by the Clerk and Commissioner together, in the wheel as needed, in order that it contain the 300 names prescribed by statute when a drawing is made.

4. When a judge of the Court determines he needs a jury, the wheel of names is taken into the court room. In open court a deputy clerk draws an appropri ate number of names. These are later summoned to appear and report for jury duty on the appropriate day. In general, any requests these people may make to be excused are handled by the judge, when the jury reports or, occasionally, beforehand.

Mr. AUTRY. Next is Mr. Robert M. Stearns, clerk of the District of Columbia.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. STEARNS, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. STEARNS. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia does not have the many problems of the other courts. As a matter of fact, it has only been the last couple of years that they probably even started on a voting list. That is why Judge Holtzoff, on behalf of our court, which has previously testified before you, has requested that this act or our court be exempted from the provisions of this act. 'I agree with my colleagues and with you that this probably should be referred back for closer study, with the exception, perhaps, of section 102 which has to do with the pay of jurors, and like one of the gentlemen suggested, the increase is long overdue.

That is all I have to say, thank you, sir.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Stearns follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. STEARNS, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA

(Submitted at the request of Hon. Sam J. Ervin, Jr., chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights)

The provisions of Title I of S-3296 seem to me to be basically sound.

As a practical matter I would suggest that the Act be made more flexible as to the mechanics utilized by the Jury Commission in the drawing of names by substituting "wheel" in Title I, by the definition of "wheel" as in Title II. In some Disrticts, the use of a "wheel", rather than a box, or list etc. may be inefficient and impractical.

It is noted that S-3296 does not provide when and by what authority the Jury Commission is to draw names for service as jurors, nor how such persons so drawn shall be summoned for service. (See T. 28 USC 1867)

In view of Section 1866 (b) (1) which disqualifies a person "not a citizen of the United States," I would suggest the word "persons" in Section 1861, line 4 be changed to "citizens".

Senator ERVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns. I certainly agree with you that we need to increase the compensation, not only of the jurors but also of the jury commissions.

Mr. AUTRY. Next is Mr. V. Bailey Thomas, of the southern district of Texas.

STATEMENT OF V. BAILEY THOMAS, CLERK OF THE COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I can hardly elaborate further on what my colleagues have stated to you in their prepared statements. I did not prepare a statement. I think you received correspondence to the effect that I was away at that time. As you have already counted

noses to say, I do not think title I of this act should be passed at this time and more consideration should be given by the Judicial Conference. I may be unique in my feeling in this thing, but my present system is rather simple and sufficient and it is practical under the present statute. I have been very fortunate not to be attacked in any way, I guess, by it. But I am most satisfied the way that it is handled

now.

Thank you, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. AUTRY. Last, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Charles B. Watkins, northern district of Ohio, sixth circuit.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. WATKINS, CLERK OF THE COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, SIXTH CIRCUIT

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, you have my statement, and I have pointed out on the last page the four suggestions by which I think the act can be improved. I cannot improve on my statement.

I do think that the suggestion of the chairman that this be referred to the Judicial Conference and to other bodies to study this system should be done. I think that Mr. Keller has covered in very great detail the faults which I find with this proposed legislation.

Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. Thank you.

Let the record show that Mr. Watkins' entire statement will be presented in the body of the record immediately after his remarks. (The prepared statement of Mr. Watkins follows:)

STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. WATKINS, CLERK OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

For nearly thirty years, since January 1, 1937, I have been clerk for the Northern District of Ohio and have been in the clerk's office since April, 1924. I am also an attorney admitted to practice in Ohio.

With the policy and purposes of S. 3296 I agree. Jurors in the Northern District of Ohio have always been selected by lot, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin or economic status.

The present statutes do not provide for the source of prospective juors. The proposed Act cures this void in the law. Jurors are to be selected from the voter registration lists of the entire District, unless, in the judgment of the Judicial Council, there is discrimination, and it prescribes other sources. This may eliminate from jury service citizens otherwise qualified who do not vote. More specific provision should be made for the inclusion of qualified citizens who do not vote. Jury duty is the obligation of every qualified citizen.

Beginning in 1960, in accordance with Title 28, § 1865 (a), U.S.C., the court in my District ordered that jurors be selected from the county where court is held and from the adjacent counties, so as to eliminate unnecessary expense and not unduly burden the citizens. The selection of jurors from the entire District would increase the expense of mileage and subsistence for jurors.

The maintenance of a master jury wheel is a new approach to the selection of federal jurors. The Ohio statutes provide for a selection from the voter registration lists. Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) has two full-time jury commissioners with a staff of five clerical employees. In my judgment, several additional deputy clerks would be necessary to operate the proposed system for the larger territory of the Northern District of Ohio.

At present, the qualification is ascertained by a questionnaire mailed to the prospective juror. If the proposed personal appearance is required, the prospective juror should be compensated for his time and travel.

Religion should be eliminated from the qualifying questionnaire.

The authority of the court in granting excuses from jury service is too closely proscribed by § 1869.

The jury provisions of the Act as proposed are workable; however, I recommend that

(1) § 1864 be amended to permit not to exceed 25% of the names in the master jury wheel to be from sources other than voter registration lists, as the District Court may direct;

(2) § 1865 be amended to allow the qualification of jurors by a questionnaire similar to that now used and that these may be mailed to prospective jurors, and that the inquiry with reference to religion be eliminated;

(3) § 1869 be amended to permit the court to excuse jurors for good cause; and

(4) consideration be given to the additional expense these changes will incur.

Senator ERVIN. Counsel has a question.

Mr. AUTRY. I have just one brief question, Mr. Chairman.

All of you have said that it is your opinion that we should defer consideration until the Judicial Conference has had an opportunity to study title I. Are any of you aware in your own areas of problems of such magnitude which the title is meant to remedy-that is problems of discrimination and lack of uniformity-which would require Congress to enact this bill within the next 2 months?

Mr. CAHILL. No, not that I know of.

Mr. PECK. Not in my State.

Mr. EARL. Certainly not.

Mr. STEARNS. No.

Mr. IHLENFELDT. No condition exists which calls for such rushed consideration.

Mr. KELLER. I think not.

Mr. THOMAS. I am not aware of such.

Mr. ANDERSON. We have no such problem.
Mr. AUTRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. I appreciate far more than I can say your willingness to appear here today and give us the benefit of your views with respect to title I. I am a great believer in the old saying that the most efficient teacher of all things is experience and I think that when we have a proposed statute that affects Federal courts throughout the United States and particularly falls in a field like this, we can get the most aid from men who have had practical experience in the carrying out of the present laws with respect to the selection of jurors. For that reason, your expression of views is extremely valuable to the Congress and I certainly want to thank you for your willingness to appear and express them to us.

Thank you very much.

We will take a recess until 10:30 tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Thursday, July 28, 1966.)

CIVIL RIGHTS

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:40 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., presiding.

Present: Senators Ervin, Javits, and Fong.

Also present: George B. Autry, chief counsel and staff director; H. Houston Groome, Jr., and Lewis W. Evans, counsel; and Rufus Edmisten, research assistant.

Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order.

Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, may I just say a word?

I wish to say for the record my confidence and pleasure in having Father Cronin of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Rabbi Richard Hirsch of the Synagogue Council of America, and Dr. Benjamin Payton, National Council of Churches, here. The trilogy of the faiths is most inspiring in their testimony in this matter. I must beg their indulgence and the Chair's indulgence. I am ranking member of the Labor and Public Welfare Subcommittee which is locked in discussion on the airline strike.

I would like to welcome these very distinguished witnesses to the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, and commend them most warmly to the Chair.

Senator ERVIN. I would like to say, Senator, that you are one of the most diligent members of this subcommittee, but unfortunately for all of us, we all have too many tasks. We are faced with having three or four committee meetings at the same time, and it is impossible to attend all of them. I regret very much that this is your case, but you do have a matter that has created quite an emergency in the United States under consideration before your com

mittee.

I might say that is one of the reasons we had to schedule the other witness first, because he has transportation difficulties.

Counsel will call the first witness.

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the first witness is Prof. Leon Sarpy, immediate past president of the Louisiana State Bar Association, New Orleans, La., who is testifying on behalf of the association. Senator ERVIN. I welcome you to the subcommittee and express the appreciation of the subcommittee to you for your coming here to express your views and those of the organization you represent.

Your senior Senator, Allen Ellender, was anxious to be here to present you to the subcommittee, but he is one of the busiest men in the Senate and he has his committee sitting at the moment and could not be here. He asked me to express his regrets to you and to thank you for coming.

STATEMENT OF LEON SARPY, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, NEW ORLEANS, LA.

Mr. SARPY. May I ask what time I would be allowed here, Senator, because I do not want to encroach upon your very valuable time and that of other witnesses.

Senator ERVIN. I might state we schedule witnesses largely upon the basis of the time that they ask to be heard.

Mr. SARPY. Senator, the Louisiana Bar Association which I represent is composed of 5,000 lawyers of the State of Louisiana. Our association has been an integrated association for over 25 years, and any man who belongs to the State Bar Association must necessarily be a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. So it is not a voluntary institution. Everyone is included, irrespective of his origin. I also am here as an interested lecturer on procedural law. I have taught voluntarily at Loyola University School of Law at New Orleans for 33 years, so I am here also in that capacity. Otherwise, I represent no organization or corporation or anyone else.

In Louisiana, I believe that our jury system has worked very well and feel that these bills, insofar as they inculcate into our State procedures new concepts, will just about scuttle the present jury system in Louisiana.

We are quite proud of the provisions of our code of civil procedure and our revised statutes on jury selection. Just last week the Governor signed into law a new code of criminal procedure that was adopted after 7 years work by the Louisiana State Law Institute.

Let me say that our statutes make it very clear that there will be no disqualification for jury service as a result of race or color of the prospective jurors. Our laws have been developed through the years, and we feel that they are workable.

Without giving you all of the provisions of our State law, we feel that such provisions that all persons over 65 are exempt, telephone operators, chief engineers of electrical and waterworks are exempt, and those engineers who work in our sugar factories during the grinding season from the month of October through December must necessarily be at their job in order to prevent that crop from being lost, and to take them off the job simply is not proper-that is one of our local situations.

Otherwise, our State law grants exemptions to public officials and doctors, lawyers, judges, dentists, schoolteachers, schoolbus drivers, pharmacists, firemen, and traveling salesmen.

I submit to you gentlemen that these Federal acts encroach upon these exemptions in our State law, which we do not think are different from many of the States of the Union. My observation is that they are more or less uniform.

Now, dealing with the Senate bills, the first Senate bill 2923 by Mr. Douglas, in effect would strip the State law, I think of the present