discrimination in the selection of juries could, if enacted, encroach on the rights of the States.

Speaking before the annual meeting of the American Law Institute, the Chief Justice of the United States departed from his prepared text to note his apprehension over some of the 34 bills being considered by Congress.

"Some of them go a long way and may radically change the relationship between the Federal and State Governments," he said.

Although he assured the lawyers that the bills would be "carefully scrutinized and studied" by the committees of Congress and the Judicial Conference, he suggested that the institute might also study the subject.

Otherwise, he said, he is "apprehensive that some legislation might go through and at the same time be ill-advised."

The Chief Justice declined later to elaborate on his statement or to indicate which of the pending bills might have caused his apprehension.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Don't you think it is a fair statement, Mr. Chairman, to state that the provisions of title I having to do with the selection of Federal juries could scarcely encroach upon the rights of the States?

Senator ERVIN. I agree with you as to title I.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes. I think at least we could agree that he wasn't talking about title I.

Senator ERVIN. Well, I would agree with you in that observation, but in order that we might have this historical remark preserved for future reference, we will put it in full in the record.

(The article referred to follows:)

[The New York Times, May 19, 1966]

WARREN DISCERNS STATE RIGHTS PERIL IN JURY BIAS BILL

(By Fred P. Graham)

WASHINGTON, May 18.-Chief Justice Earl Warren warned today that "illadvised" proposals pending in Congress to bar racial discrimination in the selection of juries could, if enacted, encroach on the rights of the states.

Speaking before the annual meeting of the American Law Institute, the Chief Justice of the United States departed from his prepared text to note his apprehension over some of the 34 bills being considered by Congress.

"Some of them go a long way and may radically change the relationship between the Federal and state governments," he said.

Although he assured the lawyers that the bills would be "carefully scrutinized and studied" by the committees of Congress and the Judicial Conference, he suggested that the institute might also study the subject.

Otherwise, he said, he is "apprehensive that some legislation might go through and at the same time be ill-advised."

65-506-66-pt. 1-14

The Chief Justice declined later to elaborate on his statement or to indicate which of the pending bills might have caused his apprehension.

Observers assumed that he was not referring to the jury provision of the Administration's proposed Civil Rights bill of 1966, which has been attacked by liberals as being too soft on the states.

PROVISIONS IN '66 BILL

The Administration bill requires that Federal juries be selected from lists that include a cross-section of the community. It leaves state jury-selection methods untouched unless racial discrimination is proved.

In such cases it authorizes the Attorney General to request a Federal court order to eliminate the discrimination.

Some liberals have criticized the lack of an automatic "trigger" to allow the Federal Government to move to end jury discrimination in states.

Representative William F. Ryan, Democrat of Manhattan, has led this group. Mr. Ryan has called for a law what would allow Federal jury commissioners to take over the preparation of state jury lists if the Attorney General found that Negroes were being excluded.

After the Chief Justice's speech the institute turned to its second day of debate on the controversial model code of prearraignment procedure.

The discussion brought a degree of agreement on the sensitive issue of police interrogations and confessions, which had been the center of the heated controversy that proceeded the meeting.

The draftsmen of the model code agreed to defer any vote on the sections involving the rights of newly arrested suspects until next year's meeting, when the Supreme Court will have handed down its decisions in six pending confessions

cases.

This concession came in response to pleas by Dean Louis H. Pollack of the Yale Law School, John P. Frank of Arizona and others that the interrogation procedures in the model code would be unconstitutional under the forthcoming high court rulings.

The model code requires the police to warn suspects of their rights, but allows four hours of interrogation before suspects must be brought before a judge. Suspects would be allowed to see lawyers or friends but indigent suspects would not be provided lawyers by the state.

A possible area of compromise on the touchy confessions issue came to light when Prof. Jack B. Weinstein of Columbia Law School proposed that all arrested persons be brought immediately before a judge, but that the judge be authorized to remand the suspect back to the police for questioning.

This would preclude "dragnet" arrests because the judge would immediately release anyone whom the police did not have probable cause to hold. The judge would also satisfy himself that the suspect understood his rights.

This procedure is not feasible in most states now because suspects have a right to post bail as soon as they are charged before a judge.

PRAISE FOR PROPOSAL

Federal Appellate Judge George Edwards of Michigan, one of the institute's most eloquent opponents of the model code, surprised many of the participants by praising this proposal.

Judge Edwards said confessions obtained in questioning both before and after the judge's warning would be constitutional, as long as there was no unreasonable delay in bringing a suspect before the judge.

Long applause followed a statement by Federal Appeals Judge Henry J. Friendly of New York when he indicated that he spoke for the majority when he said the law must preserve "legitimate, noncoercive questioning.

If the courts cut off all questioning of suspected criminals, Judge Friendly said, "that is not a rule that society will long endure."

In the morning session the institute overwhelmingly endorsed, in principle, a model "stop and risk" law by a 164-to-40 vote. This approved in general, a proposal that would allow the police to stop and search suspects on the street, and question them for up to 20 minutes.

James Vorenberg, principal draftsman of the model code, said he would consider limiting this power to violent crimes and threatened escapes.

Opponents said it should exclude from evidence any "windfall" evidence resulting from such searches, to discourage capricious searching.

The institute, composed of 1,800 of the country's leading judges, lawyers and legal scholars, is devoted to the clarification and improvement of the law.

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the official transcript which we had requested just came in this morning.

Senator ERVIN. We might read that into the record at this point. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I think we asked that the whole transcript be included.

Senator ERVIN. Yes; but I will read the remarks alluded to in the New York Times and let that be put in separately for emphasis and then put the whole transcript in.

As evidence of the general interest in this subject, there are no less than 31 bills now pending in the House of Representatives and three bills in the Senate affecting jury selection. Undoubtedly these proposals will be carefully scrutinized and studied by the committees of Congress and by the Judicial Conference of the United States and might well be the subject of a study also by the American Law Institute.

Many of these suggestions made to the Congress at this particular time may be appropriate, but in just surveying them generally, it seems to me that some of them go a long ways and would very radically change the relationship between our Federal and State Governments, and for that reason alone should receive the most careful consideration, and unless the bench and the bar and our learned societies such as this become thoroughly interested in the matter and debate the changes that are suggested, I'm apprehensive that some legislation might not go through and at the same time be ill advised.

There seems to be a slight discrepancy in the phraseology in the newspaper and that in the speech.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Some people have that experience. Senator ERVIN. Yes; let the whole speech be printed at this point in the record.

(The speech referred to follows:)

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE,
Philadelphia, Pa., June 7, 1966.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Pursuant to your request of June 6, I am pleased to enclose a transcript of the address to The American Law Institute on May 18, 1966, by the Chief Justice of the United States.

Yours truly,

PAUL A. WOLkin,

Assistant Director.

We will con

[The meeting rose and applauded.]

President DARRELL. Gentlemen, the Chief Justice has arrived. tinue this after he has finished his Address.

Our speaker this morning, as you have just so clearly demonstrated, is an old friend of the Institute who for the thirteenth time comes to address us on the state of the courts and judicial administration.

As I announced at the opening session yesterday, his appearance before us, which usually occurs at that session, was postponed at his request until today due to an unexpected development.

Since his last appearance before us something has happened to the Chief. He experienced his first birthday party, widely noted in the press, upon reaching the distinguished age of threescore and fifteen. We congratulate you, Mr. Chief Justice. We welcome you here. We are honored by your presence. You will have our full attention. [Applause]

The Honorable Chief Justice of the United States EARL WARREN. Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I hope there is nothing auspicious about this being my thirteenth time here, but I'm happy to be here, and I want to make an apology at the beginning. It wasn't an absolutely unavoidable thing that took me away from here yesterday, but I did have an opportunity to go down to Cape Kennedy and see what we thought was going to be a great space exploration, and because

those things happen so seldom when I can go, and because this was the first real invitation that I had to do it, I just played hookey and went down there and saw it. [Laughter] But I'm sure, except for the fact that it disarranged your program, there will be nothing lost, because there is nothing that I have to say or would have said yesterday that can't just as well be said today.

Now, following my usual custom I'll present a report on the general condition of the business in the several federal courts. Once again I must report a continuing rise in the number of cases filed in both district courts and courts of appeals with a growing lag in dispositions.

Taking the courts of appeals first, as of March 31, 1966, the number of cases docketed reached 5,343 for the first nine months of the fiscal year as compared with 4,945 for the comparable period last year. This is an increase in new appeals of 8 percent. During the same period terminations in the courts of appeals did increase from 4,014 to 4,682 this year, but, because the increase in filings was so much larger than the increase in terminations, the number of cases pending rose to 5,436 on last March 31, as against 4,711 on that date in the year preceding. The increase pending in the courts of appeals is 15 percent.

Looking further back in point of time, it appears that since 1961 the number of appeals filed has increased 61 per cent while the number of appeals pending has risen by 101 per cent. The courts which in 1965 had the greatest increase in the number of appeals filed were the Ninth Circuit, where the appeals docketed increased by 35 per cent, the Fourth Circuit with an increase of 31 per cent, and the Sixth Circuit with an increase of 23 per cent.

In the district courts there has been a small decrease during the last year in the number of new criminal cases. The total number of criminal cases during the first nine months of this present fiscal year was 23,741 as compared with 24,491 cases during the same period of the year preceding. A comparison of the criminal cases terminated, however, shows 22,072 cases closed as compared with 22,103 a year ago. As of March 31, 1966, criminal cases pending in the district courts had increased to a total of 12,503 cases as compared with 11,848 pending the year before.

With respect to the civil cases in the district courts, I must report an even greater increase in both filings and cases pending at the end of the year.

During the first nine months of the current fiscal year the total of civil cases filed in the district courts reached 52,292 as against 50,142 filed during the comparable period of time. This represents a 4 per cent increase in the number of civil filings in one year. The number terminated was 47,682 as compared with 47,815 in the comparable period of the prior year-a decrease in terminations. On March 31, 1966, the number of civil cases pending in the district courts had reached the total of 79,005, an increase of almost 5,000 over the prior yearand by far the highest figure on record.

The trend in bankruptcy cases is similar. The number of new bankruptcy cases docketed during the nine months of the present fiscal year rose to 141,515 over 131,927 the year before, an increase of 7.3 per cent. Bankruptcy dispositions also rose during this same period to 133,418, a new record for dispositions, but the pending bankruptcy caseload as of March 31, 1966 also reached a new high of 170,469 as compared with 164,500 pending a year before.

In giving significance to these figures, however, it must be borne in mind that business bankruptcies constitute a very small fraction of the total of bankruptcy cases filed; in fact, only 8.9 per cent. The bulk of the cases are individual bankruptcies. There has been no significant increase during the past year in the number of business bankruptcies filed, so I should say that because the individual bankruptcies are rather simple as a rule-most of them wage earner's bankruptcies that there has been no significant increase or loss in the bankruptcy area. In the Supreme Court there has also been a marked increase in the cases on the dockets during the past term both on the appellate docket and on the Court's miscellaneous docket. The total cases at this point in the current term is 3,012 as against 2,514 at this time last year. The regular appellate docket has risen to 1,317 over 1,173 last year, and the miscellaneous docket has risen to 1,695 cases over 1,341 cases a year ago.

The Supreme Court, however, has been able to keep abreast of its work. This term the Court has heard arguments in 131 cases in a period of 192 hours as compared with 122 cases in 177 hours last term. This year on both of its dockets the Supreme Court has disposed of 2,145 cases as compared with 1,921 cases at this point in 1965. We are current. We have heard all the cases that are ready to be argued this term and we have every reason to believe that all of our opinions will be ready to hand down in time for normal adjournment.

The Congress has been prompt to recognize that the Federal Judiciary is losing ground in the stream of new litigation in spite of the sizable increase in the number of judgeships authorized by the Congress only five years ago.

Since I last reported to you, Congress has enacted into law a new Omnibus Judgeship Bill authorizing 45 additional federal judgeships, 10 being on the courts of appeals and 35 on the district courts. The new judgeships were recommended to the Congress by the Judicial Conference of the United States after a painstaking analysis of the judicial workload in each district and each circuit, and Congress is to be commended for acting promptly and providing the additional judgeships when the need became apparent rather than letting judicial business bog down. The Judicial Conference is no longer waiting until there are emergency demands for additional judgeships but is reviewing at least every two years the current requirements for judgeships. Through its Statistics Committee the Judicial Conference conducts a continual study of the needs of the courts.

The increase of 45 additional judgeships will undoubtedly, and in the course of time, have a favorable impact on the administration of justice in the federal system. But the question is: How much difference will it make? We must not be lulled into thinking that this increase in judgeships will solve our problem. It hasn't in the past. The experience of the past has demonstrated that increasing the number of judges is no more than a partial solution of the problems of judicial administration. It is up to us, judges and the bar, to meet our responsibilities in making our courts efficient and effective institutions. To do this we must together find better ways of disposing of judicial business. The need for new tools is, of course, a familiar theme.

In connection with this subject, I am glad to be able to report the substantial progress that has been made in the area of court rules of practice and procedure. Last September the Judicial Conference of the United States approved and sent to the Supreme Court proposed amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court approved these proposed amendments and transmitted them to the Congress on February 28 and, unless Congress takes some action with regard to them, they will become effective on July 1 of this year. As you know, these amendments are the product of more than four years of effort and consideration. The proposals were twice circulated to the bench and bar for study and criticism and the resulting comments were given most thorough analysis by the members of the committees.

The amendments make many important changes, but I think that undoubtedly the outstanding achievement is the merger of the Rules of Admiralty Procedure with the Rules of Civil Procedure. This monumental step was taken with the full cooperation of the Admiralty bar and is one which will be observed carefully by the members of the Advisory Committee on Admiralty Rules who will review the operation of these amendments thoroughly after they have been in effect for a period of time in order to give consideration to further modifications or improvements as may be deemed necessary.

Both the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules are also continuing committees and, in fact, each of them is meeting again within the coming week.

The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules has completed a large portion of its work. The Judicial Conference has recommended to the Congress implementing legislation to authorize the Supreme Court to promulgate uniform appellate rules as it does the civil and criminal rules. Bills to accomplish this are now pending in the House and Senate.

Last year I reported to you the formation of an Advisory Committee on Uniform Rules of Evidence. This committee now has held several meetings, but, by the very nature of its task, it must be anticipated that this committee will be at work for a long time. As in the case of the other committees, all of its proposals, when ready, will be circulated to the bar and ample time and opportunity for comment will be afforded.

The Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules also has the major portion of its task still ahead of it. You will recall that legislation enacted in October, 1964 enlarged the scope of this committee's activity to include rule-making authority and, accordingly, the committee during the past year has begun work on this new task which should prove a significant forward step in the administration of bankruptcy.

I take every opportunity that I can to observe these committees at work and I can report to you that I have never seen more dedicated, hard-working men than the members of these advisory committees. They are an honor to the profession-every judge and every lawyer owes a debt of gratitude to them for a