페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

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, bas 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 committee whichever plan is more feasible.

Mr. Justice BURTON. It is our thought that we probably could go on through the present term of court and pi esent 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

done that is not brought to the attention of the bar, or the public, in passing upon those petitions. It is of great importance to the bar that those petitions be carefully studied and acted upon before they are turned down; and it is on account of that large volume of cases that are not heard, as well as on account of the cases that are heard, that we may have to ask for more law clerks. The men we have are pressed too hard for fair treatment of them; and it would probably be of benefit to everyone concerned to have additional clerks, but we are not asking for them now.

Mr. RABAUT. Is there some work neglected over there now?

Mr. JUSTICE BURTON. No; but the result is that the Justices and the law clerks work late into the night every night.

Mr. RABAUT. You have a great deal of overtime?
Mr. JUSTICE BURTON. Yes; a great deal of it.

Mr. Ro BAUT. I think it would be well to develop the overtimeto keep tab of the overtime and show what the result is at present.

(After discussion off the record.)

SALARIES

Mr. RABAUT. Your salaries are about the same, except for the changes made under Public Law 106?

Mr. Justice BURTON. Yes. You will see in the tabulation and perhaps Mr. Waggaman can take this up better than I can—the actual expenditures for 1945 were $505,646, after the estimated savings and unobligated balance carried over, and for 1946 is where the change comes. That is up to $583,220, and that represents these additional payments due to Public Law 106. So this year, when you come to the $591,200, it is practically the same thing.

I would like to have Mr. Waggaman supplement that.

Mr. WAGGAMAN. There are no comments; you have explained everything

PREPARATION OF RULES FOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

[ocr errors]

Mr. RABAUT. We will take up the next item, unexpended balance of the appropriation, "Preparation of rules for criminal proceedings, Supreme Court."

Mr. Justice BURTON. I may say that that and the following item relate to the preparation of revised rules for criminal procedure and revised rules for civil procedure; and, in both cases, the rules are nearly ready to be issued. There is a small unobligated balance which will take care of whatever is needed. If that can be continued available, that will take care of the entire item; there is nothing new required at all.

Mr. RABAUT. Is that an unexpended balance in both places?
Mr. Justice BURTON. It so appears in the text.

PRINTING AND BINDING

Mr. RABAUT. How about printing and binding-—is that up?

Mr. WAGGAMAN. For printing and binding, we have Mr. Cropley's statement.

Mr. Justice BURTON. I am presenting Mr. Cropley's statement, as this is an item that comes under the jurisdiction of the clerk. I may say it calls for precisely the same amount that was asked for last year. Mr. RABAUT. It is the same as you had last year?

Mr. Justice BURTON. There was an increase last year from $26,000 to $37,000, plus the amount to take care of the deficit. This year it is precisely the same as last year-$37,000.

Mr. RABAUT. It is the same type work, and the same work load?

Mr. Justice BURTON. Yes; the same character of work. It covers the private contract we have for printing our opinions. Then we also have the printing and binding of briefs and records and similar work that is done by the Government Printing Office.

Mr. RABAUT. Were not you binding some books you had over there, by doing so many books a year?

Mr. WAGGAMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. RABAUT. Are you still keeping that up?

Mr. WAGGAMAN. We have the Gerry Library. You gave us $6,300 for this last year as a special fund to complete the rebinding of the Gerry books. That work is progressing beautifully, and the next 3 or 4 months will finish it. The gentleman doing it got sick, or it would be finished already. The Gerry Library is in addition to our working library.

I would like to call your attention to the fact we still have in the working library, about 13,000 volumes, requiring reconditioning that we have not yet been able to touch. We have been spending currently about $5,000 a year on that; but, unfortunately, most of that $5,000 is used to bind current English law reports, law reviews, and hearings, and other various and miscellaneous unbound journals and documents that we have to keep.

Mr. RABAUT. How much of this money actually gets down to the work on the 13,000 volumes?

Mr. WAGGAMAN. About one-third of the $5,000. Mr. RABAUT. How much does it cost a volume? Mr. WAGGAMAN. $2.50 to $4.50, depending on who is doing it. We are having it done for as little as $2.50 to $3.50, and the Government Printing Office charges us more than that.

Mr. HARE. How many volumes are there to be bound?

Mr. WagGAMAN. We have an indefinite number in our inactive collection.

The justice spoke of law clerks. Likewise, we want to lay the foundation this year for a presentation we want to make next year, concerning our binding. I do not think it is possible to continue indefinitely binding as we are now doing. We want to explore, with your permission, the possibility of binding on the premises because we believe we can do it more reasonably that way. We are now paying a large price for this work.

(After discussion off the record:)

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES

Mr. RABAUT. For miscellaneous expenses, you have $34,900 and the estimate for 1947 is down to $28,600. What is the casue of the reduction?

Mr. WAGGAMAN. The cause of the reduction is that the $6,300 for the Gerry Library that we spent in rebinding is a nonrecurring item.

Mr. RABAUT. You cannot reduce it any more?
Mr. WAGGAMAN. No.
Mr. RABAUT. There is no new language?
Mr. WAGGAMAN. No new language.

Mr. RABAUT. If there are no further questions, thank you very much.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1946.

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT

STATEMENTS OF HON. WEBSTER J. OLIVER, PRESIDING JUDGE,

AND JOHN C. BROWN, BUDGET OFFICER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Mr. RABAUT. We turn now to salaries and expenses for the United States Customs Court. Judge Oliver is before us this morning. Without objection, we will put page 14 of the justifications in the record setting forth the summary of the estimate.

(The matter above referred to is as follows:)

RECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATE TO CURRENT APPROPRIATIONS

Salaries and expenses, U. S. Customs Court
Transferred from
“Salaries, United States Customs Court”.

$233, 200
Supplemental appropriation for 1946 (estimated cost,
Public Law 106) -

40, 300

$273, 500 "Contingent expenses, United States Customs Court”.

13, 000 “Printing and binding, United States Customs Court”.

1, 000 Total appropriations for 1946

287, 500 Additions: 01 Personal services:

Cost in 1947 of within-grade promotions granted in

the fiscal year 1946 on a part-year basis--- $1, 330
Increased amount needed for "additional compen-
sation” for the fiscal year 1947.-

200
Reclassifications..

6, 670

8, 200 Total estimate for 1947.

295, 700 Mr. RABAUT. The appropriation, with supplementals, and so forth for 1946 reached a figure of $287,500, and the estimate for 1947 is $295,700. We have an increase here. Tell us something about this, Judge Oliver.

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARIES

Judge OLIVER. It is rather unusual for me to come before the committee asking for an increase, but that $8,200 we are asking this year covers statutory increases over which we have no control, of about $1,530, and the balance of $6,670 covers reclasisfication of two groups and one individual. The group classification we are asking increases for are the law secretaries.

We have never asked you to give us separate secretaries and law clerks the way the most of the district judges of the Federal courts have their offices set up; but we have a law secretary. They are civil service and they are career men.

The most of them have been there for years in our specialized line and, of course, they could not be replaced, and there has not been any increase worth while for them except statutory, right along. So after this change was made in the Federal district court whereby those combined secretary and law-clerk classifications were made, we are now asking you folks to increase the grade to P-4, the professional class, and put these secretary-law clerks in the P-4 class. The strange thing about that change is that for seven of those nine secretary-law clerks, that is, seven of the judges' clerks, in this change of grade to P-4 we require no more money; it does not mean any increase in cash outlay at all.

Mr. RABAUT. They are at the top of one grade?

Mr. Brown. And the minimum of the next grade, and it does not mean an increase.

Judge OLIVER, One is now getting $4,080 and the other $3,750. And, in this change, we are asking for the additional money to bring them up to the minimum of the P-4 classification which is starting at $4,300.

Mr. RABAUT. You are bringing them both up to $4,300?

Judge OLIVER. Yes. There is no reason why we should not, because both are veterans and both should be there.

INCREASES FOR COURT REPORTERS

As to court reporters, the second class we are asking an advance for, we want to raise them from CAF-8 to CAF-11. In that connection, I want to say this: I think the work in our particular court, as far as court reporters are concerned, calls for a higher grade of reporter than in the ordinary court. The salaries we are paying them are so low and so below their earning capacity elsewhere that in the last year or year and a half we lost three of our best men.

Mr. RABAUT. Have you always had court reporters?

Judge OLIVER. Oh, yes; we have always had court reporters; no contract reporters; they were our own court reporters.

Mr. HARE. Would you mind stating for the record the functions of the court, the duties of those law clerks and reporters?

Judge OLIVER. They are set forth in the justifications, but let me say for the record, in reply to your question, that as to our law clerks and secretaries, in the first place, some of them are former court reporters; they are expert stenographers and they are law clerks in that they look up and do all of the law work for our judges in the preparation of our opinions. In our court, you do not have to make decisions from the bench the way you do in some cases.

After a case is tried in our court and after the record of the transcript is prepared and submitted, the judge goes over the subject that is under consideration and a special opinion must be written, a decision and an opinion must be written by each judge, unless it is one of those pro forma matters following a test case, where you can simply write a short, confirming opinion. So in every case it requires an investigation of the law by these law clerks of the questions that the court raises, for example, and we turn them over to the law clerks to check

« 이전계속 »