« 이전계속 »
ment for the salaries, which is the only thing that is in any degree under the control of the Attorney General. The other elements are automatic and proceed under the provisions of statutes; that is, the traveling expenses of the district attorneys and their assistants and clerks.
The CHAIRMAN. You can not control that, and you do not know how much of it there is to be?
Mr. KENNARD. No, sir; the big expense, of course, consists of the salaries of the district attorneys, which are statutory, amounting to $356,500. Then there are the salaries of the 309 clerks to the district attorneys, amounting to $401,160, making $757,660. The travel expenses, experience has shown, will be at the very least $100,000, and the office expenses will amount to $50,000. Our estimate is $750,000 for salaries, $100,000 for travel and subsistence, and $50,000 for office expenses and communication service, making $900,000'in all. The statement to be made in this connection is very much the same as that in regard to the salaries, fees, and expenses of marshals. I take it that the committee is familiar with the congestion of the dockets of the courts. It is a matter of discussion in the public press.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything allowed in your estimate for any increased number of assistants or any increased pay for assistants?
Mr. HARRIS. No, sir; we have in contemplation no increase in the salaries of the clerks or in the numbers.
The CHAIRMAN. I referred to assistants.
Mr. HARRIS. The assistant attorneys are not from this appropriation.
Mr. Gallivan. Mr. Volstead is partly responsible for this increase?
SALARIES OF CLERKS OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, THEIR
The CHAIRMAX. For the salaries of clerks of United States district courts, their deputies, and other assistants, expenses of travel and subsistence, etc., you are asking for 1920 a deficiency of $392.37, and for 1922, $125,000. Tell us how those two items occur.
Mr. KEXXARD. I did not investigate the item for 1920. passed by the General Accounting Office and certified by the Division of Bookkeeping and Warrants, and they submitted it to us, later asking that it be included in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Give us the facts about it. Was there an unexpenried balance in the appropriation for 1920 out of which this amount could have been paid if the bill had been rendered in time?
Mr. KENNARD. I doubt whether there was a balance out of which it could have been paid, because we asked for an exact deficiency of $5.203.27.
The ('HAIRMAN. What was the bill for?
Mr. KENYARD. We did not bring the bill. In fact, the bill has been passed and has gone on through; we accepted the certificate of the General Accounting Office as final. I can send to the Treasury and get the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. We would like to know what it was for and why it was not paid. You can furnish the information to the committee.
Mr. KENYARD. I will do so.
The CHAIRMAN. You ask a deficiency of $125,000 for 1922. What is the occasion for that deficiency?
Mr. KENNARD. Of course, the increase in business, that I have referred to earlier in the hearings, affects the clerks of the clistrict courts, and the demand for assistance is very great.
The CHAIRMAX. You have an appropriation of $1,050,000 for this service?
Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAX. Have the salaries of the clerks been increased by law or by any other means?
Mr. KENNAR). The salaries of the clerks have remained practically the same, but the expense under this appropriation has been increase il in the neighborhood of $16,000-
Mr. HARRIS (interposing). It has been increased $17,870.
Mr. KENNARD. It has been increased by that amount beginning on July 1 by two elements: One is the inclusion by law of Hawaii and Porto Rico in the salary system, taking them entirely off the old fee basis. They were transferred to this fund on July 1 by the sundry civil bill. The other one is the Hawaiian homes commission act increasing the salary of the clerk of court and providing that he shall have certain deputies at certain rates of pay, which we must observe. These two pieces of legislation have made an increase of about $17,000 a year. Otherwise the deficiency is necessary simply to enable us to carry the existing organization as of June 30, 1921. The pay roll for clerks and deputies on June 30, 1921, was $1,086,921, and now we are estimating, in round numbers, $1,080,000 for these salaries. It is perfectly clear that they can not be less in the face of the increasing business, and that we will have a prospective increase for the future action of the committee later in the year when we can tell you more definitely what the exigencies of the situation will develop. We are asking the appropriation on the basis of existing conditions and upon the basis of the expenses as they arose in 1921.
The CHAIRMAN. You made no attempt to comply with the appropriation law passed for 1922?
Mr. KENNARD. We did not attempt to reduce our force. The matter was carefully discussed and was brought to the attention, I believe, of the Attorney General, and also of the Director of the Budget Bureau. It was thought that it would be a grave error to precipitate difficulty in the transaction of the business of the courts, in the face of the enormous mass of work, by decreasing a force already insufficient, and in which there were insistent demands for more help. We were ready and willing to make reduction, not only in these offices, but in the offices of the marshals and district attorneys. The matter was carefully considered from every standpoint, and it was held by my superiors that it could not be done, and the Bureau of the Budget acquiesced in that finding.
The CHAIRMAN. What does an appropriation amount to if those who have to enforce it pay no attention to it?
Mr. KENNARD. I respectfully submit that in the case of the judiciary there is a little different situation arising from that which obtains in the executive branch of the Government. There is involved an automatic piece of machinery over which we have a very slight measure of control. If it were an ordinary executive appropriation and we could
say, “We will do this or we will not do it," we could come within the appropriation, but we do not exercise that power over judicial matters.
The CHAIRMAN. Your answer to my question is that the activity must go on, and that you can not control it?
Mr. KENNARD. As to judicial matters; yes, sir.
Mr. Wood. You were talking about being so extremely busy down there, and I want to ask you what time they commence work in your department every morning?
Mr. KEXXARD. I was referring in my discussion more particularly to the business in the field. This appropriation relates to business in the field.
Mr. Wood. If they work in the field in the way they do down there in your department, it strikes me that they do not work one-third of the time. I went down there after 10 o'clock, and into one of those offices where you have one of these assistants, and he was not in.
Mr. KEXXARD. In our department?
Mr. Wood. Yes; in your place. He was not there, and none were there before 9 o'clock.
Mr. HARRIS. I am there at half past 8 o'clock.
Mr. Wood. There may be here and there an exception, but if you find anyone on his job in the office before 9 o'clock it is exceptional.
Mr. KENNARD. Perhaps he had business somewhere else.
Mr. Wood. No; he came into the office late and apologized for it, but that did not save the Government anything.
Mr. KENNARD. So far as this matter is concerned, the department's expenses are not related to it except very remotely.
Mr. HARRIS. Neither does the business of the rest of the department reflect much of the business of the courts, except in the accounting division. The business of the accounting division does reflect it.
The CHAIRMAX. This is a matter over which you say you have substantially no control?
Mr. KEXXARD. Yes, sir; that is true. We could arbitrarily reduce this force, but the results would be so serious that they could not be tolerated or contemplated.
The CHAIRMAN. Have there been any increases made?
The CHAIRMAN. Have there been any increases made in any of the salaries of clerks that may be in anywise responsible for the increased appropriation asked for
Mr. KEXXARD. The increase has been in the number and not in the salaries. The number of deputies in June, 1920, was 493, and in June, 1921, or in September, 1921, the number was 561.
The CHAIRMAX. How many have you now!
Mr. KENYARD. I have nothing later than September 30, 1921. That was just about a month ago, and the number is approximately the same to-day.
FEES OF UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS AND JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
The CHAIRMAX. For fees of United States Commissioners and justices of the peace, you ask for 1920 a deficiency of $74.70, and for 1922 $150,000.
Mr. KEXXARD. So far as the back year is concerned in this fund, it is simply the statutory fees of a commissioner found due and certified, and to which he is entitled by law, and the question of there being an appropriation naturally becomes a secondary matter. The law prescribes that the commissioner shall render certain services and receive certain fees therefor. We are wholly without any control over the matter.
The CHAIRMAX. You estimate that services will be rendered that will require $150,000 more?
Mr. RENXARD. We are certain of that fact, because we used $372.000 for the expenditures of 1921, and while we have not been able to summarize the accounts for the first quarter of this year, because they are not all in yet by any means, a cursory examination of the accounts shows that they are larger than heretofore. I am inclined to think (and I can tell pretty nearly what it will be) that the expense for fees of commissioners will be $450,000, but we are only asking for what is certain at the present time.
The CHAIRMAN. What about the other item for 1920 ?
Mr. KENNARD. As I have said, it is simply the statement of an account for statutory fees. The amount was found due by the accounting officers.
The CHAIRMAN. These fees are provided for by law?
FEES OF JCRORS.
The CHAIRMAN. For fees of jurors you are asking a deficiency of $9,150.32 for the fiscal year 1921.
Mr. KENNARD. The way we make up that deficiency for 1921 is this: l'pon a tabulation of all the expenses under fees of jurors, which will be published later in the annual report of the Attorney General, we found that they amounted to $1.290,155.32, whereas ('on. gress has thus far given us $1.281,000. There is no particular list of claims here, but we know that we will require that amount ultimately to settle the outstanding bille for jurors. Some of it consists of overdrafts.
The CHAIRMAX. This item for 1921 amounts to $9,155.32.
The CHAIRMAN. You do not know definitely that that amount is due?
Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir; I can say that we know it definitely, because when we make up our report we include everything that is due, paid, or unpaid, and set against that the money which Congress gave us.
Mr. Sisson. It is also fair to state that this is another item over which you have no control.
Mr. KENNARD. That is true; we have no control over it whatever.
The CHAIRMAX. For such miscellaneous expenses as may be authorized by the Attorney General for the United States courts and their officers, etc., you ask a deficiency of $35 for 1916.
Mr. KENNARD. That is for the payment of Dr. Ezekiel, of Richmond, Va., for his services as an expert witness. I do not know why there has been this long delay in submitting the bill.
Mr. Sisson. Do you know whether it was allowed by the court or not?
Mr. HARRIS. That is not up for allowance by the court; this witness was employed by the Government.
Mr. KENNARD. To testify in a case.
The CHAIRMAN. For 1919 you ask a deficiency of $659.85.
Miscellaneous expenses, United States courts, 1919:
Frederick E. Swope, Stanton and Rockland Streets, Philadelphia,
Pa., services as viewer..
services as viewerState Department, Washington, D. C., cablegrams.
200.00 59. 85
17. 69 131. 88
Miscellaneous expenses, United States courts, 1920 :
State Department, Washington, D. C., cablegrams.
of condemnation proceedings.
140 North Broad Street, Philadelph'a, Pa., photostating---Bristol Herald Courier, Bristol, Va., publication of notices, con
demnation proceedings Jane H. Rider, Tucson, Ariz., analysis of exhibits used in court,
$5 per exhibit.Bush Terminal Co., Forty-eighth Street and First Avenue,
Brooklyn, N. Y., cartage of court records, $2.50 per hour.-Evening Star, Winchester, Va., publication of notices, condemna
tion proceedings Shenandoah Herald, Woodstock, Va., publication of notices, con
demnation proceedings.. Shenandoah Herald, Woodstock, Va., publication of notices, con
demnation proceedings Shenandoah Herald, Woodstock, Va., publication of notices, con
demnation proceedings--Page News and Courier, Luray, Va., publication of notices, con
demnation proceedings. Bedford Bulletin, Bedford, Va., publication of notices, condem
nation proceedings---Staunton News-Leader, Staunton, Va., publication of notices, con
demnation proceedings Frederick Denny, 918 White Building, Buffalo, N. Y., court re
porter, $10 per day for reporting, $3.50 in lieu of subsistence.
15 cents and 5 cents for transcript.John P. Geiger, 583 Riverside Drive, New York, N. Y., internal
revenue expert, $41.66 per day-Amherst New Era, Amherst, Va., publication of notices, condem