« 이전계속 »
Mr. WHITEHURST. We took that information from personal history statements that were sent in by the reporters at the time they were appointed, and in some instances where it was indicated that the information which had been furnished was not sufficient, we wrote letters asking for further information. Mr. STEFAN. As far as Nebraska judges are concerned they picked
, their reporters because of their ability.
Judge MORRIS. That is the record here in the District of Columbia. Mr. STEFAN. It would be unfair to the particular reporters in my State to read from a record that is incomplete. It really does not give them a fair representation. I am perfectly satisfied that in my State the reporting service is excellent and the judges are well satisfied with it.
Judge MORRIS. The judges have been very conscientious in this district in undertaking to secure persons who would give the very best reporting service.
Mr. STEFAN. You will find that my two judges are excellent judges and I respect them and have the interest of their court at heart, as well as the interest of the public and the taxpayers.
I happened to go out to represent this committee last summer to inspect these courts.
Judge MORRIS. It is gratifying to have you make that statement because there has been av ery conscientious effort to make this function on a perfectly sound and efficient basis.
Mr. Chandler did not mention this, though he was just about to, that the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges had a committee on this identical subject, to secure efficient reporters, and Judge Parker, of the fourth circuit, is the chairman of that committee. Mr. STEFAN. I believe that he was up here last year. Judge MORRIS. He is now in Germany on the Nuremberg trial. Mr. STEFAN. And Judge Laws was up here.
Judge MORRIS. Yes, of our court. He was here. Chief Justice Stone has recently added me to that committee of which Judge Parker is chairman, and that committee intends to go thoroughly into these questions because what an important thing it is, and what a necessary function of the court it is. If any question of inefficiency comes to our attention, it will be investigated.
Mr. STEFAN. The record should show that it is going to be an expensive service.
Judge MORRIS. It is.
Mr. STEFAN. And it will not save the Government money because this $890,000 which it costs now does not reflect the true picture as to expenditures because you do not have a break-down of the cost of reporting in the Department of Justice which the committee has asked for.
Judge Morris. I do not see how anybody had any delusion that it would save the Department of Justice money.
HO of 101 Is to for
INCOME, ETC., OF COURT REPORTERS Mr. Jones. Do these court reporters get regular Government retirement and other emoluments that other Government employees
Mr. WHITEHURST. They get retirement, for which 5 percent of their -alary is deducted and paid into the retirement fund.
pays for it.
Mr. JONES. And the Government pays a portion.
Mr. WHITEHURST. They are under the same provisions as emthat ployees under civil service with regard to retirement.
Mr. JONES. And they get a vacation?
Mr. WHITEHURST. No. The Comptroller General has held that T fit the vacation laws and regulations do not apply to reporters.
Mr. JONES. How about when the court is not in session, they are Columns not working at that time, are they?
Mr. WHITEHURST. No.
Judge MORRIS. They are generally working on transcript work at at int that time, but they can take time off if they can do it.
Mr. Jones. So far as the salary they get is concerned, they attend
the court proceedings when the court is in session and they are off sind when the court is not in session, making money on their transcripts, bere and the court does not get any transcripts of proceedings unless it
Judge Biggs. The court can always request it. Mr. JONES. They get travel expenses also when the court travels. Mr. WHITEHURST. That is right. Mr. JONES. I wish to point out here that the reporters for the House and for the committees and for the Senate make transcripts of the hearings that they take down for the Government. We do not have to pay the regular committee reporters for the transcript. I still feel, as I felt last year—and I do not think there is any reason to make a further record on it—that the Government should not pay for these transcripts.
Mr. WHITEHURST. The reporters here in the House get salaries of about $8,000 a year.
Mr. Jones. But these Federal reporters can still make money off the transcripts.
Mr. WHITEHURST. The highest salary of a court reporter will run between $3,000 and $5,000 in the Federal courts.
Mr. Jones. But they can still make their money off the litigants.
Judge MORRIS. Not all of them. As I have pointed out from the history here, not all of them can. We have court reporters who, through a whole 3-month period, did not make a single transcript fee. Not a one was ordered because they were assigned to the kind of work that did not produce a transcript.
Mr. JONES. How many reporters are there in that category?
Judge MORRIS. I would not like to say definitely, but I would say that there are three or four here in the District.
Mr. Jones. And they are not assigned to that sort of work?
Mr. Jones. So that is an unusual condition. For the most part, they can make money on the side to supplement their salaries.
Judge MORRIs. So far, Mr. Congressman, concerning the District that I have knowledge of, there has been no substantial revenue from transcripts over and above their expenses.
Mr. JONES. What is the average of the days that a court is in session?
Judge MORRIS. In our court it is a day in and a day out proposition. It is not like the Federal courts in the States where they try a case for 2 weeks and then there is an interim before they go somewhere else. Ours is a day in and out sweatshop.
Mr. Jones. Yours is unusual.
Mr. JONES. When considering this question, by and large, a reporter gets considerable time off for his basic salary which he is paid.
Judge MORRIs. In those jurisdictions I suppose they are not paying them a salary as high as they are here, but a lower salary.
Mr. Jones. They are paying a basic wage here that runs up to $870,000.
Judge Morris. Of course, where it is a full-time proposition like here, we pay them $4,500. New York pays them $5,000.
Mr. Jones. We will take the other courts where they do not work all the time. They take vacations?
Judge Morris. I do not think they pay them so much.
Judge MORRIS. If you call it that. I do not think that is an appropriate term.
Mr. JONES. I think it is.
Judge MORRIS. It supplements their revenue so that they will hold the jobs. We hope they will.
Mr. Jones. As a comparison with these reporters of the Congress who have worked for the last 5 years around the calendar, and with very little vacation, and taking dictation all day long in these committees--and they take it under a lot worse circumstances than the court reporters--it would seem to me that with all the emoluments of employment that it was very unwise for the courts to make the rules of procedure and get the law established or passed by the Congress, to give these folks the salaries, the emoluments, and let them charge the Government in addition to charging litigants for copies of transcript.
Judge Morris. If we raise the salaries, I think that could be accomplished.
Mr. Jones. I do not think that you would have to raise the salaries. I think that it was unwise to pass the law, in the first place.
Mr. WHITEHURST. These Federal reporters would have to make a net profit of $3,000 to $5,000 apiece from the sale of transcripts to get as much compensation as the reporters in the House of Representatives receive.
Judge Morris. In addition to their salaries.
Mr. JONES. Will you put in the record how much the Department of Justice and other Government agencies are paying these reporters in the several courts where you have them, and then put a per capita figure in on them? You will find that for the Government's share alone they are making considerable money.
Mr. WHITEHURST. In addition to that, the transcript writers are paid by the Government for the official House reporters, whereas these court reporters have to pay their own expenses of stationery, typing, and so forth. All of that has to come out of their transcript fees, so their transcript fees are not a net profit to them, by any means.
Judge Morris. They have to pay about 19% cents a page to somebody else to get out this work.
Mr. JONES. To transcribe their stuff?
Mr. Jones. These fellows here do a considerable amount of transcribing themselves. I have seen them do it. They are working until 8 or 9 o'clock at night, and I will venture to say that no court reporter works as hard as our reporters work.
Judge MORRIS. There is one in our court that worked until 2 o'clock for a period of over a week every night to keep things current.
Mr. JONES. I would like to see a time record of these court reporters on the Hill and the Federal reporters laid side by side. I would bet that the reporters on the Hill spend time working while the others are out fishing.
Judge MORRIS. Ours do not fish.
Mr. JONES. How do the court reporters lose money in the courts? How much does paper cost, and what are the other expenses?
Judge MORRIS. May I show you this tabulation here? (Discussion off the record.)
Mr. RABAUT. We consider this item as still on trial. What information will you have as to the income that comes from outside sources to the reporters?
Judge Biggs. We should have it complete from the end of the year because Mr. Chandler and the conference have arranged a form of statement to be made by the reporter, which will give all these data.
Mr. CHANDLER. He reports his income from, private reporting?
Mr. RABAUT. Certain cases would naturally be of tremendous interest to lawyers throughout the Nation. In that case the reporter having such a case would get the gravy.
Judge Biggs. He would.
Mr. RABAUT. But those cases are few and far between. He could make a tremendous amount off of one case, so much so that he could hire a room of transcribers. As a matter of fact, in some cases he could afford to have it printed, because there would be such a wide interest. For that reason, it is really an unpredictable amount. I think under the system that they have proposed, it is about as fair a way as we have of getting at the subject.
Mr. Jones. Here is the thing I objected to a year ago. That is, they get a good case like the Aluminum Co. of America. They can charge one dollar a sheet for it and make plenty of money. I contend that the court has charge of its own proceedings and could set the rates in the first place. In the second place, it could cut down the rates to the litigants. You say that the Government will make up the difference. That is, in effect, what we are doing. The Government is taking care of the difference. Now, for all the emoluments, travel expenses paid, and so forth, they do not even give the Department of Justice transcripts. That is what I object to.
Judge Biggs. May I say just one thing here? You have situations in the metropolitan areas where you have a Pullman case of the sort that we had in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or an Aluminum Co. case, where the reporter does sell a great many copies and makes a good deal out of that particular case. The fact is that there was a great deal of protest from the reporters before the Senior Circuit Conference where a number of them appeared to protest as to the low transcript fee. In most instances the persons that were making the transcripts and doing the reporting were just like your court reporters here in the House or in the Senate-persons who were really
at the top of their field and were required to be. Actually, I think the difficulty is going to be in retaining the reporters in the system at the present transcript rates. I can see an alternative, that is, the alternative adopted by most of the State courts.
There are only two States in the United States that do not employ full-time reporters paid by the State. Those happen to be Tennessee and Virginia. If you are going to pay a court reporter about the same as you pay your reporters in the House and the Senate, say $8,000 a year, or in that range, then you are going to be able to retain them; otherwise, you are not; that is, the system is not going to be able to retain them. The unfortunate fact is—and I do not say it is an unfortunate fact—the fact is that a good reporter can make as much in industry reporting corporate meetings, stockholders' meetings, and things of that kind, conventions, as he can as a court reporter, and these rates are lower than the corresponding rates, both in salary and in transcript, than in the State courts in most of the metropolitan
There has been a great protest from the reporters, which I think has some substance in it. Nobody knows. That is the reason that the senior circuit judges at their conference said that they would see these things for a year and get the data and then advise the reporters what the revision should be.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, UNITED STATES COURTS
Mr. Rabaut. We will now take up the item "Salaries, Administrative Office,” which appears on page 69 of the justifications.
The 1946 appropriation is $292,500. The estimate for 1947 is in the same amount. Without objection, we will put page 69 of the justifications in the record, and also page 70. (The justification tables referred to are as follows:)
RECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATE TO CURRENT APPROPRIATION
Salaries, Administrative Office, United States Courts 1946 appropriation in annual act--Supplemental appropriation for 1946 (estimated cost, Public Law 106)..
Total appropriations for 1946-
Cost in 1947 of within-grade promotions falling due in
Total estimate for 1947.-.
Salaries, Administrative Office, United States Courts
Provision is made in this appropriation for the salaries of the Director, Assistant Director, and other officers and employees of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
The estimate for the fiscal year 1947, $295,200, represents an increase of $2,700 over the amount available for the fiscal year 1946 of $292,500. Increase
The amount of $2,700 is requested for the fiscal year 1947 to defray the additional expense in 1947 of within-grade promotions authorized for the fiscal year