the situation, as I saw it, was to take it up with district after district when the question arose. He has held a large number of conferences with referees and with judges on the subject.

In my annual report last year I stated that in 5 districts the rules had been modified to make it clear that the expense funds could be used only for expenses. I am happy to say that in the year that has elapsed since then, a year and a half now, 28 additional districts have adopted what we regard as a model rule on that subject, so that now that practice is regulated by correct rules in 33 districts.

Mr. O'NEAL. Why has it not been adopted in other districts? Mr. CHANDLER. There are many other districts in which we are without what would seem a clear rule on the subject, but the practice is correct. There has been no appropriation of expense funds.

Mr. O'NEAL. If it is not authorized by law, what is the remedy for stopping it, if they will not stop it of their own accord?

Mr. CHANDLER. The fund, you see, is for the purpose of defraying the cost of administering bankruptcy cases, and the United States Government has no interest in it on its own account. We have thought, Mr. Chairman, that it would be in order for the United States attorney, in any district in which such funds have been misused, to prosecute a civil action for recovery in behalf of the United States as trustee for the parties interested.

Mr. O'NEAL. Have you called it to the attention of the Department of Justice?

Mr. CHANDLER. The Department of Justice is very familiar with this situation, and it has in some instances brought actions.

Judge BIGGS. I think that I can answer the chairman's question. We had a situation of that sort in the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and it was called to the attention of the Attorney General by ourselves and by the Administrative Office. It was not criminal. It was a misinterpretation of the rules of the court which were none too clear in the first instance. The rules were corrected and the Attorney General informed the referees they would have to pay back certain sums. They then made settlements and paid back.

Mr. CHANDLER. I am glad that Judge Biggs said that. It had escaped my recollection that in a number of districts throughout the country refunds in substantial sums have been obtained from referees.

There are two other aspects of the bankruptcy administration, that I should like to mention. One is that section 37 of the Bankruptcy Act (the Chandler Act) provides that the number of referees shall "be limited with a view to employment of referees on a full-time basis." It was undoubtedly the purpose of that act that the number of referees should be substantially reduced and brought down to a number who would have sufficient business to become proficient in their work. Progress is being made in that direction.

REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF REFEREES

I pointed out in my last annual report, issued for the fiscal year 1943, that the number of referees when the Chandler Act was passed was 490, and it had been cut down to 377. That is a reduction of about 25 percent. The reduction is still going on because with the decrease in the number of bankruptcy cases filed, the referees are having very slim pickings indeed. Some of them are in a most

difficult situation, and the referee in your district, Congressman O'Neal, is one of the number.

REDUCED EARNINGS OF REFEREES

Referees who are proficient in bankruptcy administration had so much business until a year or two ago that they really devoted their entire time to it and cut themselves off from their practice. They are now finding that they have virtually no income. As far as the referees themselves are concerned, they could be expected to go out and find work elsewhere, and the present is a rather favorable time to change employment. But the courts need to have a force of referees to stand by against the time when that business will come up. Mr. Covey is doing a good deal to assist the referees to maintain their offices in this difficult period, by going about the country, conferring with them, running over their office set-up, suggesting ways and means of cutting down their expenses and encouraging them to hold on if they can.

NUMBER OF REFEREES REQUIRED FOR SERVICE

Mr. GORE. What is your idea about the force the courts could expect to stand by in readiness for a period of time?

Mr. CHANDLER. Of course, it is very much to be desired that there be at least one referee to stand by in every district. As far as the referee is concerned, he naturally cannot be asked to do it if he is unable to meet his bills from the compensation that he receives. From his standpoint, I do not see what he can do except to look around for supplemental means of support. He must be a lawyer, and he must try to get back into practice. That is more easily said than done. I realize that. I have had one referee after another say, "Well, Mr. Chandler, that is very easy for you to say, but what confronts us is a condition, not a theory."

FEDERAL PROBATION

I come finally to the accomplishments in Federal probation. There was considerable discussion of the probation service last year, and I do not need to repeat it. I would like to put before you the record that the persons on probation have been making, both as producers and as members of the armed forces. I think that you will be interested in the results.

In the year 1943, 16,393 persons on probation earned $22,010,219. That is an illustration of the economic value of probation, aside from the social value of it. As of December 31, 1943, 5,452 probationers had been called into military service and are now in the armed services. Of that number only 38, as far as we know, or about 0.7 of 1 percent, have been dishonorably discharged; 5 of the 5,452 have been decorated for bravery.

CASE LOADS OF PROBATION OFFICERS

The call of personnel from probation offices to the Army has imposed a great strain on a good many offices, and we have not yet solved the problem of how we are going to meet it. We are going to do the best

we can.

96127-44- 2

Let me give you one example. In the eastern district of Michigan. with headquarters in Detroit, there are at the present time approximately 670 persons under supervision on probation, parole, and under conditional release. The normal complement of officers there is 6. That would give, you see, a case load of about 112 for each officer, which is approximately the national average at the present time. Two of those officers have been called to the armed services. The court has been absolutely unable to find persons whom it regarded as qualified to replace them, with the result that 4 officers are carrying on with a case load of around 168 apiece. Now they are confronted with the certain loss within a few weeks of another officer. That will reduce their force to 3 and bring about a case load of over 222. Judge Knox and the other judges here, but particularly Judge Knox, because he is the head of a district court in which probation is being carried on, will realize what a really impossible burden it is for one person to supervise 222 probationers, parolees, and prisoners under conditional release.

NEED FOR EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

To conclude, the United States courts to a man recognize that we are in a war. They have taken pride in conforming with whatever national policies have been deemed to be necessary for the maximum efficiency of the war effort. Strains have resulted. We still have problems the answers to which I do not know. We certainly cannot permit the administration of criminal justice, which is one of the primary functions of the Government, to break down. We are going to put our minds, from the judges to the administrative office, and on down through the clerks and the probation officers, on the problem of how we can best meet this situation, because we know that that is the contribution which we owe to the war effort.

us.

I appreciate very much of the consideration that you have shown

Mr. O'NEAL. We appreciate your comprehensive and interesting report, Mr. Chandler.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1944.

COMMITTEE FOR STUDYING THE QUESTION OF SUPPORTING PERSONNEL OF THE FEDERAL COURTS

STATEMENTS OF HON. JOHN BIGGS, JR., UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE, WILMINGTON, DEL. (THIRD CIRCUIT); HON. ALBERT BRANSON MARIS, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE, PHILADELPHIA, PA. (THIRD CIRCUIT); HON. JUSTIN MILLER, JUSTICE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, WASHINGTON, D. C.; AND HON. JOHN C. KNOX, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, NEW YORK, N. Y.

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. O'NEAL. Judge Biggs, I think before we actually discuss the intimate details of this, we would like to have you make a short statement of the background of the estimates, and what the committee

has been doing, and how long you have been engaged in it. Also, anything else you think would bear on the subject.

Judge BIGGS. I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you gentlemen.

This committee of which I am chairman was appointed by the Senior Circuit Judges Conference in September 1942, and was to deal with the question of supporting personnel of the Federal courts. By supporting personnel we meant that personnel which intimately is connected with, and which supports the courts in their daily work. It includes and we have included in this report-secretaries, law clerks, librarians, clerk personnel, that is the personnel of the clerks of the courts' offices and probation officers.

We have felt for some time, that is, the members of the committee have felt for some time, that there was no adequate system of merit compensation for the personnel, and I think that I can illustrate that best by beginning with secretaries and law clerks.

Mr. O'NEIL. State what this conference of senior judges is.

Judge BIGGS. Under the acts of Congress there is a conference called annually by the Chief Justice, and it meets in Washington at his call at the place designated-as a matter of fact it meets in the conference room of the Supreme Court-and it has had the habit of meeting in September the week precedingthe beginning of the session of the Supreme Court. On occasion it has met twice a year, and at each meeting each of the senior circuit judges, 10 in number, and Mr. Chief Justice Groner of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, met with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. That forms the conference.

The Chief Justice, under the act of Congress, is the presiding officer of that conference, and that conference meets to consider various matters relating to the administration of all United States courts, with the exception, of course, of the Supreme Court. That is, all of the inferior or lower Federal courts, and it takes up all sorts of matters.

You have heard some of them referred to this morning. From time to time the conference authorizes and the Chief Justice appoints committees to deal with these various subjects which come before the conference. These committees report back at the next session of the conference, and their reports are either approved, disapproved, or modified, and then in general the action of the conference is implemented by asking the gentlemen of the Congress to pass appropriating legislation if it seems to them that that step is desirable.

This particular committee on supporting personnel was so appointed, and it consists of the members who are shown on the committee list, some of whom are circuit judges and some of whom are United States district judges.

i

LAW CLERKS FOR DISTRICT JUDGES

As you know, every judge has a secretary, and at the present time there have been authorized by the appropriation 55 law clerks for district judges. That means, of course, that not every district judge has a law clerk. It is also the case probably that every district judge does not need a law clerk, but we have felt-the members of the committee, and the conference has gone on record on various occasions, and again in this report which was approved with certain modifications

that I shall point out to you-that there should be a law clerk for every district judge who wants a law clerk and who needs a law clerk.

I might add that every circuit judge under the present appropriation, and under the present acts of Congress, is entitled to a law clerk. I think that every active, that is, not retired circuit judge, has a law clerk.

Of course, at the present time every secretary, with certain exceptions, receives a basic pay at the rate of $2,600, and every law clerk receives a basic rate of pay of $2,600. That, of course, is without the additional wartime compensation. That is what I mean by "basic pay."

Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. How much is this additional wartime compensation?

Judge BIGGS. Fifteen percent.

Mr. CHANDLER. $390. That makes a total of $2,990.

SITUATION REGARDING EMPLOYMENT OF LAW CLERKS

Judge BIGGS. In the East, of course, which is the place with which I am most familiar, the third circuit, we have found great difficulty in keeping law clerks. That is not due, or has not been due in the past primarily to the fact that they have gone on military leave. It has been due to the fact that we have not been able to compensate them in a way in which they probably should be compensated if we are to keep them. I might say there are two theories about law clerks:

One theory is to take a young man just out of law school and keep him for a year or 2, and at the end of that time let him go either into private practice or some place else, and take a new one. That has worked very well with some judges. If I may mention names, Judge Learned Hand, the senior circuit judge in the second circuit, which is our busiest circuit, has followed that practice quite successfully. I have been on the bench nearly 7 years this coming month, and it has not worked so well in my case. As a matter of fact, I have tried to keep my law clerks, and I think that I have had five in that time, but they have all gone elsewhere with the exception of my last one whom I have had about 2 years, a woman, a very competent young woman who helps me as a law clerk.

The other theory which I think is supported by a great number of judges is that you could have the equivalent of what might be a law clerk, that is, a person who would stay with you quite indefinitely and who, if his work improves and as necessity arose, might be raised from grade to grade until he reached some comparatively high level where he would be content to stay indefinitely if he measured up to the qualifications.

WORK OF THE SECRETARIES

Now, what I have said about law clerks is substantially true as to secretaries. Most of the judges' secretaries have been with them for some time. Usually when a judge leaves private practice to go to the Federal bench he takes his secretary along with him because he or she is more familiar with his affairs than anyone else, and he or she has been with him for some length of time, and these secretaries to district judges, senior district judges, and senior circuit judges, occupy very responsible positions. They have to. They have to write opin