to review these financial reports. If they find anything untoward, they report that fact to the Conference. We think we have a satisfactory method of doing the financial disclosure. We are waiting now to get responses from the Federal judges throughout the country. They have been sent copies of these forms, and we are getting responses now. January 1 is their deadline.

So, I have given you a very long-winded answer.

Senator TYDINGS. Judge, if you will let me interject: As I understand it, you sent around a copy of this proposed form and at the same time you asked the Federal judges of the districts and the circuits whether or not they felt that they ought to fill out such a form for the courts?

Judge AINSWORTH. That is right.

Senator TYDINGS. Suppose the majority of them write back and say, "We do not feel we should have to fill out such a form." Does that throw the whole thing out the window?

Judge AINSWORTH. That would be a new ball game, but I do not expect that result.

Senator THURMOND. All right. Thank you.

Judge AINSWORTH. That is a short answer, but that is what I mean: I do not expect that result.

Senator THURMOND. Judge Ainsworth, what is the general feeling of the bench in the United States toward the various restrictions on outside compensation from sources such as stocks and bonds?

Judge AINSWORTH. Should they own stocks and bonds?
Senator THURMOND. Yes.

Judge AINSWORTH. I cannot really say that I have a consensus on that, but in my view a U.S. judge should be allowed to own stocks and bonds like anyone else, but he should be careful in his selection of his portfolio to avoid the ownership of stocks and bonds where there is some likelihood of litigation. It is pretty hard to tell that in advance. For example-and this is a good example for a State judgegenerally it is believed that a State judge should not own any A.T. & T. stock because telephone rates are regulated by the public service commissions of the various States and reviewed by the State courts. He might find himself disqualified just by owning A.T. & T. stock. It is a very hard thing to do, but I do not think a judge should be denied the right to invest his funds in stocks and bonds. I think he should be permitted to do so.

Senator THURMOND. Do you think it would be sufficient, for instance, if a judge were trying a case and one of the litigants was a company in which the judge had some stock, if the judge would announce that he had some stock in the company, even though a small amount, but if either litigant objected to his trying the case that he would be pleased to carry the case over and let some other judge try the case? Do you think that would be sufficient?

Judge AINSWORTH. Well, you have touched upon what to me is the most difficult area that the American Bar Association and our own committee will have to cover.

Some believe, in the light of today's circumstances, that if you own any stock you should recuse yourself, one share, because you have an interest. The United States Code says you should recuse yourself if you have a substantial interest. Obviously, one share of Standard Oil of New Jersey stock is not a substantial interest.

Senator THURMOND. The statute provides for a substantial interest? Judge AINSWORTH. Substantial. Now, you know that "substantial" has to be defined in light of the particular circumstances of the case. I have hoped that somewhere down the line that the American Bar committee and perhaps my own committee would consider a de minimis rule. Judges fall back on Latin sometimes when they cannot define things better in English-de minimis meaning small or trivial. If I own 10 shares of Standard Oil of New Jersey, and a case came before me of Standard Oil of New Jersey, why, that 10 shares is de minimis.

At the same time, if I owned 10,000 shares and I felt that was not a substantial interest, and I announced to the litigants that I owned 10,000 shares which I did not consider substantial, I think the judge himself would be missing the primary obligation. He first must establish in his own mind whether or not he thinks he has a disqualifying conflict of interest. Then, in an abundance of precaution, as you have pointed out, if he announces also to the litigants, "I do not think I am disqualified, but if you do I will entertain your suggestion," then, he has done about all a man can do. This is why I said a few minutes ago that judges would welcome guidelines. The guidelines are not there right now. All we have is the United States Code which says "substantial interest." "Substantial interest" is not defined. We would hope that the American Bar Association and our own committee would resolve that problem. No judge that I have ever had any contact with wants to sit on a case where he has stock interest or bond interest that is going to bring him some pecuniary reward for deciding the case in favor of a particular company.

Senator THURMOND. He would probably want to lean backward, the other way.

Judge AINSWORTH. I think so.

Senator TYDINGS. Judge Ainsworth, how would you answer Senator Thurmond's question?

I think it was a good question, and you still have not answered it. Judge AINSWORTH. Well, put it to me again, and I will make a short answer.

Senator THURMOND. Well, I just asked you: What is the general feeling of the bench throughout the United States toward the various restrictions of outside compensation or income from sources such as stocks and bonds?

Senator TYDINGS. The one that was related to it-the next one, Senator Thurmond-when you asked: "Could a judge not just go ahead and state what interest he holds and let the litigants decide?" Senator THURMOND. The next question I asked was: If a judge had some stock in a company and if he announced that to the litigants and offered to disqualify himself and if either side desired he do so and he did so, of course, that would take care of the situation.

Judge AINSWORTH. It would not always, because if he owned what is a substantial interest, he ought to disqualify himself without asking this. It is only where he has a doubt in his mind.

Senator THURMOND. Then, under the statute, he would have to do it there, if he owned a substantial interest.

Judge AINSWORTH. He may think

Senator THURMOND. The point I am getting at is, if he owned any stock at all, would it be a wholesome thing to announce to the litigants that he does own five shares or 10 shares or some little minor share and offer to give the litigants an opportunity to disapprove his trying the case if they wish to do so

Judge AINSWORTH. Yes, I think he should; and the reason why I answered as I did is that he must make the first decision himself, in that there may be some question of counsel being embarrassed to ask him to recuse himself. Some lawyers will say, "I will not ask this judge to recuse himself. He might not like it, and he might be angry with me for it." Nevertheless, in the type of case you are describing to me, I think it is a salutary thing to announce from the bench; yes. Senator THURMOND. Now, what is your opinion of title 4 of Senate bill 1506?

Do you think it will accomplish its goals?

Judge AINSWORTH. Title 4?

Senator THURMOND. The title on judicial conflicts of interest, which is found on page 27.

Judge AINSWORTH. We prefer the language of the United States Code as it exists today over what is proposed in title 4.

That was the position of the committee.

We think what we have now is adequate, if we could provide some guidelines as to what "substantial" means.

Senator THURMOND. Well, thank you very much, Judge. We appreciate your appearance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator TYDINGS. Thank you, Senator.

Judge AINSWORTH. I had the pleasure of meeting you in Baton Rouge some years ago. I am sure you do not remember it.

Senator THURMOND. Yes. I am glad to see you again. Glad to see you looking so well.

Senator TYDINGS. Judge Ainsworth, in the June resolutions there were prohibitions placed on certain outside activities unless approval of the judicial council of the circuit was obtained beforehand. Those prohibitions related to reimbursement for outside activities.

Now, what was the predicate for this action?

What was the objective which the Conference was attempting to achieve?

Judge AINSWORTH. Well, I think the objective was to prevent any abuse which might occur in the Federal judiciary in connection with outside compensated activities, whether it be excessive in the sense of being excessive use of time or excessive in the sense of amount of payment. I think it was more directed to the question of time. I think it was felt that a judge's primary obligation is to be a judge, and, secondarily, if he has time, he may be a teacher, or he may lecture, or he may write a book, or he may serve as trustee under a will, or he may serve as an executor under a will. So, I think it was done to make a judge be a judge.

Senator TYDINGS. The purpose was to make certain that there was not too much of a trespass on the time of the court by the judge for outside activities?

Judge AINSWORTH. I do not have any time myself. I am on a court which we think is the busiest circuit court in the country, but I am sure some others would dispute that.

Senator TYDINGS. Certainly, there is no court busier than yours. Judge AINSWORTH. And then with the duties I have now on this committee I have no time to do anything else.

Senator TYDINGS. So, in order to achieve that objective-namely, to maximize the amount of time which a judge would spend on court activities-the June 10 resolution required that, before a judge steps off the bench to accept compensation for outside activities, he secure approval of the judicial council in his circuit first?

Judge AINSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator TYDINGS. Now, between June 10 and November 1, was there any change in the objectives of the Judicial Conference in trying to maximize the amount of time spent on judicial business?

Judge AINSWORTH. I do not think so. I think you will recall that I laid great stress on that. I am attempting to convince you, if I may put it that way, that I did not leave the November 1 meeting with the feeling that we moved backward, or that things had gotten out of hand, or that I was unhappy or dissatisfied, and I will tell you why. Immediately after the passage of the June 10 resolution, I began to get inquiries about:

What do you mean by "exceptional circumstances," does that mean that somebody could teach at a university for $3,000 if he is teaching on Saturday or in night school?

My response, speaking only for myself I have no authority to speak for the committee is those were exceptional circumstances: I wrote the word "exceptional" in there myself. I helped to write this paragraph, and I thought I was covering schoolteaching in law schools.

"What is in the public interest?" That was another question asked me. Some circuits were taking the position, as I understood it, that law teaching, while desirable and important, could not be said to be in the public interest or could not be said to be an exceptional circumstance.

Then, we were confronted with the situation that many judges who had been teaching for many years said that they would not request their council to give them permission to do so, because they feared they might be turned down and, second, that they would be demeaning themselves. So, some have ceased teaching. I do not know who they are, and I did not try to document this.

Senator TYDINGS. Were they teaching full time in day courses? Judge AINSWORTH. Oh, no; I think they were just part-time lecturers.

Senator TYDINGS. How many hours?

Judge AINSWORTH. I just do not know.

Senator TYDINGS. What I was getting at is that, as I understand the November resolution now, at the end of the year the judge will just note how much compensation he received from various activities. and file it in a formal report to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Judge AINSWORTH. It is more than that, if I may interrupt you. Senator TYDINGS. Yes.

Judge AINSWORTH. Then it is reviewed by a reviewing committee of three judges appointed by the Chief Justice who report to the Conference. That is in the resolution. I did not write that resolution,

but I am acquainted with what is in it, and I think that this is a temporary thing-that this is an adjustment.

We were asked: "Why do you not prepare some standards for the proviso in the resolution of June 10 so we will know whether lawteaching is an exceptional circumstance, or whether it is in the public interest? If you have been acting as an executor in an estate, while an attorney, and you become a judge, are you to give up that executorship? If you are a trustee under a will, are you to give that up; or suppose you are a good friend of a client whose will you wrote and he dies after you got on the bench and he had named you as a trustee or an executor?" My feeling was that those circumstances were exceptional. I was trying to give a liberal construction to the proviso. But there are those who did not agree with me.

Now, the next thing in point of time is the letter from Chief Justice Traynor, of which you have a copy before you, requesting that the Conference suspend its resolution.

Now, I would not say "requested," either. The language is not quite that way, but says "may consider suspending it."

I think that is a purely temporary matter, and we have this provisional remedy, if you will, of having these reports supervised and scrutinized and reviewed by the committee of three judges. This is just a matter of months.

If I had not felt that we came away from the Conference with the same resolve that I saw originally, I might have had some disappointment, but I did not feel such disappointment.

So, we will know the answer to this pretty quick.

Senator TYDINGS. Would it be fair to state, however, that, insofar as the curtailment of outside activities is concerned, the elimination of the public-disclosure aspect together with the elimination of the advance-permission requirement would mean that the present rule would not be as effective as the resolution which was originally adopted in June?

Judge AINSWORTH. I cannot tell, because I can only apply it from my own circuit. We only have about two or three applications for permission under the proviso in the entire circuit, and you know the size of the circuit and the number of district judges and circuit judges. How widespread the outside compensated activities were I never have known, and whether this is going to curtail them or make it easier to engage in these activities we do not know, and we will not know the answer, because we are going to have regulation, I think, within the next few months.

Senator TYDINGS. Is it your intention to postpone final action by the Judicial Conference itself until such time as you receive the ABA report?

Judge AINSWORTH. I do not know. I suspect so. I think so.

Senator TYDINGS. Do you know how long it took the ABA to complete its study on the professional ethics of lawyers? Judge AINSWORTH. I was told 5 years.

Senator TYDINGS. That is right.

Judge AINSWORTH. But, on my word, I have asked this same question. I talked to Chief Justice Traynor one time, and I said: "How are you going to get this job done in 1 year's time?" And he said: "Well, we are dedicated to that, and we are getting the staff,