REPORTER'S MESSENGER Mr. Justice BURTON. In the custodial service, grade 4, there is an increase from 40 to 41 employees. That takes care of the Reporter's messenger, at $2,243. I did omit one in grade 3, an assistant librarian, where there is an increase from three to four. That is for a fourth reference librarian to help with the additional load that we are carrying. That accounts for the eight additional employees. PRINTING AND BINDING Mr. STEFAN. Let us take up the next item of increase, printing and binding, $18,000. The summary of the estimate will be inserted in the record at this point. (The summary follows:) Mr. Justice BURTON. We take care of the printing of the advance opinions and binding of the Supreme Court Reports and also binding of our own library books. Mr. STEFAN. Does that include decisions? Mr. Justice BURTON. The printing of decisions is an item that is going over to Mr. Chandler's department. The only item we are really covering here is an item that concerns this current year because we had to take on the Government Printing Office instead of the Pearson's Print Shop and it is necessary for us to have in this bill this year the sum of $18,000 of the new money in order to carry the Government Printing Office this year at its increased current rates of pay. Mr. Chandler will take it up from the end of the fiscal year and will justify the appropriation for the future. But we could not turn it over to him pending that time. We had to make a contract with the Government Printing Office. As a matter of fact the Government Printing Office, even since our estimate of $18,000 was arrived at, has increased the salaries of its workers and we will have an item for the Deficiency Subcommittee of $5,600 more which will also come within this fiscal year. But Mr. Chandler will be able to present the permanent arrangement for the future. Mr. STEFAN. That is beginning July 1. Mr. Justice BURTON. We will have to have the $18,000 plus the deficiency item to cover our arrangement with the Government Printing Office in lieu of the Pearson contract. Mr. STEFAN. There was a time when there were leaks of information concerning Supreme Court decisions. What is the situation now? Mr. Justice BURTON. We did have trouble in years gone by and as a result of that, there was a contract made with a private contractor whose name is Bright. I think the firm name was Pearson's Print Shop. He conducted that for years under private contract and we were saved from any more leaks. He has now retired from business and he canceled his contract during the last summer. The Court then took the matter up with the Government Printing Office, which is the only printing establishment that was in a position to take on the work. Our clerk tried to get some other bids, but it was not work that anyone else was in a position to undertake. Now we have a small separate branch of the Government Printing Office in our building, with men especially assigned to it. That has resulted in a satisfactory arrangement. It carries with it an interesting and valuable economy which is that now when they print the slip opinions as they are handed down on Mondays by the Court, they print them in precisely the same type and format used in the United States Reports. So instead of having to reset the type, a very large proportion of it will be picked up for use in the Reports. Mr. STEFAN. We are glad to hear that you are effecting some savings. Mr. Justice BURTON. Not substantial in its actual result, although it is substantial fundamentally. The rates of pay in the Government Printing Office are considerably higher than was the case when we had our contract with the private printer. Wages have gone up again recently in the Government Printing Office. Mr. STEFAN. And leaks or the possibility of their occurring will be eliminated? Mr. Justice BURTON. There have not been any for a number of years. Mr. STEFAN. You have sufficient control over that? Mr. Justice BURTON. We have an even better control than we had, because the men are right in the building. Mr. STEFAN. Tell us about this increase requested. MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES PRINTING AND BINDING Mr. Justice BURTON. An item of $13,000 is to permit the rebinding of additional State reports, the congressional series, reports of trials, State session laws, codes, compiled statutes, and treatises. Mr. STEFAN. The item that you are referring to, an increase of $13,000 in printing and binding, comes under miscellaneous expenses. The standard classification sheet will be put in the record at this point. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Miscellaneous expenses, Supreme Court Mr. STEFAN. We had been talking about general printing and binding for the Supreme Court. You are now referring to another item of printing and binding? Mr. Justice BURTON. Yes. This is an item which is being carried currently and has been put on a 5-year program. This represents an allocation for 1 year out of the 5-year program. In addition, we have 1,000 periodicals that are required to be bound every year. This represents an additional item which runs the cost up to $18,000. But, in connection with that whole matter, we have a minor complication in that the bids from the Government Printing Office on some of these items are considerably higher than we think we may be able to get by continuing the method of letting it to a private contractor. So that we would like to have a clause inserted, perhaps in the committee report to the effect that: The binding for the Supreme Court shall be done by the Government Printing Office or by private contract approved by the Chief Justice, as he shall determine. Mr. STEFAN. The committee will take that under advisement. Do you think you should have this in the bill itself instead of in the committee report? Mr. Justice BURTON. Either in the committee report or in the bill. Mr. STEFAN. The committee will take it under advisement. Mr. Justice BURTON. As a basis I might say that the code title 28, section 354 says: Printing for the Supreme Court shall be done by the printer it may employ unless it otherwise order. Mr. STEFAN. The suggested language I feel would be subject to a point of order, so that it would be better to have it in the committee report rather than in the bill itself. Mr. Justice BURTON. That would be perfectly satisfactory to us. The way we are doing it now is to obtain a waiver from the Government Printing Office to cover this particular outside item. Mr. STEFAN. This is not really a limitation and it would be regarded as legislation in an appropriation bill. Mr. Justice BLACK. It would accomplish the same purpose. COMMUNICATION SERVICES Mr. STEFAN. You have a total increase under miscellaneous expenses of $14,500. Tell us about that. Mr. Justice BURTON. That is made up of two items. The first is for $1,500 and relates to a readjustment of the telephone service in accordance with post war telephone facilities, which considerably improve the intercommunicating service in the Court. The other item is the $13,000 for binding books in our library, which I have just explained. ADVISABILITY OF CONSOLIDATING PRINTING AND BINDING ITEMS Mr. STEFAN. You have discussed two printing and binding items. Why could they not be combined? Mr. Justice BURTON. One comes under the Marshal's office and one under the Clerk's office. Mr. STEFAN. Why could they not be combined with an allocation of the funds to each particular purpose? Mr. WAGGAMAN. The subject of combining has come up at different times and the Court has always felt it desirable to have two appropriations for printing and binding. Mr. Chandler will speak of the item for printing and binding the Supreme Court Reports. Mr. STEFAN. We have for consideration not only printing and binding in the Supreme Court, but printing and binding in all departments of the Government. We would like to have a true picture of our total printing and binding cost, and for that purpose it would be a good idea to combine these items. Mr. WAGGAMAN. They could be combined with a limitation placed on the two funds, if you wish. CASE LOAD Mr. STEFAN. We will put in the record at this point page 8 of the justifications, which shows your case load. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Mr. STEFAN. This page 8 also gives statistics on man-years which shows an increase in employment requested from 189 to 198. Mr. Justice BURTON. That is right. That latter figure should be 197. Mr. STEFAN. I believe you justified that item in connection with the first item of increase, for salaries. INCREASED SALARY FOR SECRETARIES Mr. Justice BURTON. There was another point I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Justice Black and I were especially delegated by the Court to mention to this committee that we have before us a request from the secretaries of the Justices for an increase in their rate of pay. That is due to the fact that they do a substantial amount of overtime work, along with the law clerks. The Court discussed the matter and we felt that we were not prepared at the moment to present a recommendation to your committee. Last year, we told the committee that the law clerks did a great deal of overtime work without recognition, and after a study of the situation we brought in this year, a request for four additional men, rather for eight, instead of a request for salary increases. Similarly, as to the secretaries, we are taking the matter under advisement with a view to making a considered recommendation to your committee next year as to whether there should be any adjustment in the secretaries' pay. We are not requesting it of the committee at this time. Mr. STEFAN. How many would be affected by the proposed increase? Mr. Justice BURTON. There would be at least 9 and perhaps 12 secretaries involved. Mr. STEFAN. You are suggesting it for future study. Mr. Justice BURTON. We will study it and make a report on it. Mr. STEFAN. Do these secretaries have a permanent civil service status? Mr. Justice BURTON. They do not. If a Justice dies, his successor probably will bring his own secretary. Some of the secretaries do have some sort of civil service status based on their previous service. Mr. STEFAN. They are classified in accordance with civil service regulations, are they not? |