Imágenes de páginas

Military Service: Oet. 14, 1942-Jan. 31, 1946, U.S. Army, Staff Sergeant when discharged.

Employment: 1940–1942, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., Washington,
D.C., Claims Adjuster; 1946–present, Galiher, Stewart and Clarke, Washington,
D.C., Senior Partner.

Marital Status: Married, 2 children.
Ofice: 1215 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Home: 19168 Roman Way, Gaithersburg, Md.


Born: October 25, 1922, Columbia, South Carolina. Education: January 1942-April 1942, Johns Hopkins University, Certificate, Special Engineering Course, Aircraft Precision Inspection; 1946–1948, University of North Carolina; January 1948-June 1948, George Washington University; 1948–1951, George Washington University; 1952 and 1959 spring semesters, 1953 and 1958, fall semesters, Georgetown University Law School, Postgraduate Study. Marital Status: Married (H. Patricia), two children. Bar: 1951, District of Columbia.

Employment: 1951–1955, Associate, Kilpatrick, Ballard, & Beasley (now Ballard and Beasley), Washington, D.C.; 1955-1957, Attorney, Internal Security Division, Civil Division and Antitrust Division, respectively, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; 1956-1958, Special Assistant and Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney Washington, D.C.; 1958–1960, Junior Partner with John L. Laskey, Washington, D.C.; 1960–1961, Assistant Solicitor and Special Hearing Officer, Division of Territories, Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.; 1961-1963, Hearing Examiner, Finance-Rail-Motor, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C.; 1963–present, Hearing Examiner, Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C.

Office: Office of Hearing Examiners, Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C.

Home: 1946 Creek Crossing Road, Vienna, Virginia. 938-6777

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

JAMES A. WASHINGTON, JR. Born: February 17, 1915, Asheville, North Carolina. Marital Status: Married (wife-Ada), Eight children. Education: 1932–1936, Howard University, A.B. degree, magna cum laude; 1963-1939, Howard University Law School, LL.B magna cum laude; 1940–1941 Harvard University Law School; LL.M degree.

Bar: 1941, District of Columbia. Employment: 1939-1940; 1941–1942, Howard University Law School, Teaching fellow; 1942–1946, U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney, Special War Policies Unit; 1946–1961; 1966–1969, Howard University Law School, Professor, Vice Deat, and Dean; 1961–1966, District of Columbia Public Service Commission, Chairman; 1969 to present, U.S. Department of Transportation, General Counsel. Ofice: U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Home: 14212 Northgate Drive, Silver Spring, Md. Legal Residence: Maryland. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for being with us today. The committee stands recessed subject to the call of the Chair, and we will meet in executive session at 1:30.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m, the committee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)


(From the Congressional Record, Dec. 7, 1970)

JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS Mr. Tydings. Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee on the District of Columbia, I have filed today the nomination of Mr. Gerard D. Reilly for associate judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed.

I also must report that the committee, by a vote of 5 to 2, has rejected the nominations of Mr. Hubert B. Pair and Mr. J. Walter Yeagley to the same court.


These nominations were to fill three new judgeships on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. These judgeships, plus many of the new judgeships recently filled on the District of Columbia General Sessions bench, were created by the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, which passed the Senate on September 18, 1969, passed the House on March 19, and finally approved after conference on July 23, 1970.

On September 23, 1970, the President sent the Senate 18 nominations to fill these new judgeships,

On October 5, on behalf of the committee, I announced that a hearing would be held on October 9 on "10 and perhaps more of the nominees.” At that time I also said:

"I regret that we cannot consider all nominations immediately. None, however, were submitted to the committee until 12 days ago and many have not yet been

considered and reported upon by the District of Columbia Bar Association. In i fairness to those nominees, we will want to assure adequate time to the Bar

Association and other interested groups to prepare their reports.

"In any case, I anticipate that the committee will be able to consider and pass upon all of the nominees within the very near future.”

On October 6, the Attorney General, in a public letter addressed to me, asked that all the nominations be considered before the election recess. Acceding to his request, the committee postponed its hearing from October 9 to October 12, to permit the processing of the remainder of the nominations.

On October 12 the committee heard all 18 nominations and reported in executive session later the same day the 15 trial court nominees. Acting upon my motion, the Senate confirmed all 15 nominations that same day.

Regarding the Court of Appeals nominees, the Committee unanimously re1

solved as follows:

"Consideration of nominations of three judges to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals will be delayed pending submission of material requested during

the committee hearing this morning. 1 "1. Clarification by the American Bar Association of just what the age standards

of the ABA are, how they are arrived at, and how they were applied in the instances of the three appellate nominees. .:12

. Personal Data Questionnaires submitted by the nominees to the Department of Justice.

"3. A list in writing of at least ten cases that the nominees have personally both briefed and argued before state supreme courts, the several U.S. courts of appeals, or the U.S. Supreme Court.”

On Tuesday, October 13, Mr. Richard Kleindienst, Deputy Attorney General, asked me, through a phone call to the committee staff director, to secure Senate confirmation of the Appeals Court nominations prior to the congressional recess the next day. The staff director informed the Deputy Attorney General of the committee's resolution of the day before and told him that one of the nominees had not yet complied with it, but said he was sure the chairman would appreciate his call and take it under advisement.


The committee staff thereafter ascertained no quorum of the committee would be in the city prior to the recess.

No further communication was or has been received by the committee from the administration regarding these nominees.

On October 24, in connection with a political appearance in Dundalk, Md.White House press release datelined Dundalk, see appendix I hereto—the President announced recess appointments for all three nominees. All three have since been sworn in as judges.


The committee recommends confirmation of the nomination of Gerard D. Reilly because he posses the qualifications necessary to execute the responsibilities of a judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Mr. Reilly is considered "well qualified” by both the committee and the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.

În recommending the confirmation of Mr. Reilly's nomination, the committee was not unmindful that, under the mandatory retirement-at-70 provision of the District of Columbia court reform bill, Mr. Reilly will be able to serve only 6 years of the 15-year term to which he has been appointed. However, the committee also took into account that Mr. Reilly's high qualifications merit him the "well qualified” standard which, under the practice of both the Senate and the American Bar Association, would permit the confirmation of his nomination despite the questions of shortened service raised by his age.

THE NOMINATION OF HUBERT B. PAIR AND J. WALTER YEAGLEY The committee voted 4 to 2 against reporting the nominations of Mr. Hubert B. Pair and Mr. J. Walter Yeagley, because, in the view of the committee they do not possess the high qualifications which overcome the fact that neither Mr. Pair, at 6672, or Mr. Yeagley, at 6174, can serve a substantial part of the 15-year term for which they have been nominated.

To both Mr. Pair and Mr. Yeagley the American Bar Association has assigned the rating “qualified," the minimum qualification the ABA, the Senate, and the present and previous administrations have heretofore considered necessary for any Federal judicial nominee. The ABA, the Senate and the administration have traditionally required that anyone who is 60 or over should be at least "well qualified" to be considered for the bench, unless he is already on the bench, and no one who is 64 or over should be nominated for the bench for the first time.

The committee's research indicates that only 27 of the nearly 500 presently sitting Federal judges were over 60 at the time of their initial nomination and that none were more than 65. Each of these judges who were over 60 at the time of their appointments appears to have had high qualifications traditionally sought in judicial nominees appointed for the first time after the age of 60.

The committee believes that no age standard should be arbitrarily applied. In the case of extraordinarily well-qualified nominees, such as Mr. Reilly, exceptions may be made to the age standards the Senate has traditionally observed. Qualifications and ability to serve the term to which the nominee is appointed, not age itself, should be the basic considerations.

In the case of these Court of Appeals nominations, the committee, which itself wrote the basic statutes authorizing these appointments, believes the ability to serve out the full term prescribed by law is an extraordinarily important qualification:

“Unfortunately, none of these nominees will be able to serve the full 15-year term Congress has prescribed for these judgeships. In fact, Mr. Pair and Mr. Yeagley together would be able to serve an aggregate of less than one full term. The inability of these nominees to serve a substantial portion of the terms Congress has specified for their office made their rejections for that office inevitable.

“Under the Court Reform Act, the D.C. Court of Appeals will for the first time have jurisdiction over felony cases, including those involving the death sentence, and over civil cases of unlimited jurisdiction. Heretofore that court has had jurisdiction only over misdemeanors and civil matters of less than $10,000. This is a revolutionary and vital shift of jurisdiction phased over a period of nearly four years. The committee believes that the ability of every nominee to the court to serve a substantial period of time during and after this precedentmaking jurisdictional transition should be an indispensable qualification for confirmation,

[ocr errors]

"The D.C. Court Reform Act created the vacancies now in question. It also provided a three-phase transfer of jursidiction from the Federal District Court in the District to the new Superior Court created by that act. Under the act, appeals from the new Superior Court will be finally reviewed by the D.C. Court of Appeals, not the U.S. Court of Appeals as at present. The last phase of the jurisdictional transfer under the act will occur on August 1, 1973. Thus, in August and September, 1973, civil matters in excess of $50,000 and probate matters will be considered by the Superior Court for the very first time. Appeals from those Superior Court decisions, taking into account the present trail time and forseeable improvements in it, will not reach the D.C. Court of Appeals for the first time until the early summer of 1974, about two months after Mr. Pair would have to leave the court under the mandatory retirement provisions of the law."

I should also note that, while I favor and have advocated mandatory retirement at age 70 for Federal judges, the mandatory retirement provisions of the court reform bill was originated by the administration. It is the President's proposal which would require his nominees to retire when the work of the new Court of Appeals is barely begun.

The District of Columbia Court Reform Act is the most significant revision of the jurisdictional process in the District of Columbia in the history of our Nation. The new Court of Appeals has consciously been charged under the Court Reform Act with the authority to rewrite civil and criminal jurisprudence of the District. It will make the court rules for the new Superior Court. It will indelibly affect the practice and the substance of the law in the District of Columbia for a generation to come.

Under the circumstances Congress had a right to believe that the judges nominated to execute this extraordinary responsibility would be of the highest possible caliber, possessing credentials at least as significant as Mr. Reilly's. In setting a 15-year term for these judgeships, Congress expected that nominees to these judgeships would be able to serve that term, except in the most compelling circumstances.

This expectation was unfortunately dashed by the administration. What we received were nominees unable to serve the whole of their terms during this vital transition period. We were sent two nominees who possess only the minimum qualifications that the Senate, the American Bar Association, and each administration have historically required to ascend the bench. In fact, uuder these same standards these two nominees would be ineligible for appointinent to the Federal bench. The committee has executed its responsibilities in this case with much regret. These nominations were ill considered and handled in the most crudely political fashion by the administration. The nominees the committee has had to reject are men who have labored long in the vineyard of the Federal service. They deserve better treatment by the President than to be nominated to an office for which it was virtually certain their nominations could not be confirmed.

I would have preferred to confirm these nominations. Having spent more time on the court reform bill which created these vacancies than any other Member of Congress, I have an extraordinary interest in seeing the new court system get off to a fast and effective start. But it is precisely my interest in the court being effective and my constitutional obligation to assure that nominations to that court are qualified that compelled my vote against two of these nominations.

I hope the President will submit new names for these positions as promptly as possible

, so that the court of appeals will be populated by judges of indisputable qualifications who can serve most or all of the 15-year term Congress and the President have agreed is appropriate of that office.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by the President on October 24, 1970, announcing the recess appointment of three judges to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RecORD, as follows:

"District of COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS "When the Congress recessed on October 14, the Senate District of Columbia Committee left unfinished a matter of extreme urgency. The Committee failed to recommend confirmation of my nominations of three new judges to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

"Since the fair administration of justice in our Nation's Capital urgently requires better handling of the enormous workload confronting the courts, I am today announcing the recess appointments of those three judges.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »