Mr. O'NEAL. But in the first half of 1944 do you not pick up some of the lag of 1943? Mr. JACKSON. We keep those appropriations separately. Mr. O'NEAL. Will you submit the table that I have referred to? (The matter referred to follows:) "Fees of Commissioners, United States courts" (exclusive of overtime) Expenditures first 6 months, fiscal year 1944. Total estimated expenditures, fiscal year 1944. $92, 198 83, 090 387, 696 475, 500 350,000 NOTE. Notwithstanding the increase of approximately 11 percent indicated in the rate of payments during the first 6 months of the fiscal year 1944 as compared with the first 6 months of the fiscal year 1943, the claims being received by the Administrative Office for the first 6 months of this year are running about 23 percent more than in the same period of the fiscal year 1943. BASIS OF FEES PAID COMMISSIONERS Mr. JOHNSON. Returning to the question of fees of commissioners, those are fees fixed by law? Mr. CHANDLER. Yes; under a statute passed in 1896 which prescribes the fees minutely for the different kinds of services, such as the issuance of a warrant for arrest, and so forth. Mr. JOHNSON. Who pays that? Mr. CHANDLER. The Government pays it. Mr. JOHNSON. It is not charged as costs? Mr. CHANDLER. No, sir; the Government pays it. These are criminal cases, and the Government pays the fees. Mr. JACKSON. It all comes out of this appropriation. Mr. JOHNSON. That is different from the fees for referees in bankruptcy. Mr. CHANDLER. Exactly. Those fees come from the estates. Fees of commissioners are paid by the Government. Mr. JOHNSON. These fees are fixed by statute? Mr. CHANDLER. That is right. Mr. JOHNSON. And does your salary increase provide for an increase in the fees? Mr. CHANDLER. Yes; it does. Mr. JACKSON. The Comptroller General held, some months back, that that increase would apply to United States commissioners and to conciliation commissioners. TABLE OF REVENUES Mr. O'NEAL. Somewhere in the hearings I would like to have you supply a table showing the amount of returns that you get for various services. Can you supply one table that sets that out; in other words, how much you earn for the Government? Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir. Mr. O'NEAL. Do you happen to know offhand what that figure is? Mr. CHANDLER. I think there is a statement in the justifications under "Salaries of clerks." Mr. O'NEAL. Whatever the amount is that comes through your office and goes into the Treasury. Mr. CHANDLER. I think it all comes through the clerk's offices. Mr. O'NEAL. Do you know approximately how much that would be? Mr. WHITEHURST. It is shown on pages 51 and 52 of the justifications. Mr. CHANDLER. For the fiscal year 1943, including naturalization earnings, the total is $2,409,403.53. Mr. O'NEAL. That is the total earnings of your department for that year? Mr. CHANDLER. That is right. Mr. WHITEHURST. Of course, there are a lot of fines. Fines collected are not treated as earnings but they run into millions of dollars. Mr. O'NEAL. Will you put such a statement as I have indicated in the record. Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir. (The statement of earnings referred to is as follows:) Earnings of clerks' office, fiscal year 1943 The total indicated above does not include earnings of the Court of Claims totaling $3,286.30, earnings of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals totaling $4,933.10, and earnings of the Emergency Court of Appeals totaling $1,377. The total also does not take into account the numerous services rendered for the Government by clerks' offices for which no charge is made, valued in terms of the fee bill at more than $1,000,000 annually. INCREASED COMPENSATION OF UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS AND CONCILIATION COMMISSIONERS Mr. JOHNSON. I notice on page 64 you refer to increased compensation of United States commissioners and conciliation commissioners. Does that come under the Lemke Act? Mr. CHANDLER. We are talking only about the wartime addition, that increase in compensation provided for by the statute passed last year. Mr. JOHNSON. What is a conciliation commissioner? Mr. CHANDLER. He is a commissioner appointed under section 75. of the Bankruptcy Act to function in farmer-debtor cases. Mr. JOHNSON. That is a fee which is paid by the farmer, is it not? Mr. WHITEHURST. The farmer does pay a fee of $10 at the time the petition is filed under section 75, but there is paid from the Treasury a fee of $25 to the conciliation commissioner. REQUIREMENTS AND THE LEMKE BILL Mr. O'NEAL. If we did not do anything about an appropriation to implement the Lemke Act, you would decrease the amount by what is anticipated to be paid the conciliation commissioners, is that correct? Mr. WHITEHURST. That is right. We would just not pay them if we did not have the money. Mr. O'NEAL. And how much would that be? Mr. CHANDLER. That is $60,000. Mr. JOHNSON. Plus the 15-percent increase, is it not? Mr. CHANDLER. That is right, which would be $9,000, or a total of $69,000. Mr. Brown calls my attention to this-and he is right. If this law expires, and no more petitions can be filed, there will still be cases to be disposed of that are already on file, and while that amount could be reduced, I was in error in stating that it could be eliminated. I do not know how we could estimate to what extent it could be reduced. SUPERVISION OF CONCILIATION COMMISSIONERS Mr. WHITEHURST. I should call attention also to the fact that this same law provides for supervising conciliation commissioners who are paid by the Government at the rate of $5 per day for the number of days employed. Mr. JOHNSON. Whom do they supervise? Mr. WHITEHURST. They supervise the conciliation commissioners. Mr. JOHNSON. And who supervises the supervisors? Mr. CHANDLER. The judge. Mr. JOHNSON. Do they have a set-up of that kind? Mr. JOHNSON. You are not responsible for that? Mr. CHANDLER. No. The general theory is that a considerable number of conciliation commissioners will be necessary. In fact, the statute as it now stands says that there shall be 1 in every county having an agricultural population of 500 or more farmers, and the purpose of the supervising conciliation commissioners is, obviously, to oversee the conciliation commissioners in those territories. FEES OF JURORS, UNITED STATES COURTS Mr. O'NEAL. We will take up the item "Fees of jurors, United States Courts." The appropriation for 1944 is $1,680,000 and the same amount is estimated for 1945. I would like to ask how much you have spent for the first 6 months of this year. Mr. CHANDLER. There was expended for the first 6 months of the current fiscal year $668,323.69. Mr. O'NEAL. It looks as though that item might stand a little trimming; you are doing such a good job of it. Mr. WHITEHURST. Our actual expenditures last year were $1,633,436. Mr. CHANDLER. It looks as though there would be a saving of around $20,000. Mr. JACKSON. For the current fiscal year I would say a than that, approximately $50,000. little more Mr. WHITEHURST. I would suggest that you look at page 67 of the justifications and see how the appropriation has been trimmed since 1940. Mr. O'NEAL. But you have not run into a deficit yet, have you? Mr. JOHNSON. Apparently it has not yet been cut to the point where it ought to be. Mr. WHITEHURST. The expenditures have come down with the appropriation. They have gone together. In 1940 the appropriation was $1,998,000, and the expenditures were $1,983,166. In 1941 the appropriation was $1,970,000 and the expenditures $1,826,159. In 1942 the appropriation was $2,040,000 and the expenditures $1,778,833. In 1943 the appropriation was $1,940,000 and the expenditures $1,633,436. For 1944 we dropped to an appropriation of $1,680,000, and the expenditures for the first 6 months have already been stated. REASONS FOR REDUCED APPROPRIATIONS Mr. JOHNSON. Is that not partly due to the fact of the change in the law whereby criminal cases can be tried by a court now without a jury? There was a time when all criminal cases had to be tried by a jury, in the Federal court. Mr. CHANDLER. I think it never was the law, although it might have been thought so in some districts. The Supreme Court has made a ruling on that. Mr. JOHNSON. I do not remember how many years back they used to say, "Now, you can try your criminal cases before the court without a jury." Mr. CHANDLER. I think that was in consequence of a decision of the Supreme Court holding that. Mr. WHITEHURST. Of course, we like to claim that some credit is due to our effort to encourage the courts to make the best possible use of the jurors. Mr. CHANDLER. I think two factors are elements in the situation. There is apparently a tendency to submit more cases, both civil and criminal, to the courts for determination, without a jury. And along with that there is the very definite study made by Judge Knox's committee, and the recommendation which has gone out to all of the courts, that they consider as carefully as they can the number of jurors whom they call. I have before me now the record of the expenditures from the appropriation for the first half of this fiscal year. Mr. Jackson is correct, that it would appear that the obligations for the year may be around $1,583,000 compared with total expenditures last year of $1,632,000. So that it would appear that we shall save nearly $50,000 over last year. I want to say to you, whatever you make the appropriation, we are going to continue to urge all possible care in the handling of this item, because it is a fairly substantial item in the appropriation for the courts. If you reduce the appropriation, of course, we shall strive to keep within it. It has to be recognized that while, over a long run, the Judicial Conference may influence the policy of the courts in this respect, in any particular period, if conditions should bring about a rise in jury cases, then the expenditure is uncontrollable in the sense that if juries are called there is an obligation to pay them. CHANGE IN LANGUAGE Mr. O'NEAL. All right, Mr. Chandler, we were on miscellaneous expenses and the elimination of language, with new language substituted. Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, might I revert for a moment to the appropriation for fees for jurors? There is a small matter, which does not call for any increase in the appropriation but does involve a change in the text. If you will look at the justification, on page 66, at the present time there is provision made for the payment of jurors' subsistence and lodging when they are locked up in criminal cases and in civil cases prosecuted by the Government. This course is not permissible as the law now stands in private civil cases. We have had many judges write us or tell us that embarrassing situations frequently arise in private civil cases when juries are out deliberating on their verdict over mealtime. The common practice is for the judge to call the attorneys for the parties in and point out the situation and ask if they feel inclined to make a contribution toward meals for the jurors. They invariably do because they regard the suggestion under the conditions as a command. It is really thought to be very undignified that the court should have to take care of the situation in this way. Therefore we are suggesting that in the text which appears on page 170 of the committee print, in the second line, the words "in the United States cases" be stricken out. Mr. O'NEAL. You figure that you can get by on $20,000. That is the amount you ask for in here for meals, lodging, and jurors, $20,000. You are not asking for an increase even though that language is stricken. You think that you can handle it with the same amount? Mr. CHANDLER. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. Is the cost of meals eventually charged up as part of the cost of the case? I mean, when you charge the court costs in a civil case, what is charged in as court costs? Is part of the jury charged as cost? Mr. CHANDLER. I do not think the cost of the jury is charged as cost. The jurors are furnished by the Government, and I do not think under any conditions their compensation forms a part of the cost to the litigants. Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. JACKSON. The actual expenses for meals and lodging in 1943 was $16,620, so that I am sure there is no appreciable increase in that. Mr. CHANDLER. I have a letter here from Hon. Simon H. Bifkind, United States district judge for the southern district of New York in New York City. Mr. O'NEAL. You may make that a part of the record. |