with regard to the plan's careful balance between the standardization involved in personnel classification and the flexibility which is essential in connection with small groups of employees whose work is of a highly responsible sort, such as the employees of the courts. I should like also to express my esteem for the views of Judge Magruder's committee regarding the qualifications and selection of probation officers. At all times, the work of a probation officer calls for great skill and wisdom in the handling of the people with whom he deals. Current concern over juvenile delinquency-a concern which the May Act and other legislation bring to the Federal level-is but one reason why it is especially timely to reaffirm now that probation officers must have these talents. Cordially yours, STUART A. RICE, Assistant Director in Charge of Statistical Standards. Mr. Justice MILLER. My purpose in presenting both these points has been to give you assurance that we have laid the foundations which you asked us to lay, and I am sure there will be no unhappy kick-backs from any source. Mr. O'NEAL. That is fine, Judge Miller. Is there anything else to be said on this subject of law clerks? SECRETARY-LAW CLERK POSITION Judge BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I had forgotten one thing, and that is a special job, a job of special classification, called a secretary-law clerk. There are a few judges in the country who have today secretary-law clerks. These are persons who perform the functions both of secretaries and law clerks. I refer you to page 7 of that report. Actually what this amounts to is that we have a classification for that person of P-4, $3,800 to $4,600. There are very few in the country. They are very difficult to find, people who are capable of performing both functions. Judge Lederle, of the eastern district of Michigan, has a secretary-law clerk. One of our judges has a secretary-law clerk. There are two or three in the country, and for that reason we have created this special classification to take care of them. Mr. O'NEAL. We are glad to have that explanation. Is there anything further before you go on to the next subject? Judge BIGGS. May I also offer as part of your exhibits a letter from John C. Bowen, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, in regard to this matter of secretarial services, and a reply to that letter written by Mr. Chandler? Mr. O'NEAL. Without objection, the letters referred to may be made a part of the record at this point. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Hon. HENRY P. CHANDLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHANDLER: Responding to your letter of January 25 concerning the salary of my secretary-law clerk, I frankly confess my error in not having in mind your letter of June 30, 1943. However, the main point I had in mind, although inadequately expressed on the rating sheet, was that I think my secretary's salary situation is not right for these reasons: 1. If payment is made only for her secretarial services, she is not properly paid in comparison with the salaries which I hear are paid to other judges' secre taries who have been in the service a much shorter time than my secretary has been. 2. For her law clerk services, my secretary is receiving no compensation, as I understand it, although for a number of years she has actually been performing the duties of an experienced and able law clerk in addition to her secretarial work, and she probably would not have retained her position if she had not been outstandingly able in the performance of her law clerk duties. Since provision is made for compensating persons employed exclusively as law clerks to district judges, it seems obvious that reasonable extra compensation should be paid for law clerk services performed by a person employed also as secretary. Where one person performs both jobs that person is entitled to greater compensation than a person who performs only one of the jobs. Consequently, within the spirit of the stated policy of the last Judicial Conference approving a maximum of $6,500 for salaries of law clerks and secretaries for one judge, I respectfully urge that you grant my request for such extra compensation for the law clerk work done by my secretary, and that, if by existing law you are not permitted to grant my request, you ask proper authority to do so. In any event, it is requested that if she is to be paid on a basis of secretarial services only my secretary be compensated with due regard for her 9 years of service, and that she be paid more than secretaries to judges who have been employed an appreciably shorter time. Sincerely yours, Hon. JOHN C. BOWEN, JOHN C. BOWEN, United States District Judge. FEBRUARY 9, 1944. United States District Judge, Seattle, Wash. DEAR JUDGE BOWEN: As your letter of February 3 about the salary of Mrs. Coleman intimates may be possible statutory authority now lacking will have to be supplied before I can authorize an increase in her present compensation. Such authority is being sought in the appropriation for miscellaneous salaries of the courts for 1945 recommended by the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges at its last annual meeting (p. 9 of the report of the 1943 meeting). The report of the committee on salaries of supporting personnel of the Federal courts which the conference approved, proposed a position of secretary-law clerk in grade P-4, with salary range of $3,800 to $4,600 per annum (p. 7 of the revised report of the committee). The present Appropriation Act does not provide funds for differentials in salary for secretaries of judges on either of the grounds that they are performing the services of law clerks, or have to their credit an unusual period of service. The Judicial Conference in 1940 declined to approve a policy which I had recommended of making a small differentiation for secretaries of judges possessing legal training, and since then I have necessarily been governed by the judgment of the conference on this matter. The situation will be changed if the appropriation for 1945 along the lines recommended by the Judicial Conference is adopted. The Congress in enacting the present appropriation expressly negatived the giving of credit to secretaries or law clerks of judges in the determination of their salaries for prior service. There was a direction in the text of the appropriation for miscellaneous salaries as originally passed by the Senate, that secretaries should be "given credit for one raise of $100 in grade 7 (the salary range of which is $2,600 to $3,200 per annum) for each 18 months' prior service as secretary to any Federal judge or other United States Government official." In conference, however, this provision was stricken out, and, as was said in the report of the conference committee of the House of Representatives which was adopted, the conference amended the Senate provision, "to eliminate the provision relating to retroactive salary increases" (p. 3 of the conference report, H. Rept. No. 563, 78th Cong., 1st sess.). Many requests like yours have been made to authorize additions to the salaries of secretaries to judges on one ground or the other which you urge, and frequently as in your case on both. I have had no alternative, however, to answering them all as I am answering you, that I cannot do it under the present appropriation. If the recommendation of the Judicial Conference for the appropriation for 1945 is adopted the situation will be different. Every effort will be made to obtain favorable action on the appropriation for 1945 as is shown by the fact that Judge Biggs, the chairman of the committee of the Judicial Conference on salaries of supporting personnel, is coming to Washington to support it before the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee at the hearing which is set for next week. With kind personal regards, I am HENRY P. CHANDLER. BAILIFFS AND MESSENGERS Judge BIGGS. There is one other situation which this committee feels requires consideration, and which is really part of the supporting personnel provision. A special committee was appointed by the Chief Justice, under the authority of the Senior Circuit Judges Conference, to consider the question of bailiffs and messengers, and Judge Maris was chairman of that committee. I think he should make a statement on that subject. Mr. O'NEAL. We shall be glad to hear from you, Judge. Judge MARIS. Upon the recommendation of the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges there has been included in the budget an item of $42,000 to cover the compensation for 28 messengers to circuit judges at the rate of $1,500 per annum. The item was approved by the Judicial Conference upon the recommendation and report of its committee on bailiffs which consisted of district judges Alfred C. Coxe, of New York; John P. Barnes, of Illinois; John C. Bowen, of Washington; Elmer D. Davies, of Tennessee; and myself as chairman. United States circuit judges are ex officia judges of the circuit courts of appeals, and their time is devoted almost exclusively to the work of those courts. The major portion of their time is devoted to the study in their chambers of the records of cases under review and to legal research and the preparation of opinions. This work involves the necessity of very frequently procuring documents from the clerk's office, and books and periodicals from the library of the court and from other libraries where books and periodicals not in the court library may be found. To assist them in the performance of these official duties most circuit judges need to have the full-time services of a messenger. In innumerable other ways also such an employee may conserve the time of the judge for concentration upon the important and difficult problems with which he must wrestle. In addition to acting as such, a messenger may also act as receptionist in the judge's chambers, protecting the judge from the time-wasting visits of persons who have no rightful claim upon his time, and he may also attend the judge in court and act as bailiff during the court sessions. DISCONTINUANCE OF MESSENGERS IN 1933 Messengers for circuit judges were employed for many years prior to 1933. Appropriations for their salaries were discontinued after June 30, 1933, however, and the necessary services of this character have since that date been performed in many instances by bailiffs. assigned to the chambers of a circuit judge by the United States marshal of the district. Mr. JOHNSON. Do you know the reason for the discontinuance of that? Judge MARIS. It was in connection with the general reduction in personnel which took place at that time, under the Economy Act, I think. At the same time salaries were reduced all through the Government service; and while I was not a judge then and I cannot give, with any definiteness, the reason for it, it was evidently felt that the services of messengers could be dispensed with at that time. But, as I was just about to say, the services were dispensed with only in form, because since that time necessary services of this character-and they are obviously necessary-have been performed by bailiffs assigned to the chambers of the circuit judge by the marshal. In other words, the same services have been performed under a different head. Mr. O'NEAL. Did the United States marshal decrease his force following that? Judge MARIS. I have not any figures to indicate how many messengers were employed; I am sorry to say I do not have those figures before me. I have the figures concerning the bailiffs, which I shall give you in a moment. Mr. GORE. Do you have an idea how much additional cost this entails? UNSATISFACTORY SITUATION IN REGARD TO BAILIFFS Judge MARIS. Yes. I shall come to that in just a minute. This arrangement, in regard to bailiffs acting for circuit judges, however, has been quite unsatisfacory for a number of reasons. One is that a bailiff, even though permanently assigned to a judge, is still nonetheless a per diem employee who may be paid only for those days on which the judge is present. If the judge is away from his chambers on official business, on vacation, or because of illness, the bailiff goes unpaid for the day. In such a case the bailiff must seek other temporary employment if he is to provide for his family. And since he seldom knows far in advance when the judge will be away his prospects of obtaining other work for those days are often none too bright. But this is not all. Other judicial employees not only receive fixed annual salaries but they are paid for Sundays and legal holidays and have as well the privilege of sick leave and vacation leave with pay. They have also recently become entitled to old-age retirement privileges, a most valuable and cherished right. Not so the permanently assigned bailiffs. Although they must be competent and dependable and are for all practical purposes permanent_employees they have no fixed income upon which they can count nor have they any of these other rights and privileges enjoyed by their coworkers in the judicial establishment. We think that this is a gross injustice to a faithful group of Government employees. Another fundamental objection to the present arrangement results from the fact that the bailiffs assigned to circuit judges to attend them in their chambers, although working for and responsible to the judge, are appointed not by the judge but by the marshal. Their employment is obviously of a confidential and personal nature. Their work must be performed to the judge's satisfaction. The person engaged in it should, therefore, be subject to appointment and removal by the judge whose assistant he is. What I have said applies primarily to those circuit judges whose court sits only in one place and who do substantially all of their work at the place of their official residence. There is another problem for circuit judges, in the case of those circuits, large circuits geographically, where the circuit court of appeals sits in a number of different cities; such, for example, as the fifth circuit, where sessions are held all the way from Jacksonville, Fla., to Fort Worth, Tex.; and in the eighth circuit, where sessions take place in St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, and St. Paul; and in the ninth circuit, all the way up and down the Pacific coast, from Los Angeles to Seattle. Many of these judges, of course, are required to travel very extensively and to be away for long periods of time from their official headquarters, where their chambers are located and where their files are kept. Many of these judges, especially the senior circuit judges, so situated, have, as you have seen, the responsibility for a lot of administrative work. They badly need a person to take charge of their chambers, receive visitors, forward mail, when they and their secretaries and law clerks are away from home on court business. Mr. O'NEAL. When they travel, do their secretaries and law clerks go with them? Judge MARIS. The judges take their secretaries and law clerks, because they attempt, as far as they can, to dispose of the cases while they are on circuit. For instance, a judge in the fifth circuit may live in Texas. For instance, Judge Hutcheson may be sitting in Atlanta, but he may be able to dispose of those cases without going back to Texas, to his headquarters. So that he needs a law clerk with him. Many of these judges feel that a messenger could be entrusted with these duties as well as the regular duties to be performed when the judge is at home. An examination of the accounts of the United States marshals for the year ending November 30, 1943, discloses that the sum of $13,648.50 was expended during that period for the per diem compensation of bailiffs assigned to circuit judges. The amounts for each circuit were as follows: ADDITIONAL COST OF SALARIES FOR MESSENGERS AND BAILIFFS Mr. GORE. What is the total recommended, $42,000? Judge MARIS. $42,000 is what has been suggested. I will explain why. There again it is an experimental figure, because the exact number of circuit judges who would want to have messengers appointed has not been definitely determined because, of course, there is no appropriation and there is nothing definite to talk about. There |