them, and they check them, because we have two briefs, and some of our briefs run anywhere from 50 to 150 page briefs. And when you wade through those, you may have anywhere from 20 to 60 cases to run down and check; because, in your opinion, you either have to follow the decisions that have been cited to support the decision, or try to distinguish why they do not control, and all of that spade work has to be done by the law clerk for you. You are through when he checks those cases for you and the things you want him to check; but otherwise he has to do all of the spade work.

DUTIES OF THE CUSTOMS COURT

Mr. RABAUT. Briefly, for the record, touch on the duties of the Customs Court itself.

Judge OLIVER. The court itself is different from any other court. I was going to touch on that in connection with the court reporters, because our stuff is so technical that the average lawyer could not try a case in our court. When I say the average lawyer could not try a case in our court, I am not casting any aspersions on any other lawyer, but it is a fact that the ordinary lawyer, who is well versed in the law, coming into our court is absolutely lost because of the precedents. While the method of introducing evidence is the same and he would not be lost there and can make an argument perfectly satisfactorily any lawyer can present the argument-but as to what controls in our court he would be absolutely mystified, because in the ordinary court, you have torts, contracts, admiralty, patent law, and so forth-patent law is a little technical, too, naturally-but we do not have the ordinary type of cases. We do not have the same type of case of plaintiff against defendant seeking damages, for example.

In our court, every case is against the Government. The Government has the money. The importer cannot get his goods released from Customs custody until he pays what the collector claims is the proper duty on that merchandise. The man comes in with a shipment of goods and makes entry at the port of entry. The port of entry may be where the ship comes in, where it was in colonial days and literally the port of entry was where the ship entered, or it may be at Denver, Colo.; because today, under our part of the act, Denver, Colo., or Omaha, Nebr., are just as much ports of entry as New York, New Orleans, San Francisco, or Baltimore, because the merchandise comes off that ship under Government custody and what happens with it is it may be shipped out to Omaha under Government custody, where it goes into the warehouse of the customhouse out there, where they have local appraisers, local collectors, and it is just as much a port of entry out there, as far as entry is concerned, as if the importer brought it in at San Francisco. And if he has a question come up there as to value, or classification, so he must bring a case in our court, he does not have to come to New York where our warehouse is here, but we go to him; because you may have a case where it would be a great injustice to the importer. He may have a case which only involves $100 in duties and it would not pay him to come to New York and bring the case there, and he would say "Oh, let it go."

So, rather than have him let it go-that is not fair to the businessman-we have what we call out of town dockets. We have nine

judges and when in New York we sit three on the bench, in three different divisions, and the whole customs law, the whole tariff act, is divided up according to its schedules, with which you gentlemen presumably are familiar, as we often appear before you here and have in the past; so the primary job we have in our court and the main work we have is to interpret and determine the intent of Congress. You folks may think it is very easy to write a tariff act that "anybody who runs may read," but I assure you that is impossible.

Mr. RABAUT. What kind of complicated case have you had up lately? Tell us something off the record about what you have been doing.

(After discussion off the record:)

SALARIES OF COURT REPORTERS

Judge OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, I have talked to you about the clerks and their duties and I mentioned the court reporters. I wanted to say in that connection that three of the best people that we had on our court reporter staff left us. We had one man named Shelley who won the New York State championship. We lost him to the New York State courts. They pay him over $5,000 a year. We had Miss Sweetser, who had had her own reporting business and her own reporting staff before she came with us but she left us to go with the Supreme Court in New York where they pay more money. Gaffney left us to become secretary of the New York Stock Exchange, where he is being paid more money. We simply cannot hold our

men.

Mr. RABAUT. How much are you paying them now?

Mr.

Mr. BROWN. $3,310 to $3,970, the latter being the highest salary that is paid at the present time.

Judge OLIVER. It is less than a great many of the court reporters are getting in the Federal courts.

Mr. STEFAN. Do they do any additional work on the side; independent work?

Judge OLIVER. Oh, no.

Mr. STEFAN. None of them?

Judge OLIVER. No.

Mr. RABAUT. What salary are you proposing for them?

Judge OLIVER. Forty-three hundred dollars. And they are entitled to it and need it and ought to have it.

Mr. RABAUT. Has this been approved by the Budget?

Judge OLIVER. Yes, sir. There is no item that is being presented here that has not been approved by and fought out with Mr. Chandler's office.

Mr. RABAUT. Then this is approved by Mr. Chandler?

Judge OLIVER. Yes.

Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Chandler is the Budget in this case.

Mr. CHANDLER. But it does go to the Bureau of the Budget and they have a chance to look it over.

Mr. RABAUT. Does the judicial conference approve it?

Mr. CHANDLER. No; the budgets of the special courts, Mr. Chairman, are subject to the approval of those courts and would not go before the judicial conference.

Mr. RABAUT. In connection with these court reporters, do they collect any money from the public in any way?

Judge OLIVER. No; except, once in a while, they get orders from attorneys for copies of the testimony.

Mr. RABAUT. Does it amount to anything substantial?

Judge OLIVER. No; because they only get 25 cents a page whereas court reporters, other court reporters, I understand, get 50 cents a page, in the Supreme Court, and so forth, and in other outside courts, frequently more. They augment salaries in that way sometimes by thousands of dollars.

Mr. RABAUT. This does not represent a large business on the side? Judge OLIVER. No. If they make a couple of hundred dollars a year that way, they are doing well.

Mr. RABAUT. How many of these court reporters are there?
Judge OLIVER. There are six altogether.

Mr. RABAUT. What is the total amount of money involved in connection with this proposed raise?

Mr. BROWN. $5,060.

CLERK OF THE COURT

Judge OLIVER. The other individual case in which I am particularly interested is the clerk of the court, my former secretary, Mr. Band, whom you have met here with me. He is now a CAF-12, getting $5,390. I am asking to have him raised to the next grade, CAF-13, at $6,230.

I checked up on the salaries that other clerks of courts are getting, thinking you might ask the question here. I am asking for him, as I said, $6,230. The clerk of the southern district of New York is a CAF-14 employee, a grade higher, getting $7,175, and he supervises a staff of 59 employees. The clerk of the eastern district of New York is CAF-14 getting $7,962.50, and he supervises a staff of 29 employees. The clerk of the Court of Customs and Patents Appeals, down here, is CAF-13, the same grade in which I want to put Mr. Band, and he is getting $6,908. In other words, Mr. Band is still far below the salaries paid in comparable positions elsewhere, and in our court he has supervision of a staff of 44 employees. I wish to make the point that the position of clerk of our court has not been regraded since 1928.

Mr. RABAUT. He would stapt in that grade at $6,230?

Judge OLIVER. That is the idea. Mr. Band has over 35 years in the customs business, 12 years of which he was an attorney practicing before our court. For the other 25 years he was an employee of our court, working up from messenger boy to secretaryship with three different judges.

Mr. RABAUT. How long has he been clerk?

Judge OLIVER. Going on 2 years. Prior to his appointment as clerk, he was my secretary for over 4 years. When Mr. Dale retired, Mr. Band was appointed to take his place. Mr. Dale retired at the age of 70.

Mr. RABAUT. What is his full name?

Judge OLIVER. William F. X. Band. Mr. Band is a married man, with three children.

Mr. RABAUT. Is there anything else you wish to present, Judge Oliver?

Judge OLIVER. No, sir.

Mr. RABAUT. Thank you very much, Judge.

Judge OLIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1946.

THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY

STATEMENTS OF HENRY P. CHANDLER, DIRECTOR; ELMORE WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR; JOHN C. BROWN, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER; JUDGE JOHN BIGGS, JR., AND JUDGE ALBERT B. MARIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES, THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; AND JUDGE JAMES W. MORRIS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. RABAUT. We will take up at this time the appropriation estimates for the Federal judiciary and we have with us Mr. Chandler, Director of the Administrative Office, and Judges Biggs and Maris of the Third Circuit of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Chandler, we would be glad to have a general statement from you.

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I know that this is the same committee before which we appeared last year. There have been no changes whatever. I do not think I should be warranted in taking very much of your time. In fact, I am perfectly willing to dispense with any general statement, and cover just those matters that may come up in the course of the hearing, if that is your desire.

I would like to say that I have asked to come here today, because some of the appropriations are in fields with which they are especially familiar, Judge Biggs and Judge Maris; Judge Biggs being the chairman of the committee on salaries of supporting personnel of the courts. Judge Maris is chairman of the committee on bailiffs, and is especially familiar with the act which was passed and is now in operation providing for criers in the Federal courts. These gentlemen are particularly acquainted with the problems that arise in connection with the appropriations for miscellaneous salaries, for clerks, and for the probation system.

Mr. RABAUT. Have you any further general statement, Mr. Chandler?

Mr. CHANDLER. I would say this, Mr. Chairman. I can, in about 3 or 4 minutes, state what I think have been the principal trends in the administration of the courts in the last year.

VOLUME OF WORK IN THE COURTS

There has been a considerable increase in the number of civil cases, the increase being in Government cases due almost altogether to the

large number of suits brought for enforcement of price and rationing regulations. These are civil suits. But that increase in the number of suits has not materially increased the demand upon the judges of the courts, for the reason that a great number of those suits are settled and are not actually contested. I would say that so far as the burden of the work is concerned, the civil litigation has remained about on the same level, notwithstanding the increase in the number of cases.

The amount of criminal business in the courts in the last year was almost exactly what it was the year before. In other words, notwithstanding that there is a well-justified apprehension of an increase in crime, it has not been reflected yet in the Federal courts.

The decline in bankruptcy cases, to which I called attention in previous years, continued with the result that the number of bankruptcy suits brought in the last fiscal year was less than in any previous year since the enactment of the present bankruptcy statute in 1898. Of course, from the standpoint of the general welfare of the country that is a very gratifying condition. It has given rise to some problems with reference to the maintenance of the offices of the referees who are paid only upon a fee basis. The House has passed the bill to put the referees upon a salary basis which would take care of that situation.

Mr. RABAUT. Has that bill been passed by the Senate?
Mr. CHANDLER. It is now pending in the Senate.

CONDITION OF DOCKETS

Mr. STEFAN. Do you have a report on the condition of your dockets indicating the backlog of work in the courts?

Mr. CHANDLER. I would say the dockets of the courts are in generally a better condition than they have been in a long time. The business is generally current and in almost every district anybody who really wants a trial can get it about as soon as he can get his case ready. There are some exceptions to that; there are a few districts in which the number of judges is inadequate, but I am speaking of the general condition.

Mr. STEFAN. Generally, your work is current, then?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. While you are on that subject, have you any tables you can submit to us showing the condition of the dockets in the courts?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. JONES. And showing the aveage casc load?

Mr. CHANDLER. I have brought over here and can leave with the committee a preliminary edition of the annual report of the administrative office, showing conditions in all of the courts. That preliminary edition is mimeographed, but it will be followed by a printed edition within a very short time and this committee is on the mailing list for copies of that. I can leave the preliminary edition here. If the printed edition is ready for submission, I will see that the printed edition comes up here, as it is easier to handle. But it will substantiate the statement that I have made that the dockets of the courts are generally current.