man to introduce legislation which would provide a $7,500 annual increase e compensation for the chief judge and associate judges of the District of mbia Court of Appeals, the Court of General Sessions, the Tax Court, and the nile Court. We were proposing a figure which we expected would have y acceptance because it was so modest. However, considering all factors, ding proposed pay adjustments in legislation affecting other judges and ral employees, we feel the annual compensation increases provided in ChairMcMillan's bill are fully justified and we urge their enactment.

is recommendation is based upon a fundamental premise so well stated in 30-called Randall Committee report, that if we are to have able and efficient es on the bench, their salaries must be reasonably compensatory.

e proposal to support a salary increase was unanimously approved by the d of directors of the association on September 6, 1963, upon the recommendaof the association's committee on pending legislation and after study and ession of views by other interested committees of the association. It is d on the premise that Congress will take separate action to increase comation to judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as it would not be our tion that the salaries of the judges to be affected by the bill now under deration should not equal or exceed the salaries of the U.S. district courts. the pending pay bill on Federal judges and the present bill were both en1, the following adjustments of annual compensation would occur:

is apparent that the scale proposed for the District of Columbia judges is arable to that proposed for the Federal judges.

e current salaries of the District of Columbia judges were fixed in 1955. that time, the salaries of all other employees of the respective courts have increased by more than 25 percent. Furthermore, since 1955, there have six pay increases which have granted to Federal employees in the classified ces-an aggregate increase of more than 51 percent. As you know, pros are now pending which would give these people additional increases. District of Columbia judges should not be overlooked.

e House of Delegates of the American Bar Association at its meeting last h in Chicago approved a resolution endorsing H.R. 8986 which called for a 00 annual pay increase to Federal judges. The House of Delegates, in adopthis resolution, pointed out that 31 State and local bar associations have d the American Bar Association in supporting pay increases for the Federal iary. The American Bar Association in testimony before the Committee >st Office and Civil Service on September 18, 1963, specifically recommended antial increases in the annual compensation of Federal judges be enacted diately. It was pointed out to the committee by Mr. Bernard G. Segal, man of the ABA's Committee on Judicial Selection, Tenure, and Compen, that the scale of judicial salaries has not kept pace with the growth of uties and responsibilities of that office and that the differences paid to al judges and those paid in private enterprise were grossly dispropore. We agree with Mr. Segal completely and his observations concerning ederal judiciary and these observations are even more appropriate regard

ing the level of compensation paid District of Columbia judges. The following are graphic illustrations of the inadequacy of the judicial salaries paid in the District of Columbia:

In 23 States the level of compensation paid to members of the highest court of the respective jurisdictions exceeds that paid members of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

In 20 States the level of compensation paid members of the general trial court exceeds that paid members of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. Of the 30 most populous cities in the country, 18 pay judges of trial courts of general jurisdiction more than that paid to members of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. (These statisties are as of 1961.)

As indicated, members of U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal receive $6,500 more than the members of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Federal district court judges receive $5,500 more than members of the Court of General Sessions and $5,500 more than the District of Columbia Tax Court and Juvenile Court.

If Congress enacts H.R. 8986, the modernization of Federal salaries systems bill reported favorably by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service in the House, Federal circuit court, district court, Customs Court, and Tax Court members will receive $10,000 annual increases. Commissioners of the Court of Claims will receive a $9,000 annual increase to $29,000, or the equivalent of Chairman McMillan's proposal with respect to the chief judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and more than the proposed increase for all other members of the District of Columbia judiciary.

'As this committee is fully aware, Congress on October 23, 1962, substantially expanded the jurisdiction of the municipal court of the District of Columbia and redesignated it the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. The jurisdiction over certain cases previously considered by the U.S.-District Court was transferred, particularly in civil cases where the amount in controversy was between $3.000 and $10,000. This increase in jurisdiction has imposed even greater responsibilities and burdens on the Court of General Sessions and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. It has made it imperative to attract and retain honest, efficient, experienced, and highly qualified members of the bar to the District of Columbia bench. The importance of the business of these courts requires the best men available for judges. The Congress has the opportunity by enacting H.R. 10487 to do much to assure that these men will be provided.

The District of Columbia Bar Association urges your prompt and favorable consideration of this bill.

Mr. BARKER. In addition, Mr. Chairman, prolonging this just a moment, I would like to express on behalf of the bar association and for myself and the presidents in the last 3 years, our sincere appreciation to Chairman McMillan and to you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of your committee, and particularly to your staff, for your assistance with the large volume of legislation and important legislation which the bar association has been interested in, and which you have guided through the Congress such things as the Partnership Acts, Business Corporation Act, Horizontal Property Act, Uniform Gift to Minors Act, Pour Over Trust Act, Uniform Commercial Code, the extension of the jurisdiction of the municipal court, the problem on privilege of clergy, and so on-these have all been items of legislation which the bar association has been very interested in and which we supported. We feel that much credit for the passage of this legislation is due to the leadership and the staff of this committee, and we are grateful for it.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Barker, we appreciate your statements about that. We want to express our appreciation to the bar association. I happen to have been involved in most of those things you have mentioned. We have some other items that we are working on now.

certainly never have any hesitancy in calling on the bar associa, nor have we found any hesitancy on the part of the bar associato cooperate with us.

think whatever might have been accomplished is due in large sure to this attitude of cooperation that you gentlemen have

en to us.

Ir. Quinn and I have met in the last few days on another important ter, along with other representatives of your association. We are ing that something can be done in that connection in the next days.

ow did you have anything to add, Mr. Quinn? We are trying to clude the hearings today. And we have some other witnesses. Ir. QUINN. I have nothing further to add, thank you, sir.

[r. WHITENER. Well, Mr. Barker, thank you and Mr. Quinn again coming and being with us.

Ir. BARKER. Thank you very much, sir.

The following correspondence and tabulation were subsequently mitted for the record:)

THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, D.C., March 27, 1964.

H.R. 10487, compensation, District of Columbia judges.

. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

irman, Committee on the District of Columbia,

se of Representatives,

thington, D.C.

EAR CHAIRMAN MCMILLAN: On behalf of the Bar Association of the District Columbia I would like to express deep appreciation for the opportunity to ear before your subcommittee on March 25 and testify in support of those visions of H.R. 10487 which would provide long-needed increases in the 1 of compensation of members of the District of Columbia judiciary. s you will recall, during those hearings, several questions were raised and siderable interest was evidenced by the members of the subcommittee, parlarly Mr. Springer, regarding the current level of judicial salaries in courts ther jurisdictions. As a result, we have obtained from the American Bar ociation and the American Judicature Society more up-to-date information the 1961 figures we mentioned at the hearings. We believe this current rmation will be of substantial interest to your committee.

We have discussed this matter with Mr. James Clark, clerk of your commitHe suggests that you might appreciate this information for inclusion in your rd.

s we pointed out in our testimony, as of 1961, 23 States compensated members heir highest court more than that paid the District of Columbia Court of eals and 20 States paid members of their general trial court more than the trict of Columbia Court of General Sessions (our general trial court). Since time, some of those jurisdictions and many others have increased the level udicial compensation.

1 the period from 1961 through the close of 1963, 21 States have increased level of compensation paid to the judges in both the highest court and the eral trial court of the respective jurisdictions.

hree additional States increased the level of compensation paid to members the highest court and four additional States increased the level of comsation paid to members of the general trial court.

s of the close of 1963, 28 States paid members of their highest courts more n that paid to members of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and 21 tes paid members of the general trial court more than that currently paid he District of Columbia Court of General Sessions.

is clear, therefore, that a substantial pay increase should be enacted for the trict of Columbia judges to conform with the trend throughout the country

30-701-64-- 3

and to give treatment of the District of Columbia courts on a basis comparable to other jurisdictions.

We are attaching a comparative chart which appeared in the December 1963 issue of the Journal of the American Judicature Society which lists the level of compensation paid to the highest court, the intermediate appellate court, and the general trial court in each of the 50 jurisdictions in the United States as of December 1963.

If there is any additional information which we can provide, I hope that you will not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT W. BARKER, Chairman, Committee on Pending Legislation.

[From Journal of the American Judicature Society, vol. 47, No. 7]

(December 1963)
APPENDIX I

COMPARATIVE CHART-JUDICIAL SALARIES IN MAJOR TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS GENERAL NOTE.-The table on p. 15 sets forth prevailing judicial salary rates for judges of supreme courts, intermediate appellate courts, and trial courts of general jurisdiction in all 50 States, the Federal judicial system, and and Puerto Rico. In utilization, the following should be noted: (i) Salaries are stated in annual amounts and do not reflect additional compensation frequently authorized for chief or presiding judges of particular courts nor payments for expenses or in lieu of expenses. Chief judge increments range from $500 to $2,500. (ii) In jurisdictions which have constitutional restrictions against increasing compensaton during a judge's term of office all judges of a particular court may not as yet be entitled to the salary indicated, which is the current rate authorized for newly appointed or elected judges. (iii) Where a salary range rather than a single rate is shown on the chart, this reflects variations in compensation resulting from payment of local supplements or authorized variations based on population, property formulas or length of service. (iv) Reference should be made to individual State summaries for detailed information.

ourt of appeals is authorized under the new constitution, but no implementing legislation was passed 1963 session.

ary shown become effective Jan. 1, 1965. For current rates, see State summary. ary for superior court: See State summary for district court.

computing the national average and national median figures, (i) Federal salaries are excluded those for the District of Columbia); (ii) all States have been weighed equally without adjustor variations in the size of the judiciary; (iii) for courts where a salary range rather than a single shown, the figures used have been the average of the upper and lower limits of this range; and erto Rico is included. Average and median salaries for supreme courts in thos States which have ediate appellate courts are $23,666 and $22,500 respectively.

. Amer. Jud. Soc. 253 (March 1962).