Judge KNOX. What I was trying to do was to reduce this to a minimum, and I have not attempted to prejudice the ninth circuit, because I have not heard from it. Now, southern California is overwhelmed with business. I have sat there, and I know precisely what they have to contend with. Judge McCormick is overworked, and practically every judge out there; and please do not get the idea, from what I have said, that I wish to suggest in any way, shape or form, whether or not the number that is requested for the ninth circuit should be reduced.

Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. Judge, let us take any private business firm. They do not wake up overnight, do they, and find out suddenly, even though they have gotten along to this date with their personnel, that they need an increase representing, as in this case, approximately 30 percent?

Judge KNOX. I think sometimes they do. I think that we have been long-suffering.

Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. I agree with you, Judge, that perhaps there are certain cases that need remedy; but I would like to receive a little further discussion from you as to why we have to jump at this time that is the main thing in the back of my mind-up to 50 extra clerks for these judges. There remains in my mind that up to date these particular judges have gotten along without these clerks; somehow they have gotten along without them; and if you can give me a little more justification for suddenly asking for an additional 50 at this time-especially at this time-I will appreciate it.

Judge KNOX. In some districts the last quarterly report of the Administrative Office indicates the fact that business has very greatly increased.

Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. I agree with you on that.

Judge KNOX. You gentlemen in Washington have passed a lot of legislation that is very difficult to interpret. We get these cases; somebody is sued, and that thing has to be gone into. The statute has to be read and it has to be weighed, and we have got to look at what you gentlemen said when the legislation was on its way through the House and the Senate, and that takes time.

For example, I have made a special drive to try cases under the Jones Act, because here is a man injured on a ship; it is very difficult to get his witnesses now; and I have tried as much as I can, instead of taking time in chambers or having the other judges take time in chambers, to sit in trial term and dispose of those cases, because these men may never come back. Here you have these espionage cases, the sabotage cases, the draft cases, the writs of habeas corpus for boys going into the Army, and all these things take consideration, and in some of the districts around the camps these cases are greater than they are immediately in New York. It is not that we are just waking up to our need for law clerks, but it is that we have become articulate, and we are asking for what every business house in these days is getting, and what every bureau in Washington, so far as I know, is getting, as a necessary tool with which to work.

Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. I would like to show you some of the personnel that some of these bureaus in Washington could very nicely get along without. But this committee is here to try to prevent

every bureau from running wild, so to speak; and while we recognize that many of you judges need these additional law clerks, I am wondering if they could not get along with 20 extra clerks instead of 50.

Justice GRONER. Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, I should like to suggest at least one additional reason that Judge Knox, if I recall correctly, did not state.

This is not, as you may have the impression, a brand new proposition.

Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. I recognize that, sir.

Justice GRONER. I have unfortunately had the laboring oar in asking for these appropriations for a great many years, and I am delighted to have these gentlemen here says what they have so well said today. But 5 years ago this matter was brought to the attention of this committee. Three years ago, as I recollect the time, the committee, as you have already heard, started out on the policy of providing for two or three law clerks for each of the circuits annually, and in each of the Judiciary Appropriation Committees we have shown that that was simply temporizing with the situation; that it was not meeting the situation, and that, as a matter of fact, the 50, 60, or 70 that are being requested now were necessary then. But those were hard times; times in which there was little business in the country, and more or less of retrenchment of every kind except in certain public expenditures for public buildings, and so forth.

All that I want to say is this; that the subject that you have heard quite fully in Judge Knox's statement is not a new thought, is not a new endeavor to increase the personnel in the judges' chambers, but it is a thing which has been urged from year to year before this committee or before its predecessor committee, and which has been, as I say, compromised from year to year until last year, by the addition of one more per circuit; and last year, as Judge Miller read to you, the committee said that it was not in the interest of the war that the appropriation should be made at the time. But there is no question of doubt about the fact that from the standpoint of economy in the proper and correct sense of that term and the better administration of justice, the district judges ought to have proper tools with which to do their work.

Judge Knox and I went on the Federal Court about the same time. We have both been on the court nearly a quarter of a century. I was 12 years a district judge in a very busy court, and I had no law clerk, but I had a secretary, and I did the best I could. But the work of that court, for which two judges have now been provided, would unquestionably have been much more expeditiously and, I think, much more satisfactorily performed if I had had the assistance of a firstclass law clerk.

One thought that I think has not perhaps been suggested here is this:

District judges go into court, and they are confronted on the spur of the moment with difficult legal questions, to which, in most instances, they have to reply then and there: at least before the conclusion of the case; and if they reply erroneously, they are reversed in the upper court... I have not the slightest doubt in the world that

many of those mistakes-acts which the appellate court calls mistakes-would have been avoided if they had had an opportunity to put to work a first-class law clerk and have his citation of authorities and his review of the subject before the question had to be decided.

In addition to that, under the rules of the Supreme Court and of the several circuit courts of appeals, the district judge is called upon to file in every case except, of course, the ordinary common law case in which the question is submitted to a jury, a statement of the facts; a finding of facts; and it is a very important part of the function of the judges, and a very helpful thing to the appellate court, to have such a finding of facts. When a case comes up from the district judge in which there is a decision without a reason for the decision, it is frequently a matter of difficulty to know on what ground the case was actually decided, where there are several grounds on which it might have been decided, and it is extremely helpful to have the finding by the judge, who saw the witnesses, of the facts of the case.

In every admiralty case, in every patent case, and in every equity case, the judge, in order to do himself even partial justice, has to write a memorandum opinion. Now, those things cannot be done directly and the ordinary trial work of the court be kept up, unless the judge has somebody to assist him to do it-unless he works himself to death.

So the proposition now to have 50 additional law clerks, which I think is the minimum, is neither a new thought, nor brought about as the result of an anxiety on the part of the judges to have additional assistance. It is merely the ripening of a consciousness that has existed, and has been explained-inadequately, perhaps, but explained from year to year to this committee for the last 5 or 6 years, to my definite knowledge, since I have been here.

So I say that the matter is of real importance in the proper administration of justice, and the small amount of money which is involved I think will be amply repaid. As a matter of fact, the district courts of the United States pay their own way. The money that Congress appropriates for the salaries of the judges and the payment of the clerks of the office force and the payment of the judges' assistants-while I am not sure of the exact figures-is substantially balanced, if not exceeded, by the amount of collections of fines and costs imposed by the district courts. So the court is not a burden on the Government, and, God knows, if there is one thing that is important in this time of travail and strife and uncertainty such as we have today, and such as we confront in the future, it is that our courts shall function promptly.

So I hope, gentlemen, just as earnestly as I can, that this matter will not be permitted to be put to one side for the time being with the polite remark that this is not the proper time but that it will be taken care of hereafter and the appropriation will be granted.

Now, the chairman said a moment ago to Judge Miller-and I think Judge Miller probably misunderstood-as I recall it, the suggestion of the chairman was that in this appropriation for the circuit courts making provision for secretaries and law clerks, an additional

amount should be laid aside to pay the law clerks and a smaller amount laid aside to pay the secretaries.

Mr. O'NEAL. It might be preferable to have a lump sum allocated. Justice GRONER. A lump sum; yes. Now, I think this, as a result of my experience on both the trial court and the appellate court-I think the secretary to a judge is about as important a part of his machinery as there is, and the secretary, as a rule, holds a prominent position. The judges, taking them by and large, I suppose, rarely change their secretaries more than, we will say, once in 5, 6, 8, or 10 years.

Judge KNOX. Why not say 20 years?

Judge GRONER. Yes; I might make it 20 years. So I think it is very important to have an incentive to the secretaries. There is not a secretary in our court who could not go over to the Department of Justice tomorrow at a higher salary as an expert typist and an accomplished secretary, with all the duties of that position.

Now, I think the subject has been sufficiently explained, and I am sure I could not add anything to it.

STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR D. HEALEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Mr. O'NEAL. Thank you very much, Judge Groner.

Now, Judge Healey, we should be glad to hear from you. Judge HEALEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it is a pleasure, of course, to come here again and meet my former colleagues, all of whom, at some time or other, have been in Congress here.

Without soliciting the place, I was appointed to serve on the committee presided over by Judge Knox. I think you gentlemen have listened to a very able presentation by Judge Knox, Judge Miller, and Judge Groner, all of whom have infinitely more experience than I have in the courts. But there are just one or two points-and I hope I shall not be repetitious-that I think I may add, and this first one is out of my past experience here.

I was a member of the Judiciary Committee when the act was passed authorizing law clerks for judges. If I recall correctly, that bill was in that committee two or three times; but we heard a number of able judges one morning, and the committee was greatly impressed with the case they made out, and with perfect unanimity on the committee we voted for this act which authorized law clerks for district judges.

I think the committee was impressed with the fact that the Federal courts had a case load which was greatly increased because of legislation which you and I, Members of Congress, had passed, and which had imposed this greater load, particularly with respect to public questions that are coming before the courts; and so we thought that the judges should have some assistance in order to transact the business of the courts expeditiously.

Now, since that time there have been only 33 law clerks authorizedor, rather, appropriations made to pay 33 clerks for 185 district judges.

I am sure that the committee is familiar with the fact that at some time in the near future an appropriation will be made sufficient to supply each district court judge with a law clerk. I feel that I can make the statement, in all due conscience, that the members of the committee believe that that will be the final result, that the judges will be supplied with clerks.

Now, under the rules, when a case is heard by a district court judge without a jury, we must at least make findings of fact and conclusions of law in order that the circuit court judges may know the reasons for whatever action and decision we have made. Well, in my limited experience I have found that when you go into that you may just as well write an opinion, in many instances, as to write a memorandum of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. So that when you have a jury waived it means that at the end of that session we have quite a backlog of cases. Oftentimes counsel will ask for time to submit briefs and the reply briefs, and that puts into the future the date of decision.

You have heard Judge Knox's explanation of the type of work that is required of a law clerk. I cannot add anything to that, because I think he presented that very ably to you.

Now, in answer to your question concerning the young men and their possibilities under the draft, I can only relate my own experience to you. In the first circuit we are entitled to three law clerks. We have the States of Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire in that district, and in New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island we have the type of districts which Judge Knox characterized as not being busy districts, where the men can go about their work more leisurely and do not have the great case load that we get in Massachusetts; in the city of Boson, for instance. We sit almost entirely in Boston, and from my experience is a very busy court.

Let me tell you of one situation that I had. When we completed the work in the jury waive cases, I think I had a backlog of a dozen cases which had not been decided, and which would have to be decided, and I had hoped to decide them as expeditiously as possible. When some men were arraigned before me for black-market violations, or violations of the price ceilings on tires and on meat, they were represented by able and skillful counsel. He attacked the indictments on dilatory pleas, pleas in abatement, motions to quash, and demurrers, and counsel for the Government urged that those dilatory pleas and those motions be decided as soon as possible, so that we could bring these men to trial, because if we delayed it, of course, it meant that it was only making it possible for these violations to continue. Well, in that instance I had to give those motions precedence over everything else, and within a few days we decided all the points that were raised. The result was that in the very next couple of weeks these men all pleaded guilty and the cases were all disposed of.

But those are the times when I think the district judge needs the assistance of a well-trained law clerk who can make the research that is necessary. Of course, in this case I had to continue on with trials in the criminal court, and my law clerk was able to run down many decisions and to go into the legislative history and the congressional

84140-43-7