ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

REPAIR OF COURT OF CLAIMS BUILDING

Mr. STEFAN. Now let us go back to the repair of the Court of Claims Building, in the amount of $32,100. I notice that you are asking for that for this year. I have had some communication with Judge Jones about that.

[ocr errors]

Judge LITTLETON. Mr. Chairman, that was a situation where we, rather than rent outside space

IMPROVEMENTS TO BUILDING

Mr. STEFAN. We appropriated the money for renting outside space. Now you are asking for an appropriation for 1949 out of that?

Judge LITTLETON. No. This is the situation about that, Mr. Chairman: We have included this $25,000, which is an estimate of the architect as to what the cost will be to provide these additional rooms in the present building, and we have put it in here because the estimate had been made and we wanted to list the item for your consideration. If the request of the court to transfer the $25,000 in our present 1948 appropriation is granted so that we can start these improvements early in the calendar year 1948, then we will not need this $25,000 for the fiscal year 1949.

Mr. STEFAN. We do not need to put it in here. I do not see any reason for your putting it in. You will give us some language so that you can transfer that, will you not?

Judge LITTLETON. We have prepared the necessary language.

Mr. STEFAN. I have had a letter from Judge Jones. I had the chief clerk of the committee call him about that, and it was perfectly satisfactory to me to have him use that rent money which we gave him for the fiscal year 1948 for these repairs. We are now informed that the amount has gone up into the deficiency item.

Judge LITTLETON. That is correct.

Mr. STEFAN. Is there anything else you would like to tell the committee?

Judge LITTLETON. I suppose that you have in mind the $1,000 for the air-conditioning unit.

Mr. STEFAN. That is right.

Judge LITTLETON. That represents the estimate of the Architect for the units in one of the justice's office, who stays here during the summertime and does his work here.

Mr. STEFAN. You have concluded your statement, then?

Judge LITTLETON. Yes.

Mr. STEFAN. Now, members of the committee, I want to call your attention to the fact that our former colleague, Evan Howell, is now on the Court of Claims. We want to welcome you here. Is there anything you would like to add to what Judge Littleton has had to say?

Judge HOWELL. I do not think there is anything I can add. This matter has been very well explained by Judge Littleton and does

not represent any unusual request for additional funds. It is merely the authorization to use rent money in our existing appropriation to repair the building.

Mr. STEFAN. We know that. Sometimes, though, we like to see

a cut.

Judge HOWELL. We think that that would be a major economy. We have not asked for any more money.

Judge LITTLETON. We are cutting out the rent, Mr. Chairman. That is one item.

Mr. HART. That will amount to a reduction of $18,600 for 1949, if you allow us to use this $25,000 now in our 1948 appropriation to provide additional rooms.

CATEGORIES OF CLAIMS

Mr. HORAN. I might say, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take too much time here, but I would like more information. It so happens that every individual in the United States is not a lawyer and does not know much about how the courts are run. I would like to know the categories of claims they get.

You say here, at page 71, that they are instituted upon constitutional grounds, or under any Federal law or regulation, or claims arising out of any contract with the Federal Government and its agencies. That is broad. You say also:

The court has jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims for damages in cases not sounding in tort in which the claimant would be entitled to sue the United States in a court of law, equity, or admiralty if the United States were suable. I want to know whether that covers all possible claim suits against the Government.

Judge LITTLETON. Practically, except tort cases and purely equitable claims not involving a claim for a money judgment. It includes any case that involves a claim for compensation or salary. It includes cases which either House of the Congress may send to the court for finding of fact and recommendations, so that you can decide whether you want to appropriate and pay a claim or not. It may be a gift, gratuity, or an equitable claim. We have claims involving express contracts, such as for construction, materials, and supplies, and the like, or implied contracts growing out of relationships and negotiations between the parties, where they do not reduce their agreement to writing, which would give rise to consensual arrangement, obligating the Government to make reasonable compensation. We have many cases for the enforcement of rights given by acts of Congress. We have suits to recover compensation for the use of patented inventions. Then we have departmental cases, which, of course, can be referred over to us by the head of the Department for an opinion on the law as to what they should do with reference to paying it.

We have the Indian cases which arise, involving construction of treaties and agreements in connection with the taking of property and the disposition of funds and accounting problems, and so forth.

Mr. HORAN. Has the legislation recently enacted setting up the Indian Claims Commission added to or subtracted from the bulk of your work?

Judge LITTLETON. It has not yet had any effect, so far as I know, but Congress has not enacted any Indian claims jurisdictional acts

since the Indian Claims Commission Act was passed. You enacted many special acts so far as the court is concerned, but you have not passed any since the approval of the Claims Commission Act. We have had a few cases instituted since that time, but they were instituted under the existing statutes.

Mr. HORAN. Does the existence of that Commission add to your potential, or will it simplify your work?

Judge LITTLETON. It would add to the number of cases when they begin to come in, because the appeals come from the Commission to our court. However, the factual situation would probably be less burdensome after the Commission passes on it than before; that is, the cases would be more quickly disposed of.

We had disposed of eight large Indian cases by final judgments before the Indian Claims Commission Act was enacted, then the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari after the act was approved and remanded these cases, with direction that our court inquire into and determine whether the Indian Claims Commission Act had any effect on the judgments which we had rendered before the Indian Claims Commission Act was passed. Of course, those cases had to go back for reconsideration of the facts and law under the provisions of the new act. So we have 33 Indian cases now that will have to be heard, considered, and decided in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Indian Claims Commission Act, which lays down a much broader rule for decision than that which existed under the previous special jurisdictional acts.

We have a large number of miscellaneous cases such as claims for salaries and claims for recovery for increased costs under the National Industrial Recovery Act. The claims under the NIRA have practically all been disposed of. We have overtime-pay cases involving claims arising under acts of Congress fixing the rates of pay for railroad employees in Alaska, customs inspectors, fire fighters in the War Department, immigration officers, and the Panama Canal employees. We have 25 patent cases involving patent infringements. That means just compensation for the use of patents by the Government without the consent of the inventor.

We have a large number of property requisitions where the Government took property during the war without paying full compensation for it.

We also have a number of tax cases arising under the internalrevenue law.

Mr. HORAN. Do we not have a Court of Tax Appeals?

Judge LITTLETON. Yes; but our court has certain concurrent and additional jurisdiction. Wherever there has been a claim for refund and a rejection, the case must go to the Court of Claims or the district court and cannot go to the Tax Court. The case may go to the Tax Court where a deficiency tax has been determined and before there has been a payment.

Mr. HORAN. You get some of the fiscal aspects of those cases?

Judge LITTLETON. Yes. We have also cases to recover increased rates for transportation of Government property by railroads and trucks. That covers substantially the character of the cases that we handle.

69335-48- 3

Mr. HORAN. I want to thank you. I think the chairman has drawn that out pretty well, but I wanted a general outline.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1947.

REPAIRS TO BUILDINGS, COURT OF CLAIMS

STATEMENTS OF DAVID LYNN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, AND CHARLES A. HENLOCK, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

Mr. STEFAN. We will now take up repairs and improvements necessary for the Court of Claims Building. That amount will be expended under the supervision of the Architect of the Capitol. That item will be found on page 20 of the committee print and page 75 of the justifications.

STATEMENT ON APPROPRIATIONS, 1948, AND ESTIMATES, 1949

Page 75 of the justifications will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The justification table referred to is as follows :)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation—Repairs to buildings, Court of Claims

1947 appropriations (including supplementals).
1948 budget estimates (including amendments and recommended supple-
mentals).

$21, 500

357, 600

[blocks in formation]

Decrease in item annual painting from $3,500 to $3,000--
Fireproofing system, attic section__

$500

2,500

Improvement, exterior of building_

Subtotal_

2, 400

5, 400

Additions:

Increase in item of general annual repairs from $2,600 to $3,100 for improvements to the buzzer system__

5, 600

$500

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Mr. LYNN. The Architect of the Capitol has the structural and mechanical care of this building, erected in 1859 and occupied by the Court since 1899.

For 1949, the amount requested is $32,100 as compared to $11,000 allowed for 1948, a net increase of $21,100. In addition to the usual maintenance items of "General annual repairs" and "Annual painting," the 1949 estimate includes two new nonrecurring items, totaling $26,000; as follows: $25,000 to construct four rooms in the East Light Court (three on the first floor level and one on the second floor level) and one large room in the West Light Court (second floor level); also to construct five small individual offices, in lieu of a large existing single office, by erecting movable steel partitions in the large room located over the garage. The Court advises that these additional accommodations are urgently needed to carry on the work of the Court and that the construction of these additional rooms will eliminate the need for the $18,600 annual appropriation allowed the Court for the rental of rooms in other buildings. A break-down of the estimate is shown on page 79 of the justifications, as follows:

In order to expedite these improvements and eliminate the need for this $25,000 increase in the 1949 appropriation, the Court is requesting the Defi-` ciency Appropriations Committee to transfer not to exceed $25,000 of the current 1948 fiscal year's Court appropriation for "Salaries and expenses" to the current 1948 appropriation "Repairs and improvements" for expenditure by the Architect of the Capitol to effect these construction changes in the fiscal year 1948.

If the request is approved by the Deficiency Appropriations Committee, then the item will not be needed in the regular 1949 appropriation. The second nonrecurring item is: $1,000 to install air-conditioning units in two rooms, of one of the Justice's suites occupied during the summer months. A 4-ton console type unit, with special sheet metal connection to the window, will be installed in the private office at a cost of $600, and a 2-ton unit in the outer office at a cost of $400.

UNITED STATES COURTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS, DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATEMENT OF DAVID LYNN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

STATEMENT ON APPROPRIATIONS, 1948 AND ESTIMATES, 1949

Mr. STEFAN. You will now justify the item "Repairs and improvements to district court," and pages 45 and 46 of the justifications will be inserted in the record at this point.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »