The CHAIRMAN. You mean in cases where the attorney renders a bill? Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir; where the compensation is to be determined, the attorney renders service for two, three, or six months, and then submits a bill for, say, $6,000, they generally fix the fee somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 or possibly $3,500 or $4,000, depending upon the importance of the case. The CHAIRMAN. You say it does not exceed $1,000 per month. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further you wish to say about this estimate of $300,000? Could we not suspend this until after the 1st of July? Mr. HARRIS. We would have to stop paying these attorneys, and this business has got to go on. Some of them might become disgruntled and quit, and to lose some of those cases would cost us more money than it would to run the entire Department of Justice a year. and furthermore next year's appropriation is not available to pay for services rendered this year. The CHAIRMAN. What is the balance now? Mr. HARRIS. It is the difference between $359,000 and $600,000that is, $241,000. The payments to men who are paid on a quantum meruit basis are anywhere from two to three months behind. Regular salaries have been paid up to January 31. The CHAIRMAN. From January 31 there would be only five months to provide for. Mr. STEWART. In the last four or five months the demands are heavier than in the first four or five months. The CHAIRMAN. Why? Mr. STEWART. Because the attorneys who are doing work in cases where the compensation is to be determined sometimes run along for four, five, or six months without getting anything. Some of them draw something. They come in and render bills, or they may come, in and ask for a lump sum. The CHAIRMAN. You had spent $359,000 up to the 1st of February, or at the rate of about $50.000 per month. You have $241,000 left for the rest of the year, which would be at the rate of $50,000 per month, and you say you have fewer people employed than you had last year. Mr. HARRIS. Fewer than we had in February. We were running then at the rate of $1,000,000 a year. The CHAIRMAN. You have paid all of those men up to date, have you not? Mr. HARRIS. No, sir. A lot of them are not paid for November and some have not been paid for December. Very few of those whose compensation is to be determined have been paid. I have on my desk bills for January service that have not been paid yet. Of course, the prohibtion work costs additional money. The CHAIRMAN. You are paying out of your appropriation $200,000 for that. Mr. STEWART. That is a part of the $600,000. The CHAIRMAN. It cost that last year. Mr. HARRIS. The income-tax business is costing us considerable money and the prohibition business is costing money. LARGE CASES HANDLED BY DEPARTMENT. Mr. BYRNS. The district attorneys handle a great many of those cases, do they not? For instance, they handle a great many incometax cases. Unless it is a very large case, I imagine that the matter would be looked after by the district attorney. Mr. HARRIS. The district attorney would not have time to look after any of these large cases, like the Crucible Steel case and the Depuy estate case, involving $28,000,000. We have a case at San Francisco that involves $6,000,000. There is an estate tax case out there involving $6,000,000, and the man handling that case has been paid at the rate of $1,000 per month. The CHAIRMAN. Your judgment is that there is no way except to give you what you want? Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir; if you want to have this business conducted and these cases defended and prosecuted. We say now that we can show absolutely that in fines, fees, and forfeitures, and judg ments collected, we have collected upward of 33 cents on every dollar that we have expended for the department, the courts, and everything else. In addition to that we can show where we prevailed last year in cases in which there was absolutely in sight the sum of $28,000,000, to say nothing of the income-tax business. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to say that there was likely to be judgments against you to the amount of $28,000,000? Mr. HARRIS. I think there would have been if we had not adequately defended the cases. I think in that patent case there would have been a judgment against us. Mr. KENNARD. Claimants succeeded in getting judgments for not exceeding 4 or 5 per cent in claims against the United States in patent cases, Court of Claims cases, etc. Adequate defense reduces the recoveries materially. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, they must be adequately defended, and we do not want to embarrass you in that respect. Mr. KENNARD. Naturally the claimant puts in a big claim. The CHAIRMAN. He would not get judgment for the entire amount claimed if you did not defend it at all. Mr. HARRIS. He would get judgment by default then. SALARIES OF CLERKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS. FOR ADJUSTING ERROR BY A DISBURSING OFFICER. The CHAIRMAN. For the salaries of clerks of United States District Courts you ask a deficiency of $827.28 for the fiscal year 1920. Is that an audited claim? Mr. KENNARD. It is not of that nature. This is for the purpose of correcting an error. A deposit was made by a disbursing officer, and through misunderstanding or error the general accounting office cov ered it in to the credit of this appropriation we are considering here, instead of to the credit of the appropriation for fees of witnesses. That gave us a false balance, or an apparent balance of $827.28 in the other appropriation. We needed the money and used that apparent balance for legitimate purposes. In order to correct the deposit, we now have to place that much back in the other appropriation. The only way this can be accomplished is through a further appropriation. The CHAIRMAN. This does not take money out of the Treasury, does it? Mr. KENNARD. This will be an appropriation, but in another sense it is really a transfer of money to the appropriation that it should have gone to in the first place. The CHAIRMAN. What difference does it make? Mr. KENNARD. We are unable to settle the account of the disbursing officer until we make the transfer, and we are unable to make the transfer until Congress gives us the money. Therefore, the disbursing officer is in difficulty. The CHAIRMAN. He can not get his money? Mr. KENNARD. Yes, it is perfectly legitimate. It is purely a bookkeeping transaction. I have a letter from the Comptroller General in regard to this matter. The CHAIRMAN. You may insert that in the record. STATE AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS DIVISION, The honorable the ATTORNEY GENERAL. SIR: It is desired to invite attention to a situation arising in the account of John F. Short, United States marshal for the western district of Pennsylvania. This officer's accounts for the June quarter, 1920, show an overdraft of $827.28 under appropriation "Salaries and expenses of clerks, 1920." The resulting suspension made by this office per certificate 10907 of the marshal's account for this quarter was removed (certificate 11149) when it appeared that on November 22, 1920, the amount of overdraft had been advanced to the marshal under above appropriation-requisition No. 10829 dated November 22, 1920. A little later the marshal sent in his check in the sum of $827.28 for deposit to credit of appropriation "Salaries and expenses of clerks, United States district courts, 1920," as a repayment of unexpended balance. The funds were covered in as indicated by the marshal, certificate of deposit No. 42563, December 7, 1920; repay warrant No. 53/39736, second quarter 1921. But the appropriation was erroneous. The repayment should have been made to the credit of "Fees of witnesses, 1920," under which a balance in this sum was due, as shown by the officer's account current for the December quarter, 1920. In the present state of the case, therefore, there are offsetting debit and credit balances under the two respective appropriations, remedy for which would, of course, be found in an adjustment of appropriations with issuance of warrant charging "Salaries and expenses of clerks, 1920," and of counterwarrant carrying the amount to "Fees of witnesses, 1920." This course, however, is rendered impossible by the circumstances that the appropriation "Salaries and expenses of clerks, 1920," is exhausted. A deficiency appropriation under "Salaries and expenses of clerks, 1920," is now apparently the only means of adjustment. It is, therefore, requested that steps to this end be taken by the Department of Justice through the proper representations to Congress. Respectfully, J. R. MCCARL, Comptroller General. By W. S. DEW HIRST, L. R. FEES OF UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS. The CHAIRMAN. For fees of United States commissioners and justices of the peace acting under section 1014 of the Revised Statutes, you are asking a deficiency of $4,577.45 for the fiscal year 1920. Mr. KENNARD. That amount represents settled and audited claims of United States commissioners for statutory fees. The CHAIRMAN. For 1920? Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir; for 1920. The fees are fixed by law. The CHAIRMAN. Have you the names of the people that these amounts are due to? Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You may put them in the record. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Fees of commissioners, United States courts, 1920: J. Leroy Dukes, Orangeburg, east S. C., certificate 34448_ $621.65 572.65 1,054.55 14.05 81.30 348. 55 6.60 7.05 1,360. 10 174.15 25.50 9.20 302.10 4,577.45 FEES OF JURORS. The CHAIRMAN. For fees of jurors, you ask a deficiency of $150,000. Tell us about that. Mr. KENNARD. There is nothing particularly unusual about this item. Of course, it must be admitted that the activities of the Federal courts this year have been equal to and probably greater than during the fiscal year 1921. During the fiscal year 1921 we used for this purpose $1,290,000, and we find that we actually expended for jurors more during the first six months of this year than we did during the like six months of the previous year. To pay jurors for the first six months we used $511,400-that is, of course, the small six months, containing July and August, when the courts are in vacation. During the like six months of the preceding year we used $505,200. It is perfectly clear from a very careful examination of the reports that we have gathered from every station in the field that we will need fully $1,300,000, and possibly a little more. The estimates aggregate about $30,000 or $35,000 more than we have requested. Mr. BYRNS. Can you tell how much was spent during the last six months of 1921? Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir; $784,926. Mr. SISSON. That includes the fall months? Mr. KENNARD. The last six months represent the heavier period. They always run heavier than the first six months, because during gust there are very few juries, most of the courts being In fact, we paid out in July only $29,000, while in e paid out $147,000. N. In other words, this is simply an estimate, and you d it unless the jurors' fees are allowed by law. ARD. That is true. N. It is just a question of whether the jurors get their HARD. Yes, sir. On the other hand, if it is not approre the close of the year, it is liable to embarrass the Govause some judges will adjourn court and refuse to proedit basis. N. In the absence of this fund, if the courts should con-ss, the jurors would have to pay their own expenses. have to pay their own expenses if the judge insisted on , which, of course, would be very much more embarrassrors than to the court. ARD. They would simply have claims against the Gov N. If the business is there and the court is open for the of the business that the people demand be transacted, be provided for running the court. ARD. Yes, sir; it is automatic. MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. RMAN. For miscellaneous expenses you are asking hat appears to be more than your estimate for 1922. ARD. It is more than the estimate, but it is not $115,000 e used during the previous year. EXPENDITURES FOR 1921. RMAN. You used $590,000 during the previous year. ARD. More than that. There was $632,000 appropriated, use all of it. We have used about $615,000, and we are belated bills. Our expenditure for 1921, when everyd. will be about $625,000. N. I notice that you had for 1921 a direct appropriation plus a deficiency of $50,000, plus another deficiency of there anything in addition to that? NARD. Yes, sir; there was another deficiency of $42,000 he act of August 24, 1921. N. In August of this last year? IS. In the August, 1921, deficiency bill. s. That makes a total of $632,000? ARD. Yes, sir. Nearly all of it will be used. s. Was that deficiency of $42,000 for 1921? ARD. Yes, sir. s. It covered a 1921 deficiency? NARD. Yes, sir; ascertained after the close of the year. |