jurists, when I heard that a man had to buy a transcript, a man who
was on trial for his life-I had never heard of it before-a man who
wanted to know what had happened in the case, wanted to study the
transcript, that he had to buy it and pay an exorbitant price for it.
And I said that I did not care what it cost, the United States Govern-
ment should furnish that, should have it at the disposal of the defend-
ant, if he wanted it; and that his attorney should have it, or any other
attorney in the case. And I do not care if it does cost an extra million
dollars.

These courts are supposed to be courts of justice. What was hap-
pening was a crooked deal; it was a racket; we all know it was.
by George, I am for this, if it does cost a million dollars.

But,

Mr. RABAUT. The point that we were making was not quite that.
The point that we brought up was the surprise we had when the
Department of Justice told us that as far as getting their transcripts
was concerned, they could not save a dime. That was the only point
that was being made. We were not saying anything about the
service to the defendant.

Mr. GILLESPIE. There was a good reason for that, too; because in
paying out this extra money to hire these men, they are making it
easier for the people who are litigants to get the service they are
entitled to. They are doing a fair thing, and I am surprised that the
courts of the United States allowed the old system to go along as they
did, for as long as they did. That is the way I feel about it.
Judge MORRIS. We struggled for the change, sir.

Mr. RABAUT. Who passes on the question of the qualifications of
these reporters?

Judge BIGGS. The senior district judge, after consultation and
heartfelt prayer with his associates.

Judge MORRIS. Judge, is not the choice of the reporter in the court.
for whom the reporter is to be working and who passes on the rates
to be charged?

Judge BIGGS. No; the senior district judge; not the circuit judge.
Judge MORRIS. Oh, I thought you said the circuit judge.

Judge BIGGS. No; the district judge.

Judge MORRIS. We have a multiple court, it might be of interest
to the committee; we have 12 members on the court-

Mr. RABAUT. Í am not interested in any specific case. What I
want to know is: Who passes on the qualifications of these reporters?
Judge MORRIS. The senior district judge does not in our district.
Judge BIGGS. In the other district courts of the United States, in
the field, as it were, the senior district judge accepts the responsibility
and authorizes the employment of the reporter.

Mr. RABAUT. What qualifications does he expect the reporter to
have?

Judge BIGGS. In almost every instance-I know of no exception
except in the district of Delaware-in all the other districts of the third
circuit, the only thing that happened was that the old court reporters.
were made the official reporters.

Mr. RABAUT. What percentage of the old reporters are on the job
today?

Judge BIGGS. In the third circuit?

Mr. RABAUT. I mean generally. Do you know, Mr. Chandler?

APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1947

82235

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE JUDICIARY

APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1947

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1946

THE JUDICIARY APPROPRIATION BILL, 1947

accuracy and knowledge of the language, vocabulary, things of that kind. I do not think the place to get all of their experience is in the courts. I think that you know you do not have a better friend on the Hill than the group that sits around this table.

Mr. CHANDLER. I know that and I am grateful for it. Now, may I tell you affirmatively what has been done to bring about proper qualifications on the part of these reporters?

In the first place, let us look at the statute. The statute says that each district court shall appoint one or more reporters in the manner provided for the appointment of the clerks of the courts. That gives the appointment to the senior judge, because that is the way clerks are appointed.

Then it goes on to say that the persons to be so appointed shall possess the qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the duties as specified in subdivision (b) of this act, to be determined by standards which shall be formulated from time to time by the Judicial Conference; and shall take an oath faithfully to perform the duties. Now, the statement of standards adopted by the Judicial Conference was sent to all of the courts, but the statute places the legal power of appointment in the courts.

Mr. RABAUT. Do you not think the judges should have enough interest in this system to set up standards that would provide some sort of examination?

Mr. CHANDLER. I certainly have no power to do anything like that. Mr. RABAUT. There has been plenty of criticism on the part of reporters about it.

Mr. CHANDLER. Of course, it is rather difficult to deal with this criticism, Mr. Chairman

Mr. RABAUT. Surely, and it is difficult for me to be put in the position of having to criticise something that I was responsible for putting into effect a year ago.

Mr. CHANDLER. But I would say, with all deference that I am satisfied that the reporters appointed under this act are, by and large, with very few exceptions-and I do not know the exceptions-a highly capable body of men.

Judge MORRIS. They certainly are in all the districts that I have any knowledge of.

Mr. CHANDLER. If there is some situation where that is not true, if you will bring it confidentially to my attention, I will see what I can do to have it corrected. But I made inquiries myself and I do not know of any such cases.

I should say that four-fifths of the persons shown in this schedule have had extended experience as court reporters. And it cannot be said that those whose experience has been shorter may not be competent. I shall bring this to the attention of the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges and shall avail myself of every opportunity to develop the facts in connection with the situation.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. HARE. I just want to get one thing clear in my mind about these reporters. As I understand it, these reporters are required to make records of the court proceedings. Then, after a transcript is made by the reporter, he is permitted to make a charge, either to the litigant or to the Department?

Mr. CHANDLER. With one or two exceptions.

THE JUDICIARY APPROPRIATION BILL, 1947

HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MESSRS. LOUIS C. RABAUT (CHAIRMAN), JOHN H. KERR, BUTLER, B. HARE, THOMAS J. O'BRIEN, KARL STEFAN, ROBERT F. JONES, AND DEAN M. GILLESPIE, OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND THE JUDICIARY APPROPRIATION BILL, 1947, ON THE DAYS FOLLOWING:

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1946.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

STATEMENTS OF JUSTICE HAROLD H. BURTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE; THOMAS E. WAGGAMAN, MARSHAL; AND MRS. MARY RACIOPPI, SECRETARY TO THE MARSHAL, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. RABAUT. This morning we start consideration of the estimates. for the Supreme Court of the United States under the judiciary appropriation bill, and the committee is honored with the presence of Mr. Justice Burton and our old friend, Mr. Waggaman, and Mrs. Racioppi.

APPROPRIATIONS, 1946, AND ESTIMATES, 1947

I note here that the amount for 1946 was $499,100, and the estimate for 1947 is $591,200. There is quite an increase here, almost $100,000; is that right?

Mr. Justice BURTON. I think you will find that is merely due to the automatic effect of Public Law 106, which has been passed since the last appropriation.

Mr. RABAUT. There is no extra help requested?

Mr. Justice BURTON. No; it is not an enlargement of our organization.

Mr. RABAUT. Do you have a statement you would like to make to the committee?

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. Justice BURTON. I might make an extremely brief statement, Mr. Chairman. I believe last year Mr. Justice Roberts appeared here with Mr. Waggaman and Mr. Cropley. Of course, Mr. Justice Roberts is no longer with the Court, and the Chief Justice asked Mr. Justice Black and myself to represent the Court here and answer such questions as you might have in mind. Mr. Justice Black had planned to come, but he is suffering from an attack of laryngitis and yesterday was hardly able to talk. He did get down to the Court

today, but he was not able to speak above a whisper, hardly; so he asked to be excused and asked me to appear for him here.

I might say the matters we are presenting, as I have examined them, indicate that this appropriation is merely to continue the activities of the Court as they exist now under existing law.

There is not really anything to say about the rest of these items. Although, as the chairman indicated, the first item on its face may look like an increase, it merely reflects the added appropriation made necessary through the passage of Public Law 106 that made some changes in salaries all over the Government.

NUMBER OF PERSONNEL

Mr. RABAUT. I note your present personnel is 163, and the same number is estimated for 1947.

Mr. Justice BURTON. That is correct. I might say this, just in anticipation of the future: Mr. Justice Black spoke to me this morning about the problem of the law clerks for the Justices. Each of us has one; the Chief Justice has two, and our great problem is in keeping up with the volume of work we have over there. We are not asking for an increase in the appropriation at this time, but we are making a a study of it with a view to seeing whether it will not be of advantage to the Court to provide it with some increase in the number of law clerks.

The point is this, and I think sometimes is not fully appreciated outside of the Court, and I did not understand it until I reached there last October

Mr. RABAUT. The Supreme Court, under the present system, does not go before the Budget?

Mr. WAGGAMAN. No, sir.

Mr. RABAUT. So it would be a matter of the Court itself making a recommendation to the Congress if they wanted to increase their clerkships?

Mr. Justice BURTON. That is the point I wanted to make.

Mr. RABAUT. It has not been fully studied yet, has it?

Mr. Justice BURTON. No; it has not and is not being asked for at this time.

Mr. RABAUT. If you should be crowded during the year, you would have every right in the world to go before the deficiency subcommittee about it. Of course, it would be a more orthodox thing to bring the matter before this committee.

Mr. Justice BURTON. Yes.

Mr. RABAUT. And that means you would either have to do it now, or when you go before the Senate committee-to make your studies now and present the matter to the Senate committee when this bill reaches there- or else wait until the deficiency committee holds its hearings, or wait until next year and present it to this committeewhichever plan is more feasible.

Mr. Justice BURTON. It is our thought that we probably could go on through the present term of court and present the matter next year, but the point at issue is this: Out of the large number of cases filed over there, about 80 percent of them are not heard in open court these consist largely of the petitions for certiorari that are turned down. The net result is that there is a great volume of work