Statement of amounts paid to special assistants to the Attorney General and to special assistants to United States attorneys from the appropriation "Pay of special assistant attorneys, United States courts, 1917," in the period from July 1, 1916, to Jan. 15, 1918, inclusive-Continued. Hopkins, Alb. L. Lyons, John. Lane, A. W. Mangus, Milton W. Reames, Clarence L.. Special assistant to United States at- Special assistant to United States Special assistant to United States Special assistant to United States Special assistant to United States Special assistant to United States Mr. MONDELL. You are anticipating a deficiency of $25,000 in this item, making $175,000, and you are asking $200,000. What is the state of your business justifying an increase of $25,000 over what you anticipate your expenditures will be for this year? Mr. KENNARD. That is entirely prospective and indefinite. Mr. MONDELL. But you must have some sort of basis on which to found your expectations? Mr. KENNARD. You see, the appropriation is confined to special cases of unusual importance. Mr. MONDELL. But what is the situation which leads you to believe that you are going to have additional special cases? Mr. KENNARD. It is the present crucial situation which is developing numerous important questions growing out of new legislationlegislation connected with the conduct of the war. Mr. MONDELL. But you have been working under that the current year, have you not? Mr. KENNARD. And I think we are spending more money than usual. Mr. MONDELL. But you are asking for $25,000 more than you actually expect to spend this year. Is there new legislation or are there new activities over those of the current year anticipated or known? Mr. KENNARD. There is nothing known definitely, no, sir. The Attorney General feels that there should be a margin of safety here, and that he should have a sufficient fund to meet probable emergencies. In fact, he told me so personally. Mr. Mondell. Has the high cost of living led to a prospective increase in the fees and salaries paid to these special attorneys? Mr. KENNARD. I should say not. Mr. MONDELL. Is there anything of that kind contemplated in the request for $25,000 ? Mr. KENNARD. I think not. FEES OF CLERKS. Mr. BYRNES. The next item is for fees of clerks. I notice you ask for an increase of $35,000 over the 1918 appropriation, and then you ask for some new legislation. What is the explanation of the in crease? Mr. SATTERFIELD. The increased business due to the conditions of the war. Mr. Kennard has the number of new cases that we already have on the dockets for this year, and I believe they number over 5,000. Mr. KENNARD. Between 4,000 and 5,000 cases arising under war legislation. The appropriation for 1918 was insufficient and the actual expense for 1918 will be about $235,000. Mr. MONDELL. Have you asked for a deficiency appropriation? Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes. Mr. KENNARD. We did ask Congress for a deficiency appropriation, but it was not acted upon favorably. It was probably too late. The deficit will be covered by certified claims. As this appropriation is used for the payment of fees fixed by law, the deficit may reported to Congress as certified claims. be Mr. BYRNES. Do you estimate it will amount to $250,000 for this fiscal year? Mr. KENNARD. No; for 1919. This year it will amount to about $235,000. Mr. BYRNES. And you think the number of cases docketed indicates that for the next year you will require $15,000 more, or a total of $250,000? Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir; and Mr. Satterfield is of the opinion that there is going to be a decrease in civil business-that is, in civil earnings and if so, there is a' heavier expense on the United States. Mr. BYRNES. Why? Mr. KENNARD. The matter is somewhat complex. The clerk receives from individuals and corporations fees for services rendered in civil cases. If he does not get enough from his civil earnings, he also receives fees from the United States, payable out of this appropriation, for services rendered the United States. Mr. BYRNES. Up to what amount? Mr. KENNARD. As far as the clerk personally is concerned, he is limited in all districts to $3,500 per annum. Mr. BYRNES. Let me understand that. If he does not make a sufficient amount in the civil cases, you then pay him out of this appropriation? Mr. KENNARD. Not for his civil work. Mr. BYRNES. What do you pay him for? Mr. KENNARD. For services rendered the United States. Mr. BYRNES. You mean if he does not receive fees enough to make it amount to $3,500 you make up the deficit? Mr. KENNARD. Yes. As an illustration, take the clerk for the southern district of New York. His earnings from civil litigants are sufficient to run his office, pay his deputies, pay his own personal compensation, and turn a balance into the Treasury. This clerk, as all other clerks, renders services to the United States, for which he is entitled to certain definite fees, and he renders accounts for these fees, but we do not pay anything on these accounts. Mr. MONDELL. Assuming the fees in civil cases and the fees in United States cases should not reach the sum of $3,500, what happens? Mr. KENNARD. Then the clerk does not get it. He just gets what he makes. Mr. MONDELL. Have there been such cases? Mr. KENNARD. Very few. In most cases they make the maximum. Mr. SATTERFIELD. We had one case of that kind last year down in eastern North Carolina. Mr. KENNARD. With regard to the legislation requested, although one would suppose that the act of February 22, 1875, second supplement, Revised Statutes, page 65, is plain enough in its provisions, yet the right of the Attorney General to require a clerk either to renew a bond or to give a larger bond has been successfully resisted in one district at least, and this proposed legislation is submitted to make the matter clear and beyond question. The clerks in some cases object to renewing their bonds as required by law. Mr. MONDELL. Why? Mr. KENNARD. We have not been able to find any good reason, I am sure. Mr. MONDELL. Because of some added cost? Mr. SATTERFIELD. No: there is no added cost. Mr. KENNARD. No: there would be in the case of an increased bond, but probably not on a renewal. Mr. SATTERFIELD. In the case where objection was raised, the amount in the registry of the court was largely in excess of the bond given, and in that particular district it was shown that the clerk himself practically drew the money out of the registry of the court. Mr. MONDELL. Is there not a perfectly easy and simple way to settle all such questions without any legislation, and that is to remove the clerks who decline to follow the requirements of the service? Mr. KENNARD. We are not able to do it, Mr. Mondell. We have no power. This proposed legislation provides a method. Mr. MONDELL. You have only had one case of this kind? Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes; suit was brought in court and the court held it was not necessary for him to give the bond required by the Attorney General. Mr. KENNARD. Of course, that will become known and perhaps extend to other districts. Mr. MONDELL. What district was that in? Mr. KENNARD. Indiana. Mr. MONDELL. What reason did the clerk give for his refusal to renew the bond? Mr. KENNARD. It was not a matter of renewal, It was an increase. Mr. BYRNES. You also ask for the following new legislation: Provided further. That no part of this appropriation shall be used to pay the fees of the clerk of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Mr. SATTERFIELD. The reason for that, Mr. Byrnes, is this: The District of Columbia last year cost this appropriation over $7,000 because of changes that were made, moving, etc., down into a new building. You understand the building they occupied is being repaired and they removed to some other place, which caused a great deal of expense which would not ordinarily arise. The Attorney General has no control over the expenses of the clerk's office in the District of Columbia, but those expenses are paid, when the civil earnings are not sufficient, from this appropriation which is supposed to be under the control of the Attorney General. We do not think it ought to be done, but the comptroller holds it ought to be paid from this appropriation and what we are trying to do here is to get Congress to say that this should not be paid out of an appropriation which is controlled by the Attorney General without the Attorney General having control of the expenses of the office. Mr. BYRNES. This proviso here simply says that no part of the appropriation shall be used to pay the fees of the clerk of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. What has that got to do with the expenses of moving, and where do you get authority to pay the expenses of moving? Mr. SATTERFIELD. I did not say expenses of moving. The expenses were entailed in changing his office. I do not know how the expense arose, because we do not make any examination and have no control over their accounts at all. Mr. KENNARD. Clerks' office expenses are paid from earnings or fees. Mr. SATTERFIELD. In fact, every expense of moving is paid in the same way. |