records of the act, and that sort of thing, all of which was of great assistance to me.

I was going to say-I think I have gotten away from that pointthat in our district we have three law clerks. Judge Wyzanski and I were appointed about the same time, and it was a question whether he or I should have a law clerk, and in a sporting manner we decided that I should have the law clerk for 1 year and he should have him for the next year. So then I had to look about to get a clerk. I was very fortunate to have a choice of two men who were in 4-F. One was totally deaf in one ear, and the other was a diabetic, but they both were men who had attained high scholastic rank. The man I finally chose was No. 1 in his class in law school. He had graduated 2 or 3 years before, and he is married, and he is totally deaf in one ear, so I do not think he will be drafted, although with the anticipated drain on manpower the draft possibly may reach him. But I think most of the judges are attempting to get men who are in that class, if they choose young men; although I see no reason, if the job was attractive enough, why some of these older lawyers with a great deal more experience, and perhaps a more mature judgment, in view of the dearth of law business, could not be employed as law clerks.

But from my experience, gentlemen, I can say to you that I think it is very essential that something be done about this situation.

Now, Judge Knox's committee met here in December. The senior circuit court judges for the 11 circuits had convassed the situation in their circuits, and they certified the necessity for 81 more law clerks. That is, after consulting the judges and canvassing the situation thoroughly, they gave a certificate of necessity for 81 more law clerks. Well, we took into consideration the times, and that Congress was unquestionably of the mind not to make additional appropriation for any activities other than war activities. So it was the decision of the committee that Judge Knox should again canvass the situation and that he should contact all of the senior circuit court judges again to see if they could be a little more modest in their demands. So he wrote to each one and asked them to take into consideration the times, and all that sort of thing, and as the result of that, the request today is for 50 new clerks.

Now, I think, gentlemen, that it is a modest recommendation that this committee has made. It has been made as a result of deliberation and consideration, taking into consideration the times and the great necessity for appropriation for the war effort. We come before you in the interest of expeditious justice from the courts; and I know that all of you gentlemen are just as anxious as I am, or any man on this side of the table, to attain that end.

Mr. O'NEAL. Thank you, gentlemen, very much indeed, and we will give your statements careful consideration.

Justice MILLER. May I say one final word: I have here some matter which has been prepared for Judge Biggs' committee. It is being sent out to the judges for consideration. I cannot submit it for the conference, but I think it may be very serviceable to you in considering the duties of the secretaries and the clerks. It is a list of all of the things I have been able to collect on what the clerks and secretaries do. Mr. O'NEAL. We will be glad to have that. Thank you very much.

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1943.

ADDITIONAL LAW CLERKS FOR DISTRICT JUDGES

STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like very briefly to touch upon the matter of the law clerks for the judges.

It has been stated, and I am going to repeat it, that the act of February 17, 1936, title 28, United States Code, section 128, provides that each United States district judge is authorized to appoint a law clerk. The act says that the judge himself is authorized to appoint a law clerk when he deems that such assistance is necessary, and the senior circuit judge of the circuit certifies to the necessity of the appointment. The law limited the number of law clerks during the first year to 35, and as has been stated, that limitation has expired. Thus full authority is now had to appropriate for all judges whose certification of necessity is approved by the senior circuit judge.

The Committee on the Judiciary was heartily behind that bill, and I am sure our former colleague, now a very distinguished jurist, Judge Arthur Healey, can testify to that because he served on the committee with me when that bill was originally drafted and approved and recommended by the Judiciary Committee. At the present juncture the House Judiciary Committee, I am sure, wishes to carry out the purpose and intent of the act, where the district judge feels that he needs a law clerk and the necessity is so certified by the senior circuit judge. The House Judiciary Committee, while I have not canvassed all the members, I am sure no one would offer objection, and I say that law clerks should be provided for and appointed in proper number.

You will notice that there are two safeguards-one, the necessity for such a clerk in the mind of the district judge, and also the certification as to the necessity in the mind of the senior judge.

It may be that some of the judges, particularly those in the rural and sparsely settled communities, do not want a law clerk.

I think my very distinguished friend and eminent jurist, Judge Knox, has made a canvass of that situation, and he will tell you more about that in detail.

This subcommittee recommended to the full Committee on Appropriations, and that committee recommended to the House and the House adopted the recommendation for 22 district law clerks to be appointed, and appropriations were made there for the fiscal year 1941. Then there were added in the following year 11 law clerks, making a total of 33 in all.

The reasoning behind the provision for 33 law clerks was to have, roughly, 3 law clerks for each circuit, there being 10 circuits, and I presume the additional ones were for the District of Columbia.

Let us see how you can divide three law clerks among the district judges in an entire circuit.

Take, for instance, the second circuit, my circuit. We have 26 judges in the second circuit. We have the southern district of New York, with 13 judges; we have the eastern district of New York, my bailiwick, Brooklyn, with 6 judges. We also have Vermont, with 1 judge; Connecticut, with 2 judges; the western district of New

York with 2; and the northern district of New York with 2; making a total of 26 judges.

How in thunder are you going to divide 3 law clerks among 26 judges in the States of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont?

What has happened? There has developed a rather anomalous situation in Brooklyn, where we have 6 judges. When you go to the southern district of New York there are 13 judges. Judge Knox will tell you all about the difficulty in his district. Let me tell you what happened in Brooklyn.

The senior district judge there is Judge Campbell, a very splendid jurist and a fine gentleman. What was he going to do with one law clerk among six judges? He had a difficult task. He could not cut the clerk into six pieces. So that law clerk spends his time more or less in Judge Campbell's chambers or in the law library.

I inquired of a number of judges in the eastern district, which is, roughly, Brooklyn, and I said, "What do you do?" They said, "What can we do?" They are very diffident and are reluctant to ask for the services of that law clerk. They said, "We feel that the law clerk is the possession of the senior judge, Judge Campbell." I said, "Do you mean to tell me you get, under the circumstances, very little personal services out of that law clerk?" They said, "How can we, under the circumstances?"

If I were the chief judge and you gentlemen were also judges in that district you would feel the same way about it. At best, one clerk is absurd. At best, he is only useful to a judge presiding in motion part.

It is very unsatisfactory, and you may as well have no law clerk in the district if you are going to try to divide him among 6 district judges. The situation leads to confusion worse confounded to try to divide 2 law clerks among 13 district judges across the river in the southern district.

Mr. O'NEAL. Why did not the Judiciary Committee authorize the full allotment?

Mr. CELLER. You have the basic act which authorizes you to make the appropriation.

Mr. O'NEAL. Why did not the Judiciary Committee recommend the whole number?

Mr. CELLER. In the beginning we thought we should go slowly, and that is why there was a semilimitation put on with reference to the certification by the judges. We were just plowing the field in the spring, so to speak, in the early days. We were feeling our way..

The situation is that there are a great many court cases and many crowded calendars in the courts now. Clerks for each judge are now more urgently needed.

In the first circuit you have Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Maine has one district judge, New Hampshire one district judge, Massachusetts four district judges, and one Rhode Island district judge. How in thunder the senior circuit judge divides three law clerks among four States with seven judges is beyond my comprehension.

Let us see what the State of New York does. They go so far as to give the New York supreme court judges-and there must be about 75 in the whole State-they give each supreme court judge a law

clerk. They give a law clerk to every supreme court justice, at a salary of $6,500 a year.

Mr. O'NEAL. And also a stenographer?

Mr. CELLER. Yes; in addition to the law clerk; and they have a pool of stenographers to draw from.

Let us see what this will cost. I think Judge Knox will tell youand the judge will correct me if I am wrong-that a canvass was made to determine which judges wanted clerks, and, as I understand it, a goodly number of judges said they wanted one. I believe, in addition to the 33 now allotted, 50 additional judges said they would like to have a law clerk. That would mean, if you satisfied all those judgesand they would not have said they wished a law clerk if there had been no necessity-you would have 83 judges, and 83 times $2,300, which is the starting salary, will give you a total of $190,900.

The present appropriation is, roughly, for 33 clerks, at $2,300, the amount of the appropriation being $75,900. Therefore, in order to provide for 50 additional clerks, you would have to have an additional appropriation of $115,000.

I said the calendars are rather jammed. We are in a war, Mr. Chairman, and, judging from the experience in the last war, those court calendars will be augmented by a much greater number of cases. You will have cases involving the Office of Price Administration, the Board of Economic Warfare, the War Production Board, the War Labor Board, and various other cases growing out of statutes involving war activities, such as espionage, the Trading with the Enemy Act, and what have you.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do I understand you to mean that this amount of $210,000 should be modified to $115,000?

Mr. CELLER. That would be the irreducible minimum to provide for 50 additional law clerks. I would say if you are going to do anything, at least start from that point and give 50 additional clerks superimposed upon the 33, and you will have 83 law clerks in all to provide for that many judges out of 185 district judges.

I think you will do a fairly good job if you recommend that we start at that point. I have not conferred with the judges; perhaps they have some other views.

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for giving me this opportunity to express myself in the way I have.

Mr. O'NEAL. We thank you for your statement, Mr. Celler.

FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1943.

ADDITIONAL LAW CLERKS FOR DISTRICT JUDGES

STATEMENT OF HON. E. C. GATHINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Gathings desires to make a statement to the committee in reference to an item in the bill we have under consideration, and we will be very glad to hear him at this time.

Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear this afternoon in the interest of adequate law clerks for district judges.

Just to review briefly what has been done heretofore by the Congress in providing law clerks, I would like to give you a brief history of it. In the Seventy-fourth Congress there was provided the necessary legislation for the hiring of law clerks for district judges. That law was passed in 1936.

Probably you are familiar with this history.

Mr. O'NEAL. That has been testified to; we are familiar with the history.

I would suggest that you extend your statement in the record. Mr. GATHINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will confine myself to the current need for law clerks for district judges, more particularly in the circuit in which Arkansas is a part.

Mr. GATHINGS. I come from the eighth circuit, composed of the States of Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Missouri, and Arkansas. Arkansas ranks second out of those seven States in the number of cases handled by the United States district courts as well as appeal cases that go to the circuit court of appeals. I am familiar to a degree with the great volume of cases before the district courts in Arkansas in connection with condemnation, levee, and drainage work, and also accretion cases along the Mississippi River. There has been quite an increase in Federal cases, during the war particularly. I am of the opinion that there is a great necessity for law clerks in Arkansas. I am not too well familiar with the over-all picture, but I do know that Judge Limley and Judge Trimble in Arkansas are in dire need of law clerks in order to dispose of the tremendous number of cases in their courts with dispatch. Both of these judges use their secretaries as law clerks and each of them serve as court reporter.

I would like to bring out this point, as a member of the Committee on Miliary Affairs: We deal with selective-service legislation, and I want to call the attention of the committee to this little booklet they have gotten out. In connection with that I want to call attention to this fact. Here is the law [indicating book], and the rest of it is regulations. So there is need for law clerks to assist the trial judges in finding out what the law and regulations are, and make a particular study of them.

These clerks are provided for the judges of the circuit courts of appeals. They have ample time for this research work, it seems to me, more than the district judges who are actually engaged in the trial of cases. The district judges have to have this information at hand, available at a moment's notice. And let me say, Mr. Chairman, I trust that these law clerks will be paid adequate salaries commensurate with the importance and technical duties they are called upon to perform. Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Gathings a question which I think ought to go in the record?

Mr. O'NEAL. Yes.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. Gathings, for the record, how many pages do you estimate are in this law and the regulations? They are not numbered.

Mr. GATHINGS. I would say there are maybe 150 pages of regulations, and about 15 pages of the actual law.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Harvey, the clerk, informs me that there are about 200 pages in all, including 26 pages of the law.

Mr. GATHINGS. Now, I am in full accord with the members of the committe who want to save money. I, too, am in favor of eliminating