Mr. JOHNSON. What field force have you?

Miss LATHROP. We have two field agents at the present time. Mr. JOHNSON. I do not see them provided for here.

Miss LATHROP. They are special agents-one at $1,400 and one at $1,200. We are asking for one at $1,600 in addition to the two we had last year-one at $1,400 and one at $1,200. We are very anxious to continue this work so that we can take up several towns of different types.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are all the people of your bureau in the classified service except yourself?

Miss LATHROP. Yes, sir; and one private secretary.

Mr. JOHNSON. You came from Chicago, did you not?

Miss LATHROP. Yes, sir; my home is in Rockford, Ill.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you connected with Miss Addams's work?
Miss LATHROP. Yes, sir; I was for a long while at Hull House.

TRAVEL EXPENSE.

May I ask one thing? I just want to say that I do hope very much that the item which goes for traveling expenses in the general contingent fund may not be regarded as unreasonable. We are not undertaking to do anything that any other bureau is doing. For example, we are not undertaking to secure for our staff a medical expert, because there is a Public Health Bureau, and they will advise us in regard to such matters. In the same way, the Census Bureau is willing to furnish us statistical information. Requests come to us from all over the country of most varied types for information, for advice, and for speakers. Our first work, as I take it, is largely one of popularizing knowledge already secured by the Government in scientific form. There is a great demand for all this, and if we are to meet it we shall require a considerable allowance for traveling expenses in addition to that for field agents. I just wanted to explain that.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1912.

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. STATEMENT OF MR. MONCURE BURKE, DEPUTY CLERK. Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, for the last two or three years the court has recommended increases in the clerk's office, and the reason assigned was to put the office on a basis similar to that of courts of similar jurisdiction. The court of appeals was organized in 1893 on the same basis as the circuit courts of appeals, which were organized two years previous to that time. But since that time the clerks of the circuit courts have been increased and the clerk's assistant in our own court has not been, and the court has recommended that for the last three or four years simply to get the clerk's office on the basis they thought it ought to be on-equivalent to that of similar tribunals. I am one of the interested parties myself, and I do not like to say anything more on that point.

As to the business of the court in the last 10 years, we have decided more cases than any of the circuit courts except two. There are two circuit courts-I think the eighth and second-which have decided

more cases than our court. The clerk's office consists of two men, the clerk and the deputy clerk; and one of them has to be in the court room when the court is sitting, which is about three weeks a month, and the other has to look after the clerk's office. We are not provided with a stenographer or messenger, so that we are kept pretty well on the jump when business is going on.

Now, we think the most important item in that list is that with reference to the crier. He is now paid, I think, $1,000 a year, and $1,600 a year has been submitted for him. The reason that is important is because if it were not for that young man the office would have to have another clerk. He really does the work of an assistant clerk. He does all of our typewriting for us, and he keeps order in the court room when court is sitting; and after court adjourns, which is at 2.30 p. m., he does our typewriting, and we have a great deal of typewriting to be done in making up certified copies of opinions to be furnished.

Every opinion that is written in patent cases has to be certified to the commissioner, and we have a great many of those opinions, which are ordered by patent attorneys all over the country. That is really one of the most meritorious cases I know of. If it were not for him and his ability as a stenographer and clerk and his knowledge of the office, we would really have to have another assistant in that office; and Mr. Hodges, who is the clerk of the court, and myself, if it should come to a question as to whether this young man get it or ourselves, we should far prefer to see him have it, because we are afraid we would lose him, and we do not know where we could get another man to take his place.

The third item is with reference to stenographers to the judges, and the judges have submitted an increase from $1,200 to $1,600. I heard what Judge Peelle and Judge Anderson said about stenographers; and what they said about their courts is really more applicable still to ours, because the law requires that our judges shall write an opinion in every case decided. They decide about 200 cases a year. We run about 25 cases a month with three judges. They sit about three weeks a month; and in the remaining part of the month they have to dictate and get their opinions into shape, and they count on these young men to check up the authorities and help verify the authorities. All three of them are graduates in law and members of the bar, and one of them is really a patent expert. As you know, we try a great many appeals from the Commissioner of Patents. These men have to be men of ability and men whose work could be relied on.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1912.

SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS H. ANDERSON, ASSOCIATE

JUSTICE.

INCREASE OF PAY OF STENOGRAPHERS.

Mr. JOHNSON. Judge, the item with reference to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is on page 303. Do you desire to make a statement to the committee in regard to the increase in

pay of your stenographers? I presume there are six stenographers, one for the chief justice and one for each associate justice, at $900, and the proposition is to increase their pay to $1,200. Is that the item you desire to speak about?

Mr. Justice ANDERSON. Yes; I want to say we were informed you were going to meet and that you desired to have some one of the court come up here and speak about it. I did not seek the opportunity. The chief justice would have come, but was engaged in a jury trial and could not get away, and as I am sitting in one of the equity courts I could get away, and I have appeared for that reason. We feel that our stenographers should have $1,200. The stenographers of the court of appeals get $1,200, and the amount of work our stenographers have to do is, I imagine, greater even than those in the court of appeals, and the work is quite as important. In addition to the two circuit courts and two criminal courts and two equity courts, we have the district court, in which all condemnation proceedings and all matters pertaining to the District come up.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you dictate to your stenographer the decrees, for instance, on the equity side of the court?

Mr. Justice ANDERSON. We do not dictate the decrees. They are written out by the lawyers. But we dictate opinions and have them come into court and take notes of arguments and the like. Then, we have the bankruptcy court and the probate court. I hold Equity Court No. 2 and also the probate court. We also have lunacy cases, and, in fact, we have such an infinite variety of things that we are a very busy body of men. The jurisdiction of our court is not at all well understood. The jurisdiction of our court extends to every State and Territory in mandamus proceedings, injunction proceedings, and the result is that we have cases from all over the United States. All proceedings against Cabinet ministers must be brought in our court and can be brought in no other court in the United States, because this is the habitat of the Secretaries. There is this great variety of business which requires quite a good deal of work for our stenographers. In the court of appeals the stenographers get $1,200, and in the Court of Claims they get from $1,200 to $1,600, I understand, and we have felt it is hardly fair to our stenographers to have them working at $900 when stenographers in these other courts are getting so much more.

Mr. JOHNSON. You need a man of some scholarship, do you not? Mr. Justice ANDERSON. Oh, yes. We could not get along with a girl, for instance. We have to have bright young men, and nearly all of them are young lawyers. I am not here to urge the matter. We feel it is so manifestly fair it ought to be done, but we are willing to leave the matter entirely with your committee.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1912.

COMMERCE COURT.

STATEMENT OF MR. F. JEROME STAREK, MARSHAL.

Mr. JOHNSON. What about this item "Expense allowance for judges at rate of $1,500 per annum each, $7,500."

Mr. STAREK. Mr. Chairman, that is an item provided for by law, which has never been changed, and which we are asking for again

because it was omitted from the appropriation for the present fiscal year. It is not a new item, but is simply the reestablishment of an old item. The law creating the Commerce Court provided for that allowance.

Mr. Chairman, we are asking for $20,000 less, I presume, for the same reason given by Mr. Briggs. We find we are running on less than we anticipated, and we are cutting down as we find we can safely do so.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1912.

COURT OF CLAIMS.

STATEMENT OF HON. STANTON J. PEELLE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COURT.

Mr. PEELLE. Mr. Chairman, I noticed an error this morning in the bill. The chief clerk usually attends to these matters, but he was unavoidably called away this morning. The bill reads "two clerks at $1,600 and one clerk at $1,400." We now have two clerks at $1,400, and I know of no reason why one of them should be promoted and not the other. They are both doing about the same character of work, and it would hardly be fair to promote one and not the other. And also, instead of saying there "one clerk at $1,400," it should be "three clerks at $1,400."

BAILIFF.

With reference to the pay of the bailiff, the pay of the bailiff was fixed at $1,500 in 1870 by act of June 7, and it has never been increased since. His duties are similar to those of the marshal, except he does not serve writs, because we do not issue any writs from our court.

Mr. JOHNSON. What are the duties of the bailiff in the Court of Claims?

Mr. PEELLE. His duties are somewhat similar to those performed by a marshal. He performs the duties of bailiff in addition to being assistant librarian and a stenographer. He is considered an allround man, familiar with everything connected with the office, ard has made himself invaluable to the court, the members of the bar. and attorneys from the Department of Justice. He has charge of the printed files of the court, prepares for binding the permanent records of the court, supervises the making up of records in cases before they go to trial, and, while the court in its estimate asks for an increase of $500, I think some little recognition of his services should be given him, and inasmuch as the Senate last year endeavored to increase his salary to $1,800, that is all I will ask you to do, to make it $1,800. I spoke to him about it, and he said if we thought it well, all right. That is the amount the Senate fixed it at last year, but it did not go through. I think it is due him that he should have an increase of salary to $1.800. He was a soldier during the Spanish War, participating in the Battle of San Juan Hill and at other places. He is a married man and is the father of five children. I ask that his salary be increased to $1,800, instead of $2,000, as stated here.

CAPTAIN OF THE WATCH.

We have three firemen, of equal standing, of course; but we have one man who goes on at 8 o'clock in the morning and stays there during the entire day, and he is familiar with the furnace, and he can supervise them; and can also look out after the electric lights in the building if anything goes wrong with the switchboard or anything of that sort; and he is now getting $720; and we thought inasmuch as he was there during the entire day we ought to put a little more responsibility on him and make him captain of the watch and give him a salary of $1,000 a year. If he is given $1,000 a year, that would leave the other two watchmen at $720 each.

CLERKS AT $1,400.

In reference to the clerks at $1,400, I would like to have that made three clerks at $1,400, so as to give an increase to one clerk now getting $1,200. Mr. Fishback has been in the employ of the court for over 12 years without ever having received any increase in salary; and if you will make that read three clerks at $1.400, that would allow him an increase of $200, and then you can change the three clerks at $1,200 and make it two clerks at $1,200.

FUND FOR AUDITOR AND ADDITIONAL STENOGRAPHERS.

Mr. JOHNSON. What other item are you interested in? Mr. PEELLE. We have in our court a fund of $6,000 appropriated under our direction for auditors and additional stenographers when deemed necessary in the court and for a stenographer to the chief justice at $1,600. I am going to ask you to increase that stenographer to $1,800. He is an exceptional man, and it is absolutely necessary that he should be with whoever is chief justice. We have had trouble in keeping our stenographers at the salaries we pay them. We can not do it, and I presume you have encountered that same complaint from the various departments. We can get young men who are stenographers and who simply take dictation automatically; but the chief justice of the court has to have a man not only familiar with shorthand, but who is able to examine authorities and look up matters here, there, and everywhere, and I should like to pay him out of that fund $1,800.

We also have an auditor there, and we have been paying anywhere from $8 to $15 a day for auditors, owing to the class of work assigned to them, and this man has been there for some 12 or 15 years and is getting $8 a day. He is a graduate from a law school and is a good accountant, and I think it would be well to put his salary at a fixed sum of $3,000. If you would put his salary at $3,000 and fix the pay of my clerk at $1,800, you would only need to increase that auditors' fund, say, $2,000.

We started in with $8,000 in that fund in 1903, and for some reason, I never understood why, I presume because we did not consume the entire fund, and we did not last year consume the entire fund, because, as I reported last year, I expected the work of the court would be greatly increased by this new jurisdiction in the cotton-claims cases, but those cases have not come up yet. They have