u U V E K i\iV ltl\ 1

Storage

b

7 ?

• A o 4?/

EPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, AND CO M ^

MERCE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1966

H E A R IN G S

BEFORE A

SUBC OMM ITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIV ES

EIG HT Y-NINT H CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, AND COMMERCE,

THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

JOHN J. ROONEY, New York, Chairman

ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida

JOHN M. SLACK, J r., West Virginia

NEAL SMITH, Iowa

JOHN J. FLYNT, Georgia

CHARLES S. JOELSON, New Jersey

FRANK T. BOW, Ohio

GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB, California

ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan

Jay B. Howe, Sta ff A ss is ta nt to th e Su bc om m itte e

RJ

THE JUDICIARY

Pri nte d fo r the use of the Committee on Appropriations

DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, AND COMMERCE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1966

H E A R IN G S

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIV ES

EIGH TY -NINTH CONGRESS

F IR S T SE SS IO N

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEP ART MENTS OF STATE, JUST ICE, AND COMMERCE, 

TH E JUDICIA RY, AND RELATE D AGE NCIES APPROPRIA TIO NS

JOH N J. ROONEY, New York, Chairman

ROBERT L. F. SIK ES, Florida 

JOH N M. SLACK, J r., W est V irgi nia 

NEAL SMITH, Iowa

JOHN J. FLYNT, Georgia 

CHARLES S. JO ELSON, New J ersey

FRA NK T. BOW, Ohio 

GLENARD P. LIPSC OMB, Ca lifornia 

ELF ORD A. CE DER BERG, Michiga n

J ay B. Howe, S ta ff A s s is ta n t to th e S ubcom m itte e

THE JUDICIARY

Pri nte d for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

46-816

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1965
CO MMIT TE E ON A PPR O PR IA TIO NS

GEORGE H. MA HO N, Te xa s, Chairman

F R A N K T . BO W, Ohio 

CH A R LE S It. JO NAS . Nor th Ca ro lin a 

M ELVIN It. LA IR D , Wisc on sin 

E LFO R D A. CED ER BER G , Mich iga n 

GLEN A R D P. LI PSCO M B, Cal ifor nia 

JO HN J. RH OD ES , Ari zo na 

W IL LIA M E. M IN SH ALL , Ohio 

RO BERT H. M IC H EL, Illin oi s 

SIL V IO O. CO NTE , M as sa ch us etts 

OD IN LA NGEN, Minn esota 

BEN R E IF E L, So ut h Da ko ta 

GLE NN It. D A VIS , Wisc on sin 

HOW AR D W. RO BI SO N, Ne w Yo rk 

GAR NER E. SH R IV ER , Kan sa s 

JO SEPH M. M cD AD E, Pe nnsy lv an ia 

M ARK AN DR EW S, Nor th Da ko ta

A L B E R T TH OM AS , Te xa s 

M IC H A E L J. KIR W AN , Ohio 

JA M IE L. W H IT TEN , M iss iss ip pi 

GEO RG E W. AN DREW S, Alab am a 

JO HN J. RO ON EY , New Yor k 

JO HN E. FO G A R TY, Rhode Island 

ROBERT L. F. S IK E S, Flo ri da 

OTT O E. PASS M AN , Lo ui si an a 

JO E L. EVIN S, Tenn essee 

EDW AR D P. BO LA ND, M as sa ch us et ts 

W IL LIA M H. N ATC H ER, Ken tu ck y 

D A N IE L J. FL OOD, Pen nsy lv an ia 

W IN F IE LD K . DE NT ON , In di an a 

TOM ST EED . Ok lah om a 

GEO RG E E. SH IP LE Y , Illin oi s 

JO HN M. SLA CK , J r., W es t Vir gi nia 

JO HN J. F L Y N T , J r„ Ge orgia 

N E A L SM IT H. Iow a 

R O BERT N. GI AI MO. Co nn ec ticu t 

JU LIA B U T LE R HAN SE N, W as hing to n 

C H A R LE S S. JO EL SO N, New Je rs ey 

JO SEPH P. AD DABBO, New Yo rk 

JO HN J. M cF A LL , Cal ifor nia 

W. It. H ULL , J r., Misso uri 

D. It. (B IL L Y ) M ATT H EW S, Flo ri da 

J E F F E R Y COH ELA N, Cal if or nia 

TH OM AS G. M OR RI S, New Me xic o 

E D W AR D J. PA TTE N , New Je rs ey 

CLA R E N CE D. LO NG , M ar ylan d 

JO HN O. M AR SH . J r„ V ir gi nia 

R O BER T B. DU NC AN , Orego n 

SID N E Y R. Y A T E S, Illin oi s

B IL L IE S. FA RN UM , M ichiga n

Kenneth Sprankle, Clerk and Staf f Director

(II)
DEPAR TMENTS OF STA TE, JUS TIC E, AND COMMERCE,

THE JUD ICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIE S AP PR OPRIATION S, 1966

Tuesday, February 2, 1965. 

Membership of Subcommittee

Mr. Rooney. The committee will please come to order.

Before directing our attention to the consideration of the bill making 

appropriations for the fiscal year 1966 for the Departments of State, 

Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies, 1 should like 

to welcome the returned distinguished members of the committee, the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Sikes; the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Slack; the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Smith; the gentleman 

from Ohio, Mr. Bow; the gentleman from C alifornia, Mr. Lipscomb; 

and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Cederberg.

I should also like to welcome to the committee as new members the 

distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Flynt, and the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Joelson.

It is interesting to note that this subcommittee is the only subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations that has had every member 

returned intact in the 89th Congress.

I should also like to present for your present consideration the following suggestions in connection with the forthcoming hearings on 

this bill. ‘ . 

1

Without objection, these 10 suggestions shall be incorporated as the 

rules of the subcommittee in the 89th Congress. Agreeable to everybody ?

I take it there is no objection to these rules ?

Mr. Bow. We have no objection, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. Very good.

Page II of the committee print sets forth a summary of the requests 

for fiscal year 1966. The 1966 budget request for this bill totals 

$2,163,118,600, plus an additional $3.9 billion which is from the highway trust fund. The total request from the general fund of the Treasury is $386,960,800 above the amount of the appropriations to date in 

the current fiscal year. However, of that amount $250 million is for 

a repayable advance from the general fund to the highway trust fund.

TH E JUDICIAR Y

We shall now direct our attention to the request for the Federal judiciary which begins at page 336 of the committee p rint. As shown at 

page 337 of the committee print, the total request for the Federal 

judiciary for the fiscal year 1966 is in the amount $87,865,500. This

(D
request repres ent s an increase of $19,084,700 o ver the approp ria tio ns 

to d ate in the curre nt fiscal year.

I t sh ould be noted that supple me nta l reque sts f or pay raises have not 

been tak en into account. Wh en the 1965 figu re is ad jus ted to include 

fund s requested or to be requested fo r the pay act, the increase requested 

is s till $12,505,800.

S um mar y of A pp ro pr ia tion R eq ue sts

Pages I, H , and I I I of the justifi cation s sha ll be inserted at thi s 

point in th e record.

(The p age s follow :)

Comparative sum mary of appropriations and a ppro priation estimates

Cou rt or service 1965

ad justed 1

1966

es tim ate

Increase, 1966 

ove r 1965

Annual approp ria tio ns (general ac co unt):

Supre me Co urt __ ___ ___ ____- ____ _____ $2,500,100 

447,600 

1,129,000 

1,299,000

60,081,000

$2,556, 500 

457,600 

1,159,400 

1,308,000

71,135,000

$56,400

10,000 

30,400 

9,000

11,054,000

Co urt of C ust om s a nd P ate nt Ap pe als _________________

Cu sto ms C ou rt__________ ___________ ______ ________

Cou rt of C laims __ ___ _____ _____ _____

Co urt s of ap pea ls, distr ict court s, an d othe r jud icial services_______________________________________________

To ta l an nu al a pp ropriatio ns (general ac co un t)______

Ap pro pri ations (special ac co un t).. ___ _ _____ _ ____

65,456,700 

9,903,000

76,616,500 

11,249,000

11,159,800 

1,346,000

G ra nd to ta l .. . . . . 75,359,700 87,865,500 12,505,800

1

 Inc lud es pro pos ed su pp lem en tal for pa y increases.

Sum mary of positions

T it a l nu mbe r of pe rm an en t p ositions______________________

Fu ll- tim e e qu ivalen t of o the r position s_____________________

Average nu mbe r of all employ ees __________________________

Em plo yees in p erman en t p ositions , end of y ea r_____________

Em plo yees in o ther positions , e nd of ye ar___________________

actual 1965 estim ate 1966 es tim ate

5,604 5,646 6,145

333 374 300

5,771 5,874 6,262

5,461 5,450 5,878

462 482 415
3

Comparative summ ary of obligations by object

[I n t housa nds of do lla rs]

Per so na l se rv ices a n d b en ef its:

11 Per so nn el co m pen sa tion:

P erm an en t po si tions _________ ____ —

Pos itio ns o th er th a n p erm an en t_____

Sp ec ial pe rs on al se rv ice p a y m e n ts __

O th er pe rs on ne l c o m p en sati o n ., .........

T o ta l pe rs on ne l co m pen sa tion..........

12 Per so nn el ben efi ts ______________________

13 B en ef its for fo rm er per so n n el___________

T o ta l pe rs on ne l se rv ic es a n d b e n e fit s ..

C o n tr actu al se rv ices a n d su pp lie s:

21 T ra v el an d tr an sp o rt ati o n o f p er so ns ____

22 T ra n sp o rt ati o n of th in g s________________

23 R en t, co m m unic at io ns, an d u ti li ti e s____

24 P rin ti n g a n d r ep ro d u cti o n ______________

25 O th er se rv ic es __________________________

26 Suppl ie s an d m ate ri als __________________

T o ta l contr ac tu al se rv ices a n d su pp lie s 

A cq uis itio n of ca pit al as se ts:

31 E q u ip m e n t____________________________

G ra n ts a n d fixed charge s:

42 In su ra nce c la im s an d in d em n it ie s_______

U n d is tr ib u te d :

92 Res er ve for co nt in ge nc ie s_______________

T o ta l o b li g a ti o n s.. ______ ____________

1964 ac tu al 1965 es ti m at e 1966 es ti m at e

46, 000 54,925 58,614

1,326 1,632 1,251

3, 804 3,825 8,80 0

2,122 2,907 2,907

53,2 52 63,2 88 71,571

3,209 3,746 3,994

25 25 25

56,48 6 67.060 75, 590

3,603 3,713 4,392

34 48 52

1,480 1,678 2,06 6

646 668 740

445 425 1,454

456 451 486

6, 664 6,983 9,189

1,368 1,317 1,687

3

1,400

64,5 22 75,360 87,8 66

PER SONNEL INCREASES REQUESTED

Mr. R ooney. Pa ge I I the reo f indicates a request of 6,145 pe rm anent 

positions, whi ch would be an overall increase of 499 positions, or ap ­

proximate ly a 9-p erce nt increa se in pe rm an ent pos itions.

SU PR EM E CO UR T OF T H E U N IT E D ST A TES

W IT N ESSE S

HON . HU GO L. BL AC K, ASS OCIA TE JU S T IC E 

HON . TOM C. CLA RK, ASS OCIA TE JU S T IC E 

JO H N F. D AV IS , CLE RK

T. P E R R Y L IP P IT T , M A RSHA L 

M IS S H E L E N N EW M A N , L IB R A R IA N 

D IN A R. ZU CC ON I, A SSIS TA N T TO T H E M A R SH A L 

J. GEO RG E S T EW A R T, A R C H IT E C T OF T H E CAPI TO L 

C H A R LES A. HEN LO CK, A D M IN IS T R A T IV E O FFIC E R , O FFIC E OF T H E 

A R C H IT E C T OF T H E CAPI TO L

Mr. Rooney. Th e first item for the Fe de ral judiciary is fo r the 

Supre me Co urt of the Un ite d State s, “S alaries ,” which appe ars at 

page 338 of the comm ittee print.

We are in deed pleased to welcome once a ga in Associa te Ju stice H ug o 

Black of th at Co urt.

Ho w m any yea rs is this now, Mr. Ju sti ce Bla ck ?

Ju sti ce Black. I do no t rem ember. Ma ny of the m.

Mr. Rooney. We also welcome Associa te Ju stice Tom C. Clark of 

the Supre me Co urt , the Cle rk, the Mars hal, the Lib rarian , and oth er 

officials of th e Suprem e Court o f the U nited St ates.
4

We sha ll ins ert page 1 o f th e justifi cation s in the record at thi s point. 

(T he page fo llow s:)

Sum mary statement relating appropr iation estimate to current appropriation

Suprem e C ourt of the United States: Judiciary 1965 appropriation in annual a c t,______ ______________________ ______ ___________ $2,420,700 1965 proposed supplemental due to civilian pay increases.......... ...... ................ ........... .......... 79,400

Base for 1966............. ................................................................................................................ 2,500,100

Net difference, 1966 over 1965:

Requirements Difference, 

increase (+) 

or de1965 crease (—)

adjusted

1966

estimate

1. Salaries, Supreme C o u rt__ . . . $1,894,000 

138,000 

120,000

304,600

8,500

35,000

$1,938,000 

138,000 

120,000

314,000

8,500

38,000

+$44,000 2. Prin ting an d binding Supreme C ourt r eports___

3. Miscellaneous expenses, Supreme Court- _____

4. Care of the buildings and grounds, Supreme 

Co urt__________ _ ___ ___ _ . . . .. +9,400 5. Automobile for the Chief Justice, Supreme C ourt.

6. Books for the Supreme C ou rt___________ ____ +3,000

To tal ____ _____ _ _ _ ___________ _____ 2,500,100 2,556,500 +56,400 +56,400

Total estimate for 1966............... . .......................... ................................................................. 2,556,500

IN CR EA SE R EQ UE STED

Mr. Rooney. The total request is in the amoun t $2,556,500, which 

wou ld be an increase of $56,400 over th e a dju ste d ap prop ria tio n for the 

curre nt fiscal year.

Th e 1965 ap prop ria tio n is adjus ted as shown on this page to reflect 

proposed sup ple me nta l fund s due to enacted pay increases.

General Statement

Mr. Justi ce Blac k, do you wish to direct yours elf to this request 

fo r th e Su pre me Cou rt of the United States?

Ju sti ce Black. Well, we are very fortu na te in the fac t th at the re 

is o nly one increase asked for th at is not required by sta tute as fa r as 

the C ou rt’s work is concerned. The main increases are fo r sta tutory 

increases in sala ries. The only no nstat uto ry increase is $3,000 which 

is necessary because of the add ed costs of pocket sup pleme nts to 

books, like the Dig est of the Un ite d State s Supre me Co urt Reports 

and various books of th at kin d. Th ere is no increase asked for in 

numb er but, un fortu na tely, the com panies have raised pric es and we 

can not get them down. Tha t is the increase. We think th at is p robably justified.

Mr. Rooney. Ha ve you given up on the bookcases ?

Justi ce Black. Well, we are no t ask ing fo r any increase at the 

moment.
o

S a la rie s, S u pr e m e C ou rt of t h e U n it e d S ta te s

Object classification

[In thou sands of dollars]

1964

actu al

1965

estim ate

1966

estimate

11.1

Personnel compensation:

Permanent po sitio ns.. .. ________ ______________ 1,396 1,695 1,738

11.3 Positions o ther than perm ane nt___ ______________ 78 87 87

Tota l personnel compensation__ _ ___ _________ 1,474 1,782 1,825

12.0 Personnel benefits_____________ _________________ 95 112 113

99.0 Tota l obligations__________ . . . .. . ......... ........ ... 1,570 1,894 1,938

Personnel summary

1964

actual

1965

estim ate

1966

estim ate

To tal num ber of permanent positions__________ _________

Full-time equ ivalent of other positions..... ............. .................

Average n umb er of all employees ._______________________

168

18

179

189

20

200

189

20

204

Program and financing

[In thousands of dollars]

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

Program by activities:

10 Salaries, Supreme C ourt (obligations)_______ _________

Financing:

25 Unobligated balance lapsing_________________________

1,570

18

1,894 1,938

New obligational autho rity................ ...............................

New obligational authority:

40 Appropriation_______________ ______________

1,588 1,894 1,938

1,588 1,815

79

1,938

44 Proposed sup plemental due to civilian pay increases____

Relation of obligations to expenditures:

71 Tota l obligations (affecting expenditures).............. .........

72 Obligated balance, sta rt of year ...................

74 Obligated balance, end of year.

90 Expenditures excluding pay increase supplemental____

91 Expenditures from civilian pay increase su pplem ental..

1,570

48

-6 0

1,894

60

-7 7

1,938

77

-8 4

1,557 1,801 

76

1,928

3

Mr. R ooney. We shall ins ert p ages 2 throug h 9 of the justifications 

in the record at th is p oin t.

(The pag es follow :)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

Salaries, Suprem e Court: Judiciary

1965 appropriation in annu al ac t........... . . .................. .......................... ........... . ....................... $1,815,000

1965 proposed supplemental due to civilian pay increase_____________________________ 79,000

Base for 1966....................................... . .................................................................................... 1,894, 000

Net difference, 1966 over 1965:

Requirements Difference, 

increase (-]-)

1965

adjusted

1966

estimate

or decrease ( —)

Salaries, Supreme Co urt ______ ________________ $1,894,000 $1,938,000 (+)$44,000 (+ M , COO

Total estimate for 1966....... ............................................................................................ ......... 1,938, 000
Statement showing analysis by objects

Object 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

Increa se (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

11 Perso nnel co mpe nsation____________________ _________

12 Pe rsonnel b enefits - - _________________________ -

$1,782,000 

112,000

$1,825,000 

113,000

+$43,000 

+1,00 0

T ota l___________________ ________________________ 1,894,000 1,938,000 +44,000

Sum mary of increased requirements for 1966

Nature of expense (or savings) : Amount

1. Pay increase, Public Law 88-426 (compensation $29,700 and benefits

$2,300) amount absorbed in fiscal yea r 1965__________________$32,000

2. Witbin-grade sal ary advancements (compensation $13,300 and benefits $931)_________________________________________________ 14,231

3. Less payment due the employees’ compensation fund in fiscal year

1965______________________________________________________—2,231

Increase, 1966 over 1965__________________________________ 44, 000

JU ST IFIC AT IO N

Language changes

None.

Objectives

The appropriation here requested is to provide the necessary moneys to pay 

the sala ries of the members of the Supreme Court of the United States, the 

officers of the Court, their respective staffs, and the Court’s custodial employees. 

General justification

The following statem ent reflects the casework of the Court for the past thre e 

te rm s:

Statement showing the number of cases filed, disposed of, and remaining on dockets at

conclusion of October terms 1961, 1962, and 1963

[Oc tober te rm 1963 en ded Ju ne 22, 1964—corre spo nds to fiscal year 1964]

Original Ap pe lla te Miscellaneous To tals

1961 1962 1953 1961 1962 1963 1961 1962 1963 1961 1962 1963

Num be r of cases on 

doc kets . __ ____ 13

0

15

i 7

9

2

1,062

860

1,182

972

1,238

1,036

1,510

1,297

1,627

1,371

1,532

1,374

2,585

2,157

2,824

2,350

2,770

2,410

N um be r dispos ed of du ring t er m s____________ ..

Num be r rema ini ng 

on do ck ets ___ . . 13 8 7 202 210 202 213 256 158 428 474 360

Te rm s:

1961 1962 1963

Distri bu tio n of cases d ispose d of dur ing ter ms :

Origina l ca se s... ____ ______ ___ ______ ______ ____ 0 17 2

Ap pe lla te cases o n m er its_______ ___________________ 195 282 303

Pe tit ions for cer tio rari . _______ ____ . . . . . 665 690 733

Mi scellan eou s do cket ap pl ic atio ns . __________________ 1,297

13

1,371

8

1,374

7

D is trib ut io n of cases rem aining on d ockets:

Original cases __ .. . _____ . . __ ___

Ap pe lla te cases on merits . . _______ . _____ 118 108 81 Pe tit io ns for ce rti or ari__ .. _ ______ . . . . . . . _ 84 102 121

Misce llaneo us docket ap plicatio ns ____ _ ______ _________ 213 256 158

1

 T hi s figure inclu des 3 cases finally dispos ed of by Cou rt actio n an d 4 cases which ha ve bee n drop pe d 

from th e docket as th ere is no m at te r with respect to t hem p en ding before th e Cou rt.
An appro pria tion of $1,938,000 is requested for sala ries of the Supreme Court 

staff for 19(56. This represen ts a net increase of $44,000 over the 1965 es timate 

for th is item.

Detailed justification

A ct ual, 1964 E st im ate , 1965 E sti m ate , 1966

N u m ­

be r

of

po sition s

A ver ­

age

n u m ­

be r

em ­

ploy ed

Cos t

N u m ­

be r

of

po sition s

A ver ­

age

n u m ­

ber

em ­

pl oy ed

C os t

N u m ­

ber

of

po sition s

A ver ­

age

n u m ­

ber

em ­

plo yed

Cos t

F ull-t im e em p lo y m en t--------

P art -t im e e m p lo y m en t------

T em p o ra ry pm pl ov m pn t

168

20

161

18

$1,396,356 

67,769 

10,279

4,375 

10,227 

74,859

5,771

189

20

180

20

$1,6 95,317

80,683

6,000

5,700

11,500

92,569

2,231

189

20

184

20

$1,7 38,3 17

80,683

6,000

5,700 

11,5 00 

95,8 00

E m plo yer’s contr ib uti ons:

IT pu lth bpnpfi ts

R pfi rp m pnt. fu n d

E m pl oy ee s’ co m pe ns aT o ta l_______ _____ - 188 179 1,56 9,63 6 

18,364

209 200 1,89 4,00 0 209 204 1,9 38,00 0

T o ta l ap pro p ri ati o n 

n r Pst.iTTifltft 1,588,000 1,894,000 1,9 38, 000

Pay increase, Public Law 88-^26

The tota l cost of the pay increase provided by Public Law 88-42(5 is $111,000. This estimate includes $10G,400 to cover increases in compensation and $4,(500 for 

personnel benefits.

Sum mary fo r cost of pay increase, fiscal year 1965

Increase in direc t pay and other related costs : Direct pay : Public Law 88-426, title IV-----------------------------------$106, 400 Related costs : Public Law 88-426, title IV------------------------------ 4, GOO

Net absorption (29 perce nt) ------------------------------------------------- 1 32, 000

Additional required, fiscal yea r 1965--------------------------------------- 79, 000

1

 F o r fi sca l y e a r 1 9 6 5 i t w a s p o s sib le to a b s o rb $ 3 2 ,0 0 0 s in c e th e e m p lo y e e s o f th e c le r k ’s off ic e w e re n o t p a id fro m th is a p p r o p r ia tio n u n til A u g . 31, 1 9 64. T h e r e f o r e , th i s s u m o f $ 3 2 ,0 0 0 w il l be re q u ir e d fo r fi sca l y e a r 1 9 66. T h i s a m o u n t in c lu d e s $ 2 9 ,7 0 0 f o r c o m p e n s a ­ tio n a n d $ 2 ,3 0 0 f o r r e l a te d b e n e fi ts — a g e n c y c o n tr ib u tio n s to th e c iv il s e rv ic e r e t ir e m e n t 

a n d lif e in s u r a n c e f u n d s .

Provision for with in-grade salary advancements

The sum of $14,231 is requ ired to gra nt regular within-grade salary increases which will become due in 1966. The estimate includes $13,300 to cover increases in compensation and $931 for related benefits—agency contributions to the civil 

service retirem ent and life insurance funds.

Less payment due the employees’ compensation fund in fiscal year 1965

No payment is due the employees’ compensation fund in fiscal year 1966, there ­

for the sum of $2,231 required for fiscal year 1965 is deducted.

Air. Rooney. Air. Justice Clark, do you wish to add to the statement 

of Air. Justice Black?

Justice Clark. 1 believe not. I am happy to lie here again.

Air. Rooney. I am sure you are very happy over your son taking the 

place you once held ?

Justice Clark. I am most proud, very proud of him, sir.

Air. Rooney. lie is a very capable gentleman.

Justice Clark. I have been coming here for the Court, I guess, about 

10 years ?
8

Mr. Rooney. You used to come here as Assistant Attorney General, the position your son now holds.

Justice Clark. That is right.

Mr. Rooney. And as Attorney General.

Justice Clark. Yes, and I am happy to be here again.

Justice Black. I believe Justice Roberts and I used to come here. How many years ago, I do not care to mention. Justice Burton was with me a longtime, too.

Justice Clark. Mr. Howe has been here a long time, too. Mr. Rooney. We started together.

Justice Clark. We could not run our budget business without him. 

IN CR EA SE S RE QU ES TE D

Mr. Rooney. As shown at page 2 with regard to “Salaries, Supreme Court,’’ the request is in the amount of $1,938,000 which would be an increase of $44,000 over the adjusted appropriation for the current year.

Page 4 of the justifications sets forth the amounts of increases which total $44,000.

How much of the within-grade salary advancements are you going to absorb ?

Mr. Davis. There is no absorption provided here.

Mr. Rooney. At page 7 of these justifications, we note that there is an increase of four in the average number employed. Why is this? Justice Clark. It seems to be the same, is it not, between 1965 and 1966?

Mr. Rooney. Yes.

Mr. Davis. There is no increase in the number of positions. Justic e Clark. 189.

Mr. Rooney. Why is there an increase ?

Justice Clark. The average number actually employed in 1965 was 180, so I suppose that is just an estimate, is it not, John? Mr. Davis. No; there are the same number of positions, as you say, 189, due to the fact there were vacancies that were not filled. There were only 180, actually employed in 1965. We just estimated. It is only a guess.

Mr. Rooney. It could just as well had been 203 ?

Mr. Davis. No ; we could not go that high.

Justice Clark. It could not be more than 189; that is the maximum number you authorized. We cannot fill positions sometimes, Mr. Chairman. For example, police officer positions, we seldom if ever can carry a full complement. I think there are 33 positions there and we cannot fill all of them liecause we cannot recruit the men. We estimate those positions by past experience and that is how we arrive at the figure 184.

Mr. Rooney. Are there any questions on what has been covered up to now, gentlemen?
9

P rinting and Binding Supreme Court Reports

Program and financing

[In thousa nds of dollars]

Program by activities:

10 Printing and binding Supre me C ourt reports (obligations) 

(object class 24.0)___________________ _____ _____

Financing:

25 Unobligated balance lapsing_______ ____________ ____

40 New obligational authority (appropria tion)....................

Relation of obligations to expenditures:

71 Tota l obligations (affecting expenditures)______ _______

72 Obligated balance, s tart of year................... ........................

74 Obligated balance, end of year_________ _________ ___

77 Adjustme nts in expired a ccou nts.______________ ___

iM) Expenditures..................................................................

1964

actual

1965

estim ate

1966

estimate

135

3

138 138

138 138 138

135

55

-7 5

- 6

138

75

-7 0

138

70

-7 0

110 143 138

Mr. Rooney. We now turn to the item entitled “P rinting and Binding Supreme Court Reports” which is in the same amount as in the 

current fiscal year, and the year previous to this.

We shall insert at this point in the record pages 10 through 12 of 

the justifications.

(The pages follow':)

Statem ent relating appropriatio n estimate to current apv rop riation

Prin ting and binding Supreme Court reports:

1965 appropriation in annual a ct ........................ --------------------- ---------------------- ---------- $138,000

Base for 1966________________________ _________ _________________ _____________ 138,000

Net difference, 1966 over 1965:

Requirements

Difference 

increase (+ ) 

or decrease (—)

1965

appropriated

1966

estimate

Printing and binding: Supreme Court rep orts____ $138,000 $138,000

Total es timate for 1966___ _____ _______________________________________ ____138, OOfl

Statement showing analysis by object

Object

1965

estim ate

1966

estim ate

Increase (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

24 Prin ting and reprod uction $138,000 $138,000

Tota l . . . . ................ 138,000 138,000

JUST IFICATION

La ng ua ge ch an ge s

Non e.

Detailed ju st ific ation

An appro pri at io n of $138,000 is re qu es te d fo r pri nti ng Su pr em e Cou rt re port s 

in fiscal y ear 100(5. T hi s am ou nt is th e sa m e as t h e es tim at e fo r fiscal y ear 1905. 

This work is re quir ed by st atu te an d is pe rf orm ed l>y th e G ov er nm en t P ri n ti n g
10

Office a t ra te s fixed by th a t agency. The a ctu al ob lig atio ns f or 1962 an d 1963 an d 

th e e st im at ed o bl ig atio ns fo r 1964 a re as fo ll ow s:

1962 1963 1964

Fo r s lip opinion s______________ ________________ _______ $63,538 

38,783

$63,020 

68,842

$66,623 

68,677 Fo r p relim inary pr in ts and bo un d volum es _______________

T ota l_______________________________________ ______ 102,321 131,862 135,300

The co st of pri nti ng an d bind in g Su pr em e C ou rt re port s de pe nd s up on th e 

vo lume of m ate ri al to be pri nte d an d bo un d an d th e ra te s be ing ch ar ge d by th e 

Gov ernm en t P ri n ti n g Office a t th e tim e th e wor k is don e. It is es tim at ed th a t 

th e pri nti ng of slip op inions fo r th e fiscal yea r 1966 will co st $69,000. The re ­

m ai nd er o f $69,000 w ill be used to p ri n t pre lim in ar y p art s an d th e bo un d vo lum es 

of th e U.S. re por ts .

Mr. Rooney. W ha t are the present estimates of obligation in the 

cu rre nt fiscal ye ar?

Mrs. Z ucconi. Th roug h December, $33,667.

Miscellaneous E xpenses

Object classification

[In t ho us an ds of dollars]

1964 actu al 1965

estim ate

1966

estim ate

21.0 Tr av el and tr an sp or tatio n of pe rsons___ 3 3

22.0 Tr an sp or tatio n of th ing s __ 1 2 2

23.0 Ren t, comm unications, an d ut ili tie s__________________ 22 22 22 24.0 Pr in tin g an d reprod uc tio n________ _________________ 14 31 31 25. 1 Othe r s ervices ________ 4 14 14 26.0 Supplies a nd m ate ria ls_______________________ ____ 28 24 24 31.0 E qui pm en t........ .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 16 24 24

99.0 Tot al ob ligations_____________ ___________________ 85 120 120

Program, and financing

[I n t housa nds of d ol la rs ]

1964 actu al 1965

estim ate

1966

est im ate

Program by activities :

10 Miscellaneous expenses, Su prem e Cou rt (obligati on s)........

Fin anc ing:

40 • New oblig ational au th ority (app ro pr iatio n) ___________

Re lation of obligations to expen diture s:

71 To ta l o bligations (affecting ex pe nd itu res)______________

72 Obligate d balanc e, st ar t of y ear __________________

74 Obligate d balanc e, en d of y ea r______ ______ ___________

90 Ex pe nd itu res_______________ ____

85 120 120

85 120 120

85

22

-3 0

120

30

-3 0

120

30

-3 0

77 120 120

Mr. Rooney. If there are no questions, gentlem en, we shall now 

proceed to the item entitled “Miscellaneous expe nses” at pag e 341 

of the com mittee p rint .

Th is reques t is in the amo unt $120,000, the same as in the cu rre nt 

fiscal year.

Are there an y questions?
Automobile for th e Ch ie f J ust ice

Object classification

[I n tho usands of dolla rs]

1964

ac tual

1965

estim ate

1966

estim ate

11.1 Perso nnel co mpe ns ation: Pe rm an en t position s-------------

21.0 Tr av el a nd tr an sp or ta tion of perso ns--------------------------

26.0 Supplies a nd m aterials____________________ ____ --

5

1

1

6

1

1

6

1

1

99 0 Tot al o blig ations _________________________ ____ 7 8 8

Pers onnel summary

1964

ac tual

1965

estim ate

1966

es tim ate

Tot al nu m be r of per m an en t p osition s_______________ ______ 1 1 1

Avera ge nu m be r of all emp loy ees__________________________ 1 1 1

Program and financing

[In tho us an ds of dollars]

Program by a ctivities :

10 Au tom obile for th e Chief Justice (obligations). 

Fin ancin g:

40 New obliga tional au th or ity (appropriat ion ).

Re lation of obligation s t o e xpend itures:

71 Tot al ob liga tion s (affecting ex pe nd itu res)........

72 Obliga ted balance, st ar t of yea r..........................

74 Obligate d balance, en d of ye ar -------------- ------

90 Ex pe nd itu res_________________________

1964

actual

1965

estim ate

1966

es tim ate

7 8 8

7 8 8

7 8 8

1 1

- 1 - 1 -1

7 8 8

If not, we shall proceed to the item on page 343, “Automobile for 

the Chief Justice.” We shall at this point insert in the record pages 28 through 30 

of the justifications.

(The pages follow:)

Statement relating appropriatio n estimate to current appropriation

Au tom obile for th e Chief Jus tic e, Suprem e C ou rt: 1965 app ropriatio n in an nu al a c t.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1965 propose d su pp lem en tal du e to civilian pay increase.........................................................................

Jud icia ry

$8,100 

400

Base for 1966......... ................................................................................................................................ 8.500

Net difference, 1966 over 1965:

Req uiremen ts

Diff erence 

increase ( + ) 

or decrease (—)

1965

ap propr iated

1966

estim ate

Au tom obile for th e Ch ief Justi ce , S uprem e C ou rt---- $8, 500 $8,500

Tot al esti mate forl966. 8,500
Statement showing analysis by object

Object

11 Personnel compensation____________________________

12 Personnel benefits____ ____________________________

21 Travel an d tran sportation of persons__________________

25 Other services____ ________________________________

26 Supplies an d materials___ ______ ______ ____________

To tal ______________________________________

1965 estimate 1966 estim ate

Increase (+) 

or

decrease (—)

$5,771 

477 

1,000 

300 

952

$5,784 

477 

1,000 

300 

939

(+)$13

(-1 13

8,500 8,500

JUSTIFICATION

Language changes

None.

Objectives

To provide for an automobile for the Chief Justice of the United States. 

Detailed justification

This appropriation covers the cost of providing an automobile for the Chief 

Justice of the United States. Services included are the chauffeur’s salary , employer’s contribu tions for life insurance, health benefits, and the retirement fund, 

gasoline a nd oil, re pairs, and rental.

An appropriation of $8,500 is requested for this item for 1006. This amount 

is the same as the estimate for fiscal y ear 1065.

Sum mary fo r cost of pay increase, fiscal year 1965

Increase in direct pay and related costs:

Direct pay. Public U w 88-426, t itle IV______________________________ $375

Related costs, Public Law 88-426, title IV___________________________ 25

Additional required, fiscal yea r 1065________________________________ 400

M. Rooney. The amount requested is $8,500 which is the same 

amount as the adjusted 1965 appropriation.

Are there any questions ?

Books for the Supreme Court

Program and fiinancing

[In thousands of dollars]

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

Program by activities:

10 Purchase of books and periodicals (obligations) (object 

class 31.0)______ ___________ _____ _____ 35 35 38

Financing:

40 New obligational autho rity (appropriation)....... ............. . 35 35 38

Relation of obligations to expenditures:

71 Total obligations (affecting expen ditures)____________ 35

4

- 4

35

4

- 5

38

5

- 5

72 Obligated balance, start of year. _ ___ _________

74 Obligated balance, end of year_____________ _____

Expenditure s................... ................................................ 35 35 38

Mr. R ooney. If not, at page 345 of the committee pr int we find an 

item entitled “Books for the Supreme Court” in the amount $38,000.

In connection therewith, we shall insert pages 31 throu gh 35 of 

the justifications.
13

(The page s fol low :)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

Boo ks for th e Supre m e C o u rt : Ju di ci ar y

1965 a p p ro p ri ati o n in a n n u a l a c t................................................................................................................. $35, 000

Bas e for 1966.................... . ............. .......................................................... - ....................... ........................... 35, 000

N et di fferen ce , 1966 ov er 1965:

R equir em ents

Diff er en ce 

in cr ea se ( + ) 

or d ecre as e (—)

1965

ap pro ­

p ri ate d

1966

es ti m at e

B oo ks for th e S upre m e C o u rt--------------------- ------------ $35,000 $38,000 +$3 ,0 00

T o ta l est im ate for 1966--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38, 000

Statement showing analysis by object

O bj ec t 1965 esti m ate 1966 esti m ate

In cr ea se (+ ) 

or

de cr ea se (—)

31 E q u ip m en t ___________________________________________ $35,0 00 $38,000 (+ )$ 3, 000

Tot al ____________________________________ 35, 000 38,0 00 (+ )3 , 000

Sum mary of increased requirements for 1966

Nature of expense (or savings) : Amount

1. To cover the increase in the cost of contin uations______________ $3, 000

Increase, 1966 over 1965--------------------------------------------------------- 3, 000

JUSTIFICATION

Language changes

None.

Objectives

This appropriation provides for the purchase of books and periodicals for the 

Supreme Court.

Detailed justific ation

An appropriation of .$38,000 is requested for the fiscal year 1966 for books and 

periodicals for the Supreme Court, to be purchased by the Lib rarian of the Supreme Court, under the direction of the Chief Justice.

Our estimates fo r the fiscal year 1966 are a s follows :

Continua tions: Citators, codes, congressional hearin gs, court reports, 

digests, encyclopedias, legal periodicals, looseleaf services, pocket supplements, session laws, statutes, etc____________________________ $31, 500

New books and additional ma terials______________________________ 6, 500

Total estima te__________________ __________________ , _____ 38, 000

The estimate for continuations shows an incre ase of $3,000 over the amount 

requested for th e fiscal year 1965. This is required to cover the increase in cost 

of continuations. The estimate for new books and additional materi als represents the same amount requested for the fiscal year 1965.

> INCREASE REQUESTED

Mr. Rooney. This request is in the amount, as I have said, $38,000, 

an increase of $3,000 over the amount appropriated for books in the 

current fiscal year.
14

The reason for tliis increase is set forth at page 33 of the justifications book and was previously referred to by Mr. Justice Black.

We thank you very, very much, gentlemen.

Justice Black. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Justice Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Justice Black. It is always a pleasure and it is always nice to come 

over.

Mr. Rooney. Thank you very much.

Care of Buildings and Grounds, Supreme Court

Object classification

[In th ous and s of dollars]

1964

actu al

1965 1966

estim ate estimate

11.1 

11.5

Personnel compensation:

Perman ent positions....... . .................. ................ . . ........

Other personnel compensation________ __________

206

48

213

51

216

51

12.0

25.1

26.0

31.0

Total personnel compensation_________________

Personnel b enefits_____ _________________________

Other services:

General annual repairs________________ _________

Annu al pa intin g... --------- --------------------------------

Maintenance, air-conditioning s ystem ____________

Lighting im provements________________________

Elevator im provem ents.______ _________________

Supplies and m ater ia ls... ......................... .......................

Equipment:

Ann ua l.--------------------------------------------------------

Replacement of fire hoses, extinguishers, and nozzles.

254

16

6

3

3

47

12

8

265

18

9

3

2

1

267

18

9

3

2

99.0 Total obligations______________ ______________ 350 305 314

6 6

Personnel summ ary

1964

actual

1965

estimate

1966

estimate

To tal number of permanent positions_______ ____________

Average num ber of all employees_________________ ____ 33

33

33

33

33

33

Program and fiinancing

[In thousa nds of dollars]

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

Program by activities:

10 Structural and mechanical care of Supreme Court Bui lding and Grounds, including supp lying of mechanical

furnishings a nd equipme nt (obligations)_____________

Financing:

25 Unobligated balance lapsing________________________

350

5

305 314

40 New obligational au tho rity (appropriation).....................

Relation of obligations to expenditures:

71 Total obligations (affecting exp enditures)______________

72 Obligated balance, start ol ye a r.. .------------------------------

74 Obligated balance, end of year ___________ _________ _

90 Exp end itures........................................................................

355 305 314

350

56

-8 4

305

84

-1 0

314

10

r " 10

322 379 314

1

 : : ■ ■ .
15

Mr. Rooney. Gentlemen, in connection with the Supreme Court, 

the item we passed over a while ago entitled “Care of the building and 

grounds” will not be justified by the Architect of the Capitol.

I take it, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Henlock, you are acquainted with 

our new members; Mr. Flynt of Georgia and Mr. Joelson of Xew 

Jersey.

The justifications in regard to this begin at page 16 of the justifications book. We shall insert that page, together with pages 16 through 

27, at this point in the record.

(The pages follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

Care of the building and grounds, Supreme Court:

1965 appropriation in annual a ct ................... ..................... .................. .................. ...................

Base for 1966---------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Net difference, 1966 over 1965:

Judiciary

. $304,600 

. 304,600

Requirem ents

Difference, 

increase (+ ) 

or decrease (—)

1965

appropriated

1966

estimate

$304,600 $314,000 +$9,400

Total estimate for 1966----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ 314,000

Statement showing analysis by object

Object

11.1

11.5

12.0

25.1

26.0

31.0

Permanent positions_____________________________

Other personnel compensation_____________________

Personnel benefits:

Pay ment to employees’ life insurance fund ------------

Pay ment to employees’ hea lth benefits fun d----------

Con tributio n to retirem ent fun d------------- -----------

Other services:

General annual repa irs.—.............................- .............

Annu al painting ______________________ - ............

Maintenance, air-conditioning system------ -----------

Snow remo val_______________________________

Lighting improvements_______________________

Supplies a nd materials___________________________

Equ ipment:

Ann ual_____________________________________

Replacement of fire hoses, extinguishers an d nozzles

Total.

1965

estim ate

1966

estim ate

$213,400 $215,700

51,400 51,400

700 700

3,600 3,600

13,800 13,800

9,000 9,000

3,000 3,000

1,800 1,800

150 150

1,000

6,000 6,000

750 750

8,100

304,600 314,000

Increase (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

+$ 2,300

-1,000

+8,100

+9,400

Sum mary of increased requirem ents for 1966

Nature of expense (or savings) :

1. Deduction for a nonrecu rring amount of $1,000 fo r lighting improvements in bookstack area s----------------------------------------------------- —$1, 000

2. Cost of wage rate changes authorized by Public Law 763, 83d Cong.,

under “Permanen t positions” allo tme nt------------------------------------ +2 , 300

3. Replacement of tire hoses, extinguishers and nozzles, under “Equipment” allo tment___________________________________________ +8-100

Net increase, 1966 over 1965----------------------------------------------- +9 , 400

46 -8 16— 65------ 2
16

JUSTIFICATION Objec tiv es

Thi s ap pro pri at io n, fo r ex pe nditure by th e A rc hi te ct of th e Cap ito l, is to 

pr ov id e fo r th e str u c tu ra l an d m ec ha nica l care of th e V.S. Su pr em e Cou rt 

bu ild in g an d gr ou nd s, includ ing m ai nte nan ce an d op er at io n of mec ha nica l 

eq uipm en t. The A rc hi te ct pe rf or m s hi s duties und er au th o ri ty of th e ac t of 

May 7,15)34 (48 S ta t. 668 ).

The m ec ha nica l eq uipm en t in cl ud es su ch ite ms as th e air-co nd iti on in g, re ­

fr ig era ti on, an d ven tila ting sy stem s w ith more th an 1,000 pie ces of equip m ent: 

el ec tric al tr ansf orm er sta ti o n s: 300 plum bing fixt ur es an d re la te d p ip in g ; 8 

el ev ato rs a nd 5 d um bw ai te rs ; e le ct ric fixt ur es an d wiri ng .

A fo rc e of 33 em ploy ees is re qui re d fo r th e fiscal yea r 15)66 to co ve r 3 sh if ts 

dai ly an d is m ad e up of 1 su pe rv isin g en gin ee r; 1 fo re man , 3 mec ha nics, 5 

att en d an ts a nd 4 ass is ta n t att en d an ts in th e he at in g, ve nt ilat in g, ai r-co nd iti on in g, 

an d re fr ig er at io n d ep art m en t; 1 el ec tric ia n fo re m an an d 3 ele ctr ic ia n s: 1 stea mfitte r-pl um be r fo re m an , 1 st ea m fi tter an d 1 st eam fi tt er -p lu m ber ; 1 el ev ato r mech an ic fo re m an an d 1 m ec hanic ; 1 m ar ble m aso n : 1 wo od wo rk finish er an d 

p ain te r; 1 oi le r an d g re ase r; 1 la bore r- gar den er fo re m an an d 2 gr ou nd s m ai nte ­

na nc e m en ; 1 su bst at io n h e lp e r; 1 st or ek ee per an d 2 ge ne ra l la bo re rs.

Detailed , ju st ific at io ns

Th e follo wing ta ble is a co mpa riso n of th e co st of fu ll-tim e em ploy men t an d 

oth er s ubje ct s of ex pe nd itur es fo r th e fis cal yea rs 15)64, 15)65, an d 196 6; also of 

sa vi ng s re al ized in 15)64;
A ctu al, 1964 E stim ate , 1965 E sti m ate , 1966 E m p lo y ­ m ent,

S ep te m ber

1964 P osi ­

tions

M an -

yea rs

C os t Pos ition s M an - ye ar s C os t P osi ­ tion s M an - ye ars C ost

P er so nnel c om pen sa tion: F u ll -t im e e m p lo y m e n t......... .......................................................................................... O th n r n f PYTi4»n<1itnrp 33 33 $253.883 95,759 5,258 33 33 $264,800 39,8 00 33 33 $267,100 46,9 00 33 S av in gs____________ _______ . . . _______ _____________ ________ ___________

ncHmfitfl nr Q rtTimnriatin n 354,900 304,600 314,000
18

Personnel compensation (increased from $264,800 to $267,100)_______$267,100

This allotment provides for 33 positions—the same number as 

allowed for 1965—2 of which are compensated under the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, and 31 on a prevailing wage rate basis 

under the provisions of Public Law 73, 83d Cong. For 1966. an increase of $2,300 is requested to meet the cost of wage rate changes 

authorized by Public Law 763.

Paymen t to employees’ life insurance fund (no change)____________ 700

This item is the same as allowed for 1965 and is requested to 

cover the cost of Government insuranc e contributions required by 

Public Law 590, 83d Cong., ‘‘Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act of 1954.”

Payment to employees’ he alth benefits fund (no change)____________ 3, 600

This item is the same as allowed for 1965 and is requested to 

cover the cost of Government contribution to the employees’ health 

benefits fund requ ired by Public Law 86-382, 86th Cong., approved 

Sept. 28,1959.

Contribution to retirem ent fund (no change)--------------------------------- 13,800

This item is the same as allowed for 1965 and is requested to 

cover the cost of Government contribution to retirem ent fund required by Public Law 854, 84th Cong., “Title IV, Civil Service Retiremen t Act Amendments of 1956.”

General annual repairs (no cha nge )------------------------------------------- 9,000

This is the same as allowed f or 1965 and provides for the regular 

ann ual rep air and structur al upkeep of the building and its mechanical equipment, such as repairs to elevators, roof, carpentry, 

electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating and stea m equipment, 

kitch en and other miscellaneous equipment, and general structur al 

repairs and improvements. It also provides minor repairs on the 

grounds, such as rep airs to fountains, drains, catch basins, lawn 

sprinkler systems, and paving.

Annual painting (no change) ___________________________________ 3,000

This is the same as allowed for 1965 and provides for necessary 

painting throughout the building.

Maintenance, air-conditioning system ------------------------------------------- $1, 800

For 1965, $1,800 was allowed and the same amount is requested 

for 1966 for the ann ual routine care and main tenance of the airconditioning and refrigeration systems. The breakdown of the 

ann ual recu rrin g amount follows :

Air-conditioning estim ate:

Mainte nan ce:

Air filters___________________________________ $500

Oil and grease________________________________ 100

Cleaning equipment-------------------------------------------- 10O

Pa int_________________________________________ 100

Refrig era nts __________________________________ 100

Contingency for special rep airs_________________ 300

Miscellaneous_________________________________ 160

Re pa irs :

Refrig eration________________________________ 300

Automatic controls_____________________________ 100

Miscellaneous_________________________________ 100

Total, ann ual recurring item s_______________ 1, 800

Snow removal (no change)____________________________________ 150

This is the same as allowed for 1965 and provides for snow 

removal from w alks and approaches.

Supplies and materials (no cha nge )_____________________________ 6,000

This is the same as allowed for 1965. The item provides supplies and materi als for the str uctur al and mechanical care of the 

building : heating, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, hard ware, and 

other general miscellaneous supplies. It also provides supplies 

and materials for the care of the grou nd s; pla nt material, seed, 

soil, sod, sprays, fertilizers, and other miscellaneous supplies.
19

Annual equiment (no cha nge)------------------------------------------------------

This is the same as allowed for 1963 and provides tools, mowers, 

brushes, miscellaneous equipment, and rep airs to same.

Replace ment of fire hoses, extin guishers, and nozzles—nonrecurring 

items______________________________________________________________________________

Fo r 1966, $8,100 is requested for the replacement of exis ting firehoses, obsolete type fire extinguish ers, and solid stream type 

nozzles. The Supreme Cou rt Bu ildi ng is presently equipped with firehoses 

located at strate gic points for emergency use in the event of fire. 

These exis ting hoses are now 30 years old, havi ng been installed 

when the build ing was orig inally completed and occupied and 

are single jacket , unlined linen hoses which have become deteriorated for furt her dependable service. When water flows through 

this type of hose, leakage occurs througho ut the ful l length until 

the fab ric becomes thoroug hly saturated, which may result in 

undue water damage. After use, the hose must be completely dried 

prior to being reracked and loses some flexibil ity in the drying out 

process. In the event the hose is reracked while it still contains 

a degree of moisture, it is subject to damage from mildew. Under 

the amount requested for 1966, it is proposed to purchas e 5,300 

linear feet of single jacket , latex-lined synthetic fiber hose, with 

fitting s, at 90 cents per linea l foot, in replacement of the old hose. 

This modern-type hose is resis tant to mildew, acids, and abrasion 

and suffers no loss of flex ibili ty when dried after use. In the event 

some water is inadverten tly lef t in the hose, sulf uric acid will not 

form as is the case with the ex istin g hose. There are also located in appropriate places through out the 

buildi ng 75 soda acid fire exting uisher s which have been in service 

for many years and in the interes t of safety and efficiency should 

now be replaced with dry chemical-ty pe extin guishers. The use of 

dry chemical exting uishers is recommended for the follow ing 

reaso ns: (1) Dry chemical extin guishers require no maintenance, 

except for the periodic checking of pressure gages, whereas the old 

type extinguish er must be recharged every 12 mo nth reslu lting in 

a recurri ng annual service charge plus the cost of recharge materia ls and parts replacemen t: (2) dry chemical exting uishers 

wil l not damage mat erial on which they are used, whereas the 

exis ting exting uishers will damage hooks, records, and other materi als upon which they are used : (3) dry chemical extingu ishers 

may he used on electrica l fires, whereas soda acid exting uisher s 

may not be used on this type of fire withou t exposing the user to 

the dangers of electrical shock. This is especi ally important where 

in an emergency an inexperienced user, not fam ilia r with the 

hazar ds involved and under the stress of the situation, does not 

stop to read warn ing labels. The cost of replacing the existing 

75 ext inguis hers is $30 per unit. It is furt her proposed to purchase 50 fog nozzles at $22 each in 

replacement of exis ting stra ight stream nozzles. Fog nozzles are 

considered more effective, especi ally for the type of relatively 

short-range stream tha t would he needed within the buildin g, 

than the solid stream nozzle. Since the fog nozzles do not concentra te the pressure in a small area, they are more destructive 

than the solid stream nozzle. Fog nozzles, will extin guish a 

fire in a shorter period of time, require a much smalle r volume of 

water, and will provide a greater degree of protection to the

750

8.100

firefighter.

Breakdown of e stima te: 5.300 linear feet of fire hose a t 90 cents per linear foo t----- $4. 750 75 dry chemical fire extinguish ers at $30 each ---------------- 2. 250 50 fo g nozzles a t $22 each-------------------------------------------- 1,100

To tal ________________________________________________________ 8.100

The to tal, therefore, requested fo r the c are of the Supreme Court Bu ild ­ ing and grounds, for the fiscal year 1966. under the Archite ct of the 

Cap itol, amounts to___________________________________________________________ 314, 000
20

IN CR EA SE S RE QU ESTE D

Mr. Rooney. Th e requ est is in the amount of $314,000, which would 

be an increase of $9,400 over the ap prop ria tio n for the current fiscal 

yea r.

Pa ge 18 con tain s a list of the requ ested increases and also shows a 

decrease in the amount of $1,000 as a result of a no nrecurrin g item.

W ha t about this, Mr. S tew art ?

Mr. Stewart. Th ere a re o nly two in creases requested for 19(50. One 

is an increase of $2,300 f or wage board rat e changes effected December 

6, 1904, under the ma ndato ry pro visions of Pu blic Law 703, 83d Con ­

gress. The gross ann ual cost of these rate changes is $7,000. Of 

this amoun t $4,700 is bein g absorbed th ro ug h savings —reducin g the 

amount of the increase to $2,300.

The oth er no nrecurrin g item of increase is $8,100 for the replacement of e xis ting fire hoses, obso lete-typ e fire exting uisher s, and solid - 

stream -type nozzles. App ropriatio ns totalin g $41,(500 were pro vided 

fo r ma kin g sim ila r replace ments in the Ca pitol, Sen ate, and House 

Office Bu ilding s, and the Library of Congress Bu ild ing s in the fiscal 

year 19(55, u pon reco mmendation of our safe ty enginee r. The amoun t 

requ ested fo r the Supre me Co urt Bu ild ing will comp lete the replacement prog ram in th at building.

The existing hoses in t he Supr eme Court Bu ild ing are now 30 years 

old. ha vin g been installed when the bu ild ing was erected. They are 

single-jac ket, unlined linen hoses which hav e become deter ior ate d for 

fu rthe r dep end able service. Und er the fund s requ ested for 196(5, it is 

proposed to purch ase 5,300 lineal feet of sing le jacket , late x-line d synthetic fibre hose with fittings, in replacement of the old hose. Th is 

mod ern hose is r esi sta nt to mildew, acids, and abrasion and suffers no 

loss of flexibility when dried af te r use, in contr ast to the old hose.

Un de r the fund s fo r 1966, it is also p rop osed to replace 75 soda acid 

fire e xtinguis hers with dry chem ical extinguish ers , which will require 

no m ain ten anc e excep t fo r perio dic ch ecking of p ressure gages, whereas the old typ e ext ing uishers have to be rec harge d every 12 months. 

The dry chemical extinguish ers also will not dam age ma terial on which 

they are used and can also be used in e xtingu ish ing electri cal fires w ith ­

out exp osing the user to the dangers of elec trical shock.

Un de r t he f un ds fo r 1966, it is fu rther p roposed to purchase 50 fog 

nozzles in repl acement of existing stra ig ht stream nozzles, which can 

be used w ith be tte r con trol a nd will extinguish a fire in a sh orter pe riod 

of time t han the s trai gh t stream nozzles.

Th at completes my statem ent.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Stew art , I hav e heard it said th at this Supreme 

Court Building , which w as erected befo re you and I ha d an ything to do 

with it, cost fa r more on a square-footage basis t ha n the new Ra yburn 

House Office B uil din g. Do you k now wh eth er or n ot th at is so ?

Mr. Stewart. Th at is tru e by com parison of the va lue of the do lla r 

at the pre sen t time and the v alu e of the do lla r du rin g the depression 

yea rs when th is b uildi ng was co mp let ed; yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. W ha t w ould be the difference ?

Mr. Stewart. Th e difference in cost, pro jected on a square-foot 

basis, would be nearly 2% tim es as much, I will be gla d to insert a 

comp ara tive tab le a t this point.
21

(The table follows:)

Rayburn Building

Cost as constructed 1957-64:

Construction costs, plus architectu ral and engineering fees, inspection, 

and adm inistration—a total of $86,400,000 (excluding land ($2,500,-

000) and furnishings ($3,500,000)) (in millio ns)----------------------$80.4

Cubic foot cost______________________________________________ 2. 27

Square foot cost_____________________________________________ 33. 85

Estimated cost if constructed in 1064 :

Construction costs, etc. (in millions) _______________________ 86. 8

Cubic foot cost__________________________________________ 2. 46

Square foot cost_________________________________________ 36. 56

Supreme Court

Cost as constructed 1031-35:

Construction costs, plus architectural and engineering fees, inspection.

and adm inistratio n (excluding land and furnishings) (in millions)_ $0.3

Cubic foot cost____________ __________________________________ 1.17

Square foot cost______________________________________________ 23. 80

Estima ted cost if constructed 1057-64 (same period as Rayburn Building) :

Construction costs, etc. (in millions)____________________________ 33.2

Estimated cubic foot cost_____________________________________ 4. 15

Estimated square foot cost____________________________________ 84. 40

Estimated cost if con structed in 1064 :

Construction costs, etc. (in millions)____________________________ 35.7

Estimated cubic foot cost_____________________________________ 4.15

Estimated square foot cost____________________________________ 90. 04

The tru e comparison derived from these costs is th at the R aybu rn Building is 

costing $2.27 i>er cubic foot as constructed and the Supreme Court would have 

cost $4.15 per cubic foot if constructed during the same period. The square foot 

comparison is $33.85 for the Rayburn Building and $84.40 for the Supreme Court 

Building. Comparisons are given also for both buildings if they had been constru cted in 1064 and are based on Engineering News Record Cost Index.

Mr. Rooney. Are there any questions, gentlemen, with regard to 

the item “Care of the buildings and grounds, Supreme Court” ?

If not, we thank you, Mr. Stewart, and shall now proceed to the 

next item.

CUSTOMS COURT

W IT N ESSE S

HO N. PA U L P. RA O, JU D G E

HO N. SC OV EL R IC H A R D SO N , JU D G E

H O W A RD BASL ER, C LER K

Salaries and E xpenses

Object classification

[In th ou sa nd s of dollars]

1964 actual 1965 estim ate 1966 estim ate

11.1

Pe rso nnel com pensa tion:

Pe rm an en t position s_______________________ ____ 770 975 1,003

11.3 Po sit ions othe r th an pe rm an en t____________________ 11 8 8

To tal person nel c om pe nsation___________ _____ .. 781 983 1 011

12.0 Perso nnel benef its_____2_____________________ 52 61 64

21.0 Tr av el a nd trans po rta tio n of pers ons_________________ 26 25 25

22.0 Tr an sp or tatio n of th in gs. . . . . _____ ______________ 2 5 5

23.0 Ren t, comm unica tio ns, an d util ities_________________ 10 11 11

24. 0 Pr in ting and rep rodu ction. _____ ____ ____________ _ 5 9 9

25.1 Other s er vi ce s.. .. . . __________________ _. 11 13 13

20.0 Supplies an d materials_______________ ____ _________ 6 6 6

31.0 E quip m en t______________ _________ _________ _____ 20 16 15

99.0 Tot al o bligations________ _________________________ 913 1,129 1.159
22

Personnel summary

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

To tal num ber of permanent positions_______ _____ _______ 92 93 96

Full-tim e equivalent of other positions. __________________ 2 1 1

Average num ber of all employees________________________ 89 93 96

Program and financing

[In thou sands of dollars]

Program by activities:

10 Salaries and expenses (obligations)__________________

Financing:

25 Unobligated balance lapsing_______________________

New obligational au tho rity____________ ________

New obligational authority:

40 Appropria tion ___________________________________

44 Proposed supplemental due to civilian pay increases___

Rela tion of obligations to expenditures:

71 Total obligations (affecting ex pend itures)..................... —

72 Obligated balance, start of ye ar________ _________ _

74 Obligated balance, en d of year____ _______________...

90 Expenditure s excluding p ay increase su pplemental__

91 Expenditure s from civilian p ay increase supplemental.

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

913

76

1,129 1,159

989 1,129 1,159

989 1,028

101

1,159

913 1,129 1,159

68 64 68

-6 4 -6 8 -7 0

917 1,031 1,150

94 7

Mr. Rooney. The next item, gentlem en, is fo r the U.S. Customs 

Co urt. Th is appears at pag e 350 of the committee pri nt and beg inning at p age 44 of the jus tifi cat ion s book.

AVe shall at thi s po int insert in the record pages 44 throug h 50 of 

these justificatio ns, which ind icate the requ est is in the am ount $1,- 

159,400, an increase o f $30,400 over the a dju ste d ap prop riation in the 

curre nt fiscal year.

(The p ages follow :)

Statement relating appropr iation estimate to current appropriation

Salaries and expenses, Customs C ourt: Judiciary

1965 appropriation in annual a ct ..................... . ............................ . ..........................................- $1,028,000

1965 proposed supplemental due to pay increases................................................... ................. 101,000

Base for 1966............................................................................... —.......................... -........... — 1,129,000

Net difference, 1966 over 1965:

Requirements Difference, 

increase (+) 

or de1965 crease (—)

adjusted

1966

estim ate

$1,129,000 $1,159,400 +$30,400

Tota l estimate for 1966--------------------------- ---------------------------------- *-------------------- 1,159,400
23

Analysis by object

Object

11 Perso nnel compe nsation___________

12 Perso nnel be ne fit s________________

21 Tr av el a nd tra ns po rtat io n of persons.

22 Tra ns po rta tio n of th in gs ___________

23 Ren t, c om mu nic ations, an d ut ilitie s.

24 Pr in ting a nd rep rodu ction .................

25 Othe r services ___________ ______

26 Sup plies an d m aterials-------- ----------

31 E quip m en t. ............... ... .....................

To ta l ob ligations................................

1965

es tim ate

1966

estim ate

Inc rea se or 

decrease (—)

i $982,700 

i 61,400 

25.300 

5,000 

11.100 

9,000 

12,700 

6,200 

15.600

$1,011,200

63.600

25.300 

5,000

11.100

9.000

12.700

6.200

15.300

$28.500 

2.200

-3 00

1,129,000 1.159.400 30,400

i A djus ted to reflect pro pos ed su pp lem en tal for pa y inc reases ($97,000 for personnel co mp ensat ion an d 

$4,000 for rela ted ben efits).

Sum mary of increased requirements for 1965

Nature of expense (or savings) : Amou nt

1. Deduction for nonrecu rring expenses________________________ —$600

2. Thre e add itional bailiff positions___________________________ 16, 500

3. Provision for within-grade salary advancem ents----------------------14, 500

Net increase, 1966 over 1965---------------------------------------------- 30, 400

JU ST IF IC ATI ON

Language changes

None.

Objectives

The estimate under thi s title is to provide for the sala ries of the judges ami 

supporting personnel of the U.S. Customs Court, and the necessary operating 

expenses of the court, including trav elin g expenses, expressage, communication 

services, printing and binding, supplies, equipm ent including fur niture , new 

books, and regular continuations of reports, encyclopedias, digests, and pocket 

pa rts for various sets and miscellaneous items of expense for the fiscal year 

1966. For data as to the functions of the court, its jurisdictio n and basic 

sta tutory authorities, reference is made to section II of the “Digest of Appropriations, the Jud iciary ,” on file with the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropria tions Commitees of Congress.

Detailed justification

An appropriation of $1,159,400 is requested for fiscal yea r 1966. a net increase of $30,400 over the appropriation for fiscal year 1965 which has l»een 

adjusted to reflect the proposed supplemental for pay costs under the Federal 

Jud icial Sala ry Act of 1964, Public Law 88-426, approved August 14, 1964. 

Deduction for nonrecurring expenses

The appropriation for 1965 included the sum of $600 for the procurement of 

fur nit ure and equipment required incident to the appointment of an additional 

reporter by the court. Inasm uch as the cost is nonrecurring , it has lieen deducted in establish ing the budgetary requ irem ents for 1966.

Three additional bailiff positions

Provision has been made for the employment of three additional bailiffs in 

grade JSP-5 at $5,000 per annum. The amount required for this purpose is as

follow s:

Compensation_________________________________________________ $15, 000

Belated benefits________________________________________________ 1,200

Fu rnitu re (nonrec urr ing )____________________________________ ,— 300

Total___________________________________________________ 16, 500

The Customs Court, under section 873 of title 28. United States Code, “may 

appoint such criers as it may require for said court, which criers shall also
24

pe rf orm th e duties of ba iliffs an d mes se ng er s an d su ch ot her du ties as th e co ur t 

dir ects * * Of cours e, th e au th o ri ty to ap poi nt is su bj ec t to th e av ai la bility 

of fu nd s. Th e bu dg et es tim at e fo r fiscal y ear 1965 includ ed a re ques t fo r fu nd s 

to em ploy th re e addi tional ba iliffs , but th e re qu es t w as de nie d.

The co ur t pr es en tly ha s only th re e ba ili ffs se rv ing nine judg es . Thi s pool a rra ng em en t ha s no t wo rked sa ti sf acto ri ly fo r th e re as on th at fr eq ue ntly judg es 

a re w ith ou t th e se rv ices o f a bailiff. As a co mprom ise b etwee n th e e xis ting si tu ation an d re qu es ting a ba ili ff fo r ea ch ju dg e, th e ju dg es a re as kin g fo r only th re e 

addit io nal ba iliffs . Th e ba iliffs assis t th e de pu ty m ar sh al in th e co ur troo ms in 

m ai nta in in g or de r, ha nd ling an d m ar kin g e xh ib its, etc . Th ey also pe rfor m cl er ica l du ties in th e m ars hal’s office, m ain ta in an d issu e su pp lie s, an d per fo rm me sse ng er service fo r t he ju dg es .

Pro vision fo r ic it Ji in- gra de sa la ry adv an ce m en ts

It is es tim at ed th a t $14,500 will be re qui re d in fiscal yea r 1966 to gra nt em ­

ployee s w ith- gr ad e sa la ry ad va nc em en t’s co rres po nd in g w ith thos e prov ided by 

title VII of th e Clas sif icati on Ac t of 1949, as am en de d. The est im at e includ es 

$13,500 fo r pe rs on ne l co nq iei isa tio n and $1,000 fo r re la te d Gov ernm en t co ntr ib utio ns to th e civil se rv ice re ti re m en t fu nd and fo r gr ou p life in su ra nc e. The est im at e is ne t of antici pat ed sa vi ng s du e to t urn over an d it re pre se nts th e m inim um 

am ou nt t h a t will be req ui re d to m ee t s uc h co sts .

INCREASE REQUESTED

Mr. Rooney. The list of increases is set forth at page 46 of the justifications book and they indicate that three additional postions are requested.

We are pleased to have with us Judge Richardson of the Customs 

Court and Judge Paul P. Rao of that court, together with Mr. Howard 

Easier, the clerk.

Are you going to address yourself to this, Judge Richardson?

Judge Richardson. Yes; I will.

As the chairman has stated, we ask an increase in the budget of $30,- 

400. The principal request that is not due to statutory requirements 

for increases in personnel is for three bailiffs totaling $16,500; $15,000 

for the compensation; $1,200 for related l>enefits; $300 for furniture, 

which would be a nonrecurring item.

J hese are the three same bailiff positions we requested of the committee last year but with the President's economy program we could 

understand that this might not be allowed. We still have the need 

for them.

As I say, we have three bailiffs for nine judges. We have tried to 

work it out on a pool arrangement, which has not been satisfactory 

and, due to the fact that when one judge wants a bailiff, some other 

judge has him, and also the bailiffs help out in the courtrooms to 

maintain order; mark and handle exhibits; go to the library to bring 

books in—when issues come up where the lawyers insist they would 

like to have a pause and examine certain cases—and also to take 

exhibits to the laboratory and places where they have to be refrigerated 

and so on.

So, they are not just messengers for the judges, although they do 

perform those duties also.

Mr. Rooney. They are not going to get the judges theater tickets 

and thingsjike that.

Judge Richardson. No : not for that.

Mr. Rooney. Judge, I should like to present our two new members, 

the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Flynt, and the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Joelson.
25

WORK OF TH E CUSTOMS COURT

I tho ught it wou ld be propitious at this time if you would exp lain 

fo r the benefit of all of us, includ ing the new members, some of the 

work of the Customs Court. We would very much appre cia te it.

Ju dg e R ao. We have some ex hibits here, M r. C hairm an.

Mr. Rooney. Fin e.

Ju dg e Rao. Th is first exh ibit of ma rbl e came fro m Ital y. The 

issue here is w hethe r it is m arble wholly or pa rtly man ufac tured into 

arti cles. It was assessed by the Government as such. Th e rep ort ed 

claim is th at it is a slab of mar ble, polish ed in whole or in pa rt, and not 

over 1 inch thick. Once this case is decided, it will dispose of 4,400 

cases that have been suspended p endin g the decision in this pa rticul ar 

case.

Inv olv ed in duties are $500,000 which the Government will hav e to 

pay back to the im po rte rs in the event the Gov ernment loses the case.

Ex hi bit No. 2 is ch ina war e i mp orted f rom J ap an . Th e Gov ernment 

collector of customs classified these art icles as “vitrifie d tab lew are ,” 

and the im porte rs claim they are china, or porcelain , othe r than tabl eware.

Pe nd ing the dete rm ina tio n of this case, th e final deter mi natio n, the re 

are 2,700 cases and also duties in excess of $500,000 th at will have to be 

returned in the event the Governme nt loses the case.

Mr. Rooney. It does not ind icate on the se wh eth er they were made 

in J a p a n ; does it ?

Ju dg e R ao. Yes, si r; it must be ma rke d at the bottom, usu ally. If 

it is not, the colle ctor of custom s------

Ju dg e R ichardson. Th is h as it on it.

Mr. R ooney. I do not find it on e ith er of these.

Ju dg e Richardson. It is on these two. I t may hav e dropped off, 

Mr. C hairm an.

Ju dg e Rao. They must have the label of the cou ntr y of origin .

Mr. R ooney. Th ere is jus t a pape r label on these.

Ju dg e R ao. Th is is wha't we call earpho nes. They are recessed 

contr ols , modify ing an d distr ibut ing electrical energy. The importers 

claimed they were art icles havin g as an esse ntial featu re an elec trical 

element or device.

Th ere are 1,400 cases pending the determi natio n of th is case and 

about $50,000 in duties to be return ed.

Mr. Rooney. W here is this made—M otorola ?

Mr. Basler. That is the tra ns ist or rad io of whi ch the earphone is 

a pa rt. Once they attach the ear phone to th at tra ns ist or, it becomes 

a ded icated pa rt of the tran sistor ; the ref ore, a pa rt of the rad io ap ­

pa ratus, as the impo rte r ha d claimed, in th at case.

Ju dg e R ao. Mr. Basler, the Con gressm an asked the country of 

ori gin .

Mr. B asler. Th ey came from Ja pa n.

Mr. Smit h. Th e earphones?

Mr. B asler. Th e ea rph one is th e artic le in co ntro vers y.

Ju dg e R ao. I hav e an exhib it th at is v ery, very intere sting, exhib it 

No. 4. Th is case was decided q uite some time ago. Th is is a machine 

th at determ ines the sex of a chick . Th is instrum ent is inserted into 

the rear of a lit tle chick when it is L day old and can reve al wh eth er
26

it is a male or a female. If it is a mal e it is u sually killed. Then it 

does not hav e to be fed for weeks and months and so fo rth and so on. 

That saves the people who raise chic kens a conside rable am ount of 

money.

Mr. R ooney. W here does th at come from ?

Ju dg e R ao. En glan d. They pu t th is po rtion of it up the re ar of 

th e lit tle chick and then the y can look th ro ug h this and it magnifies 

the are a a nd they can tell wh ether it is a female or a male.

Mr. Basler. Th is art icl e is an ag ric ultu ra l implement used in 

po ul try raising an d po ultry raising bei ng a pu rsui t of ag ric ult ure, 

the cou rt held it to be an ag ric ultural imp lem ent.

Ju dg e Rao. Th e Gover nment classified thes e articles as optical in ­

stru me nts. Th e im po rte r claimed th ey were ag ric ultural ins tru me nts .

Th is next exhib it is a very interesti ng one, an elec tric trai n.

Mr. Rooney. W ha t h appen ed to the case w ith r eg ard to the chicken 

inv estiga tor?

Ju dg e Rao. Th e Government decided it was an ag ric ultural in stru ­

men t. The Governm ent lost th at case.

These are no t toys. These are made specially fo r adu lts. I f you 

will notice, howe ver, these electri c trai ns which were exported fro m 

West Germ any w ere classified as toys. Th ere are 2,900 cases involve d 

in this pa rtic ul ar item and if you tak e a look at those, you will see 

the y are all spe cially made. Th ey are not toys at all. They are very 

heav y and solid , and ru n on electri c tracks.

Mr. Rooney. I do no t get the differentiation.

Ju dg e Rao. I f the y are toys, the du ty is about 50 p ercent. I f they 

are wh at the y cla im to be, as electrical item s, acc ord ing to pa ragr ap h 

353, or vario us othe r item s de pending on th e com position of each 

and every one o f these items, then th e du ty would be only 13% p erc ent , 

or the rea bouts.

Mr. Bow. I f the y are no t toys, wha t do they claim the m to be?

Ju dg e R ao. Th ey claim the m to be an electrical item. Ea ch one 

is differen t.

Ju dg e Richardson. They are draw n acc ord ing to scale of a regular tra in , weigh t, and so fo rth , and pro po rtion ed and considered 

elec trical item s mo re in the class of hobby items, like thes e rac ing 

sets the y hav e now with automobiles. That is quite a fad the y are 

now ha vin g as dis tin guish ed fro m toy s fo r children to pla y with.

Mr. Rooney. Lio nel tra in s whi ch we comm only refe r to as toy s 

are all set up as mod els of a rea l trai n, are the y not?

Ju dg e Richardson. Maybe f rom th e stan dp oint of ou tw ard ap pe arance bu t n ot from th e sta nd po int o f d eta il an d construc tion and scale.

Mr. Rooney. I am almost af ra id to ask wha t h appened to this case.

Ju dg e Rao. I t has no t been determ ine d. I t is pe nd ing app eal. 

There are 2,900 cases involved.

Mr. Rooney. W ha t was the decision of the court ?

Ju dg e R ao. Origi nally ?

Mr. Rooney. Yes.

Mr. Basler. Congres sman, the cou rt he ld the y are not toys. The 

court, based it on evidence in the case.

Mr. Rooney. I was afra id of th at .
27

Mr. Basler. They are made according to specification and they are 

used chiefly by hobbyists; that is, adults who belong to this Model 

Railroad Equipment Association.

Mr. Rooney. They are specifically manufactured at the request of 

an adult; is tha t the idea ?

Judge Rao. Tha t is right.

Judg e Richardson. The idea is that a person of 14 years and under 

could not use it with the same degree he could an ordinary toy; he 

would not understand it. It is complicated and then there is the cost 

of repair and so forth which are different.

Judge Rao. The court came to the conclusion th at the claim of the 

importer tha t the chief use is by hobbyists who are adults had been 

sustained. The appellate court has affirmed this decision of the 

Customs Court.

As you know, there is no res judicata in our court and council may 

try an issue once, twice, three times, or five times until every possible 

question has been litigated. Tha t is why there are 2,900 cases that 

have been suspended pending the final determination. These particu ­

lar items were manufactured according to scale and the train s run at 

scale speed, 60 feet a minute, being the maximum speed to simulate a 

modern railroad.

Afte r hearing all of the testimony, the court, held that boys or children would not be using them as toys at all.

Mr. Rooney. How many cases did you say ?

Judge Rao. 2,900 cases suspended involving about $75,000.

Mr. Flynt. Did you say that the various parts were listed as electrical items?

Judge Rao. Some were.

Mr. F lynt. Would they be listed as electrical items even though no 

electrical power was applied to them ?

Judge Rao. It depends on the testimony-----

Mr. Flynt. If the locomotive portion of it were designated as an 

electrical item, I might understand it, but I do not see how a car with 

no electrical power applied to it could be so designated.

Judg e Richardson. There would have to be a motor connected that 

would put the whole chain of trains into motion.

Judge Rao. Th at is correct, except tha t it could be a car which 

would be part of an electrical unit and therefore a part of something 

equivalent to it. The duty would apply to tha t part and in the same 

manner.

Mr. Basler. As you explained, Congressman, the locomotive is the 

electrical article, the track and the trams, are manufactures of metal, 

not specifically provided for. If I may say, there are two separate 

classifications for this particular set shown here. This set is merely a 

segment of a modem railroad layout used by adults. In other words, 

these men are hobbyists whose common interest is modem, model 

railroad equipment. They go in for all of these wide layouts. The 

imported merchandise in its entirety consists of switches, tunnels, 

powerpacks for the electrical energy, tha t is applied, and all different 

sorts of trains, and cars, and numerous pieces of track. So, when it 

came to the decision, they had to break down these various parts and 

apply the proper tariff provision.
28

In othe r words, as you pointed out, the tr acks and tra in s are m anufactures o f metal and the locomtives are electrica l article s, the powerpac k, the item fo r mo dif yin g ene rgy or rectify ing ene rgy and so on, 

but. the en tir ety was held not to be toys, as classified, based on the 

chief use of them by hob byists, and not by ch ildr en.

Mr. Sm it h. In o the r words, we m ake children pay more tar iff t han 

ad ult s?

Mr. R ooney. T hat is the la w, is it no t ?

Mr. B asler. Yes, sir.

Mr. J oelson. Mr. Ch air ma n?

Air. R ooney. Yes.

.JURISDICTION OF CUSTOMS COURT

Mr. J oelson. You men tion ed a deter mination by a court below. 

Wh ich court w ere you re fe rrin g to ?

Ju dg e Rao. On these pa rtic ul ar cases now in the Co urt of C ustom s 

and P aten t A ppeal s here in Washin gto n.

Mr. J oelson. You don’t he ar appeals, do you ?

Ju dg e Richardson. Our cou rt is the court of origin al jur isd iction .

Mr. J oelson. Yo ur cou rt?

Ju dg e Richardson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. We will have the Co urt of Customs and Pa te nt A ppeals he re on We dnesday.

Mr. J oelson. Th an k you.

Ju dg e Rao. On this pa rtic ul ar item of beaded bags, M r. Ch airma n, 

the articles were assessed by the collector of customs as articles orna ­

mented in pa rt of fringe. You can see the differen t item s on acco unt 

of the different duty. Th e im po rte r tries to get it in un de r the m inimum du ty an d the Government, of course, classifies it a t what it conside rs the prop er provision. Us ua lly it only comes to a hea d or at 

issue when there is a difference betw een the classification of the G overnment and what the im po rte r clai ms it to be. The im po rte r here 

claims these are articles and fa brics wholly or in chief valu e of spa ngles 

or be ads, bu t not orn am ent ed with beads. I t is a v ery fine dis tinction 

actually, but fo r those who are specialists in the custom s law , they can 

see it very re adi ly.

Th is pa rticul ar item has over $500,000 involved and the issue here is 

wh eth er these are woven fab ric s w holly of wool o r w hethe r o r not the y 

are ornamented fab rics , orname nte d w ith mo tifs not spe cially p rovided 

for, of wool by weight.

As I said , there is over $500,000 involve d and the cases will come 

in un de r here. It is almost impossib le to determ ine at th e present 

tim e because they have no t been liquid ate d. They are pending decisions.

Th is item is m anufactur ed in Ita ly .

Mr. Basler. The issue in th at case, if I may say so, refers to th at 

piece of m ate ria l on the side. Tha t is a piece of bra id. Th e im po rte r 

is cla iming th at, by th at piece of b raid alo ng the edge, it is an orna ­

mented fab ric , and an orn am ented fabric wou ld pay less du ty than 

the or dina ry woven ma ter ial . Tha t is the whole issue in this case. 

Th e collector classified it as being n ot orn amented and claiming t ha t 

the wool fabr ic as it is sold in the tra de, the width of it, does not in-
29

elude the selvedge. The piece of braid is on both selvedges, both 

edges, and they claim, therefore, in the trade and in the commerce 

that this piece of braid would not ornament the fabric. In other 

words, behind it all, if I may say so, Congressman, is the thought that 

the importer puts this piece of braid on solely to get the lower rate of 

duty.

We understood from the attorney for plaintiff when he made a statement at the pretrial, he stated that the importer is withholding actual 

importations of all of this material until the court finds out or decides 

wheher or not this is ornamented.

If the court holds in favor of the collector's classification, the material will be returned to Italy. They cannot afford to import it because 

the spread is so high for the woven fabric.

Mr. Rooney. What is the difference ?

Mr. Basler. The woven fabric without the ornamentation carries 

a compound rate, a specific rate, of 37.5 cents per pound and an ad 

valorem rate of 60 percent. The claim, as an ornamented fabric would 

only have an ad valorem rate of 42.5 percent. That is a very wide 

spread. There is close to $1 million involved in the deciding of that 

issue.

Mr. Rooney. Has the court decided this one ?

Mr. Basler. Not yet, Congressman. It has been submitted. Briefs 

have been filed and it is before the first division for decision at this 

time.

Judge Richardson. They have not brought it in. This is a test.

Mr. B asler. I think the merchandise is being held up in the foreign 

zone in Staten Island.

ORGANIZATION OF COURT

Mr. Rooney. When you say ‘‘first division” explain to the committee 

what you mean.

Mr. Basler. The court is divided into three divisions and nine 

judges in three divisions. There are the first, second, and third 

divisions.

The divisions sit as a division in New York in classification cases.

On the first division, J udge Oliver is presiding and we have Judge 

Wilson and Judge Nichols, the newly appointed judge.

In the second division, Judge Rao is the presiding judge.

Judg e Rao. No ; Judge Lawrence.

Mr. Basler. I beg your pardon. Judge Lawrence.

Then we have Judge Rao and Judge Ford.

In the third division we have only two, Ju dge Donlon and Judge 

Richardson.

In the third division there is a vacancy on the court.

The first division sits the first week, the second division sits the 

second week, and the third division sits the thir d week of each month.

In reappraisement cases, each judge sits singly as in the first hearing 

and the lower court, as we call it, in reappraisement.

In our court, a losing party in an appeal for reappraisement may 

appeal to the division of three judges, so that the Customs Court has 

appellate jurisdiction in reappraisement cases.

In those instances, a judge of one division who sits alone in reappraisement will not decide or not sit in the division when it is taken 

on appeal.
30

I th ink that explains it.

Mr. Rooney. In connection wi th reapprais em ent, th at is an instance 

where the j udges trave l ?

Mr. B asler. Not necessarily. The jud ges tr av el at hearings at outports o utside New York. They tra vel singly then and take testimony 

at cases arisi ng at po rts outside New York .

Ju dg e Richardson. W ha t happens, Congres sman, the jud ge on 

cir cuit hears all prote st or classification cases, as well as rea pp raise ­

ment cases. If it is a rea pprai seme nt matter, wh eth er it is his subje ct 

or not, he has to decide it if it is subm itte d un de r him. If it is a socalled classific ation case, such as we have been talking about th is 

morning, the t rans crip t and the b rie fs will go to th e j udge in the division whose sub ject i t is. He w rites the opinion and has to get the concurrence of his colleagues. If not, his may become the dissen ting 

opin ion.

Mr. Rooney. Very well.

Ju dg e R ao. Th is pa rti cu la r case or exhib it is known as a tin and 

the Government assessed these tin s as manufactur es no t specially 

pro vided fo r and the ch ief value of which is tin p late . The im po rte r 

claimed these item s are hou sehold ute nsi ls no t specially pro vid ed for 

and the ch ief value of tin or tin p late not co nta ini ng electrical heati ng 

elements.

Th is is pendin g decision, too. Th e imp ortat ion comes from Holla nd, 

I believe.

Mr. Basler. Yes, Jud ge . Th e issue there is chief use aga in.

Ju dg e Rao. I f you will notice, any o f the big candy stores use these 

boxes fo r candy. We have other exh ibits bu t the Gover nment car 

loaned to us by GS A broke down. We b roug ht down a file cabin et as 

an exhibit in the c ar bu t that is no w in General Services. I wante d to 

show you, Congressman Bow, the kind of filin g cabinets we have of 

wood. Th ey ar e no t locked and are f allin g a pa rt.

Th is was one we had in the lib ra ry and the one we pu t in the car, 

and th en we also ha ve a very in teresti ng case involving millions, kn own 

as the mid bod y section of a ship. Th is is manufactured in En glan d, 

just the m idbody of a s hip, no t tlie bow or the stern , and th en they ta ke 

this midbody and add the stern a nd th e body and the bow to it. They 

can leave that in p ort. They can take an empty m idbody, fas ten i t t ogether , a nd fill it out; they can have a midbody which w ould be twice 

the size, an d they have different d imensions.

Th is case has been trie d an d it involves, as I said , in th is p ar tic ul ar 

case, over $1 m illion.

Con gressm an Rooney, th at su bs tan tia lly is all I b ro ug ht down. We 

have so m any of th em we could no t take u p the tim e of y ou r comm ittee 

with them.

Mr. R ooney. We hav e n ot done this in a few years and i t was of interest to the two new members.

As a m atter of fact , the la st time it was done, it w as done by Ju dg e 

Rao wh en he w as A ssistant Atto rney Gene ral in cha rge of customs.

How lon g ago was that po sition a bolished ?

Ju dg e Rao. Seventeen y ears ago I was As sistan t At torney Gener al.

Ju dg e Richardson. Mr. Ch airm an , we are now passi ng out wo rkload c harts.
31

SALARY COSTS ABSORBED

Mr. Rooney. How much in the way of within-grade salaries advancements are you absorbing in this estimate ?

Judg e Richardson. $10,000.

Mr. Rooney. So your total, with within-grade advancements, would 

be $24,500. Is tha t correct ?

Judge Richardson. You mean with respect to the increases under 

the new act ?

Mr. Rooney. With within-grade salary advancements. You are 

asking for $14,500, is that right?

Judge Richardson. Tha t is right.

Mr. Rooney. How much are you absorbing, if anything?

Judge Richardson. I do not think anything of that. Congressman. 

Mr. Basler?

Mr. Basler. It is estimated $14,500 will be needed for the withingrade salary advancements, and $13,000 of that is for the increased 

compensation. Tha t figure includes the savings t hat are expected on 

the turnover throughout the year and it is estimated there will be a 

6-percent turnover.

Judge Richardson. Some four positions, as I recall.

Mr. Basler. And there will be 50 employees who will receive withingrade increases.

Mr. Rooney. You say on page 50 of the justifications, “The estimate 

is net of the anticipated savings due to turnover.”

Judge Richardson. That is right.

Mr. Rooney. Wha t is the amount of anticipated savings due to 

turnover?

Judge Richardson. It is estimated about 6 percent of tha t figure 

will represent the amount from lapses or turnover.

Mr. Rooney. How do you jibe that with page 352 of the committee 

print which indicates the same total number of permanent positions 

as the average number of all employees ?

Judge Richardson. What page are you reading from, Congressman?

Mr. Rooney. Page 352 of the committee print.

Judge Richardson. We anticipate there will be some resignations 

and vacancies during the year tha t would account for that 6 percent. 

Now, the 96 positions would be if we received the 3 bailiff positions.

Mr. Rooney. Why would that not show at page 352 of the committee print? According to page 352 of the committee pr int, to put it 

another way, you do not expect to have any vacancies in employment 

at any time during the fiscal year.

Judg e Richardson. It would not be for the whole year, Congressman. There would be a turnover during the year. There would be a 

lapse between the time there would be a vacancy and the time the position was filled, but over the year we would expect to have them filled.

Mr. Rooney. That 6 percent of 96 would be 5 positions; would it not ?

Mr. Basler. Yes; five or six positions.

Mr. Rooney. Why do you not show that at page 352 of the committee print?

46-816—65------3
32

WORKLOAD CHART

Anyho w, we sha ll insert at this po int in the record the workl oad ’ 

ch ar t handed me by Ju dg e Ric har dso n, which includes fiscal yea rs 

1960 to 1964, inclusive.

(T he ch art re ferre d to f ollows :)

Workload chart

F is ca l

yea r

•

Cl assif ica tion

cases

rece ived

R ea ppr ai se ­

m en t 

cas es 

re ce iv ed 

(a pp ea ls, 

revi ew s, 

pet itio ns, 

an d rem ands of 

pr ot es ts )

T o ta l, al l 

cas es 

rece iv ed 

in co ur t

Classifi ­

ca tio n

cases

de cide d

R ea ppr ai se ­

m en t 

cases 

de ci de d 

(app ea ls, 

revi ew s, 

pe tition s, 

an d rem ands of 

pr ote st s)

T o ta l, all 

cas es 

dec id ed 

in co urt

Classifi ­

ca tion 

cases 

pen din g 

a t close 

of fis cal 

yea r

R ea ppr ai se ­

m ent 

cas es 

(app ea ls, 

revi ew s, 

pet itio ns, 

an d rem ands of 

pro te sts) 

p endin g 

a t close 

of fisc al 

yea r

T o ta l, al l

cas es 

pen din g 

at clo se 

of fiscal

yea r

I960 ______ 33,39 7 20,031 53,428 50,336 32,499 82,8 35 113,671 76,150 189,821 1961______ 28, 212 26,917 55,129 47,098 12; 973 60,071 94,785 90,094 184,879 1962______ 22,926 18,017 40,943 35; 479 14,085 49,5 64 82,2 32 94,026 176,258 1963______ 22,098 13,789 35,887 17,111 8,582 25,693 87,2 19 99,233 186,452 1964............ 26; 455 2< 987 5i; 442 2 t 784 10,460 38,2 44 85,890 113,760 199,650

Ju dg e Richardson. Ju dg e Rao has show n y ou some of th e exh ibits 

an d the cases in whi ch there were q uite a numb er of cases suspended 

un de r one test case. Th e wor kload ch ar t shows th at we ha d an 

inc rease in cases received last year of 15,555 cases; 4,000 in the classification are a and 11,198 in the rea pprai seme nt area.

Th e total numb er of cases decided was also up fro m 25,693 to 

38,244, or an increase of 12,551 in the numb er of cases disposed of.

We also have an increase in th e numb er of cases pending at the 

end of the year by 13,198. But it wou ld show we did dispose of 

2,367 m ore cases t ha n were received.

EQ UI PM EN T

Mr. R ooney. Do y ou hav e a breakd own of the equ ipm ent item on 

page 45 of the “Ju stific ati on s book,” $15,600 in 1965 and $15,300 fo r 

the com ing year?

Ju dg e Richardson. I can not give them all to you fo r the coming 

year. I can give them to y ou fo r 1964. You mean the details ?

Mr. R ooney. Yes. May I look at t ha t, please?

Ju dg e Richardson. Yes; down at the bottom.

Mr. Rooney. You have quite a few filin g cab ine ts up there.

Ju dg e Richardson. W ha t we have been doing is changin g from 

the system where you put th em in th e old wooden c abinets and p ut ting 

the m in flat ca binets a nd g ettin g rid o f the old cab inets t hat could n ot 

be locked.

Mr. R ooney. H ow ma ny do you have in the 1966 b udget ?

Ju dg e Rao. I believe, 70.

Ju dg e Richardson. We are changin g the whole system over.

Mr. Rooney. You h ad 51 in 1963?
33

Judg e Richardson. That is right. We have completed those in 

the classification group of cases and are now using them on reappraisements.

Mr. Rooney. Are there any questions, gentlemen ?

TltAYE L

Mr. Slack. How much was spent for travel and transp ortation of 

persons in fiscal 1964 ?

Judge Richardson. It ran a little over $25,000.

Mr. Slack. How much to date in 1965, actual expenditures?

J udge Rao. Up to the present time ?

Mr. Slack. Yes.

Judge Rao. We are just making arrangements to go out. Judge 

Wilson, of Utah, is on the west coast. Judge Lawrence is on his way to 

Puerto Rico. Judge Ford is holding court in Texas.

Judg e Richardson. Roughly we have spent about a little over 

$10,000,1 would say.

Judge R ao. I shall be leaving about the middle of February to hold 

court, on the entire east coast, going also in Georgia and Florida.

Mr. Slack. That is all I have.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Bow ?

MARS HA LS

Mr. Bow. Does each court have a marshal ?

Judg e Richardson. You mean for each division ?

Mr. Bow. When you are trying cases is there a marshal in each 

court?

Judge Richardson. Yes.

Mr. Bow. So the bailiffs you are asking for would be assistants to the 

marshals ?

Judg e Richardson. Yes, in part.

Judge Rao. In part. We do not have enough marshals.

Mr. Bow. How many do you have ?

J udge Rao. Three, not including the chief. Then we put the deputy 

clerk as one of our marshals because both the chief deputy clerk and 

the clerk went out. Mr. Basler succeeded the clerk. We took the chief 

deputy marshal and have him acting as deputy clerk.

So the marshals are not for a specific purpose, like in the district 

court. We use them for anything we need to run the court, and when 

we run court outside of New York the marshal in th at particular area 

provides us with a marshal, and sometimes they are so busy that we 

run our court without anyone.

Mr. Bow. Thank you. That is all.

Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Judge Richardson and Judge Rao.

Judge Richardson. Could I make one statement at this time? Because of a statement made, I would like to say of the total number, 

about 160,000 cases are suspended under various test cases.

Judge Rao. We thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of your 

committee.
34

T uesd ay, F eb ru ary 2 ,1 9 6 5 . 

COURT OF CLAIMS 

W IT N E S S E S

HO N. W IL SO N COW EN , C H IE F JU D G E

HO N. M A R IO N T. B EN N ETT, C H IE F COM M IS SI ONER

F R A N K T. P E A R T R E E , C LER K

S ala ri es a n d E xpenses

Object classification

[In thou sa nd s of dolla rs]

1964 actu al 1965 estim ate 1966 estim ate

11.1

Pe rsonne l c ompensa tion:

Pe rm an en t p ositio ns-------- ------------------------------------ 885 1,071 1,080

11.3 Po sit ions othe r th an p erman en t______________ _____ 15 4 4

12.0

Tot al, perso nnel com pensa tion___________________

Perso nnel benefit s_______ _____________________ -

900

60

1,075

70

1,084

71 21.0 Tr av el and tra ns po rta tio n of per so ns ... ________ _ __ _ 10 23 23 23.0 Re nt , co mm unica tio ns, a nd u tili ti es. . _______ _______ 10 10 10 24.0 Print in g and reprod uc tio n________ . . . _____ ___ _ 93 105 105 25.1 Other service s........... ............ . . . . ________________ . . 2 2 2

26.0 Supplies a nd m aterials_____________________ ______ _ 6 6 6

31.0 E quip m en t______ ________________________________ 9 6 6

99.0 Tot al ob ligations_____ ____________________________ 1,091 1,299 1,308

Personnel summary

1964 actua l 1965 estim ate 1966 est im ate

To ta l nu mbe r of pe rm an en t position s______________________

Fu ll- tim e e qu ivalen t of othe r positions _____________________

Avera ge n um be r of all em plo yees______________ __________

86

3

86

85

1

85

85

1

85

Prooram and financing

[In tho us an ds of do llars]

1964

act ual

1965

es tim ate

1966

est im ate

Prog ram b y activities :

10 Salaries an d expense s (ob ligatio ns)_________________ . . .

Fin ancin g:

25 Uno bligated b ala nce la psing__________________________

1,091

9

1,299 1,308

Ne w obligational au th ority ________________ ________

New obligational a utho rit y:

40 App ropriatio n . . . ___ ______ _ ___________________

1,100 1,299 1,308

1,100 1,140

159

1,308 44 Pr op osed su pp lem en tal due to civ ilia n pa y increases . . . .

Relation of obligations to ex pen diture s:

71 To ta l ob ligations (affectin g e xp en ditures)_______________

72 Obligated balanc e, st ar t of year _____________ _________

74 Ob lig ated balance , en d of yea r____ ___________ ______ _

77 A dj us tm en ts in expired accoun ts _ . _____ ____

1,091 

101 

-8 6 

- 2

1,299

86

-9 3

1,308

93

-9 5

90 Ex pe nd itu res e xcluding pa v increase s up pl em en ta l. . . .

91 Ex pe nd itu res from civilian pa y increase s upple m en ta l..

1,104 1,141 

151

1,301

8
35

Mr. Rooney. The next item, gentlemen, is to be found at page 353 

of the committee print and is entitled “Court of Claims, salaries and 

expenses.”

We have with us the chief judge, Judg e Wilson Cowen; the chief 

commissioner, Mr. Marion T. Bennett; and the clerk, Mr. Frank T. 

Peartree.

At this point we shall insert pages 52 through 57 of the justification 

book.

(The pages follow:)

State ment relating appropr iatio n estimate to current appropriation

Salaries and expen ses, Cou rt of Claim s: Judiciary

1965 a pp ro pr iatio n in an nu al a ct............ . ............................................... .................................. ......... $1,140,000

1965 prop osed su pp lem en tal du e to p ay in crea se s.- __________________________________— 159,000

Base for 1966......... ............................ ................................................................................................... 1,299,000

N et d iffer ence, 1966 over 1965:

Re qu ire men ts Difference, 

increase (+ ) 

or de1965 crease (—)

ad juste d

1966

est im ate

Salarie s a nd ex pen ses ____________________ ______ $1,299,000 $1,308,000 +$9,000

Tot al es tim ate for 1966____________________ _____ . _______________________ _________ 1,308,000

Ana lysis by object

Object

1965

est im ate

1966

es tim ate

Increa se (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

11 Perso nnel c o m p e n sa ti o n .. .___ _____ _ _______________ 1

 $1,075,200 $1,083, 600 + $8,400

12 Perso nnel be ne fits ___________________ _______________ ' i 70^ 200 70,800 +60 0

21 Tra ve l an d tra ns po rta tio n of perso ns___________________ 23’ 300 23. 300

23 R en t, c om mu nic ati ons, an d ut ilitie s__ ________ . . . . . . Kf 000 10,000

24 Print in g and repr od uc tio n_____________________ _______ 105,000 105,000

25 Other se rvice s__________ __________________________ 2,400 2,400

26 Supplies a nd m at er ia ls.. _________________ . . . _______ 6’ 400 e; 400

31 Equ ip m en t. . . . . _____________________ __________ 6^500 6,500

Tot al ob ligations_______ _____ ______________________ 1,299,000 1,308,000 +9,00 0

1

 A djus ted to reflect th e pro pos ed su pp lem en tal for pay increase s ($150,000 for pe rson ne l comp ensat ion 

an d $9,000 for re lated ben efits).

Sum mar y of increased requirements for 1965

Nature of expense, or savings) : Amount

1. Provision for within-grade sal ary advancem ents________________ $9, 000

2. Authority to retain for fiscal ye ar 1966 the sum provided in 1965 for

upd atin g the publication of the court’s decisions_____________ (25, 000)

Increase, 1966 over 1965_________ -_____ _________________ 9, 000

JU ST IFICAT IO N

Language changes

None.

Objectives

This appropriation is for the salaries of the chief judge, fou r associate judges, 

and other officers and employees of the Court of Claims as well as for travel, 

communications, printing, and other incidental expenses. For data as to the 

functions of the court, its jurisdiction and basic sta tutory authoritie s, reference 

is made to section I of the Digest of Appropriations, the Jud iciary , on file with 

the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropriations Committees of the Congress.
36

Detailed justificatio n

An appropriation of $1,308,000 is requested for 1966, $9,000 in excess of the 

obligational autho rity for 1965, which has been adjusted to reflect the proposed 

supplemental for “pay costs” under the Federal Jud icial Salary Act of 1964, 

Public Law 88-426, approved August 14, 1904. The increases in salary and 

rela ted benefits under the pay act aggrega ted $171,000, but the court intends to 

absorb $12,000 in fiscal yea r 1966.

Provision fo r within-grade salary advancements

It is estim ated that $9,000 will be required in fiscal year 1965 to gran t officers 

and employees of the court (except judges, commissioners, and the clerk of the 

cou rt) within-grade salary advan cements corresponding with those provided by 

title VII of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. Of the total requested, 

$8,400 is to cover increases in com pensation a nd $600 for the rela ted Government 

contributions to the re tirement fund and for group life insurance. The estimate 

is net of anticipated savings due to tu rno ver in personnel.

Cost of making current the printing and binding of the court’s reports

This item of $25,000 for printing and binding is a nonrecu rring one and is 

requested in order th at the publication of the court’s bound volumes may be 

brought up to date. During recent yea rs the number requ ired for each year has 

increased from three to four and their publication is now 2 yea rs behind. From 

a research stan dpoint this has proven to be a disadva ntage to counsel prac ticing 

before the court as well as to the cou rt itself. It w as originally planned to close 

this gap during fiscal yea r 1965 and an item of $50,000 was requested for that 

year. However, only $25,000 of th at requ est was appropriated so th at it was 

necessary to extend this program over a 2-year period. The $25,000 is therefo re 

requested in orde r th at the program may be completed during fiscal year 1966. 

It is anticipated th at once made curre nt the publication of the volumes will 

remain so within the limits of the c ourt’s regular allowance for printing.

IN CR EA SE S RE QU ES TE D

Mr. Rooney. These pages indic ate that th e reques t is in the a mo unt 

$1,308,000, whi ch would be an increase of $9,000 over the adjus ted 

ap prop ria tio n fo r the curre nt fiscal year. The act ual increases requested are set fo rth at pag e 54 o f the justifications, which ind icates 

th at t he en tire increase is fo r wi thin-grade salar y advancements, and 

this page ref ers to the no nrecurrin g item of $25,000 fo r pr intin g.

How much of the wi thin- grade pro mo tions are you absorbin g in 

this estimat e, Ju dg e?

Ju dg e C owen. Of th e s ala ry inc rease f or next y ear we are absorbin g 

a total of $12,000, Mr. C hai rman.

You hav e covered, I migh t say, very acc ura tely a sum ma ry of our 

budget so I do no t need to make an oth er state ment.

I would like to say du rin g fiscal year 1965 we were able to abso rb 

wh at we tho ug ht was a fa irly good figure. That cam e about th roug h 

very unu sua l circumstances. The circ umstance w as we h ad a vacancy 

in two jud geships and we also ha d a vac ancy in a commissioner post 

which was n ot filled fo r se vera l m on th s; so, as you are very well aware, 

Mr. Ch airma n, we were able to absorb of the defic it fo r th e cu rre nt 

salary bill th at went into effect in 1964, a total of $39,000.

Of course we will no t be able to do th at fo r the next y ea r because 

of the very u nusual circ ums tanc es th at p rev ail ed d ur ing the last year. 

Our base, as a re sult o f these sa lar y increases, would have been $171,000 

and we are ab sorbin g $12,000.
37

CASELOAD FIGURES

Mr. R ooney. Do you hav e yo ur case load figures ?

Ju dg e Cowen. Yes; I wish to prese nt this, M r. Ch airma n.

Mr. R ooney. We shall insert at th is po int in the rec ord th e fourpa ge docu ment ha nd ed to us by C hief Jud ge Cowen.

(The doc ument referre d to follows :)

Sta te m en t

During the court year, from September 30, 1963, to September 30, 1964, the 

cou rt disposed of 511 petitions and 11 appeals represen ting 1,074 claimants. 

Except for 73 of these cases, in which no given amounts were claimed, the tota l 

amount claimed was $138,866,426.36. Of the cases disposed of, the court rendered judgments for claiman ts in the sum of $8,629,752.77, of which $1,436,- 

612.72 car ried interest. A number of these judgments were based on settlements between the parties. Also, the court rendered judgments for the United 

States on counterclaims in the amount of $471,878.41, of which $80,962.56 carrie d 

inte rest. The clerk has repo rted to the Congress the business of the court for 

the above period, showing the names of the claim ants, the am ounts involved, the 

natur e of the cases, an d the disposition thereof.

The number of petitions and appeals pending on September 30, 1964, totaled 

1,403 represen ting 6,516 claim ants. Of this total the re were 79 class case petitions involving 4,828 claimants. While tes t cases in all probability will dispose 

of the majority of the petitions in this latte r group, practic ally all of t he other 

1,324 petitions will require individual trials before the commissioners and disposition by the court.

Report of the U.S. Court of claims fo r the court year ended Sept. 30, 1964

Pen din g, 

S ep t. 30,1 963

F iled D is pose d Pen din g, 

Sep t. 30,1964

P eti ­

tion s

P la in ­

tif fs

P e ti ­

tions

P la in ­

tif fs

P e ti ­

tions

P la in ­

tif fs

P e ti ­

tions

P la in ­

tif fs

Cas es o th er th a n c las s ca ses.................. 1,405

68

1,826

840

394 562 491 716 1,308

79

1,67 2

Cla ss c ase s.. ______________________ 31 4,33 5 20 347 4,828

A pp ea ls from th e I ndia n C laim s Co mm is si on ________________ _________ 16 16 11 11 11 11 16 16

T o ta ls ___________ _ _________ 1,489 2,682 436 4,90 8 522 1,074 1,403 6,516

C as es o th er th a n c las s eas es:

Se rv ice p a v ____________________ 125 125 30 30 66 66 89 89

C ong re ss io na l......... ....... 31 49 0 0 11 11 20 38

C o n tr a ct__________ ___________ 350 358 68 68 93 96 325 330

In d ia n _________________________ 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 6

M isce lla ne ou s__________________ 29 30 21 23 18 19 32 34

P a t e n t ________________________ 74 77 21 21 7 7 88 91

P ro p ert y (t ak en )....... ........... 78 364 23 168 26 227 75 305

T a x ______________ . 419 515 154 175 103 115 470 575

T ra n sp o rt ati o n of p ro p ert y _____ 176 185 51 51 125 133 102 103

Jap an ese rel oc at io n pro gra m ____ 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2

C iv ilia n p a v ______________ ____ 114 114 26 26 41 41 99 99

D ep art m en ta l......... ......... ................. 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Cla ss ca ses:

F ir ef ig hte rs .____ ________ _____ 5 11 0 0 5 11 0 0

C iv il ia n p ay _________ 41 688 18 444 9 309 50 823

Se rvice p a y ._______ 20 13 2,43 0 

1,461

6 27 27 2,470 

1,535 I n d i a n / . . 1__________ _______ 2 74 0 0 0 2

A ppea ls from In d ia n C la im s Com -

m is si on ___________________ _ 16 16 11 11 11 11 16 16

TAX AND PROPE RTY (TAK EN ) CASES

As of the close of business on September 30, 1964, there were pending 75 petirepresen ting 575 claiman ts seeking tax refunds on the Court of Claims dockets, 

with a total amount claimed of $214,737,122.70 together with interest. Six percen t interest, as pe rmitted by statute, on this amo unt is $12,884,227.36 per annum.

As of the close of business on Setpember 30, 1964, there were pending 75 peti-
38

tions repr esen ting 305 claimants in which the total sum of $23,161,040.641

 was claimed for the taking of property withou t payment of jus t compensation. In ­

terest at 4 percent as pa rt of ju st compensation on that sum totals $920,405.86 

per annum.

Petitions to the Supreme Court for wr its of certiorari

Petitions for certio rari pending Oct. 1, 1963___________________________ 11

Petitions for certiorari filed Oct. 1, 1963, to Sept. 30, 1964_________________ 41

Total_______________________________________________________ 52

Record for Court y ear Oct. 1,1963, to Sept. 30,1964:

Petitions for certiorari denied___________________________________ 23

Petitions for certio rari granted, decision reversed and case remanded __ 2

Petitions for certiorari filed but no t acted upon_____________________ 27

Total_______________________________________________________ 52

Records prepared for atto rneys of record but not filed___________________ 11

Mr. Rooney. What is happening down there? Last year, in the 

exhibit handed us, there were pending as of September 30,1963, 2,682 

cases. Now you show pending as of September 20, 1964, 6.516 cases.

Judge Cowen. Mr. Chairman, let me explain that. We have a 

number of cases in which there are many plaintiffs. We call them 

multiple-plaintiff petitions. We do not have it pending now, but, 

as an illustration, we had one suit pending several years ago in which 

several thousand Reserve officers had combined their cases in one petition. So I would call your attention to the figure next to it, which 

is the petitions. The larger figure represents for the most part what 

I referred to as multiple plaintiffs. Our rules permit people who 

have the same cause of action to join in the same suit. In most instances, Mr. Chairman, those suits are by civilian personnel of the 

Government or military personnel. Those represent in large part 

the multiple-plaintiff suits.

I might make this explanation: There are a large number of plaintiffs in those cases and of course we do not have to try each plaintiff’s 

case; we try a representative number, which might number from 5 

to 10, because there are factual differences in the conduct of the military establishments and in administration; but as a rule we try a 

representative number of these cases and by stipulation and settlement 

in our pretrial, we are able, after the test cases, to dispose of the 

remainder.

Mr. Rooney. Any questions, gentlemen ?

Mr. Smith. I just noticed you have actually made some headway 

on your cases, have you not ?

Judge Cowen. Yes, we are very happy about that. We had tied up 

in the Interstate Commerce Commission, as a result of a decision of 

the Supreme Court, quite a backlog of ra ilroad cases, and during the 

past year we disposed of quite a number of those. Some were quite 

old because of pendency of these actions in the Interstate Commerce 

Commission.

Mr. Smith. Since you performed this fete with some positions vacant and th at resulted in a saving, why could you not leave those positions vacant next year ?

1

 O f which $1 4,0 20 ,80 3.2 8 is th e to ta l am ou nt claimed in 66 pet itio ns re pre se nting 260 

cl ai m an ts p ert ain in g to th e ta kin g of la nd s ; of wh ich $9 ,14 0,8 43.36 is th e to ta l am ou nt 

cla im ed in 9 pet it io ns re pre se nti ng 45 cl ai m an ts per ta in in g to th e ta kin g of pe rs on al 

pr op er ty .
39

Ju dg e Cowen. I will tell you, sir; we still have, I regr et to say, a 

lar ge nu mb er o f wh at I call “ pic k a nd shovel’’ h ar d cases. As an illu strat io n of this, we h ad 470 tax cases pending at the begin nin g of the 

year. Th e avera ge amoun t involve d in each clai m was $456,000. We 

can not move those cases with the speed w ith whi ch we moved the othe rs 

I ref erred to.

Mr. Smit h. So y ou did n ot make the pro gre ss you indica ted awhile 

ago?

Ju dg e Cowen. We made pr ogress in g ettin g rid of our old cases, but 

as t o the har d cases, i t is no t as good as it looks, I will tell you.

Mr. S mit h. That is all.

Mr. R ooney. Tha nk you, J ud ge Cowen and gentlemen.

Ju dg e Cowen. Tha nk you, M r. C ha irm an and gentlem en.

T uesday, F ebruary 2, 1965.

CO URTS OF A PPE A L S, D IS T R IC T CO UR TS , AN D OTH ER 

JU D IC IA L SER V IC ES 

W IT N E SSE S

HON . M A T T H E W F. M cG U IR E, C H IE F JU D G E, U.S . D IS T R IC T CO UR T, 

D IS T R IC T OF COLU M BIA

HO N. H A R V E Y M. JO H N SE N , C H IE F JU D G E, U.S . CO UR T OF A PPEA L S, 

E IG H T H C IR C U IT

HON. CA RL A. W E IN M A N , C H IE F JU D G E, U.S. D IS T R IC T CO UR T, 

SO U TH ER N D IS T R IC T OF OH IO

W A R R E N OLN EY I I I , D IR EC TO R , A D M IN IS T R A T IV E O FFIC E, U.S . 

CO UR TS

W IL L IA M E. FO LEY , D EPU T Y D IR EC TO R , A D M IN IS T R A T IV E O FFIC E, 

U.S . CO UR TS

W IL L IA M R. S W E E N E Y , A SSIS TA N T D IR EC TO R , A D M IN IS T R A T IV E 

O FFIC E, U.S . CO UR TS

D A R W IN H. ANDER SO N, A SSIS TA N T C H IE F OF BUSIN ESS A D M IN IS ­

TR A TIO N , A D M IN IS T R A T IV E O FFIC E, U.S . CO UR TS

E D W A R D V. G A R A B ED IA N , BUDGET O FFIC E R , A D M IN IS T R A T IV E 

O FFIC E, U.S . CO UR TS

LO UIS SH A R P, C H IE F , PR O B A TIO N D IV IS IO N 

ROYAL E. JA CKSO N, C H IE F , B A N K R U PTC Y D IV IS IO N

Ju dg e McGuire. Mr. Ch air ma n, if I may , I wou ld like to ind ica te 

the presence o f the Di rec tor of the Ad minist rativ e Office, Mr. Olney; 

the D eputy D irecto r, M r. Fole y; the A ssistan t D ire cto r, M r. Sw eeney; 

the As sis tan t Ch ief of Business Adm inist ratio n, Mr. An de rso n; the 

bu dget officer, Mr. Gar ab ed ian; then I also have the pleasu re of pr esenti ng Chief Ju dg e Ha rvey M. John sen of the Eig ht h Circu it, a 

friend o f mine fo r 25 ye ars a nd a very dis tin guish ed judge. He will 

present the estimate with refe rence to the so-called Cr im ina l Ju sti ce 

Ac t of 1964. An d we also have the chie f judg e of the So uthern Di str ic t of Ohio, Jud ge Weinm an, whom you know.

Mr. Rooney. Ju dg es and gentlem en, I wou ld like to present a new 

mem ber of the com mittee, Mr. Fly nt of Geo rgia . Mr. Joels on of
40

New J ersey is also a new memb er o f the committee. He is not here at 

th e mome nt, however.

Ju dg e McGuire. I wou ld also lik e to sa y off the record.

(Discussion off the reco rd.)

Ju dg e McGuire. In the p ostur e of sav ing tim e, I h ave a st atement.. 

SUM MAR Y OF REQUEST

Mr. R ooney. Be fore you can get to yo ur sta tem ent, I would like 

to d ire ct th e com mittee’s a tte ntion to the m atter begin ning a t pag e 58 

of the justifi cation book and at page 357 o f the com mittee pr int.

Pa ge 58 of the justifi cation s ind ica tes th at the request for the six 

ap pr op riatio n item s—“Sa lar ies of jud ges ,” “S ala rie s of supp ortin g 

perso nnel,” “Fees of ju ro rs and comm issioners,” “Travel and miscellaneo us expenses,” “Fees and expenses of co urt -ap point ed counsel,” and “S ala ries an d expenses, Adm inist rativ e Office, U.S. C ourts ”— 

comes to $71,135,000, which is a requested increase o f $11,054,000 over 

the a djusted approp ria tio ns for th e cu rre nt fiscal year.

W ha t is your ple asu re with rega rd to yo ur pr ep ar ed sta tem ent, 

J udge McGuire ?

Ju dg e McGuire. Th e pr ep ared sta tem ent covers all the estimates 

and, wi th refe rence to the $11 m illion item, let me say th is: It should 

be noted th at involves the sum of $8,500,000, w hich is quite close to 

three-qu arter s of the $11 million item . Th is is fo r th e im ple me nta tion 

of the C rim inal J us tic e A ct of 1964 to which Chie f Jud ge John sen will 

addre ss him self.

Mr. Rooney. Th at leaves how m uch —$3 millio n ?

Ju dg e McGuire. I t leave $2,500,000, and $1 millio n of th at item 

rel ate s to the presum ed cost of jurie s in connection w ith th e implem enta tion o f t he Cr im ina l Ju stice A ct of 1964.

Mr. R ooney. I s th at n ot inc lud ed in the $8,500,000 w hich you j us t 

me ntioned ?

Ju dg e McGuire. As I un de rst an d i t ; no.

Mr. Sween ey. Th e $1 m illion is included.

Ju dg e McGuire. I take t hat back; I did no t un de rst an d that.

Mr. Rooney. Go ahe ad, please.

Ju dg e McGuire. I f you pr efer, Mr. Ch airma n, Ch ief Ju dg e Jo hn ­

sen could add ress h imself to t hat pa rti cu la r item now. I can m ake a 

few general observations.

Mr. Rooney. Ve ry well.

General Statement

Ju dg e McGuire. W ith refere nce to the ad minist rativ e office, I 

des ire to call you r att en tio n to th e fact th at the a pp ro pr iatio n request 

fo r the “A dm inist rativ e office” include s a fiscal accou nting clerk in 

GS- 9 at $7,220 pe r an nu m; three au dit ors in GS- 6 at $5,505 pe r 

an nu m ; a clerk -stenograp her in GS- 4 a t $4,480 pe r a nn um ; and , in th e 

Division of Pr oc edural Stu die s and Stati sti cs a key -pu nch op erator 

in GS- 4 at $4,480 pe r an nu m; an d a prog ram op era tor in GS -5 at 

$5,000 pe r annum.

We rega rd these as abs olutely esse ntial in orde r to have and mainta in the close scrut iny an d the fiscal con trol nece ssary fo r th e imple ­

men tatio n o f the C rim ina l J us tic e A ct of 1964.
41

Th ere fore, the total fo r the ad minist rativ e office is aro un d $80,000. 

Ab out $41,000 is fo r the positions ind ica ted an d the balanc e is for 

othe r pos itions made necessary by the incr ease in work an d res ponsibi lity of th e D ivision o f Proc ed ural S tud ies a nd S tat istics .

Miscella neous expenses am ount to $39,300 an d have to do wi th the 

procure me nt of fu rn itu re , equ ipm ent, sup plie s, communica tions, and 

postage.

Other expenses of th is office are made necessa ry by the conv ersio n 

fro m old sta nd ards to new sta nd ards an d if the JS P plan as contem pla ted is to be ke pt on a conti nuing basis. Al l requests fo r changes 

must be t ho roug hly examin ed to assu re the p ro pe r a pplic ati on o f th ese 

sta nd ards, an d also the necessity of sta tis tic al work in the civil field 

an d in th e field of sentences an d p robatio n, which now is receiving considera ble attentio n.

We rega rd th is aspect of the ad minist rativ e office b udget as absolutel y necessary because of the wisdom of a stan da rd person nel order 

throug ho ut the system an d of the necessity also of ge tting a n efficient 

do lla r value fo r do lla r spen t. Th e treme ndous use of da ta proce ssin g 

equ ipm ent in indu stry a lre ady point s up i ts valu e and the courts, like 

business, must be constantly aware of new changes in this rapi dl y 

dev elopin g field.

I t is to be note d th ere is no in crease in th e ap pr op riatio n fo r s alaries 

of judg es. At the prese nt tim e it is estimate d there will be, in the 

ne ar fu ture, 90 re tir ed jud ges. Ac tua lly , a t the pres ent time th ere a re 

84. Th ere is an avera ge of 12 vacancies, and we sti ll have enough 

mon ey in this respect.

Ge tting back to th e $1 million figure I m entioned awh ile ago, th at is 

to cover the costs of ad ditio na l ju ry tria ls as an tic ipated by the 

Cr im ina l J us tic e A ct.

A recent survey pred ica ted up on 6 mon ths ’ experience of the p res ent 

ye ar indicates th e cost is alr eady u p 5 p erc ent and a supplem ent of at 

least $270,000 may be need ed fo r the bal anc e of the p res ent year.

W ith reference to the item “T rave l and miscellaneous expenses,” 

we are a sking th at the $25 lim it be removed. T hat has a long his tor y, 

as you know. T hir ty dolla rs is the am ount fixed in the basic sta tute, 

an d there does n ot seem to be an y reason no w wh y the jud ges should n ot 

be giv en the benefit of th e gen era l sta tute, the basic statute.

No tra ve l fund s are b eing asked fo r the courts as such. How ever, 

fo r the new prob ati on officers there is a $60,000 item predica ted on 

a 9-mon th p rojec tio n for this yea r.

An d with reference to e quipm ent f or new p erso nnel, the to tal asked 

is $150,000, b ut it is to be noted th at th is is a no nrecurrin g expense. 

Th is is fo r ad ding machines, dictatin g mac hines, an d typw rit ers. 

REQUEST FOR 134 NEW CLERKS

For refe rees in b an krup tcy we are a sking fo r 134 ad ditio na l clerks. 

Las t year 60 were pu t on on a tem po rary basis. In additio n to tha t, 

we are ask ing fo r 50 clerks to staff the new refe rees, 27 in num ber. 

Thi s item invo lves the conversio n of pa rt- tim e referees to fu ll tim e 

an d the appo int me nt of new pa rt- tim e referees and a rese rve fo r 24 

more cler ks to the referees , m aking a to ta l of 134.
42

In 1963 and 1964 there was allo cated $1,375,000 for su pp ortin g pe rsonnel under the J S P pla n. Th e sta tistic s endin g Ju ne 30 shows 

tho ann ual cost is now $1,036,000 and we ha d $339,000 which was 

unused, and part of th at was subsequently used fo r the paym ent of 

court reporte rs, and I un de rst an d Ju dg e Cam pbell spoke to you 

abo ut that. I t is $114,000; $125,000 was used for absorption of the 

pay costs, le aving a balance of $100,000.

In th e first segmen t of grad es 8, 9, a nd 10, it take s abo ut a m inim um 

of 1 y ear to move from grad e 9 to g rade 10, wi th the cost to be picked 

up late r.

Mr. Rooney. Of course your reference to a conversation th at I 

alleged ly ha d with Ju dg e Cam pbell rem ind s me that I n eve r recollect 

disc ussing an increase in ap prop ria tio ns with anyone.

Ju dg e McGuire. Th is was no t inc rea sin g an ap prop ria tio n, Mr. 

Ch air ma n. Th e ap prop ria tio n ha d alr eady been allocate d; $1,375,000 

was allo cate d fo r supp ortin g person nel un de r the JS P plan and of 

th at $1,036,000 was used and par t of th e m oney, $114,000, was used for 

the court rep orter s.

Mr. Rooney. Th at is w hat I do no t recall.

Ju dg e McGuir e. I can not refre sh yo ur recollection on th at; I am 

sorry.

Mr. Rooney. Go ahead, please.

Ju dg e McGuir e. Th e note th at I hav e her e i s :

It is to be noted that last year, by the permission of the committee, all of the 

court reporters were put on a certain salary level and JSP plan money to the 

extent of $114,000 was used for that purpose. In the meantime, in line with the 

President’s program of absorption of pay costs, $125,000 has been absorbed and 

we are not asking for this in 1966.

W ith reference to the 25 ad ditio na l de pu ty clerks fo r the U.S. dis ­

tri ct courts that are needed, this is a n increase over the 1,312 p res ently 

serv ing. Th ere were 76 requests and as a consequence of culling out, 

the balance of 25 is being requested as ur ge ntly needed, the reason 

being, of course, as heretofo re said, the numb er of civil cases is increasing, the numb er of ba nk ruptcy cases is increa sing, appli cat ion s 

fo r passp orts con tinue to come in gr ea ter num bers, and, fina lly, the 

numb er of cri minal cases has no t been dim inishi ng. Th ere is, of 

course, with resp ect to thi s item as all othe r items, a wr itten jus tifica ­

tion .

REQUEST FOR 90 PROBAT ION OFFICERS

W ith reference to probation officers, in line with the mo der n ap ­

pro ach , if you wa nt to use th at ter m, the total num ber of inv estiga tions 

made fo r the court is increasing, as is th e numb er of person s un de r 

supervi sio n; and in addit ion to th at , pres entence inv est iga tio ns are 

now alm ost inv ariably the rule.

Th e situatio n with respec t to prob ati on officers ha s become critic al 

in some distr icts and so, there for e, on a distr ict-t o-distr ict average , 

ou r req uest is fo r 90.

W ith reference to bank ruptcy, thes e figures are intere sting. There 

were roug hly 155,000 bankrup tci es in 1963. Th is figure jum ped to 

171,000 in 1964, an d pre dic ate d upo n inform ati on alr eady available, 

it is a nticipated t hat this will jump to 190,000 in the year 1965.

We discussed this p reviou sly and again . I rep eat, this is a pheno menon noticed some few years ago and the jum p over the yea rs is
43

apparent. Business bankruptcies for the first time fell below 10 

percent, but this is only on a percentage basis, they are maintaining 

their momentum upward, if you want to use tha t term.

Tha t concludes, in brief, the observations I want to make on the 

budget. If there are any questions any members of the committee 

desire to ask, I will do my best to answer them.

(The following prepared statement of Judge McGuire was submitted for the record:)

Sta te m ent of C h ie f J udg e Ma tth ew F. McGuir e Befor e t h e H ou se

App ropr ia ti ons Subcom m it te e

Mr. Chairm an and gentlemen of the committee, it is a pleasure to come before 

you once again to speak on the estim ates of appropriations for the U.S. courts 

of appeals, the U.S. dis trict courts, and the Adm inistrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts for the fiscal year 1966. With me today are Chief Judge Harvey M. 

John sen of the eighth circuit (who is here especially to speak on the app rop riation estimate to implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964), Chief Judge Carl A. 

Weinman of th e south ern district of Ohio, Mr. Warren Olney III, Director of the 

Adm inistrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Mr. William E. Foley, Deputy Director, 

and Mr. William R. Sweeney, Assistant Director, who very recently became associated w ith the Administrative Office and o ther members of their staff.

I have just a brief introductory stateme nt to make, Mr. Chairman, and then 

we shall be glad to proceed at your plea sure through the various items of 

appropriations.

As you stated a moment ago, the increase in the appropriations for the courts 

of appeals, distric t courts, and other judicia l services is $11,054,000 over the 

amounts appropriated for the current year (adjusted by the proposed supplemental for pay costs). It should be noted that more than three-qua rters of th at 

sum. or $8,500,000 is for the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964

or rela ted thereto.

Mr. Chairman, before contin uing with this introdu ctory statement to the 

budget estim ates before you, I should like to express sincere gra titu de not only 

on behalf of the Budget Committee of the Jud icial Conference but on behalf of 

the e ntire judicia ry for the appropriation of add itional fund s thi s yea r and the 

year before with which to implement the jud iciary salary plan. These funds, 

having been used to fix grades and salarie s commensurate with the duties and 

responsibilities of the incumbents affected, actually have caused a reduction in 

turn ove r of personnel. This means that we are spending considerably less time, 

effort and money in recruiting and training new personnel. Furthermore, and 

this is extremely important, we are able to seek and employ better qualified 

people. We have heard comments on this point from a number of judges who 

have noted a marked improvement in performance. All in all, from our sta nd ­

point, it is money well spent and we deeply appreciate the cooperation of this 

committee.

The new appro priation item in the estim ates before you is for the implementation of the Criminal Jus tice Act of 1964. As I mentioned a moment ago, we 

have with us today Chief Judg e Harvey M. Johnsen who is a member of the 

Jud icial Conference Committee on the Adm inistration of the Criminal Justice 

Act of 1964. With the committee’s permission, I should like to defe r to him the 

introduc tion of this item when it is reached later.

The estim ates for other appropriation s, as in recen t past years, were considered item by item by the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget, of 

which, as you know, I am vice chairman. During our delibera tions we had the 

benefit of the recommendations of the Jud icia l Conference Committees on Supporting Personnel, Bankruptcy and Probation. The estimates before your committee today, Mr. Chairman, are those which the Budget Committee recommended to the Jud icia l Conference last September and which also were approved 

by th at body at th at time.

The steady upward trend of litigation coming before the courts and causing a 

mounting pending caseload cannot be ignored when considering the amount of 

money and personnel estim ated to be required for fiscal yea r 1966. We firmly 

believe that the funds requested here are necessary to provide the judges of 

the courts of appeals with legal and stenographic assistance sorely needed to
44

hand le the ir increased workload—to give the clerks of those courts additional 

help to keep up with the m ounting paperwork and to provide messengers so tha t 

oth er personnel will not have to be called upon to move the papers and materials 

within those courts.

Likewise, in the U.S. distric t courts the re are needed at least 25 additional 

deputy clerks. The total business of those courts is ever increasing. The number 

of civil cases being filed is increasing. The number of bankruptcy cases being 

filed is increasing. Applications for p assp orts a re coming in in gre ater numbers. 

Finally, the number of criminal cases has not diminished. We are prep ared to 

provide the deta ils of this rising tre nd as we proceed to the pa rticular a ppropriation estimates.

Because of the excellent provisions made by the Congress for additions to 

prob ation officer staffs during the fiscal yea rs 1956-59, the number of supervision cases and the number of presentence investiga tions per officer position 

reached the ir lowest points, respectively, in the fiscal years 1959-60. However, 

the total number of investigations made for the courts and the total number of 

persons u nder th e supervision of th e proba tion system have continued to increase 

and have reached seriously high levels.

The job of the probation officer is to afford protection to the community by 

(1) assisting the courts in identifying dangerous offenders so th at they may 

be removed from the community and (2) supervising persons placed on probation 

by the courts and persons released from confinement on parole. The community 

does not get the protection it deserves when the volume of work a probation 

officer must accomplish is so large th at his investiga tions cann ot be comprehensive nor his supervision efforts adequate. The situation again has become 

critical in a number of districts. Based on a district-by-district evaluation, 90 

additional probation officer positions are needed. In connection with this request, we also have additional data for the committee.

In the are a of the bankruptcy system, funds for additional referees as well 

as for clerical employees for their offices are requested. In fiscal yea r 1964, 

while 162.000 bankruptcy cases were closed (nea rly 21,000 more tha n in 1963) 

we sftill lost ground in the pending caseload. The Judicia l Conference has 

authorized 12 additional referee positions and the conversion of 7 positions from 

a part-time to a full-time status. Fun ds for these positions are being requested. 

Also, it is estim ated th at fund s will be needed for 74 additional clearical positions plus authorization to convert 60 clerical employees from a temp orary status 

to permanent. There are ample funds in the special account in the Treasury 

(plus curre nt receipts) from which to dra w the proposed increased appropriations. And now, Mr. Chairman, we shall be glad to proceed to the variou s items 

of our budget as you wish.

Mr. Rooney. We shall take up these six items one by one.

Salaries of J udges

Object classification

[In tho us an ds of dollars]

1964 actua l 1965 est im ate 1966 est im ate

11.1

Perso nnel com pensa tion:

Pe rm an en t p osi tions (judgesh ips )_______ . . . . . . . . 8,456 11,385 11,385 11.5 Ot her per son nel comp ensation (sen ior an d resign ed 

judg es)................................ .................................. .............. 1,986 2,760 2,760

To ta l personne l c om pe nsation__________________ 10,442 14,145 14,145 12.0 Perso nnel benefit s___ ______________________________ 345 450 450 13.0 Benefits for forme r p er so nn el 1_______________________ 25 25 25

99.0 Tot al obligations_________________________________ 10,812 14,620 14,620

* W idows of Supreme Cou rt Justic es.
45

Personnel summary

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estim ate

To tal number of perm anent positions:

Circuit judgeship---- ------------------------------------- -..........— 78 78 78

District judgeship___________________________________ 307 306 306

Full-time equivalent of other positions: Senior and resigned

judges . ____________ -__________________________ 84 90 90

Average number of all judges--------------------- -------------------- 450 462 462

Program and financing

[In thousa nds of dollars]

1964

actu al

1965

estimate

1966

estimate

Program b y activities:

10 Salaries and benefits (obligations).........................................

Financing:

25 Unobligated balanep, lapsing ________________

10,812

388

14,620 14,620

New obligational autho rity________________________ 11,200 14,620 14,620

New obligational a uthority:!

40 Appropriation ______ _ - __________________ 11,200 11,100 

3,520

14,620

44 Proposed sup plem ental due to civilian pay increases-------

Relation of obligations to expenditures:

71 Total obligations (affecting expenditures)------------- -------

72 Obligated balance, s tart of year......... -........ ........... .............

74 Obligated balance, end of year-------- ------- -.............- ........

90 Expenditures excluding pay increase supp lemental---------

91 Expenditures from civilian pay increase supp lemental-----

10,812

1,135 

-89 8

14,620

898

-1,218

14,620

1,218

-1,218

11,049 11,057 

3,243

14,343 

277

Mr. Rooney. The first item is entitled “Salaries of judges.” The 

request is in the amount $14,620,000, which is the same as the adjusted 

appropriation for the current fiscal year.

In connection with tha t w’e shall insert at this point in the record 

pages 59 through 64 of the justification book.

(The pages follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

Salaries of judges: Judiciary

1965 approp riation in annual a ct--- ------------- -------------------------------------------------------- $11,100,000

1965 proposed supple mental due to pay increases-------------------------- ------------- ------- ----- 3,520,000

Base for 1966.......... - .............-................. .........................—..................— ........... - ............. 14,620,000

Net difference, 1966 over 1965:

Requirements Difference, 

increase (+)

1965

adjusted

1966

estim ate

or decrease (—)

$14,620,000 $14,620,000

To tal estimate for 1966 14,620,000
46

Ana lysis by object

Object 1965

estim ate

1966

estim ate

Inc rea se (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

11 Pe rsonnel c om pe ns ation_________ __________ ' $14,145,000 

» 450,000

25,000

$14,145,000 

450,000

25,000

12 Pe rso nnel benef its. . ______

13 Benefits for form er perso nnel (widow s of S uprem e Cou rt 

J u s ti c e s ) .. _____ _______

To ta l oblig ations _________ ___________________ 14,620,000 14,620,000

1

 A dju ste d to reflect a pro pos ed su pp lem en tal for pa y increases ($3,425,000 for sala ries an d $95,000 for 

relat ed a gency co ntrib utions to th e jud icial su rv ivor s’ an nuity fund ).

JU ST IF IC ATI ON Language changes

None.

Objectives

Funds appropriated under this head ing are for the salaries and benefits of all 

U.S. circuit and district judges, and all justices and judges who have retired or 

resigned in pursuance of law. Annuities to surviving widows of Supreme Court 

Justices also are payable from this appropriation. For basic sta tutory autho rities, reference is made to section J of the “Digest of Appropriations, the Judiciary,” on file w ith the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropriations Committees 

of th e Congress.

General justification

No increase in obligational autho rity is being requested for fiscal year 1966, bu t 

the estimate does take into account salary increases authorized by the Federal 

Jud icia l Sala ry Act of 1964, Public Law 88—426, approved August 14. 1964. The 

1965 proposed supplemental for “pay costs” is $3,520,000 of which $3,425,000 

represen ts increases in salary and $95,000 rela ted agency contributions to the 

judicia l surviv ors’ annuity fund.

At the present time there are 384 authorized judgeships, 78 for the U.S. Courts 

of Appeals and 306 for the U.S. dis trict courts. As of Jun e 30, 1964, there were 

449 judges in a pay status—74 active circuit judges, 295 active distric t judges, 76 

senior judges, and 4 resigned judges. There were 15 judgeship vacancies. 4 in 

the U.S. Courts of Appeals and 11 in the U.S. distr ict courts, including 4 di strict 

judgeships which were created by the act of May 19, 1961, Public Law 87-36.

The amount requested for 1966 will be sufficient to pay the sala ries and related 

benefits of 462 judges—372 active judges and 90 retired and resigned judges. It 

will also provide for the payment of ann uities to five widows of Supreme Court 

Justices. The estimate contem plates an average of only 12 judgeship vacancies 

compared with 19 d urin g 1964. An increase in the number of senior and resigned 

judges also is anticipa ted. The following table shows the average number of 

judges on the roll during the past 5 years and the estim ates for 1965 and 1966:

Fiscal ye ar Judg eships Vac ancies Fil led

Senior an d 

resigned 

jud ges

To ta l

jud ges

1960______________________ 316 16 300 81 381 1961_________________ ____ i 313 14 299 81 380 1962____________________ 385 53 332 91 423 1963____________________ 385 21 364 90 454 1964________________ 385 19 366 84 450 1965 (e stim ated )__________________ ’ 384 12 372 90 462 1966 (e stim ated )__________________ _____ 334 12 372 90 462

1

 Reduction due to Alask a stateh ood.

’ Te mpo rary ju dgesh ip in the no rth ern distric t of Ohio abolished on de ath of judge.

During 1964 there was an average of 84 senior and resigned judges in a pay 

status, but at the end of the year there were only 80 on the roll compared with 

90 at the beginning of the year. The situ atio n in 1964 was abnormal in that 

there were only 4 judges who retired but 14 deaths among retired judges. There 

is every reason to believe tha t during 1965 and 1966 the number of senior and 

resigned judges will return to or exceed the level which prevailed in 1962 and in 

1963. This projected increase is based on the larg e number of active judges
46 —81 6— 65-

who are potential retirees . On Jun e 30, 1964, there were 54 judges eligible for retireme nt. During 1965 and 1966, 28 more judges will become eligible for retirem ent. The following graph clearly reflects the upw ard trend in retir em en ts:

NUMBER OF SEN IOR AND RESIGNED JUDGES

FISCAL YEARS 1955-1964
48

NUMBER OF JUDGES

Mr. R ooney. How many judges did you say this provides for?

Mr. Anderson. This provides for 462 judges.

Mr. Rooney. How many retired judges does it provide for?

Mr. Anderson. Ninety.

Mr. Rooney. And how many resigned judges?

Mr. Anderson. Four of the ninety are resigned so it is 86 and 4.

Mr. Rooney. And how much of a lapse is provided ?

Mr. Anderson. A lapse of an anticipated 12 judgeship vacancies.

Mr. Rooney. Are there any questions with regard to “salaries of 

judges,” gentlemen ?

THE 1965 SUPPLEMENTA L

Judge McGuire. Mr. Chairman, I m ight say this as an addendum 

to tha t topic. There is one other matter which is not an item before us 

today so f ar as the 1966 appropriation estimates are concerned, but it 

concerns the money available for the current fiscal year.

We have placed into effect the higher salary rates for judges, referees in bankruptcy and others in accordance with the Federal Judicial Salary Act of 1964. The Administrative Office has calculated 

tha t there will not be enough money in the appropriation presently 

available to pay judges’ salaries for the month of April (payable May 

1, 1965). Similarly, the balance in the appropriation for salaries 

of referees will be insufficient to pay their salaries for the month of 

March (payable April 1,1965).

A supplemental appropriation request was submitted to the Bureau 

of the Budget on Ja nuary 11,1965, and the people there have been informed of the status of our funds in this respect, but I thought we 

should inform your committee, Mr. Chairman, tha t we do face a 

rather critical situation regarding the payment of these salaries.

Mr. Rooney. Wha t is the amount ?

Mr. Anderson. In salaries of judges it is $3,400,000, and in salaries 

of referees it is $1,278,000.

Mr. Garabedian. We do plan to absorb part of tha t and we are 

asking for $1,230,000 for 1965.

Mr. Rooney. Page 59 of the justification book shows a proposed supplemental due to pay increases of $3,520,000. How do you jibe 

tha t with the $3,400,000 figure ?

Mr. Anderson. $3,520,000 was in the earlier estimate, but because 

of the number of judges on the rolls we see we may absorb $120,000, 

so the supplemental has been reduced to $3,400,000.

Mr. Rooney. In view of th at, how much of the $14,620,000 can you 

absorb ?

Mr. Anderson. At this point I would say we should not anticipate 

any absorption of the $14,620,000 for the reason tha t the absorption in the supplemental is because of the current status of the 

appropriation and we have no reason to believe that we will have 

more than the estimated 12 vacancies during 1966.

Mr. Rooney. Are there any further questions with regard to salaries 

of judges?
49

S alaries of S upport ing P ers onn el

Object classification

[In th ou sa nd s of dollars]

1964

ac tu al

1965

estim ate

1966

est im ate

Dire ct o blig atio ns:

Perso nnel co mp ensat ion :

11.1 Pe rm an en t posit ions ---------------------------------------------- 27,214 30,674 32,627

11.3 Po sit ions o ther t han p er m an en t------------------------------ 428 460 400

11.4 Special person al service p ay m en ts --------------------------- 41 40 40

11.5 Other p ersonn el co mpe ns ation--------- ----------------------- 80 84 84

Tota l perso nnel co mpe nsation------------------------------ 27,762 31,258 33,151

12.0 Pe rso nnel benef its...................................................................... 2,040 2,292 2,434

Tot al d ire ct o bli ga tio ns ___________________________ 29,802 33,550 35,585

Reimbu rsab le o bligations:

11.1 Pe rson ne l c om pensation: Pe rm an en t posit ions ---------- 9 10 10

12.0 Pe rsonnel benefit s________________________________ 1 1 1

Tot al, reim bu rsab le o bligations.................................... 10 11 11

99.0 Tot al o bli ga tio ns ................................................................ 29,812 33,561 35,596

Personnel summary

1964

ac tu al

1965

estim ate

1966

estim ate

To ta l nu m be r of p er man en t position s __ __ __ 3,870 3,900 4,200

Fu ll- tim e eq uiva lent of oth er position s_____________________ 91 98 86

Avera ge nu m be r of al l em plo yees--------------------------------------- 3,808 3,848 3,096

Program and flinancing

[In tho us an ds of dollars]

1904 actua l 1965 est im ate 1966 estim ate

Pr og ram b y a ctivities :

Salarie s a nd bene fits:

Dire ct p ro gr am ____________________________________

Reimbu rsab le p rogram ____________ _____ ___________

10 Tot al o bligations_________________________________

Financing :

11 Receipts a nd re im bu rsem en ts from ad m in istra tiv e bud ge t

acco unts__________________________________________

25 Un ob lig ated b ala nce lapsing__________________________

New o bliga tional a uth ori ty _________________________

New obligational a ut ho rity :

40 App ro pr iatio n--------- ------ ---------- ------ -------------------------

44 Pro posed s up plem en tal d ue t o civ ilia n pa y inc reases........ .

Re latio n of obligations to expendit ure s:

10 To ta l oblig ati ons____________________________________

70 Re ceipt s an d ot he r offsets____________________________

71 Ob ligations a ffec ting exp en ditures_____ _______________

72 Ob ligate d balan ce, s ta rt of y ea r_____________________ _

74 Ob ligate d balan ce, e nd of yea r.......................... ......................

77 Adj us tm en ts in expired accounts______________________

90 Ex pe nd itu res exc lud ing p ay increase su pp lem en ta l........

91 Ex pe nd itu res from c ivi lia n pa y increase su pp lem en ta l.

29,802

10

29,812

-1 0

848

30,650

30,650

29,812

-1 0

29,802

1,048

-1 ,0 01

—4

29,844

33,550

11

33,561

-1 1

33,550

32,445 

1,105

33,561

-1 1

33,550

1,001

-1 ,0 28

35,585

35,596

-1 1

35,585

35,585

35,596

-1 1

35,585

1,028

-1 ,2 36

32,452 35,343

1,071 34
Mr. Rooney. Th e second o f thes e item s is e nti tle d “Sala rie s of su ppo rti ng person nel ,” a nd th e d eta ils beg in at pa ge 65 of t he justification 

book, which pag e we sha ll insert at th is po int in the record tog eth er 

with pages 66 th roug h 88.

(The pages fo llow :)

Statement relating appropr iatio n estimate to current appropriatio n

Salaries of sup po rting p ersonnel, the judiciary: Am oun t 1965 a pp ropriat ion in annual ac t__________________________ $3 2,445,0 00

1965 prop osed sup ple me nta l due to pay inc rea ses____________ 1,105,0 00

Base for 1966---------------------------------------------------------------- 33 ,550 ,00 0

Net difference, 1966 over 1965:

Base for 1966---------------------------------------------------------------- 33 ,550 ,00 0

R equir em en ts Diff eren ce , 

incr ea se (+ ) 

or d e1960 crease (—)

adju st ed

1961

es ti m at e

C om pensa tion an d re la te d be nefi ts _________ . ___ $33,550,00 0 $35,585 ,000 + $ 2 ,035,000 +2, 03 5, 00 0

T o ta l es ti m ate for 1966........ —_______ ___ ____ __________ _________ _________ _______ _ 35,58 5,0 00

Analysis by object

O bj ec t 1965

est im ate 1

1966

es ti m at e

In cr ea se or 

de cr ea se ( —)

11 Per so nnel com pensa ti on_____ __________ . $31,258,00 0 

2,292,000

$33,151,100 

2,433, 900

$1,8 93,1 00 

141,900 12 Per so nnel b en efi ts _______________________

T o ta l (d irec t) o b li gati ons. _____ _ ________ . . . _. 33, 550,0 00 35,585 ,000 2,0 35, 000

1

 A dju st ed to re flec t th e pr opo se d su p p le m en ta l for p ay co sts ($1,033,000 for per so nn el co m pen sa tion 

an d $72,000 for re la te d be ne fits ).

An aly sis of increases requested by class o f personnel

Per so nn el co m pen sa tion:

C le rk s of co u rt s___________ ____ _

Pro bat io n sy st em .............................. ..

Sec re ta ries an d l aw c le rk s_________

Crier s an d m es se ng er s_____________

C ourt r ep o rt ers __ ________________

O th er p er so nne l_____ ____ ________

T o ta l, c om pen sa ti on____________

R el at ed b en efits ______________________

T ota l, co m pe ns at io n an d b en efi ts ________________ _____ ____

Le ss port io n of sa la ries a n d be nef its 

sh ow n ab ov e paid from o th er acco unts :

C om pensa ti on____________

B en ef its__________________

T o ta l (d irec t) obl ig at io ns .

E sti m ate , 1965 A dditio nal

pe rs onn el

Pos ition s

1,425

890

830

320

313

122

3,900

3,90 0

A m o u n t

$11, 500,00 0 

7,920, 000 

6,78 0,0 00 

1,620,000 

2,84 0,0 00 

913,000

31,5 73, 000 

2,3 15,00 0

33,8 88, 000

-3 15 ,0 00

-2 3 ,0 0 0

33,55 0,0 00

Pos ition s

A m ount

W itliin -

gr ad e

pr om otion s

40 $242,900 $138,000

158 > 718,600 145,000

33 239,200 65,000

36 133,000 12,000

33 200,400 5,000

300

300

E sti m ate , 1966

Po sition s

1,465

1,048

863

356

313

155

A m ount

$11,880,90 0 

8,7 83,60 0 

7,0 84. 200 

1,76 5,00 0 

2,840, 000 

1,118, 400

1,534,100 

117,400

1,65 1,500

_____ 1,65 1,500

365,000 

25,000

390,000

4,200

4,20 0

-6 ,0 0 0 ...........

-5 0 0 _____

383,500 ..........

33,472 ,10 0 

2,457,40 0

35,929 ,500

-3 21 ,0 00 

-2 3,5 00

35,585 ,000

1

 9- in ont h pr ov isio n.
51

Sum mar y of increased requirements for 1966

Na ture of expense (or savings) :

1. 15 additional deputy clerks for the courts of appeals-------------

2. 25 deputy clerks fo r the dis trict cou rts--------------------------------

Amount

$98, 300 

163. 700

3. 90 additional probation officers---------------------------------------- 1 526, 800

4. 68 clerk-stenographers for probation offices------------------------- 1 244, 500

5. 33 additional law clerks for the courts of appeals ---------------- 257, 600

6. 33 stenographers for the courts of appeals--------------------------- 216, 200

7. 36 additional messengers for the courts of appeals--------------- 144, 400

8. Provision for within-grade salary advancem ents------------------ 383, 500

9. Authority for continua tion of the pre trial exam iner system in

the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New

York on an experim ental basis________________________ (46,000)

Incre ase, 1966 over 1965--------------------------------------------- 2, 035, 000

1 9-month provision.

JU ST IFICAT IO N

Language changes

The limitations on the aggregate salarie s of secreta ries and law clerks to circuit and dis trict judges have been increased, consisten t with the provisions 

of the Federal Jud icial Sala ry Act of 1964. from $17,670 and $23,465, to $18,150 

and $24,200 respectively.

Objectives

This appropriation is for payment of the compensation and rela ted benefits 

of all supporting personnel of the U.S. courts of appeals and the U.S. dis tric t 

courts, with the exception of referees in bankruptcy and their clerical assista nts. 

It provides for the adm inistrative and legal aids requ ired to assist the judges 

in the conduct of hearings, tria ls, and other judicial functions and to man the 

component offices of the courts, including the Fed eral probation system. For 

da ta as to th e classes of personnel covered and basic statutory authorities, refer ­

ence is made to section “K” of the “Digest of Appropriations, the Jud iciary ,” on 

file with the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropriations Committees of the 

Congress.

General justification

Fiscal year 1964 was a yea r of an increasing volume of litig atio n and a 

mounting backlog of cases both in the U.S. courts of appeals and in the U.S. 

dis trict courts. This is a continuation of a trend which with few exceptions 

has been in evidence for almost two decades. It has been only in the years of 

jurisdicti ona l change or omnibus judgeship legislation th at the number of filings 

has receded or that the backlog of cases has been curtailed. The workload in 

1964 is being compared with that of 1961 in order to show the increases which 

have taken place since the passage of the last omnibus judgeship bill. The 

workload figures for the interim years also are reflected on the following 

pages.

The U.S. courts of appeals during the past 3 years have experienced a very 

sharp increase in filings. In 1964 there were 6.023 appeals docketed in the 

U.S. courts of appeals compared with only 4,204 appea ls in 1961, an increase of 

43 percent. Civil cases filed in the dis trict courts were 15 percent higher, 66,930 

in 1964 compared with only 58,293 in 1961.

The new judges appointed pursu ant to the act of May 19. 1961, undoubtedly 

have made a sub stan tial contribution but, notwithstanding, the backlog of cases 

continues to grow. The courts of appeals in 1964 disposed of 5.700 cases. 41 

perc ent more tha n were term inated in 1961, yet during this period the pending 

caseload of the courts of appeals increased almost 60 percent from 2,375 to an 

alltime high of 3,780. The disposition of civil cases in the dis trict courts were 

up 15 percent, from 55.416 in 1961 to 63.954 in 1964. Notwithstanding, during 

thi s period the backlog of civil cases increased 13 percent from 64.128 to a 

record 72.195. The crim inal caseload in the dis trict courts increased 19 percent, 

from 8,078 on Jun e 30. 1961. to 9.578 on Jun e 30. 1964. The number of jur y 

tri als and nonjury t ria ls in 1964, compared with 1961, were up 11 and 22 percent, 

respectively. In 1964 there were a total of 23,160 trial days compared with 

18.965 in 1961—an increase of 22 percent.
52

The sha rp increase in filings has generated a proportionate incre ase in the 

workload of the clerks’ offices. The clerks of the U.S. distric t courts have had 

the additio nal burden of processing 33 perc ent more passport applications, 

292,590 in 1904, compared with only 220,699 in 1961. An increase of 17 percent 

in bankruptcy case filings very definitely has contributed to the increased workload of the clerks of the dis trict courts. The demand for the services of probatio n officers has increased substantially during the past 3 years. As of Jun e 

30, 1964, the re were 39,656 persons und er supervision, compared with 35,065 on 

June 30, 1961, an increase of 13 percent. During 1964 probation officers conducte d 32,975 prese ntence and preparole investigations compared with only 

31,082 in 1961, an increase of 6 percent.

The budget estima te for 1966 contemplates the appointment of 300 add itional 

employees to aid the judges in the conduct of their official duties and to man 

the component offices of the courts. The judg es of the U.S. courts of appeals 

have expressed the need for additional law clerks, stenographers, and messengers. There is a demand for additional employees for the clerk s’ offices in the 

U.S. cou rts of appeals. The heavier demands for presentence and preparole 

inve stigations and the increase in the number of persons und er supervision of 

prob ation officers have limited crit ically the amount of time the officers can 

devote to each case. The budget estimate provides for the appointment of 

additio nal officers and clerk -stenographers for the probation system. Provision 

also has been made for augmenting the staffs of the clerks of the U.S. dis tric t 

courts.

Detailed justifications

An a ppropriation of $35,585,000 is requested for fiscal year 1966, which represents an increase of $2,035,000 over the amount available for 1965, augmented 

to the e xten t of the proposed supplemental for pay costs und er the Federal Jud icial Sala ry Act of 1964, Public Law 86-426, approved August 14, 1964. The 

increases in salary and rela ted benefits under the pay act aggregated $1,230,000, 

whereas, the proposed supplemental is only $1,105,000. The sum of $125,000, 

or 10.2 percent of the pay costs will be absorbed. The increase in budg etary 

requirements, over a nd above the pay costs is explained below:

Add itio nl deputy clerks for the courts of appeals

The sum of $98,300 is requested for the employment of 15 additional deputy 

clerk s to serve in the clerks’ offices of the U.S. courts of appeals. The estimate 

is based on the employees being classified in grade JSP-7 at $6,050 per annum 

and includes $7,200 for rela ted benefits—Government contributions to the ret irement fund, for group life insurance, and hea lth benefits. In addition to the 

amount included herein for compensation and benefits, the sum of $12,000 is 

included und er the appropriation head ing “Trav el and miscellaneous expenses” 

to provide the new deputies with general office equipment and to cover such 

miscellaneous expenses as communications, printing, supplies, etc.

As was mentioned earlier, und er the “General justifications,’’ the cou rts of 

appeals, during the past 4 years, have experienced a very s harp increase in filings. 

In 1964 there were 6,023 appeals docketed compared with only 4,204 in 1961, 

an incre ase of 43 percent. Each cou rt of appeals has shared in the overall increase in judicia l business. Numerically, the larg est increase occurred in the 

fifth circ uit with the court receiving 1,033 appeals, 403 more than it received 

in 1961. The larges t percentage increase in filings occurred in the fourth circ uit 

with the court receiving 87 percent more cases than it received in 1961. The 

sixth circ uit received 64 percent more appeals in 1964 than they did in 1961.
53

The follow ing table shows the volume of appeals docketed in each of the courts 

durin g the pas t 4 years and the increase, 1964 over 1961:

C ir c u it

N u m b e r of c ase s fi le d (f is ca l y e a r) In cre a se, 1964 o v e r 1961

1961 1962 1963 1964 N u m e ric a l P e r c e n t a g e

D is tr ic t c o u rts ________________ 527 653 791 735 208 40

1 st_____________________________ 146 165 143 204 58 40

2 d ............................................................ 674 582 695 717 43 6

3 d ...................... ................................ 334 437 410 457 123 37

4 t h ................................. ........................ 250 300 357 467 217 87

5 th ____________ _______________ 630 715 874 1,03 3 403 64

6 t h ......................................................... 340 412 411 558 218 64

7 t h ....................... ..................... ............ 328 394 434 464 138 41

8 t h ......................................................... 246 297 290 349 103 42

9 t h .......................................................... 443 580 719 621 178 40

1 0 th ........................................................ 286 288 313 418 132 46

T o t a l ________ _____ ______ 4,20 4 4,8 23 5,43 7 6, 02 3 1,81 9 43

With all of the finan cial activ ities, the docketing and other paperwork centered 

in the clerk s’ offices, the workload in these offices has increased in proportion to 

the increase in filings . In additio n, the clerks’ offices had to absorb the work 

generated by the activitie s of the 10 new judge s appointed pursu ant to the act 

of May 19, 1961. No fund s were requested for additional deputy clerks to handle 

the cleri cal and admi nistr ative funct ions of the clerk s’ offices resulting from the 

appointment of the new judges. At the time, it appeared tha t this additiona l 

work could be absorbed ; however, filings were not expected to increase to the 

extent th at they have.

At the present time, there are 87 full-tim e permanent positions authorized for 

the clerks’ offices in the courts of appeals, only 4 more than there were in 1961. 

This represents an increase in man-hours of appro ximat ely 5 percent in contras t with an increase o f 43 percent in the number of cases filed. The workload 

in these offices has now reached a point beyond which it could possibly be 

absorbed. To a limit ed extent , reli ef has been provided by the autho rization of 

temporary assistants out of savings in the appropriation. However, the savings 

is not of a recurring nature and unless additional fund s are appropriated, the 

temporary appointments will have to be terminated.

Ad dit ion al de puty c lerk s for the dist rict courts

The sum of $163,700 is requested in this approp riation for the employment of 

25 addit ional deputy clerks in grade JS P -7 at $6,050 per annum to serve in the 

clerks’ offices of the U. S. district courts. The estimate includes $151,800 for 

personnel compensation and $11,900 for relate d benefits—Government contribu ­

tions to the retirem ent fund, for group lif e insurance and health benefits. In 

additio n, the sum of $20,000 has been in cluded under the appropriation heading 

“ Tra vel and miscellane ous expenses” to provide the new deputies with general 

office equipment and to cover such miscellaneous expenses as communication s, 

print ing, supplies, etc.

The additional deputy clerks will increa se the number of positions authorized 

for the clerk s’ offices in the district courts from 1,312 to 1,337. This represents 

an increase in man-hours of less than 2 percent. It may be well to note at this 

point tha t no funds have been appropriated for augmen ting the staffs of the 

clerks of court sin ce 1962.

The need fo r the additiona l deputy clerks in the dist rict courts is due in large 

measure to the very sharp increase in bankruptc y cases. In 1964 bankru ptcy 

case filings increased to an alltime high of 171,719—17 percent more than there 

were in 1961. Th is places a considerable burden on the clerks’ offices in tha t 

they are responsible for the opening and closing of the case dockets and certa in
54

related financ ial acti vitie s. The clerks of court are required by law to collect 

a fee of $8 in each case representing a remuneration for services rendered. 

This is based on the concept that the bankruptcy system is to be operated on a 

self-s ustain ing basis. These fees are deposited into the general fund of the 

Treasury. The increased filings have resulted in a substantial increase in revenue—$200,000 more in 10(54 than in 1061 and almost one-half million more than 

in 1060. The amount requested herein represents only a fraction of the sum 

being deposited into the Treasury by reason of the increase in bankru ptcy cases.

In 1064, 202,500 passport applications were processed by the clerks’ offices as 

compared with 220,600 in 1061, an increase of 71,801 or 33 percent. Dur ing the 

first 3 months of fiscal year 1065, passport applic ations were up 12 percent 

over the previous year . If the trend continues, the district courts may be expected to process 367,000 applica tions in 1066, 75,000 more than in 1064 and 

almost 150,000 more than they processed in 1061. A committee of clerks some 

years ago made a study and found that it takes on an average 30 minutes to 

process a passport application. This includes counter inquiries, telephone calls , 

and correspondence. Based on the volume of applications processed, the workload in the clerk s’ offices in 1064, compared with 1061, has increased to the 

extent of 36,000 man-hours, or the equivalent of 17 full-t ime employees. If the 

volume of applications forecast for 1066 should mate rialize, it would require 

services equivalent to approx imately 18 more employees.

An increase in the volume of civi l cases very definitely has contributed to 

the increased workload in the clerks’ offices. Du rin g 1064 the district courts 

received 66,030 civi l cases compared with 58,203 in 1061, an increase of 15 

percent. In 1064 there were 63,054 civi l cases termin ated, 15 percent more than 

in 1061. Dur ing this period the pending civi l caseload went up by 13 percent, 

from 64.128 to 72,105. The follow ing table shows the number of civi l cases 

filed, terminated and pending in the U.S . dist rict courts for the past 4 ye ar s:

F is c a l y e a r F ile d T e r m in a te d P e n d in g , 

e n d of y e a r

19 61 ___________________________ . . 58 293 55 416 64 ,128 190 2_________________ _________ 61 836 57 ,996 67* 968

1963_____ ______ ________ _______ 63 ,6 30 62 379 69 ,2 19 196 4______________________________ 66 ,9 30 63 ,954 72; 195

The Adm inistrati ve Office of the U.S . Cour ts has received many requests 

from clerks of the Dis tric t Courts for additional personnel. These requests in 

most instances bear the endorsement of the Ch ief Jud ge. Aft er careful consideration of each of the requests, taking into account the volume of civil 

criminal, and bankruptcy cases, passport applic ations, petitions for natu raliz ation , 

etc., it has been determined that the need for 25 additi onal deputy clerks very 

definitely exists and tha t such additiona l personnel must be provided for the 

proper functioni ng of the courts.

Addition al probation officers

It is requested tha t $526,800 be provided for the employment of 00 additi onal 

probation officers in grade JS P -0 at $7,220 per annum. The sum of $480,200 

is for their compensation and the remain ing $37,600 for related benefits—Government contributions to the retirement fund, f or group l ife insurance and health 

benefits. In additio n, the sum of $132,000 is included under the heading “T ravel 

and Miscellaneous Expenses’’ for the nonrecurring expense of providing general 

office equipment and to cover their expenses of trave l, communications, supplies, 

etc. The estimates are based on the officers servin g for an averag e of only 0 

months in fiscal year 1066.

There are presently 522 probation officer positions authorize d for the distri ct 

courts. Since 1050 the Congress has approved the appointment of only 15 

additiona l officers, an increase in man-hours of less than 3 percent. In contrast, durin g this period the number of presentence investigation s demanded of 

the officers increased 0 percent, from 23,002 to 26,008. There has been a 16- 

percent increase in the number of persons under supervision—34,248 as of the 

close of the fiscal year 1050 compared with 30,656 on Jun e 30, 1064. The 

heavier demands o f presentence investigation work and the large r number of persons under s upervision have limited cri tica lly the amount of time the officers can
55

devote to each case, resulting in inadequate supervision and less comprehensive 

investig ative work.

In fiscal year 1959, with the appo intment of some additional officers, the 

number of investiga tions and supervision cases per officer reached their lowest 

point in recent years. Even then the demands of investigative work precluded 

thorough supervision of probation ers and parolees. With the intervening increase in workload, it would now require approximate ly 67 add itional probation 

officer positions merely to bring about a retu rn to the 1959 level.

To meet the demands of the current workload, as expressed in the Jun e 30, 

1964, sta tistics, 90 additional officers will be required. This figure is based on the 

assumption that if an officer were to do only supervision work he would hand le 

a load of 100 cases, and that if he were to do only investiga tive work he would 

complete 150 comprehensive inve stiga tions per year. The estimate of 90 add itional officers is not based on an overall national average but rather is the result 

of a district-by-district application of the foregoing measurements.

In fiscal year 1964, the daily per cap ita cost of Federal probation and parole 

was less tha n one-tenth the cost of imprisonment—59 cents per day for probationers compared with $6.35 daily cost of treatm ent in Fed eral institution s. On 

an a nnu al basis the figures were $215 and $2,318, respectively.

Add itional clerk-stenographers for probation syste m

The sum of $244,500 ($229,400 compensation and $15,100 related benefits) will 

be needed for the employment of 68 clerk-stenographers for an average of 9 

months in 1966. The sum of $54,400 is included under the heading “Travel and 

Miscellaneous E xpenses” fo r general office equipment and miscellaneous expenses. 

These clerk-stenographers will be required to serve the additional officers requested above.

Additional law clerks fo r the courts of appeals

The Jud icial Conference Committee on Suppo rting Personnel in March 1964 

recommended to the Jud icia l Conference th at “each court of appeals be auth orized to employ three law clerks to be assigned from time to time by the chief 

judge to cases or to judges as he may deem desirable.” The Committee stated 

th at it was of the opinion t ha t th e c ourts of appeals are presently confronted with 

sub stan tially increasing caseloads, with many cases presentin g issues of scientific 

and economic complexity based upon lengthy and involved records which require intensive examination. It expressed the view th at the present personnel 

available to some of the partic ularly burdened courts of appeals is inadequa te 

to efficiently and economically carry out the responsibilities devolving upon 

them. The recommendations of the Committee were approved by the Jud icia l 

Conference; but, of course, the appo intments shall be subject to the ava ilab ility 

of funds.

The autho rity for the appointment of these law clerk s is contained in section 

712 of title 28 of the United States Code. The sta tut e provides th at “circ uit 

judges may appoint necessary law clerks” withou t any restriction s as to the 

number of law clerks that may be employed. The limitations contained in the 

text of the appropriation on the aggregate salaries to be paid sec reta ries and 

law clerks appointed by “one judge” are not considered applicable inasmuch as 

the appointments are to be made by the courts and not by the individual 

judges.

The sum of $257,600 is requested to perm it the employment of 33 additional 

law clerks for the courts of appeals in grade JSP-9 at $7,220 per annum. Of 

thi s amount $239,200 is to cover their compensation and $15,000 the rela ted 

Government contributions to the reti rem ent fund, for group life insurance, and 

hea lth benefits. In addition, the sum of $26,400 is included und er the appropriatio n heading “Trav el and Miscellaneous Expenses” for the procurement of 

general office equipm ent and to cover their miscellaneous expenses—communications, supplies, etc.

Stenographers for the courts of appeals

The Jud icial Conference Committee on Supporting Personnel in September 

1964 recommended to the Jud icia l Conference that “each court of appeals he 

authorized to employ not to exceed three stenographers, to be assigned from time 

to time by the chief judge to judges or to such matters as he may deem desirable 

to expedite the work of the court.” The Committee stated th at the “present 

stenographic assistance available to some of the partic ula rly burdened courts 

of appeals is inadequate to efficiently and economically carry out the respon-
56

sibilitie s devolving upon such courts.” The Conference approved the Committee’s 

recommendation.

The sum of $216,200 has been included herein to p erm it the employment of the 

sten ographers—$200,400 for the ir compensation and $15,800 for related benefits. 

In addition, t he sum of $54,400 has been included under the heading “Travel and 

Miscellaneous Expenses” for the procurement of general office equipment and for 

such miscellaneous expenses as communications, supplies, etc.

Addition al messengers for courts of appeals

Section 713 of title 28 of the United States Code authorizes the courts of appeals to appoint necessary messengers, without any restriction as to the number 

of messengers that may be appointed. As a matt er of policy, the courts have 

been limited to one messenger for each judge.

At the present time, there are 25 perm anent full-time messengers and 1 permanent part-time messenger authorized for the cou rts of appeals. With 78 

circ uit judgeships, the ratio is 1 messenger for every 3 judges. Recently, 

the ad ministrat ive office of the U.S. courts authorized the employment of 14 add ition al messengers on a purely temp orary basis for the judges in the Third and 

Fifth Circuit C ourts of Appeals. These temporary appointments were authorized 

with the und erstanding th at they are subject to term ination in the event of a 

denia l by the Congress of this request for additional funds. The savings in 

the appropriation which made these appointments possible is not of a recu rring 

nature .

In recent years there has been a growing tendency on the part of the judges 

of the courts of appeals to exerecise their prerogative to appoint messengers. 

This apparently is due to the increasing volume of business in the courts. Whereas in the p ast a judge may have called upon his secretary, law clerk, or a member of the clerk’s office to perform messenger services, out of sheer compassion, 

he now would be less inclined to do so. Of course, there is for consideration 

the economic fa ct or ; th at is, the utilization of highly paid employees in a servile 

capacity.

It is requested that the sum of $144,400 be provided in 1966 for the employment 

of 36 add itional messengers for the courts of appeals on a permanen t basis. This 

will permit a conversion of the above-referred-to temp orary appointments to a 

perm anent status. The estimate is based on the messengers being classified in 

grade JSP-2 at $3,680 per annum and includes $11,400 for related benefits—Governm ent contributions to the retiremen t fund, for group life insurance, and health 

benefits. In addition, the sum of $28,800 is included under the heading “Travel 

and Miscellaneous Expenses” to cover such expenses as communications, supplies, etc.

Within-grade salary advancements

All of the personnel provided for by this appropriation with the exception 

of clerks of court, court reporters, National Pa rk Commissioners, and other 

officers and employees serving in ungrade d positions at rates fixed by the Ju ­

dicial Conference are subject to the promotional plan for judicia ry personnel 

and will be granted step increases corresponding with those provided for by 

title V II of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.

It is estim ated th at these within-grade salary advancements will cost $383,- 

500 of which $359,000 represents increases in compensation and $24,500 rela ted 

benefits—Government contributions to the civil service retirem ent fund and 

for group life insurance. The estim ate, which represents aproxima tely 85 

percent of the full potential cost of step increases, is net of anticipa ted savings due to turn ove r of personnel and the filling of vacancies at lower rates 

of pay. The estim ated cost of within-grade sal ary advancements to be gran ted 

in 1966 is somewhat lower than the estima te for 1965 for the reason that 

a larger percentage of the employees will be in the fourth or higher steps 

of their respective grad es and consequently will be subject to longer waiting 

periods.

Autho rity for continuation of the pretrial examiner system in the U.S. D istrict

Court fo r th e Southern District of New Y ork on an experimental basis

The Congress for the fiscal year 1962 appropriated funds for the establishment of a pretria l exam iner division in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on an experim ental basis.

Recently at the direction of the Jud icia l Conference the Committee on 

Court Adm inistration designated two dis tric t judges and one circ uit judge to 

examine the adm inistra tion of the pretria l examiner system in New York.
57

fOn the basis of the report of the subcommittee, the Committee on Court Administration, with the concurrence of the Committee on Pretrial Procedure, 

recommended to the Judicial Conference that the office be continued on an 

experimental basis, that the appropriation of funds to sustain the office on 

its present basis for the fiscal year 1966 is amply justified, and that the 

appropriation of funds should be continued from year to year until further 

order of the Judicial Conference, pending an investigation in depth for the 

purpose of evaluating the pretrial examiner system and related pretrial procedures in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by 

an authority competent to conduct such a study. The recommendations of 

the Committee on Court Administration were approved by the Judicial Conference.

The following is a breakdown of the present staff and the annual cost of the 

prog ram :

Salary and

benefits

Examiner, ungraded__________________________________________ $16, 620

Examiner, ungraded_________________________________________ 16, 620

Clerical assistant, JSP -4______________________________________ x 4, 630

Clerk-typist, JSP-4__________________________________________ 4, 930

Total salaries__________________________________________ 42, 800

Related benefits (estimate)___________________________________ 3,200

Total_________________________________________________ 46, 000

1

 Includes wlthln-grade sa lary advancement due March 1965.

INCREASES REQUESTED

Mr. Rooney. The request is in the amount of $35,585,000, which 

would be an increase of $2,035,000 over the adjusted appropriation 

for the current fiscal year. The requested increases are set forth at 

pages 67 and 68.

ADDITIONAL DEPUTY CLERKS

What is the alleged necessity for these 15 additional deputy clerks 

for the courts of appeals?

Judge McGuire. This matter was presented to the Judicial Conference.

Mr. Rooney. This is a request for how many additional positions, 

a total of about 300?

Mr. Sweeney. Yes.

Judge McGuire. The 25 additional deputy clerks for the district 

courts are needed. Tha t would give us 1,337. There were 76 requests for additional clerks. We went over tha t very thoroughly and 

decided to request 25 as urgently needed. The reason given, as I related to the committee and restate, is the increase in the workload, 

basically.

Judge Weinman. You are talking about the d istric t courts now.

Judge McGuire. Yes. The courts of appeals have their own peculiar problems.

Mr. Rooney. Does anybody here want to say anything on this?

Mr. Sweeney. I think on the courts of appeals we have to simply 

call attention to the workload, and on page 74 there is a table showing 

the workload from 1961 through 1964.

Judge McGuire. I might say further, Mr. Chairman, tha t as a consequence of the Coppedge case and other cases in the Supreme Court 

a tremendous burden has been laid on both courts, heavily on the dis-
58

trict courts and likewise on the courts of appeals. The appeals are 

taken forma pauperis and it constitutes a severe burden and the courts 

of appeals cannot do anything about th at because the Supreme Court 

has spoken.

Mr. Rooney. Where would these clerks be allocated ?

Judge McGuire. You mean geographically in the circuits?

Mr. Rooney. Yes.

Mr. Sweeney. I have a statement here which we can read for the 

record or which we can give to the committee, at your pleasure.

Mr. Rooney. Just let us see it, please.

According to this list you would allocate an additional deputy clerk 

or more to the thir d circuit ?

Mr. Sweeney. Yes.

Mr. Rooney. The number of cases filed in tha t circuit in 1964 was 

only 20 cases more than in 1962, was it not?

Mr. Sweeney. In the third circuit, sir ?

Mr. Rooney. Yes.

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir. We show a drop in 1963 and a rise in 1964.

Mr. Rooney. Ia m talking about the 407 in 1962.

Mr. Sweeney. Yes.

Mr. R ooney. Just 20 more cases and we have to give them an additional clerk?

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir. As I understand it, there were no clerks 

added to these courts since 1961.

Judge McGuire. There is a great deal more work in the processing 

of an appeal today than there was 10 years ago. We are inundated by 

appeals taken forma pauperis and the Supreme Court said under those 

circumstances appeal must be permitted in most instances. Tha t requires a lot of work and somebody has to do it.

Mr. Rooney. Tell us about these 25 deputy clerks for the district 

courts that you referred to a while ago.

Judge McGuire. They are required by virtue of the increase in the 

civil cases, the increase in bankruptcy cases, the increase in applications for passports, and finally, but nonetheless importantly, the number of criminal cases. I do not know what you will find with respect 

to individual districts, but originally 76 were asked for and we brought 

them down to 25.

STA TISTICS USED IN MAKI NG COMPARISON

Mr. Rooney. At page 78 of these justifications you point out that 

in 1964 there were 63,954 civil cases terminated. Right ?

Judge McGuire. Terminated?

Mr. R ooney. Yes.

Judge McGuire. That is right.

Mr. Rooney. And that this was 15 percent, as you say, more than 

in 1961. Right?

Judg e McGuire. That is correct as the record goes.

Mr. Rooney. Why did your people not give us the record previous 

to 1961, which would show th at this, on the face of it, is misleading. 

For instance, in 1960 you had 61,829 cases terminated; in 1959 you 

had 62,172; in 1958 you had 61,285; in 1957 you had 63,568; and in 

1956 you had 67,700 cases terminated. Why was not tha t information
59

set fo rth at p age 78 ? W hy did you folk s p ick the ye ar which was the 

lowest going back as fa r as 1954?

Mr. Garabedian. If I may expla in, the decline in 1957 w as due to 

the Alask a statehood and th at excluded ter minations fo r Alask a, so 

the y a re not on a com par abl e basis.

Mr. Rooney. The y certa inly are on a compar able basis because they 

exclude civil and cri mi nal cases ter mina ted in Alask a. Ju st tak e a 

look at this. The se are yo ur figures we are loo king at. You picked 

the yea r w hich h ad th e lowest cases t ermina ted in any yea r since 1954. 

Is t hat right ?

Mr. Garabedian. Yes, sir.

Mr. R ooney. Do you think th is is a nice w ay to do business?

Ju dg e McGuir e. We ll, M r. Ch airma n, you co uld tak e the figures, f or 

example, in the Distri ct of Columbia fro m the sta nd po int of dispositio n of cri minal cases and go bac k to 1954 and you wou ld find the 

figu re was approx im ate ly the same. Bu t nev erth eless the re is an increase in the processing of th at type of lit igation. I can assu re you 

there w as no c overt reason------

Mr. Rooney. I expect you would not, in the or dina ry course of 

thing s, be fam ili ar wi th wh at we hav e ju st unc overed; wou ld you, 

Ju dg e?

Ju dg e McGuire. I would say th at is correct bu t on behalf of Mr. 

Ga rab edian and the a dm inist rativ e office I am sur e there w as no purpose in giv ing yo u a figure th at c aused you to rai se you r eyebrow an d 

go back to 1954.

Mr. Rooney. I t ju st so happened th ey pic ked t he year th at was t he 

lowest since 1954?

Mr. Garabedian. We were no t tryi ng to deceive the committee. 

In 1961, we ha d an omn ibus jud ge b ill an d we fe lt an ythi ng pr io r to 

1961 would not hav e been on a com parable basis. That is why we 

chose to com pare w ith 1961,1962, and 1963.

Mr. Bow. Mr. Ch air ma n, w ill you yield ?

Mr. R ooney. Yes, Mr. B ow.

Mr. Bow. I am int ere ste d in th at statem ent. I ha d it in mind. I 

would like to hav e a list sho win g the numb er of Fe de ral jud ges you 

ha d a t tha t time compar ed to now.

Mr. Rooney. We have given them ad ditio na l peo ple each yea r.

Mr. Bowr. My idea was when we passed these bills inc rea sing the 

numb er of judges, we wou ld ter mi nate more cases. Can you give us 

for the reco rd the personnel and, star ting with Mr. Roone y's figu re 

of 1954, give the numb er of perso nnel in th e c our ts a nd also the num ber 

of judges at th at time ? W ill you do th at fo r th e record ?

Mr. Garabedian. Yes.

Mr. Bow. Th an k you.

Mr. R ooney. Ju st make it p aten t on the record.

Mr. Garabedian. Excuse me, Mr. Bow, how fa r back did you want 

to go?

Mr. Bow . 1954. Tha t is th e figure Mr. R ooney used.

Mr. R ooney. 1954 fiscal year.

Ju dg e McGuire. Do you wa nt the figures fo r 1954 rea d in the 

record here?

Mr. R ooney. We have them.

Ju dg e McGuir e. Yon have them ?
60

Mr. R ooney. Yes, sure we have them. We watch this each year. 

(The information requested follows:)

Growth of the st aff of the U.S . circuit and district courts {total positions')

Fis ca l ye ar

1954.

1955.

1956.

1957.

1958.

1959.

1960.

1961.

1962.

1963. 

1964 

1965,

Ju dges C le rk s

P ro b ati o n

C o u rt

re port er s

L aw 

clerks 

an d secre ta ries

Crier s 

an d m es ­

seng ers

O th er

T ota l 

ju dg es 

an d 

co urt 

Off icers st af f i

Cle rk -

st en og ­

ra pher s

348 1,139 318 216 223 507 179 143 3,073 381 1,140 316 212 236 550 189 148 3,172

385 1,189 384 264 250 580 205 156 3,413 393 1,245 483 345 251 589 205 157 3,668 400 1,245 483 343 249 589 198 147 3,654 406 1,245 503 353 253 600 200 141 3,701 397 1,250 505 355 253 600 200 151 3,711 394 1,275 506 361 249 627 211 151 3,774 476 » 1,351 521 367 294 705 « 292 4

 117 4,123 475 » 1,412 521 367 314 • 830 315 121 4,355 480 1,412 521 367 314 830 2 320 121 4,365 474 81,4 25 522 368 313 830 320 122 4,374

1 Excl us iv e of referees in b a n k ru p tc y an d th e ir staffs w ho ar e pai d from a sp ec ia l fu nd in th e T re as ury 

der iv ed f ro m fees a n d ch ar ge s pai d b y p art ie s in b a n k ru p tc y p ro ce ed in gs .

2

 In cl udes 2 li bra ri ans transf er re d from th e a ll o tm en t for “ O th er” pe rs on ne l.

2

 I ncl udes 39 m es se ng er p osi tion s tr an sf er re d from t h e all o tm en t for “ O th er” per so nn el .

4

 T h is w as re duce d b y 41 po si tions b y th e tr an sf er of 39 m es se ng er s to th e all otm ent for “ C rier s” a n d 

2 lib ra ri an s to th e a ll o tm en t for “ C le rk s. ”

5

 Ref le cts th e transf er of 37 referees ’ clerks to th e cl er k’s off ice in th e n o rt h ern d is tr ic t of I llin oi s T h e 

se rv ices a re to be p ro vid ed on a rei m burs ab le b as is.

6

 P ri o r to 1962 t h e nu m b er of la w cl er ks a n d se cr et ar ie s sta te d in te rm s of f ul l-tim e eq u iv ale n t po si tion s.

7

 A d m in is tr ati v e inc re as e in n u m b er of posi tions—n o ad d it io n al fu nds re ques te d of th e Co ng ress.

’ Ref le ct s t h e tr an sf er of 13 referees ’ cl er ks to th e cle rk ’s offic es in th e no rt h ern d is tr ic t of G eo rg ia ( A tla nt a) , 

an d in th e ea st er n d is tr ic t of M ichi ga n (F li n t) . T h e se rv ices are to be pro vid ed on a re im burs ab le bas is .

JU DICIAR Y SALARY PL AN

Mr. Rooney. What do you now estimate is the annual cost of the 

judiciary salary plan?

Mr. Sweeney. $1,036,000.

WITH IN-GRA DE SALARY ADV ANCEMENT

Mr. Rooney. How much are you absorbing in within-grade salary 

advancements in these estimates?

Judge McGuire. $125,000,1 have. That is within-grade, is it not ?

Mr. Sweeney. That is absorption of the pay cost caused by the Federal Salary Act of 1964.

Mr. Rooney. That is not the question. The question is, How much 

are you absorbing in within-grade salary advancements in these 

estimates ?

Mr. Garabedian. Approximately $73,000 in the budget estimate for 

1966.

increase in appropriation

Mr. Rooney. It might be well to note at this point in the record 

tha t in 1956 the requested appropriation for this item was in the 

amount $13,825,000. You now are here requesting $35,585,000, which 

would be an increase of 250 percent.
61

TRAVEL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES

At the bottom of page 81 of these justifications we find reference to’ 

the request in the amount $54,400 under the heading “Travel and miscellaneous expenses.”

What is the breakdown of that amount?

Mr. Anderson. The item of $54,400, Mr. Chairman, relates to clerkstenographers fo r probation offices.

Mr. Rooney. Tha t is what it says.

Mr. Anderson. Shall I read the list of about five items ?

Mr. Rooney. All righ t; please.

Afr. Anderson. Transportation of things, $680; communications, 

including postage, $13,600; printing, $2,040; other services—this includes machinery repairs, and so on, $680; supplies, $3,400, and nonrecurring item for equipment of $34,000, for a total of $54,400.

Mr. Rooney. Tha t is $34,000 nonrecurring ?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. Let us look at page 85 of these justifications.

You have a new scenario writer, Mr. Olney ?

REQUEST FOR MESSENGERS

Judge McGuire. Where?

Mr. Olney. There has been a change in personnel.

Mr. Rooney. Gentleman, this says:

* * * whereas in the past the judge may have called upon his secretary , law 

clerk, or a member of the cler k’s office to perform messenger services, out of sheer 

compassion he now would he less inclined to do so.

Judge McGuire. Tha t may be hyperbole.

Mr. Rooney. Of course; he continues—

* * * There is for consideration the economic factor, the utiliza tion of highly 

paid employees in a servile capacity.

Tha t is pretty good.

Specifically, what do these messengers do ?

J udge McGuire. You are addressing your remarks to-----

Mr. Rooney. It says, “36 additional messengers for the courts of 

appeals.” What do they do ?

Judg e McGuire. I assume they act in the same fashion in which 

bailiffs act in the district courts. I might say parenthetically for the 

record we do not have bailiffs in the D istrict of Columbia. We have 

had messengers since almost the year the court was established in 1801 

but I am assuming, from what little I know about the matter outside 

this jurisdiction, they would act in the capacity of bailiffs. You know 

tha t bailffs are all over the U.$. district courts except the District of 

Columbia.

Mr. Rooney. Can anyone here be a little more specific as to what 

they would do?

Judge J ohnsen. I can only answer as to my own court.. We have 

no bailiff. We have one crier who is our acting man in charge of our 

library and during our court sessions opens and closes court. Then 

there is a special man hired from, I think, the marshal’s office who 

takes charge of whatever custodial services are required. I would 

assume you will find no request for any of the eighth circuit there.
62

We are not getting , and nev er have had, any except one crier who 

acts as our lib ra rian . Th is pro bably is directed towa rd the second 

circuit and th at sort of a t hi ng w ould be where there was a court tha t 

could pro bably be in session all the tim e altho ug h I am no t sure. 

Tha t is the only expla natio n I can give to it, if it thr ow s any lig ht 

on the subject.

Mr. Rooney. W ha t is the bre akdown of the $28,800 referre d to at 

the top of page 86 fo r “T rave l an d miscellan eous expenses” of these 

requ ested messengers ?

Mr. Anderson. Th e $28,800 would be fo r “T rans po rtation of 

things ”—we have t his lai d ou t in a tab le on pag e 106, if I may refer 

you to th at.

Ju dg e McGuir e. Le t me ask you th is : Do we hav e som ething in 

the n atur e of a justifi cation f or an indiv idual cir cuit wi th ref erence to 

messeng ers to be pu t in the reco rd here ?

Mr. Rooney. I wo uld no t waste too much time on this, if I were you, 

Judg e.

Ju dg e McGuire. Th an k you, Mr. Ch airma n. We will tak e the 

suggestion a nd th e i mp lica tion .

Mr. Anderson. Th is tab le rel ate s to all of the new positions and 

su pp ortin g personnel, th ei r related expenses, so you can see them 

set f or th there.

Mr. Rooney. Are there any questions, gentlem en, wi th re ga rd to 

the second of thes e items ? To w it : “Salar ies of sup po rti ng person nel.”

Mr. Slack. H ow many messeng ers do you now have?

Ju dg e McGuir e. I n the entire system ?

Mr. S lack. Yes.

Ju dg e McGuire. I can only spe ak to the District of Columb ia, but 

fro m the sta nd po int of messengers, as such, we hav e 15 messengers, 

a messenger for each judge .

Mr. Slack. On page 84 of the justifications, you say at the present 

time th ere are 25 perm anent fu ll-tim e messengers?

Ju dg e McGuire. Fi fte en o f those are in the U.S . District Co urt for 

the D ist ric t of Columbia.

Mr. Slack. You wa nt to increase th at to 61, whi ch is more than 

do ub le; is th at correct ?

Ju dg e McGuir e. The req ues t is fo r 61 with refe rence to courts of 

appea l and th at is the to tal exclusive of the 15.

Ho w man y did I say alt og eth er? How ma ny did you say, Congressm an ?

Mr. Rooney. Twe nty-five.

Ju dg e McGuire. Th ere are 10 extra somewhere in the system. We 

have 15 in the Dist ric t of Columbia. I f you ask me how th at came 

abo ut there. I could not tell you because the y have been there since 

1801 in the Di str ict of Columb ia. We h ave g one thro ug h th at many 

yea rs before.

Mr. Sween ey. Excuse me. I t hink the 25 messengers refers specificall y to the c ourt of appea ls only and not to the D istri ct of Columbia.

Ju dg e McGuire. Tha t is 40, all told, then .

Mr. Rooney. Ar e you sayin g you wan t 36 addit ion al messengers 

on top of the 25 you alread y hav e w ith reg ard t o th e courts of appeals ?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
63

Judge McGuire. I am sorry tha t did not come clear. That was my 

fault and not yours.

Judge Weinman. I s not the reason the fact that they do not have 

bailiffs for each judge? They have one bailiff or maybe two for the 

whole court ?

Judge McGuire. That is what I hazarded as the reason. I did not 

get very far with it.

Judge Weinman. Tha t is the reason behind that.

Judge J oiinsen. I have not looked at these figures because th at is 

out of my field. I assume in the courts where they are sitting almost 

every day, perhaps it will show the second circuit judges have probably asked, but I am not familiar with the request for messengers in 

relationship to the individual offices. This is the only place where I 

can see tha t they would go into the courtroom.

Mr. Rooney. We shall now suspend until 2 o’clock.

AFTERNOON SESSION

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL PROBATION PERSONNEL

Mr. Rooney. The committee will please come to order.

Before proceeding with the third item entitled “Fees of jurors and 

commissioners,” I should like to refer to the bottom or lower paragrap h on page 80 of the justifications in connection with the request 

for 90 more probation officers and 68 more clerk-stenographers for 

probation officers.

Your scenario writer says tha t in fiscal year 1959—

* * * with appointment of some additional officers the n umber of investigations 

and supervision cases, per officer, reached their lowest point in recent years.

Tha t was their lowest point in recent years and then he says—

• * * even though the demands of investigative work precluded thorough supervision of probationers and parolees, with the intervening increase in workload, 

it would now requ ire approximate ly 67 additional probation officers merely to 

bring about a return to the 1959 level.

It would appear t hat you are not satisfied with tha t and tha t you 

want 150 more employees although you yourself say it would take only 

67 to bring it to a return to the 1959 level.

What have you to say about this ?

Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Louis Sharp, Chief of the Probation Division, is here with us and with your permission we would 

like him to speak to tha t point.

Mr. S harp. Mr. Chairman, what you say is correct. However, the 

basis on which we have estimated this is slightly different. What we 

are doing here by saying we need 90 positions—90 officer positions to 

reach our 1959 level—is that we are predicting that, by the end of 1966 

fiscal year, we will need that many.

Mr. Rooney. You mean you now want to withdraw this from this 

budget and put it in in 1967 ?

Mr. Sharp. No, sir; we would like to keep it in this one now.

Mr. Rooney. We will keep it in for the time being.

Are there any questions on this point with regard to these requested 

158 more people in Probation ?

Mr. Bow. No questions.

46 -8 16 — 65
64

Fees of J urorsand Commissioners, U.S. Courts

Object classification

[I n thou sa nd s of dollars]

1964 a ctua l 1965 estim ate 1966 estima te

11.4. Pe rsonne l comp ensat ion : Special pe rsonal service pa ymen ts:

Fees of U.S. c om missioners ______ ____ _ ____ _______ 875 

10 

2,877

875 

10 

2,900

875

10

3,535

Fees of jur y com missione rs___________________ ____ _

Fees of ju ro rs ____________________________________

Tot al pe rso nnel compe nsation______ _____________

12.0 Pe rson ne l b en efits _________________ _______________

3,762

39

1,574

102

3,785

45

1,585

85

4,420 

45

1,930

105

21.0 Tra ve l a nd tra ns po rta tio n of person s (ju ro rs)_________

25.1 Other ser vice s (me als an d lodging fur nish ed seq ueste red 

ju ro rs )___________ ______ _____ ___________ ________

Tot al obli gatio ns_____ ______ ______ ____________ 5,477 5,500 6,500

Program, and fiinancing

[In tho us an ds of dollars]

1964

actual

1965

es tim ate

1966

estim ate

Pr og ram b y ac tiv ities:

1. U.S. c ommis sioner sy ste m___ ______________________

2. Ju ry sy stem _____ _________ ____ . . . . . . . . ____

914 

4,563

920

4,580

920

5,580

10 To tal obligations____ ____________________________ 5,477

23

5,500 6,500

Financing :

25 Unobli ga ted b ala nce la psing _____________ ___________

40 Ne w obligational au th or ity (a pp ro pr iatio n) ___________

Relati on of ob liga tion s t o expenditures:

71 Tot al obligations (affecting ex pe nd itu re s)________ ____ _

72 Ob ligate d ba lan ce, s ta rt of y e a r . ____ __________________

74 Ob ligate d b alan ce , end of ye ar _________________________

77 Adjus tm en ts in exp ire d acco un ts______________________

5,500 5,500 6,500

5,477 

450

-4 63

9

5,500 

463

-4 63

6,500 

463

-5 18

Exp en ditures_____________________________________ 5,473 5,500 6,445

Air. Rooney. As I previously said, the thir d item entitled “Fees of 

jurors and commissioners'’ is to be found at page 89 of the justifications, which page we shall insert at this point in the record, together 

with pages 90 through 97.

(Tli ie pages follow:)

Statement relating appropr iation estimate to current appropriation

Fee s of jurors and commissioners, U.S . cou rts: Judiciary

1965 ap pro pri ati on in ann ua l a ct.......................................................................... . ............................. $5,500,000

N et difference, 1966 over 1965:

Req uiremen ts

Difference, 

increase ( + ) 

or decrease (—)

1965

appropriated

1966

est im ate

Ju rv costs____ ______________________________ $4,580,000 

920,000

$5,580,000 

920,000

+$1, 000,000

Comm issioners’ fees and re lated benefit s____ ______

Tota l____________ ______ _____________ 5,500,000 6,500,000 +1,0 00, 000 +1,000,000

To ta l e sti ma te for 1966. 6,500,000
65

Analysis by object

1965 es ti m ate 1966 es ti m ate In cr ea se or 

de cr ea se (—)

11 Per so nnel c om pen sa tion:

Fee s of U .S . co m m is si one rs _______ ___ ______________ $875,000 

10,000 

2,90 0, 000 

45,0 00 

1,58 5, 000 

85,00 0

$875 ,000 

10,0 00 

3,5 35 ,00 0 

45,0 00 

1,9 30,00 0 

105,000

Fee s of ju ry co m m is si on er s__________________________

Fee s of ju ro rs________________________________________ $635,000

12 Per so nnel b en efi ts _______________________ —-_____________

21 T ra v el an d tr an sp o rt ati o n of pe rs on s (j u ro rs )-------------------

25 O th er se rv ic es (m ea ls a n d l od gi ng fu rn is h ed ju ro rs ).............

T o ta l obli gat io ns______________________________________

345,000

20,000

5,5 00,00 0 6,500, 000 1,0 00, 000

Summary of increased requirements for 1966

Am oun t

Nature of expense (or savings) : To cover an anticipated increase 

in fees and allowances of juro rs by reason of a grea ter demand

for jury trials by court-appointed counsel in criminal cases_____$1, 000, 000

Increase, 1900 over 1905______________________________ 1, OOO, 000

JUST IFICATION

Language changes

None.

Objectives

This appropriation is for fees, expenses, and costs of ju ro rs ; compensation of 

jury commissioners; fees of U.S. commissioners, including related Government 

contributions to the civil service retirement fund and matching taxes under the 

Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as amended, and the compensation of voting referees appointed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1960. For basic sta tutory authorities, reference is made to section L of the Digest of Appropriations, 

the Judiciary, on file with the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropriations 

Committees of the Congress.

General justification

The amount of service and the compensation of jurors depends largely on the 

number of jury tria ls requested by the parties to civil and criminal cases in the 

courts. The earnings of commissioners are directly related to the volume of 

cases presented by Federal law-enforcement officials. The following table shows 

the trend in the cost of jurors and commissioners during the past 7 years, the 

amount appropriated for 1965, and the estimate for 1966:

F is ca l ye ar J u ry cos ts Per ce nta ge

ch an ge

Fee s of co m ­

m is si on er s 

an d r ela te d 

be nef its

P er ce nta ge

ch an ge

1958_____________ _____ ___________ $4,196 ,300 

4, 210,243

$783,700 

1959_______________________________ + 0 .3 791,826 + 1 .0

1960_______________________________ 3,8 94, 159 - 7 . 5 803, 562 + 1 .5

1961______________________________ 3, 767,974 - 3 . 2 830,976 + 3 .4

1962_______________________________ 4,2 58, 105 + 1 3 .0 841,630 + 1 .3

1963______________________________ 4,500, 636 

4,5 63, 124

+ 5 .7 908,473 + 7 .9

1964_______________________________ + 1 .4 914,089 + .6

1965 ( esti m ate d )___________________ 4,5 80,00 0 + .4 920,000 +■6

1966 ( esti m ate d )........ ................... ........... 5,5 80, 000 + 2 1 .8 920,000 .0

Petit jury costs during 1964 were approximately $3,900,000, about $100,000 

more than in the previous year and $700,000 more than in 1961. This increase 

in the cost of petit juries, which is in relatively the same proportion as the increase in the number of ju ry trial days, is due primarily to the activities of the 

additional district judges appointed pursuant to the omnibus judgeship legislation. Since 1961 the number of jury tria l days has increased 18 percent, from 

13,080 in 1961 to 15,399 in 1964, whereas, petit jury costs have increased 21 percent.
66

Fees and allowances of grand jurors in 1964 aggregated $664,000—$40,000 less 

than in the previous y ear but $97,000 more th an in 1961.

The earnings of the commissioners are, of course, uncontrollable as they are 

direc tly rela ted to the volume of cases presented by law-enforcement officials. 

The fees and related benefits of U.S. commissioners increased approximately 

$6,000, from $908,000 in 1963 to $914,000 in 1964. This was due in large measure 

to increased Government contributions to the civil service retir eme nt fund and 

under the Fed era l Insurance Contributions Act. During fiscal year 1964 there 

were 52 commissioners who were eligible for reti rem ent coverage compared with 

49 during 1963. Effective January 1, 1963, the taxes under the Federal Insuranc e 

Contributions Act went up from 3 to 3% percent, an increase of 21 percent. The 

act of August 31, 1964, bringing U.S. commissioners within the purview of the 

Fed eral Employees’ Health Benefits Act of 1959 and the Federal Employees’ 

Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, will result in a furth er increase in benefit payments in 1964 to the ext ent of approxim ately $6,000.

Anticipated increase in jury trials

During 1964 fees and allowances of petit jurors aggregated $3,900,000. Of 

thi s sum approxim ately $2 million represented the cost of criminal jur y tria ls. 

There were 35,072 criminal defendan ts disposed of during fiscal year 1964. Reports received in the Adm inistrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicate that of the 

total defendan ts term inated only 11.710, or one-third of them, were represented 

by p rivate counsel. Approximately 13 percent of these d efendants were tried by 

jur y, whereas only 6 percent of all other defendan ts were tried by jury, for a 

ratio of about 2 to 1. Court-appointed attorneys who served without compensation were less inclined to demand jury tria ls, probably for the reason that 

they would have to devote a gre ater amount of time in open court as well as out 

of court in preparing for tri al—interviewing witnesses, doing legal research, 

investigative work, etc. The absence of any provision for reimbursement of 

out-of-pocket expenses or payment for investiga tive and other services very 

definitely would have contributed to the ir reluctance to have their clients trie d 

by jury.

Under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, Public Law 88-455, approved August 

20, 1964, court-appointed attorneys in fiscal year 1966, assuming the necessary 

fund s a re appropriated , will be compensated for the ir services and be reimbursed 

the ir out-of-pocket expenses. The act also provides for investigative, expert, or 

other services necessary to an adeq uate defense. It is believed th at this will 

result in a g rea ter demand for jury trials.

Assuming the number of jur y tri als demanded by private (compensated) 

atto rneys during 1964 (12.8 percent) represents a norm and that in 1966 courtappointed counsel will demand jury tri als in the same percentage of cases, the 

requirem ents in 1966 for fees and allowances of petit jur ors in criminal cases 

will increase about 50 percent, from 2 million to 3 million. This projection is 

based on the following computations :

To tal

Crim ina l 

defen dants 

repre sen ted 

by p riv at e 

attorn ey s

All oth er 

criminal 

de fendants 1

N um be r of crim ina l de fend an ts d isposed of d uring fiscal y ear 

1954______________ . ______ 35,072 11,710

1,500

23,362 Estim at ed n um be r of defe nd ants tr ied by jury _______ ___ 3,000 1,500 Pe rce nta ge of de fen dants tried by ju ry 8 5 12.8 6.4 Annrox imate co st o f crimina l ju ry trials, fiscal y ea r 1964___ $2,000,000 $1,000.000 $1,000.000 Estim at ed n um be r of de fen dants t o be term in at ed in 1966... . 36,000 12,000 24.000 Estim at ed n um be r of defendants to be tried b y j u ry .. . .. 4, 500 1.500 3,000 Pe rcentag e of def endants t o be tried b y jury _______ ____ . 12 5 12.5 12.5 Pr o'ec ted cost of c rim inal ju ry tri al, fiscal y ear 1966____ ____ $3,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 Projected deficien cy. . ___ ___ _. $1,000,000 $1,000,000

1

 Includ es defend ants repre sen ted b y c ou rt- ap po inted counsel or w ho w aiv ed a pp oi nt m en t of cou nsel.

Mr. Rooney. The. item itself is to be found at page 364 of the committee print.
67

IN CRE A SE REQUES TE D

Th is request, is in the amount $6.5 millio n, which would be an increase of $1 millio n over the a pp ropr iatio n fo r the c urrent fiscal yea r.

W ha t hav e been the obl iga tions fo r the first 6 mo nth s of 1965 as 

com pared with 1964 ?

Air. Anderson. Mr. Ch air ma n, obligations at the end of December 

fo r fees of jurors, $1,873,646 as com par ed wi th $1,782,191, f or an in ­

crease in paym ents of 5.13 percent f or the 6 mon ths.

Mr. Rooney. Now you come alo ng an d ask fo r $1 m illion based on 

th is so rt of figure ?

Mr. A nderson. No, Mr. Ch airma n. I f I ma y speak to the $1 m illion 

increase, th at ite m-----

Mr. Rooney. You mu st hav e plenty of money the re. I rea d in the 

press th at J ud ge M cGuire appoint ed an ad ditio na l commissioner h ere 

in the D istrict o f Colum bia. We th ou gh t t he bu dget was so tig ht th ere 

would no t be------

Ju dg e McGuire. I can a ddress myself to th at in a mom ent.

Air. R ooney. I figured you would.

Mr. A nderson. Th e $1 million in crease in t he ap prop ria tio n request 

fo r fees of jur or s and comm issioners is tied who lly and en tirely to the 

expecte d increase in ju ry tri als genera ted by the r ece ntly passe d Cr im ina l Justi ce A ct of 1964, which will pro vid e fo r c ou rt-appoint ed at to rneys whose fees fo r services will be paid by ap prop ria tio ns of th e G overnme nt. That is an oth er item in th is bud get, Mr. C hairm an.

I f I may direct y ou r attention to page 97 o f t he justifi cation s, the re 

is a ta ble th ere which I th ink exp lains ou r gu essw ork. I believe t hi s is 

the best way to address ourselves to thi s estima te.

We expect th e n um ber of jur y tria ls to be in app rox im ate ly the same 

perc en t age------

Air. Rooney. Of course, we hav e a lre ady ins erted t hat in t he record.

Air. A nderson. Y es ; it is the re.

Air. Rooney. Th is fello w, whoever got up th is sheet, wen t up into 

his ivo ry tow er and tried to figure out some ju stification for a requested 

increase of $1 m illion in ju ry fees.

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. A t the very st art we say we are guessing here as to wh at the imp act of th is act might be.

Air. R ooney. Ju dg e AlcGuire, I tak e it th at you wa nte d to tel l 

us th at the re has no t been any increase betw een the cu rren t ye ar an d 

next year in fees of commissioners ?

Ju dg e AIcGuire. As fa r as the U.S . commissioners are concerned, 

we hav e a very peculiar phenom ena th at has developed, pa rtic ul ar ly 

in ou r distr ict, ou r cou rt of appeals has held, in effect, th at ap pe ar ­

ance before the commissioner warrant s the ap po int men t of counsel 

an d in addit ion to th at a tran sc ript of the tes tim ony as req uir ed by 

counsel in the circums tanc es. Th is ha s been a treme ndous burde n, 

as a consequence thus placed on the U.S. commissioner. Th e U.S .

commissioner is pa id out of fees and the U.S. commissioner we presently have in the D istri ct is a very efficient officer an d I th ink the ma ximum he can draw down on thie sta tu te is in the neighborho od of 

$10,000 a year. Th e m an has had no va cation un de r th e circu mst ances 

at all a nd is u nable to g et away. Th ere fore, we fe lt with the au thor ity 

vested in the court by virtu e of the sta tute, we ou gh t to ap po int an
68

additional U.S. commissioner to sort of help him out. Tha t was required out of sheer necessity.

Apart from that, if the court of appeals decision in the District 

of Columbia is placed in effect throughout the country, you are going 

to have an entirely different picture presented as to the responsibility 

of the U.S. commissioner. And as a consequence, increased expenses.

That is something we cannot control, that I cannot control and tha t 

is giving us a great deal of pause for consideration.

Mr. R ooney. Where do we find w hat is in here fo r juries and commissioners? Where does tha t $10,000 go? I thought most of the 

jury commissioners served as a patriotic duty for the title.

Judge J ohnsen. The statute provides a fee.

Mr. Rooney. But the fee is $5.

Mr. Sweeney. $5 a day.

Mr. Rooney. I have a particular reason for asking. I always have 

a reason for asking a question.

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir. They serve for a nominal fee of $5 a day. 

I believe there was legislation in the last Congress, or was there not, 

to raise that to $10 a day ?

Mr. J ohnsen. That has been pending for several years, $10 a day.

Mr. Rooney. You have some $1 a year men, too, do you not?

Mr. Sweeney. I do not know.

Mr. Rooney. $5 a year?

Mr. Sweeney. $5 a day is the fee.

Mr. Rooney. Are th ere any questions with regard to fees of jurors 

and commissioners?

Travel and Miscellaneous Expenses, U.S. Courts

Object classification

fin thousands of dollars]

Direct obligations:

21.0 Travel and tr ansportation of persons.

22.0 Transp orta tion of thin gs__________

23.0 Rent, communications, a nd utilities.

24.0 Pri nting and repro duction.................

25.1 Other services___ _____ _________

Transcripts ordered by court..........

26.0 Supplies and materials___________

31.0 Equipment (general office)________

Lawbooks, accessions___________

Lawbooks, c ontinu ations _______

Total direct obligatio ns............ .

Reimbursable obligations:

24.0 Printing and reproduction________

26.0 Supplies and materials___________

31.0 Equipment (lawbooks)___________

Total reimbursable obligations___

99.0 Total obligations______________

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

1,824 1,890 1,950

24 30 33

804 980 1,220

292 270 315

52 60 67

167 200 100

270 260 275

162 130 280

104 150 150

794 740 770

4,493 4,710 5,160

2

1 1 1

2 2 2

5 3 3

4,498 4,713 5,163
69

Program and financing

[In thousan ds of dollars]

1964

actual

1965 1966

estim ate estim ate

Program by activities:

Travel and miscellaneous expenses:

Direct prog ram..____ ___________________________

Reimbursable program ___________________________

10 Total obligations........ ....................- ...............................

Financing:

11 Receipts and reimbursements from adm inistrative budg et

acco un ts. .____________ _______ _________________

25 Unobligated balance lap sing________________________

40 New obligational auth ori ty (appropria tion )....... . ...........

Relation of obligations to expenditures:

10 Total obligations_________________________ ________

70 Receipts and othe r offsets (items 11-17)_______________

71 Obligations affecting expe nd itur es .................................. .

72 Obligated balance, start of year ______________________

74 Obligated balance, end of yea r______________________

77 Adjustm ents in expired accounts_______ ____________

90 Exp end itures...................................................... ................

4,493

5

4,498

- 5

7

4,500

4,498

- 5

4,493

969

-607

-9 0

4,765

4,710 

3

4,713

-3

4,710

4,713

-3

4,710 

607

-635

4,682

5,160 

3

5,163

- 3

5.160

5,163 

- 3

5,160 

635

-67 5

5,120

Mr. Rooney. The next item under “Other courts and services” is 

entitled “Travel and miscellaneous expenses, U.S. courts.” It is to be 

found at page 366 of the committee print and beginning at page 98 

of the justifications book.

We shall insert at this point in the record pages 98 through 114 of 

these justifications.

(The pages follow:)

Statement relating appropriatio n estimate to current appropr iation

Trav el and miscellaneous expenses, U.S. courts: Judiciary

1965 appropriation in ann ual ac t_________________________________________________ $4,710,000

Net difference, 1966 over 1965:

Requirem ents

Difference 

increase (+) 

or decrease (—)

1965

appropriated

1966

estim ate

Travel expenses____ __________________ _______ $1,890,000 $1,950,000 +$60,000

Miscellaneous expenses................................ ................ 2,820,000 3,210,000 +390,000

T ota l........................................ . ......... ............... 4, 710,000 5,160,000 +450,000

Total estim ate for 1966........................ ................ ........... . .......................... ........... ............... 5,160,000
70

Ana lysis by object

O bje ct

21 T ra v el an d t ra n sp o rt ati o n o f p er so ns .

22 T ra n sp o rt ati o n o f th in g s____________

23 R en t, co m m un ic at io ns , a n d u ti li ti es.

24 P ri n ti n g an d r ep ro d u cti o n ....................

25 O th er s e rv ic e s .. ____ _______________

T ra n scri p ts o rd er ed b y c o u rt____

26 S upplies an d m a te ria ls .. .......................

31 E q u ip m en t:

G en er al o ffic e_______ ___________

L aw bo oks , ac ce ssions ___________

Law books, c o n ti n u ati o n s_______

T o ta l (d irec t) obligat io ns_____

1965

est im ate

1966

es ti m at e

In cr ea se o r 

de crea se (—)

$1,890 ,000 

30,0 00 

980,000 

270,000 

60,000 

200,000 

260,000

$1,950 ,000 

33,000 

1,220,00 0 

315,000 

67,000 

100,000 

275,000

$60,000 

3,000

240,000

45,0 00 

7,00 0 

-1 00,0 00

15,000

130,000 

150,000 

740,000

280,000 

150,000 

770,000

150,000

30,000

4,7 10, 000 5,1 60, 000 450,000

Sum mar y of increased requirements for 1966

Nature of expense (or savings) : Amo unt

1. Expenses (including nonrecu rring cost of equipment) relatin g

to requests for new personnel under the heading “Salaries 

of Supporting Personnel”______________________________ $300, 000

2. Estimated additional amount required by reason of a conversion from commercial private lines to switc hboards operated

by the General Services Administration__________________ 120, 000

3. Rental of a dditional copying machines for clerks’ offices_____ 60, 000

4. Additional amount required for prin ting opinions__________ 36, 000

5. For participation in health (1st aid) units_______________ 4,000

6. For additional continuation material required to maintain

court librarie s and to cover con trac t rate increases_______ 30,000

7. Tra nsf er of the sum available for transc ripts on appeal in

forma pauperis in criminal cases to the appropriation for 

implementation of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964_______—100, 000

Net increase, 1966 over 1965_______________________ 450,000

JU ST IF IC AT IO N

Language changes

The Trav el Expense Act of 1949, as amended, August 14, 1961, Public Law 

87-139, authorize d the payment of actual expenses of subsistence under certain prescribed conditions, not to exceed $30 per day for all civilian officers 

and employees in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government. Under section 456 of title 28 of the United States Code, ju stices and 

judges of the United States may claim actual expenses of subsistence not to 

exceed the amount fixed by the Travel Expense Act of 1949, as amended. 

Notwithstanding, the provisions of the above-referred-to act, the Congress imposed a limitation of $25 on the officers and employees of the judicial branch 

of the Government by the inclusion of the following proviso in the Jud iciary 

Appropriation Acts for 1963, 1964, and 1965:

“That no pa rt of this appropriation may be used for payment of actual 

expenses of subsistence in excess of $25 per diem.”

A survey of travel vouchers paid during J une 1964 showed that the judges of 

the U.S. courts of appeals and the U.S. dis trict courts claimed a $16-per-diem 

allowance in lieu of actual expenses of subsistence for 1,049 days out of a total 

of 1,657 days in a trav el status. All other claims for subsistence were on an 

actual expense basis, but it will be of inte rest to note that on 173 days the 

judges claimed less tha n $16. The average daily actual expense claim was 

$18.46, only $2,46 more than the per diem allowance. The maximum actual 

expense allowance of $25 was claimed on 149 days, or only 9 percent of the 

total days in a trav el s tatus. The maximum allowance in most cases was claimed 

by judges attending jud icia l conferences of the circuits.

Usually a judge trav eling within his dis trict for the purpose of holding court 

finds a $16 per <liein allowance adequ ate. This is borne out by the above-quoted 

sta tistic s which shows judges claiming a per diem allowance in lieu of actu al 

expenses on almost two-thirds of the total days in a travel status. Of course,
71

the re are occasions on which a judge is requ ired to hold cou rt or tra ns ac t 

other official busine ss at locatio ns where the subsis tence costs are unu sually 

high. Under such circu mstances they natur ally would elect to claim actua l 

expenses and justi fiably so. However, the fac t th at the act ual expense claims 

are averaging only $18.46 per day and th at the maximum allowan ce was claimed 

on only 9 percent of the tot al days in a travel sta tus would clear ly indic ate th at 

the judg es have been pru den t and economy-minded. The lim itation has restricted payments to a very small percentage of the judges and the savings being 

realized would app ear to be negligible. At the direc tion and with the approva l of the Jud icial Conference of the 

Unite d State s, it is being reque sted th at the lim itation on actu al expenses of 

subsistence be deleted from the te xt of the appropr iation. Any incre ase in 

subsistence paym ents to judg es which may res ult from deletion of the language 

will be absorbed.

Objectives

This app rop riat ion provid es for the necessary tra vel and miscellaneous expenses of the judges and supp ortin g personnel of the U.S. cour ts of appeals and 

the U.S. distr ict courts, including the prob ation offices, but excluding the offices 

of the referees in bank ruptcy. The trav el and miscellaneous expenses of referees, including compensation and benefits of cler ks to refere es, are paid from a 

special fund appropriation. Fo r basic sta tut ory authoriti es, refer ence is made 

to section M of the Digest of Appropriations, the Jud icia ry, on file with the Burea u of the Budg et and the Appropria tions Committees of the Congress.

Gene ral justificatio n

Fiscal year 1964 was no exception to the increasi ng volume of litig atio n and 

the mounting backlog of cases both in the U.S. courts of appea ls and in the U.S. 

dis tri ct courts. As t he deman d for services increases, so does the cost of oper ations. A detailed accou nt of the judicia l business of both the circ uit and distr ict 

cou rts is contained in the general justifica tions of the app rop riat ion estimat e for 

“Salar ies of supp ortin g personnel, the jud iciary .”

It is estim ated th at an app ropr iation of $5,160,000 will be requ ired in 1966, 

a net increase of $450,000 over the amount available for the fiscal yea r 1965. 

The incre ase in budgeta ry requ irem ents under thi s app rop riat ion is rela ted 

almo st enti rely to the requ ests for add itional perso nnel under the heading 

“Salar ies of support ing personnel.” In addition to the expenses rela ting to new personnel, provisions have been 

made for the conversion of commercial privat e telephone lines to switc hboards 

oper ated by the General Services Ad mi nis tra tio n; the ren tal of add itional copying machine s for cler ks’ offices; increases in the volume and cost of prin ting 

opinions; gre ate r par tici pat ion in hea lth unit s; and for additional cont inua tion 

ma terial required to maintain court libr arie s. The esti mat e is net of $100,000 

representing the cost of tra nsc rip ts on appeal in form a pauperis in crim inal 

cases which is being tra ns ferre d to the app ropriation for implem entatio n of the 

Crim inal Jus tice Act of 1964. The increases in budgeta ry requ irem ents are 

expla ined in grea ter de tail be low :

Expen ses rela ting to new pe rsonnel

Under the app ropriation headin g, “Sa lari es of support ing perso nnel” fund s 

have been reque sted for the compensation and rela ted benefits of 300 add itional 

po sit ion s: 15 deput y clerks for the U.S. courts of ap pe als; 25 deputy clerk s for 

the dis trict co ur ts; 90 officers and 68 clerk-ste nographe rs for the proba tion system ; and 33 law clerks, 33 steno graph ers, and 36 messeng ers for the courts of 

appea ls. The sum of $300,000 is included here in for the proc urem ent of general
72

office equipment and to cover the ir expenses of travel, communications, supplies, 

etc., as follow s:

D is tr ic t c o u rts C o u rts o f a p p e a ls

T o ta l C le rk s ’

of fic es

P r o b a ti o n s y s te m

C le rk s ’

of fic es

L a w

c le rk s

S te n o g ­

r a p h e r s

M e s ­

se n g ers

O ff ic er s S te n o g ­

ra p h e rs

N u m b e r of po s it io n s _____________ 25 90 68 15 33 33 36 300

T r a v e l....................... . .................................. i $6 0,00 0 

900

13 ,500

4,5 00 

2,7 00

900

4,5 00

45 ,0 00

$6 0,00 0 

3, 00 0 

45 ,0 00 

15 ,000 

9,0 00 

3,0 00 

15 ,000

15 0,00 0

T r a n s p o r ta tio n o f th in g s ___________ $250

3, 75 0

1,25 0

750

250

1,25 0

12 ,500

$680 

10 ,200 

3,4 00 

2,0 40 

680 

3,4 00 

34 ,0 00

$150

2, 25 0

750

450

150

750

7, 50 0

$330

4,9 50

1,65 0

990

330

1,65 0

16 ,500

$330

4, 95 0

1,65 0

990

330

1, 65 0 

16 ,500

$360 

5,40 0 

1,80 0 

1, 08 0 

360 

1,80 0 

18 ,000

C o m m u n ic a ti o n s __________________

P o s ta g e __________________ .

P r in tin g ______ _________________

O th e r s e rv ic es______________________

S u p p li e s ________________ _________

E q u i p m e n t 2

. ________ ____________

T o ta l______ ______ _ . . . 20 ,000 13 2,00 0 54 ,4 00 12 ,000 26 ,4 00 26 ,400 28 ,8 00 30 0,00 0

i 9 -m o n th p ro v is io n .

’ N o n re c u rr in g e x p e n se .

The expenses relating to the increase in personnel are estimated on a unit 

cost basis. Unit costs are derived from samplings of expenses currently 

being incurred by officers and employees in sim ilar positions. The cost of 

communications, supplies, equipment, etc., will vary depending upon the natur e 

of the duties and responsibilities of the position. Of course, the nonrecu rring 

cost of general office equipment will be deducted in establishing the budgetary 

requirements fo r fiscal year 1967.

Conversion from commercial private telephone lines to switchboards operated,

by the General Services Ad min istratio n

The General Services Adm inistration has recently installed approximately 

300 new switchboards throughout the United States in orde r th at a greater 

number of Fed eral agencies may avail themselves of the Federal Telecommunications System’s (FT S) nationwide network of leased long-distance circuits. Approximately 160 court offices at 90 different locations have alre ady 

converted from commercial private telephone lines to switc hboards operated 

by the General Services Administration. Some court offices have been able 

to tie in with the system as a supplement to the ir commercial facilities. It 

is expected that ultim ately about 600 offices will convert to the new system 

and th at the cost of such conversions will average about $200 per office per 

year, or a tota l of $120,000.

The cost of switchboard services natur all y is higher than the cost of priv ate 

lines for the reason th at the subscribers, on a pro rata basis, are required 

to pay the sala ries of the telephone operators and any other rela ted expenses. 

The additional cost would be justified, however, in th at the judges and other 

court personnel would be able to make an unlimited number of long-distance 

telephone calls and would derive the benefit of the services of the telephone 

opera tors.

Some court telephones have alre ady been transf erred from commercial 

facilities to switchboards but with the understand ing that the General Services 

Adm inistration would provide the services at no additional cost during fiscal 

yea r 1965, thus giving the courts the opportunity to obtain the necessary funds. 

The Federal Telecommunications System is being opera ted on a completely 

reimbursable basis and the courts, therefore, are obligated to pay their fair 

share of the total cost. It should be recognized that fut ure cost increases 

resulting from higher tariffs and Feder al employee salary increases will be 

passed along to all subscribers.

Ren tal of additional copying machines far clerks' offices

During the past yea r or so the Adm inistrative Office of the U.S. Courts has 

authorized the installatio n of copying machines, on a rental basis, in a number 

of clerks’ offices. This arrangem ent, whereby the machines are leased instead 

of purchased outright, has proven most satisfac tory . The equipment p ermits the
73

use of ordinary bond paper instead of sensitized photocopy paper which has 

resulted in a subs tantial savings in the “ Supp ly” allotme nt. A savings also has 

been realized in the allotm ent for “O ther services” in tha t the machine s are 

maintained at no additiona l cost under the rental contracts. O f course, it also 

obviates the need for the replacement of worn or obsolete equipment. These 

savings have offset, to a substanti al degree, the cost of renting the machines, 

but not entire ly. The excess cost to date has been absorbed but no furth er 

absorption is possible.

At the present time there are 24 c lerks’ offices in the U .S . district courts which 

have been supplied with photocopying equipment on a rental basis. Recently 

these offices were asked to submit reports showing the extent to which the 

machines are being utilized for the reproduction of records or other documents 

for sale to interested partie s and the gener al public, as well as the tota l fees 

collected from the sale of such copies for deposit into the general fund of the 

Trea sury. These reports indicate d tha t the clerks’ offices in the district courts 

are producing for sale an average of approximately 870 copies per month per 

office. At 50 cents per copy the tota l revenue in these districts would be 

approximat ely $10,500 per month or $126,000 per year. The fees collected from 

the sale of copies of records and other documents are deposited into the general 

fund of the Tre asury and do not augment the appropriation.

The sum of $70,000 is currently available for the rental of copying machines. 

It is requested t hat an additi onal $60,000 be provided for this purpose. At a cost 

of approximat ely $1,500 per year per machine the additiona l sum will permit the 

installat ion of about 40 more machines.

Addit ion al amoun t required f or prin tinff opinions

Since 1961 there has been a 39-percent increa se in the volume of opinions 

being printed for the U.S . courts of appeals and contract rate increases avera ging 

7 percent. The following are the cont ract rates obtained by competitive bidding 

in the courts of appeals for 1965 compared with the rates paid in 1961:

Price per page for straight matter

1961 1965 Increa se

(perce nt)

1st circ uit ____________________________________________ $5.00 $6.00 20

2d circ ui t. ____________________________________________ 4.75 3.65 -2 3

3d cir cu it ____________________________________________ 4.35 6.00 38

4th circuit _________________________ ________________ 3. 25 3.49 7

5th c irc uit _ ______________________________________ 2.60 2.60

6th c irc uit _ ___________________________________________ 5.90 6.55 11

7th cir cu it ________________________________________ 3.45 3.75 9

8th circ uit ______ ______________________________________ 4.50 4.00 -1 1

9th cir cuit _______ __ _______________________________ 5.45 6.50 19

D istri ct of Colum bia ci rc ui t.______________________________ 8. 50 8.50

Av erag e___________________________________________ 4.78 5.10 7

The increase of 39 percent in the volume of opinions is in proportion to the 

increase in the number of cases terminated by the courts of appeals—5,700 in 

1964 compared with 4.049 in 1961. The sum of $15,(XX) was provided, to cover 

the cost of prin ting opinions f or the additional circ uit judges appointed pursuant 

to the act of Ma y 19, 1961, but it proved to be inade quate. Du rin g 1964 the total 

cost o f opinions aggregated $146,000 compared with $102,000 paid in 1961, $114,671 

in 1962 and $138,000 paid in 1963. It is estimated tha t the sum o f $157,000 will be 

required in 1965 and in 1966, which is $36,000 in excess of the sum avai lable .

While the Ju di ci al Conference has twice resolved that t he judges of the courts 

of appeals for whom these opinions are printed authorize the public ation of only 

those opinions which are of general precede ntial valu e and tha t opinions “a uthorized to be printed be succinct,” there is no evidence tha t this resolution is 

havi ng any mi tiga ting effect on the cost of printing opinions.

Partic ipa tion in hea lth {first aid) units

In Apr il 1954 the Ju di cial Conference of the Uni ted Sta tes authorized the D irector of the Adm inis trat ive Office of the U .S . Cou rts to part icipate in the establishment of health centers a nd first aid stati ons where the local courts concerned 

desired to participate and to includ e fund s f or this purpose in the budge t estimates
74

to th e ex te nt ne ce ss ar y. Ac co rdingly, $4,000 is incl ud ed her ei n fo r part ic ip ati on 

in h ea lt h unit s a t th e f ollowing lo cati o n s:

H art fo rd , Co nn ________________________________________________________ $000

St. Lo uis , Mo__________________________________________________________ 1, 000

Al bu qu erqu e, N. M ex __________________________________________________ 500

Chicag o, Ill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,00 0

T o ta l____________________________________________________________ 4,10 0

Rou nd ed ________________________________________________________ 4, 000

Con tin ua tio n m at er ia l r eq uire d to m ain ta in c ou rt lib ra ries

It is es tim at ed th a t an ad di tion al $30,000 will be re qu ired in fisc al yea r 1966 

fo r th e m ai nt en an ce of co ur t libra ri es . Thi s in cr ea se in larg e m ea su re is du e to 

th e ex pa nd in g body of th e law . Th e en ac tm en t of a gre ate r nu m be r of laws by 

le gi sl at ur es an d th e gr ow ing ju dic ia l bu sine ss w ith an in cr ea se in th e num be r of 

op inions be ing ha nd ed down by th e co urt s co ntr ib ute to th e pu bl ic atio n of a 

gre ate r volum e of st atu te s, re po rts, di ge sts, an d ci ta tion s, as we ll as te xtu al 

tr ea tise s. The ov er al l in cr ea se in th e volum e and cost of th e pr in ci pal wor ks 

us ed by th e co urt s is es tim at ed a t $15,000 or ap pro xim at el y 2 pe rc en t of th e sum 

curr en tly bein g ex pe nd ed f or thi s pu rpose.

In ad di tion , it is es tim at ed th a t $15,000 will be re quired fo r th e up ke ep of 

ne wl y ac qu ired se ts of law books. The co st of co ntinuat io n m at er ia l re qu ired 

an nu al ly fo r th e m ai nt en an ce of li bra ri es is eq ua l to ab out 15 per ce nt of th e 

in it ia l co st of acq ui sitio n.

T ra nsf er to th e ap pr op riatio n fo r i m pl em en ta tion o f th e Criminal Just ic e A ct of

196Jf

Fee s fo r tr an sc ri p ts fu rn is hed in cr im in al pr oc ee ding s to pe rson s allowed to 

ap pe al in fo rm a pa uper is are curr en tly be ing pai d ou t of th is ap pro pri at io n 

purs uant to th e p ro vi sion s of se cti on 753( f) of tit le 28. U ni ted Sta te s Code. It is 

rec om me nd ed th a t th e sum of $160,600 which is av ai la bl e fo r th is pu rp os e be 

tr an sf err ed to th e ap pro pr ia tion fo r th e im pl em en ta tion of th e Crim in al Ju st ic e 

Ac t of 1964. Fr om a fiscal an d adm in is tr ati ve st an dpoin t it is co ns idered mo re 

pra ct ic ab le to incl ud e al l ex pe nses re la ti ng to th e re pre se nta tion of de fe nd an ts 

in cr im in al c as es u nder a single a pp ro pri at io n.

INCREASES REQUESTED

Mr. R ooney. These pages indicate tha t the request is in the amount 

$5,160,000 which would be an increase of $450,000 over the appropriation for the current fiscal year.

It is actually $550,000 over the amount in the current fiscal year, is 

it not, because of the fact that you have an item of $100,000 for tran ­

scripts on appeal for paupers and tha t is being transferred to a new 

appropriation?

Mr. Garabedian. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. Why did not your scenario writer indicate tha t at 

page 98?

Mr. Sweeney. That is on page 100, sir.

Mr. Rooney. The first of the items at page 100 is $300,000 for expenses relating to requests for new personnel. To what extent is this 

contingent upon approval of the items we have discussed up to now on 

page 80?

Mr. Anderson. It is entirely contingent on that, Mr. Chairman. As 

we mentioned earlier, the item of $300,000 is tabulated in detail on 

page 106 of the justifications and relates directly to the request for new 

personnel, category by category.

LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS

Mr. Rooney. What is the explanation of item No. 2 on page 100, 

$120,000, in connection with switchboards?
Mr. Sweeney. The only explanation on that, Mr. Chairman, is that 

this is the amount of the bill tha t GSA advises us we will have to pay 

for joining up with the Federal Telecommunications Systems network.

Mr. Rooney. I see you say on page 108 with regard to this item the 

additional costs would be justified. However, in that the judges and 

other court personnel would be able to make unlimited numbers of 

long-distance telephone calls, is there not any limit at the present time 

on long-distance calls ?

Mr. Sweeney. You mean using commercial lines ?

Mr. Rooney. Yes.

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, there is a limit.

Mr. Rooney. What is the limit ? Wliat is the formula ?

Mr. Sweeney. Do we have the dollar figure on that or not ?

Mr. Anderson. I believe our long-distance telephone bill prior to 

this FTS system was around $150,000. What we mean by unlimited 

is this: Under the FTS system, which was recently installed, we are 

to pay the same as other agencies of the Government, a flat rate of 

$2.59 per instrument, for the privilege of making long-distance calls 

so tha t there is no charge for the individual call made as such. You 

can pick up the phone once a day or 50 times a day and we pay no more 

or no less. We are just part of the entire Government in this field.

Mr. Rooney. This sort of thing would cost us in fiscal 1966, $120,000 

more than how much ?

Mr. Anderson. Our total telephone bill last year was $545,000.

Mr. Rooney. You want to make it how much with this requested 

increase?

Mr. Anderson. $665,000, it would be.

Mr. Rooney. Is this going to be an annual proposition from here on ?

Mr. Anderson. Continuing increase? The only thing I can say 

is that this would not be a continuing increase if the GSA charges to 

us do not change. If the GSA charges to us change, then we, as everyone else, would have to pay higher rates.

Mr. Rooney. Would the nonlimitation on the number of long-distance phone calls made have any bearing on an increase by General 

Services in the cost of this item in future ?

Mr. Anderson. It is apt to; yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. Do you have any limitation at the present time on these 

calls ? The reason I ask that is that we have a limitation here on longdistance calls in the legislative branch.

Mr. Anderson. We do not actually, court by court, fix a limitation 

on telephone service, long-distance calls, today, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. Are there any questions, gentlemen, with regard to 

travel and miscellaneous expenses?

Mr. Bow. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

TRAVEL of judges

Mr. Chairman, they have handed me a sheet I have been looking at 

which we usually have in the record on this item. I would request, 

Mr. Chairman, if you agree, that it be made a part of the record.

Mr. Rooney. Very well. We shall insert this chart at this point in 

the record.

(The chart follows:)
Travel of judge s on assig nment to special courts and courts of appeals or district courts of other circuits, Ju ly 1, 1963, to J un e SO, 1964

Con trib ut in g c ou rts Nam e of judge C ou rts vis ited

COURTS OF AP PE AL S

1st c ircu it_________________ 2d ci rc ui t_________________ 10th circu it............ .................

D is tri ct of Co lumbia cir cu it.

DIST RICT COURTS

1st circuit: M ai ne __________5t h cir cu it:

Te xas (n or th er n) .

D o.

D o.

D o.

Texas (w es te rn ).

D o.........................

6th circuit:

Tenness ee (m id dl e)..Tenness ee (w estern). 8th circuit:

Missou ri (eas tern )__

Do......................

Missou ri (w estern).

Do.Do.

Do.

N eb ra sk a.

Aldr ich , B ail ey .. . Mooie, L. P _____

Br eitens tein, J. S . 

W rig ht, J. Sk elly.

Gignoux, E. T .

Es tes, Joe E . 

........d o_____

-d o..d o.

Spear s, A. A ..........

___ do__________

Miller, William E . 

Br ow n, B ail ey .... 

Harpe r, R. W___

___ do........... . Becke r, W. H .

.d o..d o..d o.

Ro bin son, R. E .

3d ci rc uit.. 

5th ci rc ui t.

___ do ------ ___ do___

Wisconsin

(eastern).

New Y ork 

(sou thern). Pe nn sy lv an ia (east ern). 

___ do_______ D is tri ct of 

Co lumbia.

Pe nn sy lv an ia (east ern). 

___ do _______

Ne w York 

(southe rn) .

....... do.............

Ok lah om a

(western ).

___ do......... . .......... Ne w York 

(southe rn) . Illinois (northe rn)

___ do......... . .......... Michigan

(ea stern).

Ne w York 

(sou thern) .

Pe rio d of de sig nation

Fr om — To—

Ja n. 27,1964 Ja n. 31,1964 Feb. 10,1964 Feb. 14,1964

Dec. 2,1963 Dec. 7,1963

Apr. 13,1964 Apr. 17,1964

No v. 9,1963 Ju ne 30,1964

Dec. 11,1963 Ju ne 30,1964

Ju ly 1,1963 Dec . 31,1963 3Ja n. 1,1964 Ju ne 30,1964Ju ne 9,1964 Ju ne 30,1964 *

Ju ly 1,1963 Dec . 31,1963»

Ja n. 1,1964 Ju ne 30,1904

Ju ne 30,1964 Ju ne 30,1964°

Dec . 19,1963 Ju ne 30,1964

Ja n. 10,1964 Ap r. 10,1964

Ap r. 10,1964 Ju ne 30,1964

Dec. 9,1963 Ju ne 30,1964

7

Sept. 9,1963 Dec. 31,1963

Ja n. 2,1964 Ju ne 30,1964

9

(K>)

Dec. 9,1963 Ju ne 30,1964

Actual

da ys 

on as ­

signm e n t

Serv ice Cost of tra ve l

Cts. 

of ap ­ peals, 

cases 

heard

Distri ct

co urt s

Num ­

ber

of

tria ls

Tr ial

days

Judge La w clerk Sec­ retary Re­ porter Crier T o ta l

5 $141 $141

345 21 345

20

21

265 $202 4G7

288 247 $236 771

(’)

(»)

(

2

)

468 404 $360 1,232

433 433

367 367

(

2

)

(»)

239 239

501 501

(

2

)

(

!

)

(

2

)

(

2

)

(’)

61 61

315 315

495 348 515 1,358

873 873

(

2

)

(

2

)

(

2

)

382 382

148 148

825 825

- I

OS
Do. .d o _____________________

9 th c ir cu it:

O re g o n .......................... ........ Solom on , O us J

W as hi ng to n (w este rn )___ B old t, Geo rge H.

P en n sy lv an ia

(e as te rn ).

Jan . 1,1964

D o .. .D o .. .

D o .. .

D o .. .

D o .. .

10th ci rc ui t: 

Col or ad o.

____d o ............ ..____d o _____________d o _____________d o _____________d o ........ .........

A rr aj , A lfre d A.

L ouis ia na

(e as te rn ).

N ew Y ork 

(s o u th ern ).

____d o ____________

P en n sy lv an ia

(e as te rn ).

____d o ____________

O hio (n o rth e rn ).. . F lo ri d a (s outh er n).

M ar. 3,1 964S ep t. 30,1963

D ec . 11,1963 Oct. 14,1963F eb . 28,1964 

Sep t. 11,1963 

(’)

........ d o ...............

A pr. 17,1964

Dec . 31,1963

Ju n e 30,1964

Feb . 28,1964

Ju n e 30,1964

Dec . 31,1963

K an sa s

D o.

Sta nle y, A rt h u r J . 

____d o ___________

D o.........................

O kla hom a (w es te rn ) 

U ta h ................ .............

____d o ..........................

B ohan on, L u th er 12. 

C hri st ense n, A . S_ .

N ew Y ork 

(s outh er n).

____d o _______

P en n sy lv an ia

(e as te rn ).

____d o ____------ d o _______

N ew Y or k 

(s outh er n).

Dec . 9,19 63

____d o

Ju ly 1,1963

Jan .Jan .

De c.

1,1964

7.1963

9.19 63

Ju n e 30,1964

. . . . do_______

Dec. 31,1963 11

Ju n e 30,1964 

Feb . 4,19 63 43

Ju n e 30,1964

T o ta l

4 (1 2 34) 336 252 588

38 13 12 1,240 1,283 988 3,511

35 (2) 1 1 1,651 1,651

3 (’) 196 196

3 (2) 229 229 4 (’) 490 490

5 (2) 375 375

9 (2) 552 552 3 (2j 215 215

3 (2) 241 241 11 (2) 554 554

237 67 14 13 12,225 2,484 488 1,863 17,060

SU M M A R Y

C o n tr ib u ti n g c ourt s N u m b er of 

ju dg es

C ourt s vis ited

A ctu al 

day s on 

as sign ­

m e n t

Se rv ice C os t of tra vel

C o u rt s of 

ap pea ls , 

cases 

h e a r d .

D is tr ic t co urt s

Judge

L aw

cl er k S ecre ta ry R e p o rte r C rier T o ta l

N u m b er 

of tri al s

T ri al

day s

C o u rt s o f a ppea ls 4

14

C o u rt s of ap pe al s 23

214-

67 $1,0 39 

11,186

$449 

- 2,035

$236

--2 5 2

$1, 724 

15,336 D is tr ic t co u rts _______________

T o t a l.................................

D is tr ic t c o u rt s.......................... 14 - 13 $1,863

18 237 67 14 13 12, 225 2,484 488 1,863 17, 060

1 D ay s of as si gnm ent bas ed on ar ri v al an d d ep art u re dat es , for ci rc uits. D ay s for 

d is tr ic ts ar e of re co rd .

2 T a k in g d ep osi tions, hea ri ng m oti ons, et c. , n o t re p o rt ed as t ri al days. 3 D es ig nat io n beg an J u n e 22, 1963.

4 D es ig nat io n ends Dec . 9, 1964.

{ D es ig nat io n be gan J u n e 22. 1963.

« D es ig nat io n e n d s A ug . 1, 1964.

7 T ra v el to co m m it te e m ee tings n o t in clu ded .« T ak in g dep osi tion a t M iam i.

’ D es ig nat io n e nds Dec . 31, 1964. 

if T ak in g dep osi tion a t D etr o it . M ich .

11 D esi gnat io n b eg an J u n e 22, 1963. 42 H ea ri ng ar g u m en ts p u rsu an t to ca ses tr ie d u n d er desi gnation for pri or fis cal yea r. 

13 P ri o r fis cal yea r des ig nat io n.
Travel of senior jud ges on assignment to special courts and courts o f appeals or district courts of other circuits, Ju ly 1, 1963, to J un e 30, 1964.

C o n tr ib u ti n g co urt s N am e of judg e C o u rt s vis it ed

COURTS OF APPEALS

1st cir cu it .................... . .............

D o ._ .....................................

3d c ir cu it ............... .....................

D o .........................................

D o .........................................

9t h cir c u it __ ____ _________

D o . . .....................................

10th cir cu it ..... ...........................D is tr ic t of C olu m bia c ir cu it .

DISTRICT COURTS

7 th c ir cu it:

Il linois ( e a s te rn ).. ..

D o ........................D o .......................

8 th ci rc uit:

Io w a (n o rt h e rn )___

D o .......................

M is so uri (w es te rn ).

D o .......................

D o .......................

9 th C ir cu it :

N e v a d a ___________

D o .

M agru der C alv ert .

____d o ................ ..........

M ar ls A lb ert B ___

____d o ...... ................... .____d o . . ___________

H am li n O liv er B .’_

P ope W alt er L ___

P h il li p s O rrie L __

P re tt y m a n E . B ...

W h am , F re d L .

.d o .

.d o .

G ra ven , H e n ry N .

____d o _______ ____

R ee ve s, A. L _____

____d o ........................____d o ...... .................

F ole y, R og er T . 

____d o ...................

5t h c irc u it .. . 6t h c ir c u it .. . 

1st c ir c u it... 

P u ert o R ic o. 

5t h c irc u it .. . 

P u ert o R ic o. 

5t h c irc u it .. .

........ d o .................... d o ............

N ew Y ork 

(s outh er n).

F lo ri d a (m id d le ).. C o lo ra d o .. ..F lo ri d a (m id d le ).. 

Tex as (w est ern ). 

F lo ri d a (m id d le ). .

____d o ............____d o ______

P en n sy lv an ia 

(w es te rn ). 

____ d o ...............

P er io d o f d es ig nat io n

F ro m — To—

M ar . 2,1964 M ar. 13,1964Dec . 2,19 63 D ec . 14,1963

Feb . 2,19 64 Feb . 5,1964

N ov. 17,1963 N ov. 19,1963A pr. 6,1964 A pr. 10,1964

M ar. 1,1964 A pr. 15,1964

A pr. 13,1964 A pr. 17,1964

Feb . 3,1964 F eb . 7,1964

A pr. 27,1965 M ay 1,19 65M ay 1,1964 M ay 29,1964

F eb. 1,1964 M ar . 15,1964

Ju ly 28,1963 A ug . 24,1963

M ar . 1,1964 A pr. 30,1964

D ec . 1. 1963 M ar. 31,1964

Aug . 15,1963 N ov. 15.1963

Dec . 9,1963 M ar . 31.1964

A pr. 1,1964 Ju n e 30,1964

F eb. 3,1964 F eb . 29,1964

..M a r 1,1964 A pr. 1,1964

day s

on

m e n t

32

2926

51

93

155

40

Ser vi ce

Cou rts 

of ap ­

p ea ls , 

cas es 

h e a rd

D is tr ic t

co urt s

N um -

of

ber

tr ia ls

T ri al

day s

20

22

Ju dge

$296

273

83

264

196

1,457

433233385956649670

1,054 

2,232

1,8651.049

C ost of t ra v el

L aw

cl er k

$167

295

175

1,318

267

Se cre ta ry R e­ porter C r ie r T o t a l

$260

273

408382

$15

1,0541,949

1,6401,025

83

794

181

$556 

546 

250 

559 371 

2, 775 

841 

615 

652

956664

678

2,19 1 

4,9753,6862,074

OO
4 6 -8 1 6

— 65

8PECIAL COURTS

VT^fificn T W a rr e n Qt-h circuit Se pt. 2,1963 Ju ne 16,1964 

Ju ly 1,1963

Ju ne 15,1964’ 

Ju ne 30,1664* 

____d o______

2 42 90 90

Dn do d o

Cou rt of Cu sto ms an d

Pate nt Ap peals. To tal

Jac ks on , Jo seph R .................. D is tric t of Co lum bia . 188 39 47

713 165 101 222 12,185 2,222 6,991 1,073 22,471

SU M M A R Y

Con trib ut in g courts N um be r of judges Co urts vis ite d

Ac tual 

da ys on assignmen t

Service Co st of trave l

Cou rts of 

app eals, 

cases 

he ard

Distri ct c ourts

Ju dg e

La w

clerk Se cr et ar y R ep o rt er Crier Tot al

Num be r 

of tr ials

Tr ia l

da ys

5

2

57

40

123 $1,899

1,721

$609

1,613

$1,323 $3,831 3,334

Subto ta l.......... -................

Distric t co ur ts____________ 7 8

7 97 123 7 8 3.620 2.222 1.323 7.165

15.216 Distric t co ur ts______________ 4 D istri ct co ur ts......................... 426 55 167 8,475 5,668 $1,073

Su btotal 4 426 55 167 8,475 5.668 1,073 15.216

90 1

1

2

188

42 90

Su bt ot al - ____________

Distric t co urt_____________ 39 47

2 190 42 39 47 90 90

Grand to ta l_______ ... 13 7hT 165 | 101 222 12,185 2,222 6,991 1,073 22,471

1 Actua l da ys on ass ignm en t b ase d on da tes of arriv al an d de pa rtur e. Nun be r of da ys 2 Retire d Sept. 5, 1963. lis ted for assig nm ents at dis tric t c ou rts are of record, wh ere as nu m be r of day s in at te nd - ’ 2 da ys a t Los Angeles—bala nce a t Sa n F ran cis co, where judge re sides ,

ance at co urts of ap pe als was co ns tru cted from t ra ve l e xpe nse vouchers . 4 De sig nation ends J un e 30, 1966.
Services and travel expenses of senior judg es incident to serving in courts of appeals or district courts within circuits, Ju ly 1, 1963 to J un e 30

1964 i

C ir cu it or d is tr ic t N am e o f ju dg e Pla ce of se rv ice

Se rv ice

C ourt s of 

ap pe al s, 

cases 

heard

D is tr ic t co ur ts

N u m b er 

of tr ia ls

N u m b er 

of tri al 

day s

C os t of tr avel

CO UR TS OF AP PE AL S

2d c ir c u it . 

3d c ir cu it . 

D o .. .. 

D o .. .. 

D . . . .

Sw an , T h o m as W . 

F orm an, P h il lip .. .

M ar is , A . B .......... ..

____d o_____ ______------d o.................. ..

Judge L aw clerk S ecre ta ry R e p o r te r C rier T o ta l

6 th c ir c u it .. 7 th c ir c u it .. 

8 th c ir c u it .. 9 th c ir c u it ..

D o .........D o ____

D o .........

10 th c ir cu it .

DISTRICT COURTS

2d cir cu it : N ew Y ork ( n o rt h ­ er n ).

3d ci rc uit :

D ela w are _______________

P en n sy lv an ia (e as te rn ) _ _

D o ...................................

D o .............................

4 th ci rc uit :

N o rth C ar oli na (m id dl e)

D o ....................

V ir gin ia (e ast ern ).

D o .....................

D o . . ..................

V ir gin ia (w este rn ).

D o .

M cA ll is te r, T hom as F .M ajo r, J. E a rl............ .S an born , Jo h n B 3 _____ Bon e, H om er T.< ............

H am li n , O liv er D .s ........O rr , W illiam E ...............

Pop e, W alt er L _______

P h il li p s, O rrie L ______

B re n n an , S te phen W .

L eah y , P au l C _______

G ri m , A llan K _______

K ir k p atr ic k , W . H . . . . 

. . . . d o ..................... .........

H ay es, J ohnso n J .

------d o .____ ______

H u tc h eso n , S ____

____d o .............. .........

------d o .................... .

B ark sd ale , A. D .

.d o .

2d c ir c u it _____3d c ir cu it ..........

........d o ..............

V irgin Is la n d s. P en n sy lv an ia 

(m id dl e) 

3

6 th c ir cu it ____

7th c ii c u it ____

8 th c ir cu it ____

9 th c ir c u it .........

____d o ......... .......------d o ................ .____d o .............. ..

10 th e ir cu it .......

N ew Y ork ( n o rt h ern )

8

. 29

$302

80

327

20

34

880477435

9494

183160

2,164

$212

11

287

30

$64

942

443

103

137

322

$578

91

614

50

34

1,822

920

435

9494

183

263

2,301

3d c ir cu it (P en n sy lv an ia (e as te rn )) .

P en n sy lv an ia (e as ter n ).

3d cir cu it (P en n sy lv an ia (e as te rn )) .

P en n sy lv an ia (e as ter n) .

N o rt h C ar oli na (e as ter n ).

N o rt h C ar olina (m id ­

dle )

4th cir cu it (V irgi ni a 

(e as te rn )) .

N o rt h C ar oli na (e as t­ er n).

V irgin ia (e aste rn )........

4th cir cu it (V irgin ia 

(e aste rn )) .

V irgi nia ( w e s te r n ) ....

22

73

1,920

227

1,010

344

1,675

192

111

213371

204

1,288

4

152

848

$53 $46

615

273

127

346

280301

322

73

2,0 23

583

3,146

624

2,93 7

192

111

213

644 23
Do ..............................

5th circuit:

Florida (middle ).......... .. Do _______________ Mississippi (northern) ... Do ______ _____— _ Gth circuit:

Ke ntu cky (eastern)------- Tennessee (eastern ).........

Paul, Joh n 

1______ Wh itehur st, George .. ..d o ............. .........

Cox, Allen.............. . ___ do.......................

Ford, II. C . . . Darr, Leslie R.

W....... .

do_____________

D o ...........................

7th circuit: Illinois (eastern). 8th circuit:

Iowa (no rth ern)............. . Ne bra ska ___ ____ —s---- 9th circuit:

Idah o________________ Ne vada................. ...........

Washin gton (w ester n).. . Do ______ ______

___ do.................... Wham, Fred L—

Graven, H enry N. Delehant, J. W .. .

Clark, Chase A.’.. Foley, Roger T _. Bowen, Joh n C .. . 

___ do —. . . . . -----

Florida (mid dle)......... Texas (western).......... Mississippi (northern) Mississippi (southern)

Kentucky ea stern) .. .. 6th circu it (Ohio (southern )). Tennessee (eastern). . . Illinois (no rthe rn)-----

North D ak ot a.____ •.. Nebraska__________

Do....................

Do ....................

10th circuit: Oklahoma 

(eastern).

Servic e W ith no

T ra ve l Costs

COURTS OF APPEALS

2d ci rcuit.................................

District of C olum bia circu it.. 

Do.....................................

DISTRICT COURTS

1st circuit: Massa ch usetts. .. 

2d circuit:

New York (sou th er n) ... .

Do...............................

D o. ........................ .. .

3d circuit: Delaware..............

6th c ircuit: Ohio (sout her n).. 7th circuit: Illinois (no rthern.

9th circuit: California (no rth ern)----- California (so uth ern )---- Do..............................

District of Columbia circuit: 

District of Columbia.

Tota l

___ do............... ___do ............... Rice, Eugene 10

.

Medina, Harold R ___ Edge rton, H enr y W___. 

Prettym an, E. Barrett

McCarthy, William T .i>.._.

Dimock, Edward J _______

Knox, John C____________ Leibell, Vincent L .. _ .. . . . . . Rodney, Richard S.

1*...........

Druffel, Joh n H _.................. La Buy, Walter J _________

Roche, Michael J _________ Weinberger, Jacob........... Yankwich, Leon R.......... . Schw einhaut, He nry A____

See footnotes at end of table.

Arizo na____________ ___ do..........................- ___ do....... . .................. 9th circuit"(CaliIornia (southern)). Washington (eastern). Washington (western). Oklahoma (eastern). ..

2d ci rcuit.............. ......

District of Colum bia 

circuit.

District of Colum bia 

and 5th circuit.

Massac huse tts........ . . .

2d circuit (New York (southern)). New Yo rk...................

___ do.... ...................... Delaware................ .. .

Ohio........... ................

Illinois (northe rn)___

California (northern). California (southern). ___ do ............... ......... District of Colum bia.

28 28

14 14 582 474 1,056

g 9 896 689 259 1,844

2 2 31 31

3 11 358 116 474

13 18 238 450 325 1,013

161 145 306

4 2 88 45 133

6 9 949 949

63 63

1 1 26 10 36

2 3 576 484 364 1,424

g 44 • 2 589 2,048 4,637

10 26 1 285 665 670 2,620 ’ 194 194

i 4 109 113 222

12 46 117 55 131 303

23 13 29 25 54

g 26

4 5

2 3

g 17

1 2

9 5

Q 26

5 5

16 33

12 u

39 89

303 583 19,871 3,874 7,304 1,075 1,905 34,029
Services and travel expenses of senior judges inciden t to serving in courts of appeals or district courts within circuits, Ju ly 1, 1963 to J un e 30 1964

1—Co ntinued

SUM MARY

Circ uit or district Number of judges Place of service

Service Cost of travel

Courts of 

appeals, 

cases 

heard

District courts

Judg e Law clerk Secre­ tary Re­ porter Crier Tota l Num ber of trials Num ber of trial 

days

Senior circuit judg es........... . ............... 14

1 Courts of appeals . 529 $5,196 54 $75030 $1,449 $7,39584 T o ta l. .. ....... . ........ District courts............. 7 6 15 529 7 6 5,250 780 1,449 7,479 Senior district ju dges. ... Courts of appe als........... 729 109 1,218 13,403 204 2,890 570 5, 285 ------------ ■ 1,992 24,558 To tal ____ __________ District c o u r ts .. .____ 296 577 $1,075 $1,905 36 109 296 577 14,621 3,094 5,855 1,075 1,905 26,550 Grand total........ . ............. . .......... 51 638 303 583 19,871 3,874 7,304 1,075 1,905 34,029

2 Sittin g in 3 judge distr ict court—4 days in Philadelphia. 1 day in Scranton.

3 Judge died, Mar. 17. 1964. < Sitting with 3-judge court—not reported on J.S . 10 (Judges Bone and Paul)

5 Jud ge retired, Sept. 5,1963.

’ Judge s ubm itte d no vouchers, travel based on vouchers in favor of law clerk indicat­ ing transpo rtation furnished to judge.

I Judge died, Feb. 13,1964.

’ ? 

d ?y s ’ t r ?vel in Ju ne 1964 on t rip to N orth Dakota for service during 1965 fiscal year. 

9 Judge retired, Apr. 30,1964. 19 Judge retired, Dec. 1. 1963. II Ju dge died, Apr. 6, 1964. >2 Judge died, Dec. 2,1963.
83

Mr. Bow. Is this chart, which was handed to me by Mr. Olney the 

entire travel of the courts for the period July 1, 1963, to June 30, 

1964?

Mr. Anderson. The entire travel by the courts ?

Mr. Bow. Yes.

Mr. Anderson. No, sir.

Mr. Bow. Tha t is what I wanted to know. This is exactly the same 

table?

Mr. Anderson. This is exactly the same table, Mr. Bow, as we have 

handed you in years past. The three tables are confined to all of the 

travel of senior judges but the travel of active judges—if I may distinguish them tha t way—on assignment, not within their own jurisdiction. It is the same as last year.

Mr. Bow. I am not interested in their home jurisdiction, of course.

Mr. R ooney. It seems to me that this exhibit is much smaller.

Mr. Bow. It seems that way to me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. I hope it is an indication tha t the cost has gone 

down.

Traveling has been further restricted, I hope? We used to get 

quite a few pages on this.

Judg e McGuire. We have a committee in the courts we call the 

Breitenstein committee. All travel has to go thro ugh tha t committee 

except within the jurisdiction.

Mr. Rooney. Please, proceed, Mr. Bow.

Mr. Bow. Mr. Chairman, we are disappointed, you and I. I see it 

is up a little bit.

Judge McGuire. I might say while we are on this, tha t there has 

been a great deal of necessity for assignment of judges to the fifth 

circuit because of problems they have there.

Mr. Olney. Mr. Chairman, with respect to judges' travel this year, 

there are two major drains on it. The fifth circuit, as Ju dge McGuire 

said, is one major pa rt of it. There had to be a great many outside circuit assignments to that circuit and even at tha t they have been unable 

to keep up with the tremendous increase in business there.

Mr. Rooney. Why do you have Judge Spears and Judge Estes 

sitting in New York, southern, Pennsylvania, eastern, and the District 

of Columbia?

ELEC TRICAL A NT IT RU ST S UITS

Mr. Olney. This is the other item I am coming to.

It is these electrical antitrust suits. The private damage antitrust 

suits that grew out of the Government An titrus t case in Philadelphia. 

There are several hundred of those cases and they are in very large 

amounts and in number, and they are spread in 34 different districts. 

There has had to be organized an unprecedented campaign of taking 

depositions. These depositions have to be taken before judges to 

make them effective. The judges you named are the judges who are 

engaged in taking depositions in the disposition of these cases.

I am glad to say they have made remarkable progress with tha t 

litigation. There have been two trials, lengthy ones, on in Philadelphia and one in the District of Columbia, and now there are a 

very, very large number of settlements. Most of this litigation is 

being disposed of.
84

Ju dg e McGuire. I might say, i f any accolades a re to be passe d out 

at all, the y sho uld be passed out to this committee on the elec trica l 

equ ipm ent cases. They have done a remark able job.

We had 45 cases in th e D istri ct of Columbia and they ha ve dwindled 

dow n now to 20. There was one long case th at took abo ut 8 weeks 

to try. That was a verdict of trip le dam age s fo r $584,000. These 

jud ges have done a rem ark able jo b, otherwis e th e business of this litiga ­

tio n would have thrown the whole str uc ture o ut of complete focus.

Ju dg e Weinm an . I migh t ad d, I happened to be one of those 26 

jud ges and when we ha d our com mittee meetings, the re were or iginally 2,000 cases pending in the United States. Now th at numb er 

is down to abo ut 700. Th is has been a case where all prep arati on , 

or discovery, as we call it, is done once fo r all of these 2,000 cases. 

I know Ju dg e Spe ars, for one, was 3 mo nths on one of those cases 

but the y finally se ttle d it.

I w as fo rtun ate to get the Col umb us case jus t settled.

Th e ac tiv ity of th at com mittee rea lly has been rem ark able and 

Ju dg e M urrah is th e ch airman.

TRAVEL OF JUDG ES

Mr. Bow. W ha t is the sit ua tio n of the dock et in the wes tern dis ­

tri ct of Misso uri ?

Ju dg e J ohnsen. The western di stric t of Missouri, Ju dg e Beck er 

on “T ra ve l? ”

Mr. B ow. No. It shows Judg e Reeves.

Ju dg e J ohnsen. He is a sen ior judge. He lives in Fl or id a bu t he 

is still officially from the western di strict of M issouri.

Mr. Bow. His assignment is in Fl or id a fo r 155 day s because he is 

liv ing the re?

Ju dg e J ohnsen. He does no t s it in th e eig hth circuit a t all.

Mr. Cederberg. Would th e ge ntlem an yiel d ?

Mr. Bow. Be g lad to.

Mr. Cederberg. Do I u nd ersta nd th at J ud ge Reeves, a s enior judge, 

lives in Fl or id a? How did he get $1,765 of tra ve l? Was th at all 

done in th e S tate of F lo rid a ?

Ju dg e J ohnsen. I do not know -whether he made his official res idence the re, bu t he has been sitti ng in the sou the rn district of New 

York. He has been s itting in Flo rida a nd he has been s itting in o ther 

places.

Mr. Cederberg. It shows him , acc ord ing to that chart , bei ng jus t in 

Fl or id a and i t shows 155 d ays. I t lists him receivin g $1,865 in travel.

Ju dg e J ohn sen. Th at is per diem.

Mr. Cederberg. Of those 155 day s on assignmen t, he has tri ed 18 

cases and had 53 days of tria l w ork.

Ju dg e J ohn sen. Well, if I were to mak e a guess fo r a n expla nat ion , 

I would say th at pro bably he has been servin g in Fl or id a, no t at a 

plac e w here his residence is located. He h as the rig ht, u nd er the stat ­

ute, when he becomes a senior jud ge, to select wh ate ver he w ants to as 

a residence. He must then tra ve l fro m his residence probably to the 

sou the rn d istrict of Flo rid a.

Mr. Cederberg. Wh ere does he live now ?

Ju dg e J ohnse n. I cann ot recall the tow n.
85

Mr. Anderson. A town by the name of Dunedin, Fla. It is near 

Orlando, I believe.

Mr. Cederberg. What district is that in Florida ?

Mr. Anderson. I do not know. Perhaps the middle district.

Mr. Cederberg. Tha t is where he has been trying these cases, in the 

middle district of Florida ?

Judge J ohnsen. Judge Reeves has done no work since he retired, 

as I recall, in the western district of Missouri.

Mr. Bow. This shows he had 155 days in Florida in the middle district which is his residence, and $1,865 in travel.

Judge J ohnsen. I think if you look you will see we have another 

senior district judge, Henry Graven, who has been sittin g in western 

Texas. He has done virtually no work in the eighth circuit since he 

has been retired and has been serving in western Texas in the wintertime. I think he is down there now.

Mr. Bow. You have a Henry Gravin in the eighth circuit in Iowa.

Judg e J ohnsen. He is from the northern district of Iowa.

Mr. Bow. It shows he served in North Dakota.

Judge J ohnsen. He served in mail fraud case up there. He served 

last winter in western Texas and I think he served in western New 

York.

LONG-DIST ANC E PH ON E CALLS

Mr. Bow. I would like to get into this phone situation and have 

it cleared up, the difference between the legislative and the judicial 

branch. You are on the Federal network?

Mr. Anderson. The Federal Telecommunications System, it is 

called.

Mr. Bow. The Congress is not ?

Mr. Anderson. I do not know whether the Congress is.

Mr. Bow. You are not charged by individual calls for long distance, 

are you?

Mr. Anderson. Where you have this hookup, you are n ot charged 

by individual calls.

Mr. Bow. The one you have ?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. It costs just as much to have this system if you made 1 

call or 25 calls, is that correct?

I do not believe I have anything further, Mr. Chairman.

REIMBU RSEM EN TS TO GSA

Mr. Cederberg. In this appropriation how much do you reimburse 

GSA? GSA does certain jobs for you in the way of equipment and 

so forth ?

Mr. Anderson. Mr. Cederberg, we buy our office supplies, consumable supplies, through the GSA source.

Mr. Cederberg. What about other equipment, furniture?

Mr. Anderson. The furn iture for the courts is purchased out of 

an appropriation to the GSA and is not in this appropriation.

Air. Cederberg. In other words, the only equipment we are talking 

about here is disposable equipment ?

Mr. Anderson. Office machines, typewriters, and adding machines.

Air. Cederberg. Can you buy those directly ?
86

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cederberg. Thank you.

Mr. Bow. May I ask one further question ? 

Mr. Rooney. Yes, Mr. Bow.

VARIATIONS IN PR IN TI NG COSTS

Mr. Bow. I notice on page 111, the price per page of straight matter 

shows quite a variation between the various circuits; how does this 

occur?

Judge McGuire. Mr. Congressman, I would address myself particularly to that situation in the District of Columbia. I know th at 

District of Columbia circuit charges are $8.50 a straight page and tha t 

is due to printing costs in the particular area. I talked with the chief 

judge of the circuit and he told me they are going to look into the possibility of going into Baltimore, or wherever they can, to have their 

opinions printed. Cost fluctuates with the price paid the printer and 

the labor situation in the individual districts. I am assuming also in 

New York in the second circuit where the volume is so great, the price 

there as a consequence would be down lower.

In the District of Columbia it is very high but we are on th at situation.

Mr. Bow. There is quite a variation where you go from $2.60 to a

high of $8.50.

Judge McGuire. I do not see the $2 figure.

Mr. Bow. $2.60 for the fifth circuit.

Judge McGuire. That is the fifth circuit and then the second circuit, 

which is New York, $4.75 and $3.65. In the District of Columbia, it 

is still the same and we are on that situation.

The ninth circuit, you will notice, is California, the west coast, and 

it is $5.45 and $6.50.

Mr. Bow. How much difficulty would there be to get these opinions 

printed in the area where the price is low ?

Judg e McGuire. That is the problem we are addressing ourselves 

to in the D istrict of Columbia, possibly going to Baltimore.

Mr. Bow. On the fifth circuit, is this a matter of urgency in getting 

tha t out ?

Judge McGuire. As far as the District of Columbia is concerned, 

the opinions come down on Thursday and there are usually four or 

five of them and they have to be printed, be proof checked, and then 

they have difficulty in that situation.

Might I go off the record ?

Mr. Rooney. Yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

Judge McGuire. They are addressing themselves to this matter. 

You will note there is also an increase in the number of opinions coming down in memorandum form. There are not so many opinions being 

written in a formal sense.

Mr. Bow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
87

F ees and E xpenses of Court-Appoint ed Counsel

Object classification

[In thousands of dollars]

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

11.4 Personnel compensation: Special personal service pay ­

ments:

Pep<i nf r nnrt -n ppnin te d co un se l __ _ 3,500

Fe e of w itn es se s ex per ts and m ental exam inatio ns___ 840

Total personnel compensation ______________ 4,340

200

100

600

400

1,400

21. 0 Travel and tran spor tation of persons________________

25 1 Other services _ __________________________

25 1 Investigative _________ __ _ _ _ _

25.1 Secretarial . _________________________________

Q‘2 0 Und istributed (reserve for contingencies) _________

99.0 Tota l obligations ___________________________ 7,040

Program and financing

[In thousa nds of dollars]

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

Program by activities:

10 Fees and expenses (obligations)_____________________ 7,040

Financing:

40 New obligational autho rity (appropriatio n)__________ 7,040

Relation of obligations to expenditures:

71 Total obligations (affecting expenditures)____________ 7,040

74 Obligated balance, end of y e a r_____ _______________ -580

90 Expenditures 6,460

Mr. R ooney. On page 363 of the committee prin t, we find an item 

entitled “Fees and expenses of court-appointed counsel, $7,040,000.” 

The details begin at page 115 of the justifications, which page we shall 

insert at this point in the record, together with pages 116 through 132.

(The pages follow:)

Statem ent relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

Fees and expenses of court-appointed counsel: 

1965 appropriation in annual ac t________

Ne t difference, 1966 over 1965:

Judiciary

Fees an d expenses

Requiremen ts

1965

appropriated

1966

estim ate

$7,040,000

Difference, 

increase (+ ) 

or decrease (—)

+$ 7,040,000 +$7,040,000

To tal estimate for 1966. 7,040,000
88

Analysis by object Object

11 Personnel compensation : i960 estimate Fees of court-appointed counsel________________________ $3, 500, 000

Fees of witnesses, experts, and mental examinations______ 840, 000

21 Trav el and transp ort ation of persons__________________________ 200, 000

25 Other serv ice s:

Transcr ipts___________________________________________ 100, 000

Inv estigative__________________________________________ 000, 000

Secre tarial------------------------------------------------------------------- 400, 000

92 Undistributed (reserve s for contingencies)_________________ 1,400,000

Tota l obligations______________________________________ 7, 040, 000

Sum mar y of r equirements fo r 1966

Nature of ex pense : Amo unt 1. Compensation of court-appointed counsel_________________ $3, 500, 000

2. Out-of-pocket exp enses:

Secreta rial services________________________________ 400, 000

Tra nsc ripts on appe al_____________________________ 100, 000

Trav el and incidental expenses_______________________ 200,000

3. Services oth er tha n cou nsel:

Investigative services______________________________ 600,000

Fees for witnesses, experts and mental examin atio ns___ 840, 000

4. Reserve for contingencies______________________________ 1, 400, 000

Total requirements, 1966____________________________ 1

 7, 040,000

1

 Exclusive of $460,000 representing the cost of adm inis tration which is included under 

the heading “Salaries and Expenses, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.”

JUSTIFICATION

Proposed appropriation language

It is recommended th at a separate no-year appropriation be made for the 

compensation and expenses of court-appointed counsel and for “services other 

tha n counsel.” This would not be incon sistent with the Criminal Jus tice Act of 

1964 which provides “When so specified in appropriation acts, such app rop riations shall remain available until expended.” Of course, this is a matt er to 

he left to the dete rmination of the app ropriations committees. The language 

proposed for this sep arate appropriation is as follows :

“For compensation and reimbursement of expenses of atto rneys appointed to 

represen t defe ndants in criminal cases and for investigative, expert, or other 

services p urs uant to the Criminal Jus tice Act of 1964 (62 Stat. 684), $7,040,000, 

to remain a vailable until expended.”

Objectives

Funds to be appropriated under this heading shall be used to implement the 

Criminal Justice Act of 1964, Public Law 88-455, approved August 20, 1964. 

The act, subject to certain limitations, permits the payment of compensation to 

counsel appointed to represent persons accused of crime in the U.S. courts “who 

are financially unable to obtain an adequate defense.” The act also auth orizes 

the reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incu rred by the atto rne ys and 

payments for investigative, expert, or other services necessary to an adeq uate 

defense.

General justific ation

Under the Criminal Jus tice Act of 1964 each dis trict court, within 6 months 

from the date of enactment, is required to subm it to the judicia l council of 

the circ uit a plan for the adeq uate representatio n of defendan ts which is to 

include “counsel and investigative, expert, and oth er services necessary to an 

adeq uate defense. The provision for counsel under each plan shall conform to 

one of the fo llow ing:

“ (1) Represe ntation by private att orn eys;

“ (2) Representation by atto rneys furnished by a ba r association or a legal aid 

agency; or

“ (3) Representation according to a plan containing a combination of the foregoing.”
The plan for each dis trict is to be formulated in accordance w ith the provisions 

of the act and “any rules and regu lations issued by the Jud icial Conference of the United States.” The judicia l council of the circuit must within 9 months from the da te of enactment of the legislation approve and tra nsmi t to the admin­ istrat ive office of the U.S. courts a plan for each dis trict in its circuit. The plan as finally approved is to be placed in operation by each dis trict within 1 yea r 

from the date of enactment. At its session in March 1964, the Judi cial Conference of the United States, view­ ing the passage of the legislation as eminent, authorized the appointment of an ad hoc committee of the Conference to work with the adm inistra tive office in de­ veloping rules, procedures, and guidelines for an assigned counsel system. The recom mendations of the ad hoc committee, which were approved by the Judicia l 

Conference in September 1964, included the fo llowin g: (1) The central disbursem ent of funds app ropriat ed to carry out the act. (2) The adm inistration of the act through a fram ewo rk of boards of advisers to the jud icial councils of the circuits, to be assisted by full-time compensated 

officers. (3) Th at the chief judge of each circuit call a meeting of the chief judges of the distr ict co urts in his circuit to consider the problems of the adm inistra tion of the act, the urgency of developing practic al and acceptable plans in each dis­ tric t, ways and means of stim ulating the int ere st and securing the supp ort and cooperation of the bar * * * and to make plans for again convening to act as a panel of judges to appoint from the b ar a n app ropriate board of advisers to the 

jud icial council.

(4) Th at a special session of the Jud icial Conference of the United Sta tes be convened at a date as early in Janu ary as possible for the exclusive purpose of considering the problems of adm inistratio n under the Crim inal Jus tice Act. The Jud icia l Conference, upon the recommendations of the ad hoc committee and the Budget Committee, also approved a budget e stim ate of $7,500,000 fo r the first y ear’s operation, $7,040,000 for fees and expenses of court-ap pointed counsel and $460,000 for adm inistration. The latte r sum has been included under the heading “Salaries and Expenses, Adm inistrativ e Office of the U.S. Courts.” 

Num ber of cases requiring assig nment of counsel

The budget estimate of $7,040,000 contemplates the assignment of counsel in 20,000 cases per year. It is expected t ha t in the f utu re there will be more criminal cases requiring the assignment of counsel for the indigent than the re have been in the past. The following is a sta tistical computation regarding the assignment of counsel to crim inal defe ndants acquitted or sentenced during fiscal year 1964:

Defendan ts for whom counsel were assigned by the court............ .................. —.

Defendan ts for whom counsel were no t assigned: Defendants with priva tely retained co unsel ........................... ..................... Defendants who waived the appoi ntm ent of counsel_____ , ___________ Defendants for whom counsel were not assigned bu t inform ation on th e waiver of counsel or the appearance of privately re tained counsel was no t repo rted ___________________________ _____________ . . . . _____

To tal ............... ................ .............. .......................... . ............................ . Defenda nts on whom information as to the assignment of counsel was n ot reporte d________________ ___________ ________________ __________ _

To tal defendants acq uitted or sentenced ....................................................

Numb er Percent

11,604 33

11,710 33

7,212 21

4,004 11

22,926 65

542 2

35,072

The above figures and percentages are only a sta rting point from which to estimate the number of crim inal defendants to be represen ted by court-ap­ pointed counsel in the future. They do not, for example, tak e into consid­ era tion the entirely new provision in the act requiring the assignment of coun­ sel at the level of the U.S. commissioner. Nor do they tak e into account the likelihood th at in the futur e and in orde r to protect the record, courts and commissioners will be less inclined to accept waivers of counsel by defend­ ants who app ear before them. The increase in the number of assignments of counsel resulting from the wholly new requirement for appointment of coun­ sel on appearance before the U.S. commissioners is unpredictable. The ex­ ten t of the decrease in the number of waivers of the appointment of counsel 

also is difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy.
90

Assuming th at the total defendan ts acquitted or sentenced remains the same 

and there is no change in the number of defe ndants with privately reta ined 

counsel, potentially there would remain over 23,000 defendan ts who would require the appo intment of counsel by the courts. Of course, this is exclusive 

of any appointments th at may be made by the U.S. commissioners. It w’ould 

appear, therefore, that the estimate of 20,000 defe ndants being represented by 

court-appointed attorneys in 1906 represen ts a conservative basis on which to 

establish the budgetary requirements.

Compensation of court-appointed counsel

Based on the assignment of counsel in 20,000 cases per year, it is estim ated 

th at the sum of $3,500,000 will be requ ired in fiscal yea r 1966 for the compensatio n of attorneys as fo llow s:

Time in court, including commissioners (averag e of 5 hours per case

at $15 per ho ur )___________________________________________ $1,500, 000

Out of court preparatio n (average of 10 h ours per case at $10 per

ho ur )____________________________________________________ 2,000,000

Total compensation of atto rneys (averag e of $175 per ca se)_ 3, 500, 000

The act authorizes the payment of compensation to an attorney, or to a bar 

association or legal aid agency for the services of an attorney, at a rate to be 

fixed by the court but not to exceed $15 per hour for time expended in court or 

before a U.S. commissioner, and $10 per hou r for time reasonably expended out 

of court. For represe ntation of a defe ndant before the U.S. commissioner and 

the dis tric t court, the compensation to be paid to an attorney, bar association, 

or legal aid agency shall not exceed $500 in a case in which one or more felonies 

are charged, and $300 in a case in which only misdemeanors are charged. In 

protracted cases, excess payments may be authorized but subject to the approval 

of the chief judge of the circuit. For represen tation of a defendan t in an 

appellate court, the compensation to be paid to an atto rney, or to a bar association or legal aid agency for the services of an attorney, shall in no event exceed 

$500 in a felony case and $300 in a case involving only misdemeanors.

Having established an estimate of the number of crim inal defendan ts to be 

represented by court-appointed counsel, there remained for consideration the 

question as to the amount of time the attorneys will be required to devote both 

in court as well a s out of court. In July 1963 the district courts in the 7th, 8th, 

and 10th circuits commenced to obtain reports from court-appointed attorneys 

showing the number of hours devoted to the represe ntation of their clients as 

well as a statement of their out-of-pocket expenses. The following is a summarization of these reports covering services rend ered in 815 crim inal c ases:

Average

number

of hours Time spent in open c ou rt: per case Arraignment and plea_________________________________________ 1. 2

Plea (when sep arate from arr aig nm ent)_________________________ .2

Sentence hea ring ______________________________________________ 1. 0

Tr ial________________________________________________________ .9

Others_______________________________________________________ . 4

Tota l time spent in cou rt____________________________________ 3. 8

Time spent in p reparation (out of court) :

Interviews with client_________________________________________ 2. 8

Legal research_______________________________________________ 2. 8

Investigative w’ork :

Inte rviews with witnesses__________________________________ . 7

Consultation with prosecuting official________________________ . 8

Consultation with probation officers__________________________ . 4

Others_______________________________________________________ . 4

Total investig ative work_____________________________________ 2. 3

Others_______________________________________________________ 1. 0

Total time spent in pre paration ________________________________ 9. 0

Grand total spent (average per ca se )_________________________ 12.7
91

The average time reported to have been spent in the district courts is 3.8 hours. 

Of course, this does not include representation of defe ndants before U.S. commissioners or on appeal of crim inal convictions. A sampling of 41 cases on 

appeal revealed that attorneys spent an average of 4.5 hours in court. Taking 

into account the services of court-appointed counsel before U.S. commissioners 

and the appellate courts, an estimate of 5 hours per case in open co urt would not 

app ear unreasonable.

The reports indicated t ha t the attorneys spent an average of 9 hours in prep aring the ir cases. This includes approximately 2 hours per case for investigative 

work—interviewing witnesses, consulting with probation officers, etc. Since the 

act now authorizes payment for such services, the attorneys will be inclined to 

employ private inve stigators to perfo rm these services. On the other hand, 

since the atto rne ys are to be compensated for their services, they will in all 

probability devote a gre ate r amount of time doing legal research. The number 

of hours to be devoted in each case, of course, will vary depending upon the 

seriousness of th e crime. The above-referred-to sampling of appeals showed t ha t 

the a ttorne ys spent an average of 76 hours preparing their cases, including interviews and conferences, reviewing the record, legal resea rch, brief writin g, corre ­

spondence, prep aring oral argument, travel, etc. In some cases an attorney may 

only devote 1 hour or a frac tion thereof representing h is client whereas in other 

cases an attorney may be required to spend 20, 30, or even 40 hours preparing 

his case. An average of 10 hours per case for out-of-court preparatio n would 

app ear to be a reasonable estim ate on which to base the budgeta ry requirements.

OUT-OF-PO CKET EXPEN SES

The act provides that court-appointed counsel “sha ll be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred.” This, of course, would include secretarial services, expenses of travel, supplies, postage, etc. The sampling of cases in the 

7th, 8th, and 10th circuits showed th at the atto rneys represen ting indigent 

defendan ts in the dis trict courts were out-of-pocket an average of $4.90 per 

case, whereas the atto rneys representing d efen dants in the appellate courts were 

out-of-pocket an average of $38 per case. The sub stantial varianc e prim arily 

is due to the fac t th at on appeal the atto rneys required a greater amount of 

sec retarial services. Also, on appeal the atto rneys frequently were required to 

represen t their clients away from home necessitating sub stantial expe nditures 

for travel and subsistence.

Secretarial services

The amount of secreta rial services th at will be requ ired by the attorney s, of 

course, is directly rela ted to the amount of time the attorneys personally devote 

to the representation of their clients. Consistent with the experience in the 

Departm ent of J ustice and in the Legal Aid Agency for the Distric t of Columbia 

it is estimated that the attorneys will requ ire sec retarial services averaging 

8 h ours per case. At the rate of $2.50 per hour, which is slightly higher than 

the base rate of grade GS-5, the sum of $400,000 will be required for this purpose. The estima te of 8 hours of secretarial services per case is based on an 

approximate ra tio of 1 secretary-hour for 2 attorney-hours.

Transcripts on appeal

Fees for tra nscripts furnished in crim inal proceedings to persons allowed to 

appeal in forma pauperis currently a re being paid by the United States pursu ant 

to the provisions of section 753(f) of title 28, United States Code. Funds have 

been ap propriated for this purpose under the heading “Travel and miscellaneous 

expenses. U.S. courts.” From a fiscal and adm inistra tive stan dpo int it is considered more practicable to include all expenses relatin g to the represen tation 

of defe ndants in criminal cases under a single appropriation. Accordingly, the 

sum available for this purpose, namely $100,000 is being transf err ed to thi s 

appropriation.

Travel and incid ental expenses

It is estim ated that the sum of $200,000 will be requ ired for travel and miscellaneous expenses of court-appointed atto rneys incident to the represen tation 

of the ir clients. This estimate is based on an average claim of $10 per case.
92

The following a re examples of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by court-nppointed 

cou nsel:

Stationery and other office supplies 

Postage

Tra nsp ortation (including tax i fares) 

Meals and lodging

Long-distance and local telephone calls 

Telegrams

Pho tostati ng

Mimeographing (stencils) 

Pri nti ng of briefs 

Parki ng fees 

Messenger services

In view of the variety of expenses th at may be incurre d by court-appointed 

counsel, the estimate of $10 per case would app ear to be very reasonable.

Investigative services

It is estim ated th at the sum of $600,000 will be requ ired for investigative 

services. At $7.50 per hour, this will provide for an average of 4 hours of investigativ e work per case, or an approximate ratio of 1 investigator-hour for 4 

attorney-hours. It should be noted th at paymen t for investigative services 

would not necessarily be limited to court-appointed counsel. Counsel and services may, but need not, go together. An accused who is withou t funds may 

obtain appointed counsel but have no need for the services of an investigator. 

Another defendant, who uses up his funds to hire a lawyer, may qualify to have 

an investigato r furn ished in order adequately to pre par e his case for trial. 

The act recognizes th at many defe ndants are able to pay for part, but not all, 

of the expenses of litiga tion. Its provisions, therefore, become operative whenever the resources of an accused are inadeq uate to provide for his defense.

The estim ates of the Departm ent of Jus tice which were filed with the Senate 

and House Jud iciary Committees in support of the legislation contemplated 10 

hours of investigative work per case. The Legal Aid Agency of the District 

of Columbia presently has five full-time investigato rs and six staff attorn eys on 

its payroll. Under the circumstances the estimate of 4 hours of investig ative 

work per case would a ppear to be very conservative.

Fees for witnesses, experts, and mental examin ations

The sum of $840,000 h as been included for the paym ent of fees for witnesses, 

experts, and mental exam inations. The Attorney General, on the basis of the 

sum allocated for this purpose to U.S. attorneys, estim ated th at the total cost 

would be $649,800. However, since the submission of his estimate the allocation 

to U.S. attorneys has increased substantially. The estimate of $840,000 was 

derived by application of the same form ula used by the Attorney General. 

Reserve for contingencies

In the absence of actual experience, there is no assuranc e that provision has 

been made for all of the elements of cost u nder the Criminal Jus tice Act of 1964. 

Conceivably some of t he estimates have been computed on a liberal basis but by 

the same token some may be far too conservative. There is, of course, for consideration the human element, that is, the response of the atto rneys who for the 

first time will be compensated for their services. There may be a tendency for 

these atto rneys to spend more time doing legal research tha n they would otherwise have devoted. There may be a fa r gre ate r demand for “services o ther than 

counsel.” In any event, a cushion in the form of a reserve for contingencies 

should be provided to assure the adequacy of funds. The sum of $1,400,000 or 

approximately 25 perc ent of the so-called “ha rd” estim ate of $5,640,000 has been 

included for this purpose. This reserve was computed on the same basis as the 

reserve included by the Attorney General in the estimate he furnish ed to the 

Senate and House J udiciary Committees in support of the legislation.

Mr. Rooney. As we all know, th is is a new approp ria tio n.

Ju dg e J ohnsen. As J ud ge Mc Guire did , I wa nt to express the regrets of Ju dg e Ha stings, the chief judge of the Se ven th Ci rcuit C ourt, 

in th at he could no t be here. He is the Ch air ma n of the St an ding 

Com mittee of the Conference on th is Com mittee to implement the 

Crim ina l J us tic e A ct. He also, as Ju dg e Cam pbe ll, has ha d an opera ­

tio n and cou ld no t be here.

I take it you wa nt to take up th is $7 million item first, Mr. Chairma n.
93

I sha ll proc eed to that because I think it will thr ow into perspe ctive 

these adjun cti ve aspec ts as the $1 million request on the jur y business, 

which we have no thing to do with— th at is the Com mittee on Im pl eme nting the Crim ina l Ju sti ce Act; th is is no t our figure. But when 

we g et to th is $7,040,000, it will its elf thr ow n some lig ht, I think, on 

thi s aspect of the Ad minist rativ e reques t which has been mad e of 

$460,000, so I will proceed to th at. I f I may be pardo ned, th is is an 

entirely new’ pro blem wi th us and I think with the App ro pr iatio ns 

Com mittee.

HISTORY OX COMPILATION OF ESTIMATE

I t is a sit ua tio n we hav e nev er ha d so fa r as the courts are concerned, certainl y, an d I think I pe rhap s sho uld give you a l ittle bit of 

the h istory th at ha s en tered into o ur endorsem ent an d requ est as to th is 

figure.

Wh en the bil l was firs t introd uced in 1963, t he A tto rney Ge neral’s 

Office asked the Ad minist rativ e Office to tr y to give them , if th ey had 

any, data on wh ich they could pred ica te an estimate.

Mr. Rooney. A good lawryer alw ays star ts w ith his defe nse first.

Excuse me.

Ju dg e J ohnsen. That is quite all rig ht . I hav e been a practic ing 

law yer, Mr. Chairm an.

In Ju ly of 1963, the Ad minist rativ e Office with the coo per ation of 

the chief jud ges of the 7th, 8th, and 10th cir cuits sta rte d in to try 

to see i f the y could ga th er da ta because we ha d been ha vin g ap po intments of counsel, un pa id, bu t if w’e go t inform ation fro m the m with 

resp ect to the am ount of tim e the y ha d been put ting in, th at could 

fu rn ish some aspect as to wh at was likely to be the cost a nd the n also 

their out-of-po cke t expenses which the y ha d to p ut up themselves, so 

w’e m igh t have some id ea ; th is wou ld not be acc ura te because on a paid 

system, the expenses would be grea ter .

We sta rte d to ga th er this throug h th e three circuits an d we got it 

com prehensive ly, bu t it was only a sample. Of course, wha t th e pic ­

tu re was as to the na tu re o f servic es an d in general as to some of the 

expenses. Lat er th is was exp anded to a na tio na l basis where we 

asked every di strict court, whe never it appo inted counsel, an d the 

m atter was ter mina ted , to fill out a form indica tin g the ch arac ter of 

the service and in dicatin g t he am ount o ut of pocke t and the am ount of 

tim e th at had been sp ent.

Ju dg e Ha sti ng s, Ju dg e Murrah, an d I, w ith respec t to ou r circuits, 

w’ent th roug h a nd made a car efu l an aly sis of th is d ata .

Th is has been added to since and th is fu rnish ed us at lea st a st ar t 

w’ith respect to the n atur e of the services an d the tim e involved . Th is 

gav e some basis of ind ica tio n as to wha t we would be facing in rela ­

tio nship to the kind and chara cte r of services a nd expenses, althou gh 

no t a complete one, and no t a basic one.

Th e resu lt of th is w’as t hat the ad hoc com mittee af te r an ana lysis 

of it, af te r looking over the situatio n and wi th respec t to th e things 

we could see th at w’ere going to occur, made ou r analy sis in the firs t 

inst anc e, an d repo rte d to the Conferenc e th at we thou gh t it w ould require a total of $7.5 million . Th is ad hoc com mittee w’as succeeded, 

the n, by a pe rm an en t com mittee an d this com mittee to wh ich six 

distr ict ju dges, six solid, ha rd-headed d istrict judges w’ere added , a gain
94

made an analysis of it and came forth with this recommendation of 

$7.5 million which the Judicial Conference of the United States has 

twice approved, as the recommendation of the ad hoc committee 

and of the permanent committee

EARLIER ESTIMATE OF COSTS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Chairman, I think the first question we face here is that the 

Attorney General, when the bill was submitted in 1963, made the estimate that it would cost $3.5 million. This estimate had, of course, 

only factors they could look at without having actually met and so 

we were faced with this consideration. The first thing we visualized 

in relation to this was, you will recall, when the bill was introduced, 

it had the public defender system provision.

This stayed in until the conference with the House and then it was 

completely thrown out. I am not talking about the merits of this 

system because, in my own circuit certainly, there is no need and 

probably will not be for a long time, except in individual counsel 

appointment, basis for this but nevertheless the fact remains that from 

an economic standpoint I think we would have to say that a public 

defender system as visualized in the Attorney General's bill would be 

less costly. This I can illustrate by saying that if you had the prosecution of the criminal cases on the Government's side by appointment 

of individual counsel, it certainly would run higher than it does to 

maintain a district attorney’s office.

So, there was the first factor that this eliminated and there had to 

be some recognition of reality we were dealing with a situation that, 

in the Attorney General’s estimate, had not completely taken into 

account.

Then the second element, if you turn with me to page 122 of the 

justifications, a second factor enters into this: The Attorney General’s 

estimate was based on this first figure which, you will see, there were 

defendants for whom counsel were assigned by the court, 11,604, 

which was practically 33 percent of the total defendants. Let me say 

tha t the criminal cases on an overall level have remained fairly constant. The number of them has not varied too substantially over a 

period of years, but this was where counsel had been assigned representing 33 percent tha t the Attorney General’s figure had taken its 

basic aspect from.

If you will notice, dropping down to below that, it then shows the 

defendants who had waived appointment of counsel, 7,212, or 21 percent; it shows defendants for whom counsel were not assigned but 

information on waiver of counsel, or the appearance of privately retained counsel was not reported, 4,000 or approximately 11 percent. 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

The committee believes that it is inescapable with the appointment 

system, with this being held out as something tha t a defendant is 

entitled to, a psychological aspect of the administration of justice 

which had not previously existed, we think this 4,000 item is going to 

represent, for the most part, cases where we are going to have to have 

appointment of counsel.
95

We think that a substantial part of this item which shows defendants who waived the appointment of counsel is going to necessitate the 

appointment. Peculiarly enough, within my own experience, I have 

seen on the criminal side with a professional criminal, up to the present time, there were a good many of them when they knew they were 

guilty, did not want appointment of counsel because they had not been 

very successful in getting acquittals in the past.

So, we had a substantial waiver of counsel by people of two classes; 

I should say, primarily, because your initia l criminal who has had an 

action of his conscience and w'ho wanted to plead guilty and get it 

over with did this, and then we had the professional criminal who 

visualized there was not much hope. In those in the past, there have 

been, I think, waivers of counsel. I am sure with this new psychology 

of approach, that this has now become part of the system that has been 

held out as representing the public concept of what a defendant is 

entitled to, tha t a substantial part of this is going to change. So, 

there must be added within the committee’s concept and within the 

conference's concept, to this 33 percent these elements that I have 

spoken of as being listed on page 122.

Mr. Bow. May I interrup t ?

Judge J ohnsen. Yes, you may.

Mr. Bow. Do you mean you are going to add both of these items 

in entirety, or a percentage of those two items ?

Judge J ohnsen. We have not made any deduction with respect 

to them because I think in the first instance this may go throug h a 

year or two and level off. I think in the first instance, it is going to 

represent practically the appointment of counsel in all of those cases. 

I do not mean that it is going to result in a trial, Congressman Bow, 

but I believe that before the man pleads guilty, he is going to have to 

have appointment of counsel on arraignment and in the approach to 

whatever action he chooses to take.

Mr. Bow. You think your 33 percent in the first instance may go 

up to somewhere around 60 percent ?

Judge J ohnsen. Yes, indeed, I do. These items included here, 

33 and 21 percent, we can perhaps cast out where they retained counsel except as to one element which I shall get into in a moment.

As to the others, the 33 and the 11 percent, I feel certain tha t in 

this initia l period, how long it will last I cannot say. I think the 

urge and the psychology will be that we cannot be h urt by it. Let 

us take it and if they decide to plead guilty, we still will have had 

to make the appointment.

Mr. Bow. Thank you.

ADEQUATE DEFENSE

Judge J ohnsen. There is another thing that’s going to enter into 

and go beyond thi s: As you know, the act provides not merely for the 

appointment of counsel, but it provides for these collateral incidents, 

investigative services, and all of those things that go to make what 

the statute terms, in broad language, an adequate defense.

This has never existed. This has not even been present in our 

appointment of counsel because we could not ask a lawyer when we 

appointed him to go out and mortgage his home to provide a detective 

service or an investigative service, or those things, for this indigent 

46-8 16— 65 ------ 7
96

de fen dant, or this defen dant who d id not have the means of adequate 

rep res entation .

So, there has cre pt in, with in wh at are the pro vision s of the act 

un de r subsection (e )—w hich I shall no t go into, bu t it lists those 

various things —we envision wha t is going to happen where there 

may have been privately retained counsel because in a good many 

of thes e cases there has been pr ivately ret ain ed counsel and we think 

th at this has oftentime s, or in su bstan tia l mea sure , been whe re the 

fam ily has stepp ed in a nd hir ed a law yer.

The crimi nal him self, t he one charge d with the crime, m ay no t have 

l>een able to hir e the lawyer. He may have been able to make some 

paym ent but this r eta ine d counsel is go ing, I th ink, a lso to s hi ft down, 

if no t in all instance s, or in a subs tan tia l numb er of instances, to the 

appo int me nt o f counsel over into t hi s service at other tha n the counsel 

level of subsection (e) of th is a ct.

T do not th in k there is any escape fro m this because I th ink wh at 

will ha pp en is th at he has hir ed a law yer and th e law yer will tak e 

whate ver fee there is and the n come in and say th at th is man has no 

money wi th which to tak e car e of this inv est iga tio n an d auxil iar y 

aspects of this sta tu te which says he is enti tle d to it.

We have envisioned in a soun d way t his asp ect and th ere is no escape. 

The aspect o f this phase, even if th ere has been a r ete nti on o f counsel, 

will hav e to be supplied by the courts in terms of wha t the act says, 

or it leaves open to him th e fa ct t hat he m ay have hired counsel bu t 

does n ot pre clu de him from h av ing the benefit of these o ther a uxiliary 

services i f he can show he is not a ble t o p ay f or them . Th is, of course, 

is a side rem ark , bu t i t poses the questio n.

Th is is one of th e thi ng s we th rash ed ou t in o ur committee.

Suppo se a pa id counsel comes in an d says, “I wa nt the m.” Of 

course, the court sees the du ty to inquire and to g o into wh at fee he 

has cha rged. I f he has charg ed a la rge fee an d there has been a r elatio nship there th at ind icates a sort of a cov erup to tr y to get these 

srevices, we owe the responsibility of say ing he does no t get it. Never ­

theless, this does not t ake car e of th e asp ect wh ere there a re situations 

where a man can now, as a m at ter of due process, by thes e incorporations in the stat ute , dem and this.

I f they exist, th e courts have got to meet them .

Th ere is no escape because oth erw ise it w ould be a violation of due 

process of the statute now ha ving been inc orporat ed int o wh at is due 

process.

APPOINTM ENT OF COUNSEL

The gre ate st item, however , whi ch was no t included in the A ttor ­

ney Ge neral’s estima te is th is commissioner level. Th is statute pr ovides th at a man is en titled to the ap po int me nt of counsel on the 

com missioner level. Th is we have never ha d before. We hav e never 

reg arde d it a s bein g an elem ent of d ue process and if he did n ot have 

counsel, th is was just if he h ad counsel, o r h ad the r ig ht to h ave counsel, and ha d th e righ t fo r these peo ple to advise him th at he had the 

righ t to get c ounsel; but, the y did not have to advise him th at counsel 

would hav e to be appointed fo r him because it was n eve r d one before.

The firs t step the commissioner h as got to tak e is to advis e this m an 

and inq uire wh eth er he has counsel an d to inq uire wh eth er he desires
97

couns el and to tell him th at if he desires counsel and is no t able to 

pa y fo r him, the commissioner makes such inv est iga tio n as to in di ­

cate he can not pay fo r him , and the n the com missioner mu st ap point . 

Th is goes over the whole level of all of th e crimi nal cases t hat a pp ea r 

or ha ve their st ar t in th e firs t instance, before the U.S. commissioners.

Of course, there is a certa in perce nt of cases started by ind ictme nt 

bu t the largest numb er of cases, I am sure , is sta rte d on the commission er level, making th e arrest, br inging him in, bu t when in lar ge 

par t has been a waiver of a preli minary he aring now by th is bill, it is 

imp ress ed upon the crim inal’s mind th at the y hav e a righ t to have 

counsel and the n counsel measu ring, so th at he ca nnot be ch arg ed with 

ha ving been derelict in his duty, the commissioner, fee ling th at it is 

up to him to leave no aven ue open so he can be charg ed with no t 

ha ving giv en th is fellow due process, we sha ll see, I am sure, a sub ­

stan tia l or gr ea t increase in the numb er of com missioner hearings.

In my jud gm ent, pe rhap s we sha ll see almost unive rsa l requests for 

ap po int me nt of counsel at th e commissioner level. Th is is t he la rgest 

item , in my jud gm ent, th at enters int o the asp ect of the differences 

between the s itu ati on on p rac tic al evalu ation between wh at th e A tt orney Gen eral based his estimate on an d wha t we have based ou r estima te on.

Th is elem ent also, th at I spoke of on services other than counsel, 

un de r subsectio n (e ), this has an op po rtu nity fo r increases th at the 

court s are not in a position to con trol . When you g et to deali ng w ith 

counsel the re is a lim ita tio n, bu t when you get to deali ng with these 

servic es as to th e num ber of person s who can be p aid , there is no l im ita ­

tio n in the act. You can have only one counsel, th at is, one counsel 

pa id at the commissioner level, and one counsel pa id at the distric t 

co urt level, and one counsel pa id at the court of appeals level. But 

when you ge t into these thing s th at come un de r the categ ory of adequate defe nse in re ga rd to these au xilia ry services, the oreti cally you 

can have—f or inst ance, on a psychia tric level we will ask the cou rts 

to hold this down, bu t theoreti cally you can have any n um ber o f these 

aspects of services if you can demo nstrate they are necessary , and 

un de r the terms o f this act the co urt m ust fu rn ish him with them .

EARLIER ESTIMATES NOT ADEQUATE

I think you g et th e pictu re, and with all of these fac tors it was the 

com mittee’s judg men t this $3.5 million did not mea sure up to more 

th an h al f way w ith respect to wh at the res ponsibility' was th at would 

rest on the court.

I sh ould add to th is th at the p res ently ap po int ed A tto rney G ene ral, 

the n the Ac tin g Atto rney General, has wr itten a lette r in which he 

has ackn owledge d th at th e origi na l est imate w hich the D ep artm en t of 

Ju sti ce mad e does no t add up to these things and, Mr. Olney, if it is 

pr op er f or me to reques t it, and if th e chair ma n wou ld like to hav e it 

as a part of the record , I would like to have it made a p art of the 

record.

Mr. Rooney. We shall insert this lette r dated December 31, 1964, 

addressed to Mr. Oln ey by the then Acting Atto rney Gener al at th is 

po int in the record.
98

(The lette r follows:)

U.S. Department of J ustice,

Office of the Deputy Attorney General,

Washington, D.C., December 31, 196}.

Hon. Warren Olney III,

Director, Admin istrativ e Office of the U.S. Courts, Supreme Court Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Olney : This will acknowledge your lette r of November 4, 1964, requesting our views on the Jud icial Conference’s $7,500,000 cost estimate for 

placing the C riminal Justic e Act in operation in fiscal 1966.

Because your appropriation request is materially higher than the $3.5 million 

estim ated by Attorney General Kennedy when he testified in May 1963, we have 

carefully reexam ined our original computations. We have been assisted in 

this study by discussions with your staff and additional information which your 

office and the ad hoc committee of t he Judical Conference have gath ered in the 

intervening period. Comparing the two estimates, we note th at yours is based 

on the possibility of 20,000 assignm ents p er year after the act becomes effective, 

whereas ours took as its sta rting point the 10,000 defendan ts for whom counsel 

was actually appointed in fiscal 1962. This increase may well be justified by the 

statistical inform ation now available showing the large number of defendants 

who las t year waived counsel, and by the continuing increase in criminal cases 

filed in Federal courts. In addition, cost estim ates must now reflect, as do 

yours, such matters as Congress’ elimination of the public defender option, the 

adm inistrative expenses of your contemplated centralization of disbursements, 

the statistics you have been gathering on the hours which uncompensated 

assigned conusel spent for the ir clients, and other variables and unknow ns incident to estabilshing this novel Federal program in its initial year.

Because we share your view that the sa lutary purposes of th e Criminal Justice 

Act cannot be achieved withou t adequate funds, we defer to your estimate, 

particularly in light of the fac t that should it turn out to be higher tha n the 

actual expenditures in 1966, the unexpended portion of the appropriation will 

remain in the Treasury.

If we can be of furth er assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach,

Actin g Attorney General.

ADMIN ISTRATIV E COSTS

Mr. Rooney. Judge, it does not appear from this how much the 

Attorney General and the Department of Justice recommended as 

administrative costs under this requested $7.5 million, does it?

Judge J ohnsen. No. I am coming to the administrative cost item, 

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. You know when he submitted a $3.5 million approval 

he estimated the cost of administration at $20,230. Correct ?

Judg e J ohnsen. I have forgotten what the figure is. Whatever it 

shows.

Mr. Rooney. Will somebody please answer tha t, “ Yes” or “No” ?

Judge J ohnsen. If that is what it shows, that is what it is.

Mr. Rooney. It is to be found at page 37 of the House hearings 

before Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House 

of Representatives, in a memorandum on estimated cost of operation 

of the Criminal Justice Act of 1963, under date May 7, 1963.

It might be well if at this point in the record we insert that statement 

of estimated cost of operation of the Criminal Justice Act of 1963 

dated May 7,1963, from the U.S. Department of Justice.
99

(The statement referred to follows:)

III. Estima ted cost of adm inistration

Personnel Division, 1 additional employee---------------------------------------$4,100

Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics, 1 additional employee----- 4,100

Division of Business Administration, 2 ad ditional employees---------------- 8, 200

Retirem ent and insu rance------------------------------------------------------------- 4, 230

Supplies and equipment---------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 600

Total____________________________________________________ 20, 230

LETTER OF AD MIN IST RATIV E OFFIC E CONC ERNIN G COST OF CR IMINAL 

JU ST IC E ACT

Mr. Rooney. Do you have a copy of your letter, Mr. Olney, of November 4,1964, to the Acting Attorney General ?

Mr. Olney. Yes, si r; I do.

Mr. Rooney. We shall a t this point insert in the record Mr. Olney's 

letter of November 4, 1964, addressed to Hon. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Acting Attorney General.

(The letter referred to follows:)

November 4,1964.

Hon. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach,

Acting Attorney General,

V.8. Department of Justice,

Washington, D.G.

Dear Mr. Katzenbach : I am writing you in furthera nce of conversations 

which Mr. William E. Foley, Deputy Dire ctor of this office, and Mr. Daniel 

Free d of the staff of the Office of Criminal Jus tice have recently had concerning 

estimates of the cost of implementing the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. I believe Mr. Freed has also discussed this ma tte r with Mr. Herbert E. Hoffman 

in th e Office of the Deputy Attorney General.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the ad hoc committee appointed by the Ju ­

dicia l Conference las t March to consider the developments of rules and procedures for an assigned counsel system, subm itted to the Jud icia l Conference in 

September a report on the implementation of the Criminal Jus tice Act of 

1964. In connection therewith, the committee proposed and the Conference approved as the recommended budget estimate for the first year of the operation 

of the Criminal Justice Act, namely fiscal year 1966, a sum of $7,500,000. The 

estima te which the committee prepared is, as you know, considerably higher 

tha n the amount fore cast by Attorney General Kennedy in testifyin g before 

the congressional committees w’hich were considering the bills which resulted 

in the Criminal Justice Act. I thin k it is important, therefore, to analyze the 

reasons for the differing amounts and I would appreciate your views concerning 

the estimate which the ad hoc committee and the Jud icia l Conference have approved. For your assistance, I am enclosing herewith the estimate prepared 

by the committee, as well as an analysis prepared at the time the estimate was 

reach ed and an analysis of the differences between the committee’s estim ate 

and the ear lier estimate of Attorney General Kennedy which was prepared 

in this office on October 29.

I know of the deep in terest which you and the D epartment of Justice have had 

in the Criminal Jus tice Act and I am anxious, therefore, that our staffs continue to work toge ther to see that all the essential steps for the implem entation 

of the act are taken. If I can make any fu rth er data available to you. please 

feel free to call upon me.

Sincerely yours,

Warren Olney II I. Director.

Mr. Olney. Mr. Rooney, I do not know whether you are aware 

of the fact those pages you have are an attachment I sent to Mr. 

Katzenbach and tliis is a breakdown of the costs which my letter 

discusses.
100

Mr. Rooney. Yes; but the content of the letter is what we are 

interested in at this point.

Judge J ohnsen. As bearing on the aspect of the committee’s concepfc of the reality of these things, I think as you go through the estimate here there are things you can think of as to whether there is an 

opportunity for attorneys to pad up in any way on the matter of 

charges—the reality of the charges.

I will use this illustratively. In the committee report of the Jud icial Conference filed with you, indicative of those aspects, there is a 

short paragraph th at says:

Under the provision of the act tha t an attorney, shall he reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred, the question arises as to the policy to be followed 

in dealing with a claim of an attorney for an allocated part of his general office 

overhead such as rent—

And so forth. It goes on to say that only special expenses occasioned 

by the particular case are ordinarily made the subject of a distinct 

charge against the client and concludes:

Neither the language nor the history of the act contains anything that suggests 

an intent to depart from this practice and concept as to expenses.

I say that merely to indicate to you we have had a hard-core concept 

within what we have visualized as the cost of this act in operation.

JU ST IFIC AT IO N OF AD MINIS TRATIVE COSTS

Now if I may pass to the administrative costs on which, as indicated by you, the Department of Justice pu t a figure of some $20,000, 

the figure we have is $460,000.

One of the aspects that we first faced as we undertook to look at this 

was, if public money was to be required for systematizing, we had to 

have some form of central control on the thing: tha t just the same 

as no insurance company could operate by having policies written 

all over the country and accidents happening and not knowing what 

happened, if we had no unification of what was going on we would be 

completely sunk and in a hopeless condition to come before an Appropriation Committee with an organized content. So it was demonstrated there had to be some centralized control of this thing. This 

meant whenever a court made an appointment of counsel, it had to be 

reported somewhere so th at we would know how many had been appointed. This meant whenever a court authorized an expenditure it 

had to be centralized so that we would know—so that if this committee 

asked what was outstanding in the way of liabilities that would become 

payable that had not been paid, we could say how many lawyers have 

been appointed and how many services have been authorized.

There is only one place where this centralization could be made and 

that is in the Administrative Office. The Conference said whenever a 

judge authorizes any expense, tha t the district judge, or his clerk, 

of course—but this must go into the Administrative Office so that we 

have this centrally focused.

But there is more than this involved. This also, with some centralized aspect, requires that the payments must come from some central source. As you know, most of the payments that are made are 

made out in the marshal’s office with regard to judges’ expenses and 

this sort of thing. But if this volume of accumulation of bills and
101

expenses were to go through on the local level with all these variant 

services, we would have mistakes occur and public money paid out 

that we could not get back. When you are dealing with a Government employee that is one thing, but when you are dealing with outsiders the task of getting it would be simply impossible.

So when the court lias approved these bills they come into the 

Administrative Office; not for audit as to amount, because this the 

statute leaves to the judges, hut to check to see that there is no 

mistake in arithmetic, to check tha t the amount comes within he provisions of the act as to amounts authorized to be paid, and to guard 

against as many mistakes as could possibly occur.

Of course this means, in this control, that necessarily—and part of 

this is included in this item of $460,000—that there will have to be 

some additional help with respect to dealing with this, because the 

problem will be vast.

One other item tha t entered into our concept in connection with 

this $460,000: We were looking at the aspect of there having to be 

some administrative organization in the handling of this thing. The 

suggestion with which we came forth was tha t on the circuit level 

there should exist some officer, who is termed a “director,” who would 

correlate this thing in order to save the district judges and try to 

iron out the problems as far as bar representation is concerned, and 

to deal with these things on a practical level from the standpoint of 

administration.

Frankly, there are district judges who disagree with this, who 

think this sort of organization should not be created. We have put 

this in the budget because in my own mind, we have not gotten 

started but when we get started there has to be some administrative 

structure in here to correlate this thing.

Let me give you one illustra tion: We jump into the appointment 

of counsel in criminal cases but this does not take into consideration 

remedies under the judicial code, but when one of the men is assigned 

one of these cases you have to watch you do not burden him by unloading other cases on him. There has to be some record of that. 

We also face the situation in regard to the State court system tha t 

since the Supreme Court decided tha t no man could be tried in a 

State court on a felony charge without the State appointing counsel 

for him, we will have to reach into each district to the same bar as 

the State, and for proper relationship we will have to have some 

administrative correlation with respect to the appointment of counsel. 

We cannot have this conflict which occurred in the days when I was 

in the practice. I got caught in the bind of being assigned to try a 

case in a State court and at the same time being assigned to a case 

in the Federal court. I would go to the Federal court and indicate 

I had to be in a S tate court and would be told I had to try the case 

in the Federal court: and I would go to the State court and indicate 

I had to be in the Federal court, and the State court would indicate 

it was as good as the Federal court.

So we have got to have some machinery that correlates this thing 

because the poor lawyers are caught betwixt and between and we 

have to work out a correlating system so that if the State court appoints him he will not have to go into Federal court at the same 

time. This, in some measure, has to be set up.
102

We hav e tri ed to give you ou r best estimate, and let me say th at 

those who advocate th at w hat we sugg ested on t he c irc uit level should 

no t be done, th at there should be a deputy clerk appoint ed on the 

di strict cou rt level, if we were to add a deputy clerk in each court in 

the country it would be a larg er numb er th an we hav e ind icated on 

the c irc uit court level.

REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION AVAILABLE UN TI L EXPENDED

I want, to say th is : Th is is a different kind of an approp ria tio n. 

I think publicwise, Mr. Ch air ma n, th is sta tute has gone into pub lic 

focus. I think pub licw ise the cou rts must be provide d with an 

ap prop ria tio n that enables them to do the job. Bu t I w an t to say this 

$7.5 million I have tal ke d about is what I think you call an unc ontro lla ble item. I am not sure th at is the correct term, bu t I mean it 

is not som ething we can use up at the end of a fiscal yea r. If it is 

not used up it sta nds in the Tr ea su ry of the Un ite d Sta tes. But 

the re should be, in my jud gm ent, an ap prop riation lar ge enough mad e 

to give the public confidence in the opera tion of this act. Th e 

psychology of th is th in g is th at this has entered into our scheme of 

justice. It has per me ated down in the public an d among those who 

com mit crimes. Bu t publicw ise and in terms of meeting our obligatio n we request the com mitmen t of th is sum which we rega rd as 

being wh at i t will take. If we are m ista ken in it, it is not som ething 

you h ave tossed in ou r lap. Th ere is no way the judiciary can use it ; 

it sta nds there in the Treasury. Bu t it should be com mitted so th at 

we do no t have to come back and ask fo r a sup ple me nta l ap pr opriat ion .

I may say to you, Mr. Ch air ma n, th at Ju dg e Cam pbell, who was 

chair ma n of the bu dg et com mittee, when we gave him our figures, 

said very fran kly, “I d on ’t thin k this will do th e job. I th ink you w ill 

need m ore th an that ,” We stood by o ur decision o f six d ist ric t judges 

and th ree cir cuit jud ges t hat we fe lt in all prob ab ility it would do it. 

We felt a lesser sum would n ot do it and certainl y no t the $3.5 m illion 

suggested.

I can say to you that t hi s is a field th at has been of th e deep est con ­

cern to the jud iciary . We have neve r been charg ed with the res ponsib ility of payin g out public money. We hav e nev er had the res ponsib ility of expending money th at has been ap prop riated to us on a 

publi c basis. I t is som eth ing t ha t could very easily pu t a stigm a on 

th e judiciary if it is no t done on a prop er basis. We will do every ­

th in g we can to p ro pe rly d isc harge tha t responsibility, bu t I feel it is 

sim ply som ething th at the ap prop ria tio n we are req ues ting is going 

to have to be made if we are g oin g to have enough to be able to measure 

out what, the statute i mposes th e duty on us to do.

Mr. Rooney. Ju dg e, do you no t think the public is just as interested 

in seeing that the salar ies of everybody in the ju dic ial system are pa id ?

Ju dg e J ohnse n. I assume they ar e; surely.

Mr. Rooney. I would assume so, too. W hy should we m ake a distin ction in the case of these law yer s insofar as making th is money 

availabl e un til expend ed, som eth ing th at has nev er been done in my 

years a roun d here in connection with any ite m in the jud icial budget?
103

Judge J ohnsen. Mr. Chairman, it is not the lawyers, i t is the defendants ; i t is those for whom the statute has committed those things.

Mr. Rooney. The money is not going to any defendant. The 

money is going to the lawyer fo r his services and expenses; is it not?

Judge J ohnsen. Yes; but what I am talking about is the commitment of the sum so the defendant knows it will be there.

Mr. R ooney. You mean it will make the defendant feel better? I 

am sure he would feel better if we made it available until expended. 

Even the authorizing legislation, as I understand, does not demand 

that. Correct ?

Judg e J ohnsen. The amount?

Mr. R ooney. No, availability until expended.

Judge J ohnsen. No, you are correct.

EA RL IE R COS T ES TI M ATE S

Mr. R ooney. Now, Judge Johnson, this is a real live one you have 

dumped in this committee's lap, because when this public defender bill 

was up on January 15,1964, no less a distinguished gentleman than the 

chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said—and this is only a 

year ago: “The cost in the final analysis will be infinitesimal. I have 

estimated myself the cost and it could not possibly be beyond $2.5 

million for the whole United States.”

Judge J ohnsen. The Attorney General disagreed.

Mr. Rooney. This is the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary. This statement influenced votes in the House 

which passed this legislation and is to be found at page 421 of the 

Congressional Record of Ja nua ry 15, 1964.

Now, then, there was also presented to the Members of the House 

of Representatives and to the Congress who voted on this legislation, 

at page 37 of the hearings before the House Committee on the Jud iciary, the statement that I previously referred to from the Department 

of Justice which indicated th at the estimated total cost would be $3.5 

million and th at the estimated cost of administration would be $20,230, 

which is now before us in the amount $460,000.

We find at page 34 of these printed hearings the follow ing:

Mr. Meader. Do you have a lump-sum figure?

Attorney General Kennedy. We have that and a memorandum th at breaks it 

down and shows what we think is going to happen in each district and what the 

cost will be.

Mr. Celler. I have a tentative figure of $3.5 million.

Attorney General Kennedy. That is for the whole operation.

And now we get to the ad hoc committee of the Judicial Conference 

and it becomes practically $7.5 million, or is it exactly $7.5 million?

Judge J ohnsen. Exactly.

Mr. Rooney. What is magic about the figure, $7.5 million, Judge 

Johnsen? Why is it not $8 million or $6 million?

Judge J ohnsen. The computation with respect to the number of 

cases th at we thought would exist, and we got into the aspect of what 

the Attorney General had figured per case the cost would be to the 

Government, and my recollection is we arrived at a figure of an average of $5 less per case th an the Attorney General, but where our difference is with the Attorney General is in the number of appointments 

and the volume of services.
104

SUPERVISION BY TIIE COURT

Mr. Rooney. Is it your understanding that the lawyer submits a 

statement of how many hours he works on the case, and is entitled to 

so much an hour under the statute ?

Judg e J ohnsen. Yes.

Mr. Rooney. And that may be superseded by the court ?

Judge J ottnsen. The court, must approve it.

Mr. Rooney. Must approve it ?

Judge J ohnsen. He has to examine it and approve it.

Air. Rooney. Suppose in a case that should not have taken more 

than an hour of his time he submits a bill for 10 hours; what happens 

then ?

Judge J ohnsen. The court would be under the obligation of checking to see if that, constituted a reasonable charge. In other words, a 

man might put in, say, a bill for 100 hours briefing a case that an 

ordinary lawyer would not have put that amount of time in.

Mr. R ooney. So the amount he requests would be denied ?

Judge J ohnsen. It would be cut down to what the court felt, would 

be a reasonable charge.

Mr. Rooney. I feel this is in very good hands. It is in the hands of 

the Federal courts, and they are the ones who should be able to save 

money here without its being available until expended. Is that a fair 

statement?

Judge J ohnsen. We shall try to do that, but the money must be 

available when the sendees are performed.

Mr. Rooney. The money for your salary is available every month, 

is it. not, Judge?

Judge J ohnsen. I have never had it not be available, Air. Chairman.

Air. Rooney. And so it would be available to these lawyers on the 

same basis, -would it not. unless the courts would become rampant in 

unwarranted procedures ?

Judge J ohnsen. The courts would not do that.

Air. Rooney. AVe have found some few instances of that, over the 

years. For instance, in cases of fees of land commissioners there has 

been abuse; and in cases of fees of expert, witnesses there has been 

abuse. But. generally the Federal judiciary is of sterling quality and 

I do not mean by these remarks to impugn it at all. There are always 

a few who abuse things. But I am confident the bulk of the judiciary 

will see th at this law is handled in such a way that none of the taxpayer’s money is wasted and without having to resort, to requesting 

$7,040,000 as shown at page 117 and $460,000 as shown at page 135.

It is interesting to note there is a statement at page 127 of the justification that—

since the atto rneys are to be compensated for the ir services, they will in all probability devote a g rea ter amount of time doing legal research.

Well, I am sure they are not all crazy.

Judge J ohnsen. I did not prepare th at statement. I would assume 

this means that a compensated lawyer will make a better preparation 

than an uncompensated lawyer. I can see where a lawyer appointed 

without a fee would not. spend the time in research that he would spend 

if he was being compensated. Tha t is tru e of all of us, I think.
105

Mr. Rooney. I like to think that is not true. I do not think that 

thinking represents many of the lawyers 1 have known over the years 

who were assigned cases. So-called high-price lawyers have spent 

considerable time and money out of their own pockets and have gone 

to all legitimate lengths to protect their client when they were appointed defense counsel by the court.

Judge J ohnsen. I)o not misunderstand me. I think the lawyers 

on this appointed uncompensated basis have rendered first-class, 

marvelous service and have never been given credit for it. I did not 

mean they would fail to make the research necessary to be done, but 

it might be easier-----

Mr. Rooney. You want to take this sentence out, then, Judge?

Judge J ohnsen. I did not write that. I think the interpretation is 

not meant to be tha t a lawyer will run up bills or that an uncompensated lawyer has not rendered service in measure with the responsibilities of his profession. Our sheets th at I told you we are having 

done demonstrate that conclusively.

I might say from my own experience in appointing counsel on the 

appellate level, these defendants have had a higher degree of service 

on an uncompensated basis than if they had gone out and employed 

lawyers themselves, because they never would have employed the kind 

of lawyer who was not being paid b ut whom we appointed to do the 

job.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Smith?

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM FEES

Mr. Smith. Does a lawyer present a voucher with a log of his 

time?

Judge J ohnsen. Yes, specifying the number of hours and what 

character of work it was he did.

Mr. Smith. I s there a minimum and maximum paid?

Judg e J ohnsen. Yes. The statute allows a maximum. There is 

no minimum, but the statute allows a maximum of $10 an hour in 

preparation and $15 an hour in court work and a ceiling which in 

district court cannot go over $500 and in a misdemeanor case cannot 

go over $300 except in protracted litigation where the court may make 

special allowance.

Mr. Smith. Has the committee tried to set any minimum or 

maximum ?

Judge J ohnsen. They have not undertaken to set a minimum because this would vary in localities. The value of services in some 

communities is different than in others.

Mr. Smith. That is all I have.

Mr. R ooney. Mr. F lynt?

Mr. Flynt. Judge Johnsen, does your presentation assume tha t if 

a lawyer appointed by the court determines from the evidence available to him the man is guilty, he should go through protracted trial 

procedures in order to meet the requirements set up by the Criminal 

Justice Act of 1964 ?

Judge J ohnsen. A lawyer appointed by the court has the job of 

presenting the facts in the fullest and best light for the client and it is 

for the jury to determine, in the best and fullest light for the client that 

can be presented, whether he is innocent or guilty.
106

Mr. F lynt. Would you say he sho uld present witnesses whom he 

him self does no t conside r to be credib le sim ply because the d efe ndant 

insi sts that he does so ?

Ju dg e J ohnsen. If you are a sking i f a l awyer should pre sen t testimoney he knows is p erjured------

Mr. F lyn t. I did no t go th at far. I said th at he him self does not 

consider to be credible.

Ju dg e J ohnsen. Th is gets in to the are a o f p rofessional ethic s. Bu t 

it is not fo r th e law yer to say, “ You are guilty an d I will make a speech 

to the ju ry on yo ur b eh alf .'' He has to prese nt the case so th at the 

de fend an t’s case will be h eld u p to t he j ur y in the best ligh t, and it is 

fo r the ju ry to determ ine the streng th or weakness of the evidence. 

COST OF T H E PR OG RA M

Mr. F lyn t. Th en do you not think you have underes tim ate d the 

cost of thi s? Could it no t be $75 millio n instead of $7.5 million ?

Ju dg e J ohnsen. No. Th is is our bes t estimate. Th is does not 

mean we will autho rize a man to mak e a wild goose chase on the specula tion he will find something. Th ere has to be a reasonable basis 

for his request to m ake in vest igation s.

Mr. F lynt. Ju dg e Joh nsen, t hat is t he an swe r I wish you ha d given 

to the first question I asked about a lawyer, a n officer of the court, h av ­

ing some reasonable obl iga tion not only to the m an he is appoint ed to 

defend b ut also to t he Go vernment, to the c ourt, and to th e pu blic.

Ju dg e J ohnsen. Bu t Con gressman, in the p res entation of evidence 

unless he know s it is perju red it is not fo r h im to jud ge its credib ility. 

It is for him to present it to the ju ry and the y will evalu ate it as to 

wh eth er it is t ru e or false. No lawyer can say, “ I th ink you are guilty, 

there fore I will not do much in the way of your defe nse.” li e must 

pre sen t t he evidence, within the b oun ds t ha t he does not know it is pe rjured, and the ju ry has to evalu ate it.

Mr. F lyn t. I have done a lit tle quic k ari thme tic here and while I 

may be a few per cen tage po ints off, t he amount requ ested is between 

two and thr ee times the amount pa id to all U.S . attorneys in the 

cou ntry.

Ju dg e J ohnsen. Th is gets back to th e po int I made t hat if a pu blic 

defen der system was set up it w ould be less. If th e Government paid 

on an ind ividual case basis it could no t be held to the amoun t the 

At torney Ge neral’s Office has set. That e nte rs into the asp ect o f the 

addit ion al $1 million for jurie s in terms of wha t ou r con cept is of w hat 

would occur. Tha t is w hat we re ga rd wo uld be necessary.

In terms of t he ad mi nis tra tiv e aspect, if we are going t o have centra liz ation and i f we a re go ing to have any co ord ina tin g aspect between 

State and F ed era l courts, cert ain ly the judges would no t hav e to go into 

all th ese aspects.

Mr. F lyn t. I t seems to me one way of im ple me nting the fund ing of 

the C rim inal J us tic e Ac t o f 1964 would m ean this could also involve a 

gr ea ter ap pr op riation fo r the defense of crim ina ls th an fo r the im ple ­

me nta tion of law enforc ement thro ug ho ut the country, State and 

Federal.

Ju dg e J ohnsen. My own ju dg men t is we are going th roug h a period 

here of—I can not estimate t he period, 1 to 3 years—when we w ill get
107

the full impact of this request for help. I think after that time it will 

level off. At the start I am sure we will get universal requests for 

commissioner appointments. Afte r that I think what will happen is 

that counsel appointed at the commissioner level will be able to go to 

the district attorney and ask for and get what evidence he has. But 

after from 2 to 3 years I envision this thing will, a t least in my ju dgment, start to level off, possibly in 3 years, but not before that time. 

Mr. Flynt. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

EFFECT OF PROGRAM ON NUM BER OF GUILTY PLEAS

Mr. Rooney. Judge Johnsen, has it occurred to you that this program and this requested expenditure of money might very well result 

in a substantial decrease in the number of guilty pleas?

Judge J ohnsen. I think this is ultimately a possibility but this is 

one of the things we find a t the present time, we find criminals who 

have been convicted are coming back and saying they were urged to 

plead guilty. So I am sure in the arraignment the commissioners will 

not risk not appointing an attorney, and the courts will not risk not 

appointing an attorney and thus avoid the risk of being accused of 

collusion with the district attorney.

Mr. Rooney. Most guilty pleas are recommended by the defendant’s 

attorney in the hope of getting the defendant off with as light a sentence as possible. This could not happen much under this ?

Judg e J ohnsen. There are some judges that will not give a lighter 

sentence whether he pleads guilty or is tried, because they say it could 

be construed as a sign of bribery. I take a different view, th at if a 

defendant pleads guilty he is already showing signs of rehabilitation.

Mr. Rooney. I agree.

Judge J ohnsen. But there are some judges who disagree with me.

Judge McGuire. As the only other judge here, I agree.

Mr. Rooney. Judge Weinman is here.

Judge McGuire. I am sorry. I thought he had gone.

Judge Weinman. I agree.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Cederberg?

ELIGIBILIT Y FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL

Mr. Cederberg. How will you determine if the defendant is entitled 

to counsel, by a means test?

Judge J ohnsen. Yes. In the past we have talked about indigent 

defendants. This statute changes that. For instance, a man may have 

$200. He is not indigent but paid counsel will demand a fee of $1,000, 

so he cannot get a lawyer. This statute says “who is unable to obtain 

adequate defense.” We have in the statute protection for a man who 

has part of the means. In that case the court sees that proper application is made and it is allowed against the fee which the lawyer gets.

And within the concept of the committee—I am not committing the 

U.S. courts—but the committee’s view is t hat a man, if he comes in 

and asks fo r the appointment of counsel, tha t this man cannot have 

more than the fee th at the statute provides for, and if he has collected 

$300 privately and it is a case where he is entitled to $500 under the 

statute, he will not get any more than $200. This is the committee’s 

view.
108

Mr. Cederberg. Does the crim ina l decide if he will get ade qua te defense, o r does the jud ge decide th at?

Mr. Rooney. A criminal may be innocent.

Ju dg e J ohnsen. Yes, indeed.

Mr. Cederberg. Bu t does h e decide wh eth er the attorney appointed 

by the c ourt will ade quately defen d him ?

Ju dg e McGuir e. We have th is in the D istri ct of Columbia pro bab ly 

more th an an y other place. In r eg ard to the stan da rd f or an ind ige nt, 

he must file an appli catio n in whi ch he states, on the pa in of bein g 

liab le fo r pe rju ry , th at he has no money. Th en when counsel is ap ­

point ed if he comes back and says, “I don’t like him. I wa nt somebod y else,” we say he asked fo r counsel an d th at is the way it will 

be.

Mr. Cederberg. But you do n ot have to be ind ige nt u nder th is s ta tute to receive counsel ?

Ju dg e McGuire. Th e word “ind igen t” is a misnomer.

Ju dg e J ohnsen. Th e Supreme Co urt says it does not mea n he has 

to be des titu te.

Mr. Cederberg. Bu t this is a decision th at will make a lot of diffe rence in the cost of thi s program .

Ju dg e J ohnsen. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Cederberg. So if the jud ge is libera l in his determination as 

to the ability of the defen dant to p ay, t he cost will go up. An d wh at 

about, checking to see wheth er this indiv idu al act ually can not afford 

counsel ?

Ju dg e J ohnse n. You will find in this rep ort forms th at tr y to sa fegu ard the distric t judge in ma kin g inq uir y, findin g out wh at money 

he has in the bank , how man y children lie ha d, and th is kin d of th ing . 

You might, hav e a m an ma kin g $50 a week but he may ha ve a w ife and 

thr ee or four c hildre n. You wou ld not call him totally de stitut e but 

you would say he could not use t hat fo r his defense.

Does th at illustr ate what you hav e in min d ?

Mr. Cederberg. Yes; it illustra tes wh at I have in min d, bu t I can 

appre cia te th is is a very difficult decision fo r a court to make. On 

the oth er hand, I can see, u nless there are defin ite guidelines in this 

area, the cost of this program could exceed the a pp ropr iatio n you have 

requested. Also, there are ad minist rativ e costs in looking behind 

the appli catio n he presen ts th at ind ica tes he is entitled to counsel:

Ju dg e J ohnse n. We have add ed in the committee report, an em phasis by the com mittee and by the con ference th at judges are to tak e a 

ha rdheaded look. That is not the la nguage, b ut the sense is th is is no t 

a chari tab le appro ach to passing ou t public money. I t has to come 

wi thin the bo unds tha t the court, in its jud icial responsibility, calls for 

this a pp oin tm ent an d f or this exp end iture.

An d I th in k you will find th at the cou rts, in the ad mi nis tra tio n of 

justice, as you pu t it, Mr. Ch air ma n, some tim e ago, the re have been 

a few instances with respect to a few thing s, bu t on the overall level 

I thi nk they hav e met this resp ons ibility.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Cederberg. I t might not be inap pr op riate to make the predictio n th at while the origin al estimate of t he cost of thi s program is fa r 

below wh at is being requested in the way of an ap prop ria tio n, if we
109

come back here some years hence it will he far more costly than indicated today. I hope I am wrong.

Judge J ohnsen. If it does not level off I ‘would suspect this.

Mr. Cederberg. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Cederberg. It is obvious that you and your committee are putting considerable time on this subject, and obviously you have a good 

background to determine this cost. I, for one, believe that the original 

estimate when this hill was adopted, we will find, was much, much 

too low.

That is all I have.

(Discussion off the record.)

Judge J ohnsen. May I add one closing word ?

Mr. Rooney. Yes, Judge Johnsen.

Judge J ohnsen. We have emphasized in this report that the mere 

provision for compensation—which certainly, as you get into the upper 

level of lawyers, will not measure up to what their time is worth—we 

have emphasized this still remains a dedication to public service, and 

that the lawyers are subject to the same call as they were before this bill 

was passed; that we have the same right to “draft” them, in other 

words. The lawyer who is picked by the court will have to take it on 

the same basis as before. The power of the court to appoint him is not 

changed by this act.

Mr. Flynt. Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly take issue with Judge 

Johnsen on that. If a lawyer is to be compensated for representing 

defendants who are unable to hire their own counsel, I am inclined 

to the opinion he should not be subject to involuntarily being called on 

to serve if he is to be paid. The law prio r to 1964 has provided a court 

may appoint a lawyer as a part, of his obligation as a lawyer and as 

an officer of the court to render such services as he may be assigned to 

as a public service. But when it comes to compensated service, I do 

not think any lawyer should be required to serve for pay in a case he 

does not voluntarily agree to take.

Judge J ohnsen. Judge Bonsai, who served on the committee from 

the Southern District of New York, told about a case that involved the 

Securities and Exchange Act, a charge of fraud. This was a case 

where the ordinary lawyer would not have had experience in tha t 

range, and the court appointed a man who had a thorough familiarity 

in tha t realm and imposed on him this job and he accepted. Under 

the act, within what Congressman Flynt. said, this man would be entitled to $500, and he would not want it but would accept it because 

in that field he represented the kind of competency tha t a lawyer would 

have to be able to provide to defend that kind of charge.

Mr. Smith. Will the voucher show on its face the amount the courtappointed lawyer received from other sources?

Judge J ohnsen. Yes. It is not a question of whether he received 

anything, but whether he exacted any promise or had any indication 

or made any attempt, and he cannot accept one dime when he is appointed by the court. He must vouch he has not received anything 

beyond what is disclosed to the court.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. R ooney. Thank you, Judge Johnsen, for a very interesting, if 

not fully convincing, presentation. We are grateful to you for the
110

time you have taken to come here and we certainly appreciate your 

sincerity with regard to this.

Judge J ohnsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have tried to do 

our best as a committee and as a conference.

Mr. Rooney. We shall now recess until 10 o’clock in the morning.

Wednesday, February 3, 1965.

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Object classification

[I n th o u san d s o f do lla rs]

D ir ec t ob liga tion s:

Per so nne l co m pen sa tion :

11.1 P erm a n en t posi tions___________________________ ____

11.3 P osi tions oth er th a n p erm an en t_____________________

11.4 Sp ec ial pe rs on al se rv ice p ay m en ts ___________________

11. 5 O th er p er so nn el com pen sa tion_______________________

T o ta l pe rs on ne l co m pen sa ti on_____________________

12. 0 Per so nn el b en e fi ts ._______ ____________________________

21. 0 T ra v el an d tr an sp o rt ati o n of p er so ns ___________________

22. 0 T ra n sp o rt ati o n of t h in g s______________________________

23 .0 R en t, co m m un ic at io ns , an d u ti li ti es....................................

24 .0 P ri n ti n g a n d r ep ro d u cti o n ____________________________

25.1 O th er se rv ic es ________________ ____ ___________________

26. 0 Supp lie s an d m a te ri als ......................... ................. ........... .........

31 .0 E q u ip m e n t____________ ____ __________________________

42. 0 In su ra n ce c la im s an d in d em n it ie s_____________________

T o ta l dir ect obligat io ns.............................. ........................

R ei m burs ab le o bliga tion s:

11.3 Per so nne l co m pe ns at io n: Posi tions o th er th a n pe rm a n e n t_____________________________________________

12 .0 Per so nnel b e n e fi ts .. _________________________________

21 .0 T ra v el an d tr a n sp o rt ati o n of pe rs on s__________________

T o ta l re im burs ab le ob ligat io ns ______________________

99 0 T o ta l obligat io ns____________________________________

1964

ac tu al

1965

es tim at e

1966

es ti m at e

1,209 1,330 1,674

43 52 52

2

7 10 10

1,259 1.392 1.736

91 100 125

42 60 120 1 1 1

S7 91 125

24 17 35

13 14 16

19 20 26

27 6 46

3

1,565 1,701 2,2 30

41 40 40

3 3 3

3 9 2

47 45 45

1,612 1,746 2,275

Personnel summary

1964

ac tu al

1965

es ti m at e

1966

es ti m at e

T o ta l n u m b er of p erm an en t p o s it io n s __________________ 165 165 19ft Full -t im e eq u iv ale n t of oth er p o s it io n s.. ________ .

A ve ra ge n u m b er of al l e m pl oy ee s_________________ 12 14 14

173 172 206
Ill

Program and financing

[In th ou sa nd s of dollars]

1964 actua l 1965 es tim ate 1966 es tim ate

Pr og ram b y ac tiv ities:

Dire ct pro gra m:

1. Ge ner al a dm in istrat io n____________________ ____

2. Stu dy of rule s of pra ctice an d pr oc ed ure------- --------

Tot al dire ct obli ga tio ns ------------ ----------------------------

Re im bu rsab le p rogram (ob lig ati ons)--------------- ------ ---

10 Tot al ob lig ati ons____________________________________

Fin ancin g:

11 Re ceipt s and reimbu rsem en ts f rom A dm inistra tiv e bu dget

acco un ts_________________ ___________ — ............ ........

25 Un oblig ate d balanc e lapsing...... ..............................................

Ne w obligational auth ori ty ................................ -.................

Ne w o bliga tional a uth or ity:

40 A pp ro pr ia tio n_______________________________________

44 Propose d su pp lem en tal d ue to civ ilia n pa y incre ase s-------

Relati on of obligations to ex pe nd itu res:

10 Tota l o bligations ,------------------------------------------------------

70 Re ce ipts an d ot he r offsets (item s 11-17)-------------------------

71 Obligations affecting e xp en di tu re s— ...................................

72 Ob ligate d balanc e, st ar t of y e a r,..............................................

74 Ob ligate d balanc e, en d of y e ar,................. . .............................

77 Adj us tm en ts in ex pired a ccou nts........................- ....................

90

91

Ex pe nd itu res exclu din g pa y increase su pp lem en ta l— 

Ex pe nd itu res fr om civ ilia n pa y increase su pp lem en tal

1,479

86

1,611

90

2,140 

90

1,565

47

1,701

45

2,230

45

1,612

-4 7

25

1,590

1,590

1,612

-4 7

1,565

85

-6 2

- 1

1,587

1,746

-4 5

1,701

1,620

82

1,746

-4 5

1,701

62

-6 5

1,619

79

2,275

-4 5

2,230

2,230

2,275

-4 5

2,230

65

-8 7

2,205

3

Mr. R ooney. The next item, gentlemen, is entitled “Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts” and is to be found at page 369 of the committee print and beginning at page 133 of the justifications.

We shall insert at this point in the record pages 133 through 150 of 

the justification book.

(The pages follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

Salaries an d expenses, Adm inistra tiv e Office of the U .S. Courts:

1965 a pp ropriatio n i n an nu al a c t--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1965 proposed sup plem en tal d ue to p ay in cr ea se s,,...................................................... - ..................

Judiciary

$1,619,500

81,500

Ras e for 1966-------------------- - -------------------------------- ----------------- --------- ---------------------

N et difference, 1966 over 1965:

1,701,000

Req uiremen ts Difference, 

increase (+ ) 

or de1965 crease (—)

ad juste d

1966

estim ate

Gener al ad m in is trat io n,..................................................

Stu dy of ru les of pract ice a nd proc edure -----------------

Tot al ___________ -____________

$1,611,000

90,000

$2,140,000 

90,000

+$529,000

1,701,000 2,230,000 +529,000 529,000

To tal est im ate for 1966------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 6 -8 1 6 — 65 -------8
112

Analysis by object

Object 1965

estim ate 1

1966

estim ate

Increase or 

decrease (—)

11 Perso nnel co mpe ns ation___________________ $1,392,000

99.500 

60,000

1,000

91,000

17,000

14.500 

20,000

6.000

$1, 736,175 

125,325 

120,000 

1,000 

125,000 

35,000 

15,500 

26,000 

46,000

$344,175 

25,825 

60,000

12 Personne l b enefits.............

21 Tr av el and tra ns po rta tio n of perso ns., . . .

22 Tr an sp or tatio n of thi ng s. . _____ _____

23 Re nt, co mm unica tions, an d uti liti es ... 34.000 

18,000 

1,000 

6,000 

40,000

24 Pr intin g an d reprod uc tio n___ . . .

25 Other ser vic es________________ . . .

26 Sup plies an d materials________ ___________

31 E quip m en t........ ................

Tot al ob ligations...................................... 1,701,000 2,230,000 529,000

i A dju ste d to reflect the proposed supplem en tal for pa y costs ($76,000 for person nel comp en satio n an d 

$5,500 for rel ated ben efits).

Summary of increased requirements for 1966

Nature of expense (or savings) : Am ou nt

1. Administration of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964__________.$460, 000

2. Administration of the judiciary salary plan________________ 20,800

3. More extensive analytical statistical work in the civil field and

in the field of sentencing and probation__________________ 26, 800

4. Provision for within-grade salary advancements____________ 21, 400

Net increase, 1966 over 1965___________________________ 529, 000

JU ST IFIC AT IO N

Language changes

None.

Objectives

This appropriation provides for the salaries of the Director, the Deputy Director, an Assistant I lirector, and other personnel of the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts, and the necessary operating expenses of the office, including travel, 

communication services, supplies, equipment, etc. The Director, under the supervision and direction of the Judicial Conference of the United States, has administrative jurisdiction over the courts of appeals and district courts of the United 

States, the district courts of the Canal Zone, Guam, and the Virgin Islands and 

a lesser administrative jurisdiction over the Court of Claims, the Court of Cus- 

' toms and Patent Appeals, and the Customs Court. The Director also has administrative jurisdiction over the Federal probation and bankruptcy systems. The 

Criminal Justice Act of 1964 placed additional administrative responsibilities on 

the Director. The act provides th at the payment of fees to counsel and other 

expenses “shall be made under the supervision of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.” The Judicial Conference has approved 

in principle using a system of central disbursement of funds appropriated to carry 

out the Criminal Justice Act.

For data as to the specific duties and responsibilities of the Director and the 

basic statutory authorities, reference is made to section O of the Digest of Appropriations, the Judiciary, on file with the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropriations Committees of the Congress.

Detailed justification

The estimate for fiscal year 1966 is $2,230,000. an increase of $529,000 over 

the amount available for 1965, augmented to the extent of the proposed supplemental for “pay costs” under the Federal Judicial Salary Act of 1964, Public 

Law 86-426, approved August 14, 1964. The increases in salary and related 

benefits under the act aggregated $91,500, whereas the proposed supplemental 

is only $81,500. The sum of $10,000, or approximately 11 percent of the pay 

costs, will be absorbed. The increase in budgetary requirements over and above 

the pay costs is explained in detail below :
113

Admin istratio n of the Criminal Justice Act

It is estimated th at the sum of $4(50.000 will he requ ired to adm inister the

Criminal Justice Act of 1964. The estimate contemplates the appointment of 

seven additional employees in the Adm inistrative Office to cope with increases 

in workload resulting from the central disbursement, accounting, auditing, and 

the control of funds appropriated for the implementation of the act. The estimate also contemplates the appointment of 11 full-time officers presently being 

referre d to as executive secretaries, in each of the judicia l circuits to serve uncompensated boards of advisers to the judicial councils. These officers will act 

as agents for the Adm inistrative Office in the field to work out numerous difficulties th at are bound to arise concerning appointments of counsel and the 

processing of claims for compensation. Each of these officers will require the 

services of a clerk-stenographer. The following is a detailed breakdown of the 

budgetary requirem ents for the adm inistra tion of th e a c t:

Adm inistrative Office of the U.S. Cou rts :

Division of Business Adm inistration :

Fiscal accounting clerk, GS-9____________________________ $7, 220

Auditors (3), GS-6 at $5,505____________________________ 16,520

Clerk-stenographer. GS-4________________________________ 4, 480

Division of Procedural Studies and Statistic s:

Key punch operator, GS-4_______________________________ 4,480

Program operator, GS-5_________________________________ 5, 000

Total, personnel compensation__________________________ 37, 700

Related benefits________________________________________ 3, 000

Miscellaneous expenses__________________________________ 39, 300

Total, Adm inistrative Office____________________________ 80. 000

Jud icial circuits:

Executive secr etaries (11), GS-15, at $16,460__________________ 181,050

Clerk-stenographers (11), GS-7, at $6,050______________________ 66,550

Total, personnel compensation______________________________ 247, 600

Personnel benefits__________________________________________ 18, 400

Trave l____________________________________________________ 60, 000

Miscellaneous expenses_____________________________________ 54, 000

Total, judicia l circuits____________________________________ 380, 000

Grand total______________________________________________ 460, 000

Central disbursement of funds

The Jud icial Conference in September 1964 approved in principle a s.vstem of 

cen tral disbursement of funds appropriated to car ry out the Criminal Justice 

Act of 1964 requ iring (1) a prompt notification to the Adm inistrativ e Office 

of every appointment as it is made, and (2) the submission of vouchers containing information as to the nature and extent of services rendered, both in and out 

of court and expenses incu rred . The submission of vouchers directly to the 

Administrative Office would perm it determining in advance of the issuance of 

each covering check, whether the claim meets the requ irem ents of the statute, 

the rules and regu lations of the Judicial Conference and the judicial council, 

and is consistent with the plan adopted for the district.

It is estim ated th at in excess of 100.000 documents will be processed by the 

Administrative Office each year, including applications and affidavits for the 

appointment of counsel, court orders, claims for compensation, applications for 

investigative, expert or other services, etc. Some of these documents shall constitut e ohligational authority, and others the basis on which payments from the 

appropriation are to be made. These documents shall flow through the Budget 

Office upon which devolves the responsibility for accounting and fund control 

over the appropriations for the implementation of the act. Th at Office will be 

expected to prepare financial stateme nts and conduct such surveys and analyses 

as may be necessary to establish fut ure budgetary requirements. Claims for 

compensation and vouchers for reimbursem ent of expenses, with supporting 

documentation, will be referred to the Audit Section w here they will be examined 

prior to settlement. The Data Processing Unit in the Division of Procedural
114

Studie s and Sta tistics will receive these documents for the extraction and conversion of selected information to punchcards for machine processing of accou nting and sta tistic al data as well as for the issuance of checks. The entire Office 

to some degree will feel the effect of the C riminal Justice Act. It will res ult in 

increases in the activities of the Duplicating Unit, the Records Section, and the 

Service Section. There will be a g rea ter demand for the reproduction of special 

forms and other material. The volume of mail and files will increase subs tantially. There will be grea ter demands for space, equipment, supplies, etc. The 

increased workload in many offices will be absorbed. Some changes in organization and assignments of responsibility may be necessary. The request for seven 

additional positions is considered the minimum requirements of the Office if it is 

to be expected to effectively carry out the duties and responsibilities imposed 

by the act as well as the directives of the Judicia l Conference.

In addition to the compensation and rela ted benefits of these employees, the 

sum of .$39,300 will be needed for the procurement of furniture , equipment, supplies, etc. The mailing of checks and the incre ase in correspndence will resu lt 

in a sub stantial paym ent to the Post Office Department for postage and fees. 

Funds will be required for a large volume of printed matter, including tab ulating 

paper, punchcards, envelopes, card checks, and special forms. The following 

is a breakdown of the miscellaneous expense requirements by object classification :

Rental of c ard punch____________________________________________ $500

Communications (telephone and tel egraph )________________________ 1,100

Postage_______________________________________________________ 20, 000

Print ing _______________________________________________________ 13,200

Supplies_______________________________________________________ 900

Fu rnitu re and equipm ent________________________________________ 1

 3, 600

To tal____________________________________________________ 39,300

1

 Nonrecurring expense.

Exe cutive secretaries to boards of advisers

The Jud icia l Conference in September 1964 approved in principle implem enting 

the Criminal Jus tice Act through a framework of boards of advisers to the j udicial councils of the circuits, the members of which are to serve withou t compensation. This patte rn for adm inistrative organization is sim ilar to th at 

estab lished by th e Congress with respect to the Legal Aid Agency fo r th e D istrict 

of Columbia which has proven most satisfactory.

Fu rth er par alle ling the District of Columlna Legal Aid Act, the Board of 

Advisers to the Jud icial Council in each circ uit is to be auth oriz ed to appoint 

a full-time salaried officer herein referred to as an executive secretary. This 

officer is to enjoy considerable sta ture and prestige. This is nece ssitated by th e 

importance and delicacy of his functions. He is needed to stim ulate and assist 

the dis trict judges and the bar in every dis tric t in the circ uit in form ulating and 

developing plans under the Criminal Jus tice Act suitable to local conditions and 

which are in conformity with standard s to be approved by the judicia l councils 

and the Jud icial Conference of the United State s. This is a task that obviously 

require s gre at tact, skill, and ingenuity. This work will involve many personal 

con tacts to obtain the views of the judges in each district, to arou se the interest, 

cooperation, and assistance of the local bar, to keep all informed concerning simila r plans of adm inistratio n that are being developed in other district s and 

circuits, and to give advice as to whethe r plans under considera tion conform 

with rules and regu lations th at may be recommended by the judicia l councils 

of the circuits and the Jud icia l Conference of the United State s. He will need 

to consult with and a ssist the judges and the b ar in developing satisfactory and 

acceptable procedures for compiling and keeping current rosters of atto rneys 

eligible for appointment to the defense of criminal cases, not only in the various 

places of holding court but also in the additional places where U.S. Commissioners are located. He will be needed in every district to work out with the 

bar and with appro priate Sta te officials some way of coordinating Fed eral and 

State assignments so as to avoid repe ated or conflicting assignments between 

Fed eral and Sta te courts th at may place an undue and un fai r burden upon some 

members of the bar. He will be needed to keep in touch with the clerk in every 

district in order to ass ist and advise in working out the processing of requests 

for the appointment of experts and inve stigators and the procedures for the 

approval of claims for compensation for legal and other services. He will be 

needed to help develop and apply adm inistrative procedures at every stage which
115

will provide maximum relief for the judges from administrative detail. He will 

be needed to receive from each dis trict in the circuit for transmission to the 

Board of Advisers to the Jud icial Council all suggestions and complaints from 

dis trict judges, members of the bar and others concerning the operation of the 

system and in connection therew ith he will be needed to make such inqu iries as 

the Board may direct. He will be needed to act as an agent for the Administrative Office in the field to work out the numerous difficulties that are bound to 

arise concerning appointments and the processing of claims for compensation.

The budget estimate contemplates the appointment of 11 “executive secretaries,” one in each circuit, at the salary rate of $10,460 per annum, which is 

the base rate for grade GS-15. It also provides for the employment of 11 clerkstenographers to serve the executive secre taries. The clerk -stenographers have 

been included in th e budget at the base rat e of grade GS-7. The sum of $266,000 

will be required for the compensation and rela ted benefits of the officers and 

their clerical assistants. In addition, $114,000 will be requ ired for their travel 

and miscellaneous expenses. The officers will be expected to travel extensively 

with in as well as outside of their respective circuits. It is estimated that each 

of the officers, w ith the exception of the one serving in the District of Columbia, 

will require the sum of approximately $6,000 for trav el and subsistence expenses 

to be incurred incident to the performance of official duties. Of course, each 

of the field offices will have to be provided fur niture , equipment, supplies, etc. 

It is estimated th at such expenses will average approxim ately $5,000 per office. 

The following is a breakdown, by object classification, of the sum included to 

cover the miscellaneous expenses of the offices of the executive secretaries :

Communications (telephone and teleg rap h)--------------------------------------$5,500

Postage________________________________________________________ 5, 500

Printin g_______________________________________________________ 4, 500

Other services_________________________________________________ 1, 000

Supplies_______________________________________________________ 4, 500

Fu rnitu re and equipm ent 1_______________________________________ 33, 000

Total____________________________________________________ 54,000

1

 Nonrecurring.

Adm inistration of the judiciary salary plan

It is requested that the sum of $20,800 he provided for the employment of a 

personnel officer in grade GS-13 and a clerk-stenographer in g rade GS-5 who are 

to be assigned duties relatin g to the adm inistratio n of the “judiciary salary 

plan .” The plan, which was approved by the Jud icial Conference of the United 

States in September 1961, and which was placed in operation during fiscal year 

1964, provided new classification standard s for deputy clerks in the U.S. district 

courts, clerks to referees and officers and employees in the probation system.

The conversion from the old standard s to the new standard s has been accomplished. However, if the plan is to serve the purpose for which it was intended, the Adm inistrative Office, on a continuing basis, must conduct field s urveys of the courts and their component offices. All reque sts for the regradin g of 

positions must be thoroughly examined to assure the proper application of the 

standa rds. The staff of the Personnel Division in the Adm inistrative Office must 

be augmented if it is to be expected to effectively administer the jud iciary sa lary 

plan. The following is a breakdown, by object classification, of the sum required for this pu rpose:

Personnel compensation_________________________________________ $17, 075

Personnel benefits______________________________________________ 1, 325

Communications (telephone and telegrap h)________________________ 320

Postage _______________________________________________________ 120

Print ing ______________________________________________________ 120

Supplies______________________________________________________ 240

Equipment (no nre currin g)________________________________________ 1,600

Total___________________________________________________ 20, 800

The amounts included for the various items of expense are estimated on a unitcost basis. The nonrecu rring cost of equipm ent which will be required by the 

emplovees, of course, will be deducted in estab lishing the budgeta ry requirements 

for 1967.
116

Analy tica l st ati st ic al wor k in th e civi l field an d in th e field of se nt en cing and

pr ob at ion

Th e divi sion of pr oc ed ur al st udie s an d sta ti st ic s is in ne ed of a st at is tici an , 

pro gr am er , an d an elec tro ni c ac co un ting m ac hi ne ope ra to r. Th ese th re e ad di ­

tiona l em plo yees a re re qu ired to m ee t th e ev er -inc re as in g de m an ds fo r st ati st ic al 

dat a. Th e st ati st ic ia n is to as su m e th e re sp on sibi lity of co nd uc ting an al ytica l 

st udi es of court wor kloa ds . A nn ua l re port s on Fed er al offend ers an d pe rson s 

un de r th e su pe rv isio n of th e pro ba tion officer s re qu ires fu rt h e r am plifi ca tio n. 

Fin al ly , mo re ex te ns iv e st ati st ic al an al yse s of c ivil ca se s an d b an kr up tc y m att ers 

is need ed.

Tli e pr og ra m er an d elec tro ni c ac co un ting mac hi ne ope ra to r ar e re qu ired to 

m ai nta in an ev en flow of th e pre se nt an d pr oj ec te d st ati st ic al workloa d. Th ese 

em plo yees are ne ce ss ar y ad ju ncts to th e im pr ov em en ts in anal yti ca l st ati st ic al 

st ud ie s an d th e gre ate r ut iliz at io n of d a ta pr oc es sing eq uipm en t. New pr og ra m s 

are st ill to be w ri tt en fo r im prov ed m et ho ds in han dl in g pr op er ty reco rds, the 

pr oc ur em en t of su pp lie s th ro ug h th e us e of pun ch ca rd re qu isitio n fo rm s re ce nt ly 

pr es cr ib ed by th e Gen er al Se rvices A dm in is tr at io n an d fo r a bett er st ati st ic al 

pi ct ure of th e pr oc ed ur al flow of th e w or k of th e co ur ts. Th e sum of $26,800 

has b een in clud ed a s fo ll ow s:

Pe rson ne l co m pen sa tion:

Pro gr am er , GS- 11 _________________________________________________ $8, 650

Sta ti st ic ia n, GS- 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8, 650

EAM op er at or , G S- 4______________________________________________ 4. 480

T ota l co mpe ns atio n ($21,78 0) ro un ded __________________________ 21 ,80 0

Per so nn el be ne fit s____________________________________________________ 1. 700

Com m un ications ______________________________________________________ 580

Pos ta ge _______________________________________________________________ 380

P ri n ti n g ______________________________________________________________ 180

Su pp lies ______________________________________________________________ 360

E quip m ent1___________________________________________________________ 1,8 00

T ota l___________________________________________________________ 26,80 0

1

 Non re cu rrin g.

Pr ov ision fo r le ithi m gr ad c sa la ry a dv an ce m en ts

Thi s appro pri at io n will prov id e st ep in cr ea se s to th e pe rson ne l elig ible th ere ­

fo r unde r th e pr om ot io na l pl an pr ov id ed fo r by ti tl e V II of th e Cl assific ation 

Ac t of 1949, as am en de d. It is e st im at ed th a t th es e w ithi n- gr ad e sa la ry ad va nc em en ts will co st $21,400, of which $20,000 re pre se nts in cr ea se s in co mpe ns ati on 

an d $1,40 0 re la te d pe rson ne l be ne fit s— Gov ernm en t co ntr ib utions to th e civ il 

serv ice re ti re m ent fu nd and fo r gr ou p li fe in su ra nc e. The est im at e ta ke s 

in to ac co un t th e lo ng er w ai ting pe riod s pr es cr ib ed by th e F ed er al Sal ar y Reform Ac t of 1962 an d is net of antici pat ed sa vi ng s du e to tu rn ov er . App ro xim at el y 50 p er ce nt o f th e em ploy ees on th e roll w ill be gr an te d w ithi n- gr ad e sa la ry 

ad va nc em en ts d uri ng fiscal y ear 1966.

IN CR EA SE S RE QU ES TE R

Mr. Rooney. These pages indicate tha t the request is in tlie amount 

$2,230,000, which would be an increase of $529,000 over the adjusted 

appropriation for the current fiscal year. There is a breakdown of 

this $529,000 to be found at page 135 of the justifications.

ADM IN IS TR ATI ON O F T II E C R IM IN A L J U ST IC E A CT O F 1 9 6 4

It appears th at the first item thereof is the item which was discussed 

here on yesterday, to wit, almost ha lf a million dollars for the administration of the so-called Criminal Justice Act of 1964. This budget 

would entail the addition of 7 employees in the administrative office 

and would include 11 executive secretaries at $16,460 each together 

with 11 stenographers.
117

Just as a matter of curiosity, who would appoint these executive 

secretaries ?

Judge J ohnsen. Mr. Chairman, in the original proposal they were 

to be appointed by the chief judges of the district courts of the circuit, 

collectively. That is, our judgment with the chief judge of the circuit itself so that the designation was to be on a circuit selective basis.

TRAVEL AN D MI SCEL LA NE OU S EX PE NS ES

Mr. Rooney. It appears at page 139 of the justification book that this 

unusual request would include $60,000 for travel and $54,000 for miscellaneous expenses and that these sums would be for these 11 people 

tha t we have just mentioned, 11 executive secretaries plus 11 stenographers?

Mr. Sweeney. Yes.

Mr. Rooney. Was this approved by the Judical Conference ?

Judge McGuire. Yes, this was, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. And you are back again for some additional money for 

the division of procedural studies and statistics, as is indicated at page 

139 of these justifications.

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir.

SALA RY COSTS ABSORBED

Mr. Rooney. How much of your within-grade salary advancements 

do you plan to absorb ?

Mr. Anderson. About $1,800.

Mr. Rooney. Out of how much ?

Mr. Anderson. Out of a total of about $23,000.

Mr. Rooney. It is hardly worth talking about, is it ?

Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, the number of within-grade advancements th at will fall due in 1966 will be for about one-half of the administrative office staff.

statistical work

Mr. Olney. Mr. Chairman, before we pass over it, may I speak about 

the $26,800 item for this statistical work ?

Mr. Rooney. Surely.

Mr. Olney. I would like to explain what t hat is for because it is of 

more importance than the justifications would indicate, I think.

This has to do primarily with rounding out the reports in criminal 

cases on Federal offenses, on their sentencing and what happens to 

them when they go through the correctional process.

The committee will recall for years we have been printin g statistics 

on the number of defendants and the charges that are placed against 

them and that, kind of information, but until recently we have only 

been able to simply count cases. We know how many there are and 

what the charges are and what the sentences are, but we have not been 

able to tell what kind of people they are.

The committee may recall last spring we were able to put out two 

reports on this subject that were very different in character. The first 

was called Federal offenses in the U.S. district courts. I sent copies to 

members of the committee. I do not know if you have had an oppor-
118

tunily to read it. These reports analyze the kind of people according 

to sex, race, and different characteristics.

The second report we put out was on persons under supervision in 

the Federal probation system. What tha t does is also analyze, not 

just count but it describes the kind of people who are under supervision, whether probation or parole or what not. It also reports for the 

first time the number who may have committed violations while they 

are under supervision and what kind of violation it was. This means 

tha t for the first time we are beginning to get some kind of information tha t shows what our actual experience is with people who have 

gone through the correctional system, particularly those who were 

under supervision.

This next week we expect to have out—because we intend to do this 

every year—a new report on Federal offenders in the U.S. district 

courts which will have even more information than we have been able 

to get in the past in describing these kinds of people. And later in 

the spring we will have a second report on people under supervision 

in the Federal probation system.

This we have been able to do with the personnel and equipment we 

have had. It has taken us nearly five years to work this out. We 

had to go to the probation officers and develop a whole new system for 

gathering this information in one place. We have not had to ask 

additional equipment for that, but the one thing tha t would round 

out our information and increase the value of these reports a great 

deal is we want to utilize the information we can get from the FB I as 

to what happens to these people during the next 5 years afte r they 

come off supervision. A lot of these people go through the system 

at one time or another. It may be on probation or on parole. They 

may not be violators while they are on probation or on parole, but 

later if they are violators we cannot process that, and that is what we 

want to include. This would mean tha t instead of just having reports 

on the people who go through the correctional system and count them 

by number, we would have in a statistical form what the full experience of the Federal correctional system is with different kinds of people and different kinds of sentences and different kinds of crimes and 

the like.

The Board of Parole has been very anxious to have this done. Up 

to now they have had to make their decisions on who should be paroled 

simply on the basis of what they knew about the individuals, but with 

this kind of information they would have what experience shows has 

been a good risk and what experiences shows has been a poor risk in 

considering any case. The same with the judges, they would need it 

too when it comes to putting people on probation.

But I would hope these reports in the course of time—when I say 

tha t I mean when sufficient experience has been had with then—that 

they would have real value to this committee. We have l>een here asking for additional money for probation officers. The Bureau of P risons comes for money for their programs, the halfway houses and 

what not. But how do you know what the experience is unless you 

have the kind of reports we are trying to get together? This is not 

duplication of anything anybody else is doing. And it has to be done 

in our office.

Mr. Bow. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman ?
119

Mr. Rooney. Yes, Mr. Bow.

Mr. Bow. Who would fu rn ish th is informa tio n to you ?

Mr. Olne y. We alr eady hav e all the inform ation we need exce pt 

the inform ati on th at we w ant to get fro m the F B I which they are alrea dy collecting. Th is is no t a m atter of t ry in g to g athe r new in fo rmation , it is tryi ng to mak e pr op er use of inform ation the Fe deral 

Governme nt alread y has.

W ha t we w ant is s imply th is : We wa nt to have the record of every 

vio lator who goes th roug h t he Fed eral system—I am n ot tal ki ng about 

the St ate system—a nd have it flagged so th at if h e is arreste d wi thin 

5 years f rom th e time he is dis charg ed we autom ati cally ge t th at inf or ­

ma tion and can process it.

Mr. Bow. You say th e F B I h as all t hat in form ation now ?

Mr. Olne y. Th ey are supp lying us righ t now a large part of t his.

Mr. Bow. Why do you need th is amount of money to correlate wh at 

the y hav e?

Mr. Olne y. W ha t the y have, Mr. Bow, is t he arrest record. W ith 

the people who are un der sup ervisio n, when one of the m is arr est ed 

fo r some othe r offense the y autom ati cally send th at to us now and th at 

is inc orporat ed in the record we have. I f a person is rearreste d the y 

can send us th at same inform ation if it is 5 years later, and th at is 

what we want to ask them to do, which I am sure they will do, b ut we 

need the m echa nics to process th at. That is all this is for.

Mr. Bow. Th an k you.

Mr. R ooney. You hav e how ma ny people in th e Ad minist rativ e 

Office?

Mr. S weeney. To tal auth orize d 165, on bo ard 161.

INC REA SE IN APP ROPRI ATION S FOR AD MINIS TRATIVE OFFICES

Mr. R ooney. An d the requested ap prop riation of $2,230,000 w ould 

com pare w ith the a nnual a pp ro pr iatio n in 1956 fiscal year of $606,250 ?

Mr. Olne y. Yes, sir.

Mr. R ooney. As a m atter of fac t, un de r the prese nt amoun ts of 

fund s you have you are about 267 percent over what you were in 1956. 

Is that f ai rly acc urate?

Mr. Olney. I have no t w ork ed out th e percen tage, bu t I thi nk i t is.

Ju dg e McGuire. Mr. Ch air ma n, if I may I would like to address 

myself to one m atter which I hav e assumed you probably passed over, 

and t ha t is t o reem pha size t he necessity of pla cin g in the A dm inist rative Office a fiscal ac cou nting cler k and the audit ors I allud ed to yeste rday, because this is very, very im po rta nt no m atter wha t happ ens in 

the im ple me nta tion of th e Crim ina l J us tic e A ct of 1964.

As Ju dg e John sen point ed out, the sta tute requires th at all of the 

pla ns of the U.S. district courts be filed with t he Ad minist rativ e Office. 

It is estimated o ver 100,000 documen ts will go thr ou gh the A dm in istra ­

tive Office. We have t o hav e strict fiscal control. Th e way b oth the 

Ju dicial Con ference an d the Bu reau of the Budget view i t is th at this 

is absolutely necessary .

It is i nterestin g to note the D ep artm en t of Justic e estimate d admi nist rativ ely abo ut $20,000, bu t th at was addressed, I believe, to the 

pub lic defen der bill. For th is bill as it has come ou t it am ounts to 

$28,220. So deducti ng from the $460,000 the am ount of money the
120

Administrative Office is asking fo r for this important type of control, 

it comes to about $80,000.

STUDY OF RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Mr. Rooney. What about your study of rules of practice and procedure ? How much was that ?

Judge McGuire. $90,000.

Mr. Rooney. How much has been obligated to date in the current 

fiscal year?

Mr. Sweeney. All but $11,000.

Mr. Rooney. When is this study to be concluded ?

Mr. Olney. Would you care fo r a report, on their activities?

Judge McGuire. I do not think tha t question could be answered 

categorically. Because of the activities of the Committee on Criminal 

Justice and the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 

you could not say when the activities for tha t particular committee 

would be concluded.

PAPERW ORK HANDL ED BY A DM INISTRATIV E OFF ICE

Mr. Bow. How many reports are required of a district court to file 

with the Administrative Office ?

Judge McGuire. I understand you to mean a repo rt of the activities 

of the court ?

Mr. Bow. How much paperwork do we have flowing into the Administrative Office out of the district courts ?

Judge McGuire. The statistical picture comes from individual 

clerk’s offices as to number of cases filed and number of cases terminated. That is the most important report tha t comes in. Then a 

large number of reports come in as the consequences-----

Mr. Bow. What do you mean by a “large number” ? It seems to me 

as we go along year afte r year we are building up more and more and 

T am wondering how the courts eventually will get their work done 

with the amount of paperwork that has to go to the Administrative 

Office.

Judge McGuire. The amount of paperwork, if you want to use that 

term, sneaking of my court, is not overwhelming.

Mr. Bow. It should not be.

Judge McGuire. But the matter of personnel and all th at must be 

watched and controlled.

Mr. Bow. This has all developed over the last 10 years, has it 

not ?

Judge McGuire. If has developed to my knowledge over the last 

20 years. And you have the matter of printing. The individual 

district, court and court of appeals cannot control that. The Supreme 

Court has said the defendant is entitlpd to a transcrip t and there was 

a discussion some years ago about $75,000 for the printing of transse ri pts and I hazarded a guess it would be more, and it has gone up. 

We ha^e been trying to take advantage of conving machines.

Mr. Bow. For the purpose of the record will vou furnish me—and 

Mr. Rooney can decide whether it should remain in the record or not— 

with the number of reports that came oid of the northern district of 

Ohio last year to the Administrative Office ?
121

Judge McGuire. We have the representative of the southern district, 

but he will not speak for the northern district.

Mr. Bow. 1 do not expect him to know that as to the northern district, but I would like to have the number of reports that came out 

of the Northern District of Ohio, which is my district, to know how 

much paperwork came from that district to the A dministrative Office, 

everything required to be filed by the district.

Mr. Anderson. May I make a comment here? Beginning Janu ary 

1 of this year we discontinued the preparation of monthly and biweekly 

payrolls throughout the courts, and with our data-processing equipment we were able to print them out from punchcards. We mail them 

out to the clerks and probation officers for certification and they send 

them to the marshals who draw the checks and this saves a considerable 

amount of paperwork.

Mr. J oelson. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. Rooney. Yes, Mr. Joelson.

Mr. Joelson. Do the district court judges file forms as to the number 

of hours they spend on the bench daily or the number of cases they 

dispose of ?

Judge McGuire. If you are referring to the U.S. District Court of 

the District of Columbia, the answer is “No.”

Mr. Joelson. What about the general practice ?

Mr. Sweeney. Excuse me, sir, T think the clerk does tha t for you.

Judge McGuire. May I go off the record a minute ?

(Discussion off the record.)

Judge J ohnsen. Mr. Chairman, I think I might make a comment on 

that. I am chairman of the statistical committee and we have at 

various times asked judges to keep an account indicating the character 

of their work so we might have some notion as to how judicial time 

is being spent. Tha t was on a purely voluntary basis. But the judges 

do not report on their time to the Administrative Office. They show 

the termination of their cases. But we have had special studies to 

try to get that information in trying to help the judges themselves, 

but they have been special and voluntary only.

Mr. J oelson. In the State, of New Jersey, the chief justice of the 

supreme court began asking judges to report on the time they spent in 

actual trial or motions or pretrial conferences, and as a result of that, 

the backlog of cases was considerably improved.

Mr. Rooney. You mean it was increased ?

Mr. J oelson. No. They found they had to spend more time on the 

bench, and I would recommend tha t for the Federal judiciary.

Mr. Cederbero. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Rooney. Thank you, distinguished judges and gentlemen.

STATISTICAL WORK

Judge J ohnsen. Mr. Chairman, might I make one suggestion in 

relation to the $26,800 item tha t Mr. Olney spoke of. I can summarize tha t because of my connection with the statistical committee. 

The purpose of this is just the same as a businessman who has a 

product and who looks at its enduring quality.
122

When we are dealing with probation or parole we can tell the results during the period of probation or parole, but what happens, 

whether probation is worthwhile in certain ages, certain offenses, you 

can tell only afterw ard, because perhaps they did not violate the 

terms of probation or parole while they were under supervision because they wanted to get out, but we want to know what happens 

afterward to determine the value of probation and parole generally.

Judge McGuire. May I say this, supplementing what Judge Johnsen has s aid: You know, one of the grea t controversies within the profession is what to do with individual defendants and the disparity of 

sentences. This has been discussed in the last 25 or 30 years to my 

knowledge. Over the years of my experience it has been very, very 

important to have a complete picture of the individual offender, because you cannot make sentences conform from the standpoint of this 

individual and tha t individual. You may have a man in Leavenworth 

doing 15 years and another man in another Federal prison doing 5 

years for the same offense, but the circumstances are entirely different. 

It is necessary to have a full focus on the individual to do justice to the 

individual and to the public.

Mr. Bow. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

S ala ri es of R ef er ee s

Object classification

[In th ousands of dollars]

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

Personnel compensation:

11.1 Permanent positions_____ . ___________________ 2,068

341

3,222

461

3,820 11.3 Positions o ther th an permane nt__________________ 390

Total personnel compensation__________________ 2,408

177

3,684

264

4,210 12.0 Personnel benefits_______________ _____. . _____ _ 304

99.0 Tota l obligations____________ ______________ ___ 2,585 3,948 4,514

Personnel sum mar y

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

Total numbe r of permanent positions_____________________ 141

23

162

146

20

165

173

17

189

Full-tim e equivalent of other posi ti ons. .._____ _ _________

Average number of all employees__
123

Program and financing

[I n thou sand s of dolla rs]

1964 a ctua l 1965 esti mate 1966 estim ate

Program b y activities:

10 Sala ries and b enefits (obli gations)________ ______ —.

Fin ancin g:

25 Un obligate d ba lan ce la psing............................................. .

Ne w obligational a u th o rit y .. .. ...................... ............

Ne w obligational au th or ity :

40 App ro pr iatio n__________________________________

44 Pro posed sup pl em en ta l d ue to civilian pa y increases.

Re latio n of obliga tions to ex penditu res :

71 Tot al ob liga tion s (affectin g e xp en di tures)__________

72 Ob ligate d balan ce, s ta rt of y ea r............... .......................

74 Ob ligate d balan ce, e nd of y ea r........ ............ ................. .

90

91

Ex pe nd itu res e xcl uding p ay in cre ase S up pl em en ta lEx pe nd itu res from civ ilia n pa y increase supp lem en ta l......... .............. . ..................... .........................—

2,585 

15

2,600

2,600

2,585 

283

-2 17

2,651

3,948

3,948

2,670

1,278

3,948

217

-3 29

2,664

1,172

4,514

4, 514

4,514

4, 514 

329

-3 76

4,361 

106

Mr. Rooney. It is inter estin g to note th at the next item is entitled, 

“Sala rie s of re ferees.”

Ju dg e McGuir e. Tha t escaped my notice, Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. Sweeney. For th at , we have Mr. Royal E. Jac kson, who is the 

Chief of our Ba nk ruptcy Division.

Mr. Rooney. H ow is Mr. Covey.

Mr. Olney. He is in good shape.

Mr. Rooney. He recovered from the heart att ack ?

Mr. Olne y. No, he still has th e effects of it. You will recall what a 

conscientious fellow he was. He was rea lly wo rking him sel f an d he 

would be dea d if he ha d not ret ire d. Th e load is off h is b ack and he is 

tea ching b an krup tcy out at G eorgeto wn L aw School and he looks like 

a new man. He is ha ving a ha pp y retirem en t as ma ny people do not 

when the y reti re.

Mr. Bow. He would do a good job I am sure.

Mr. Olne y. Yes.

Mr. Rooney. Th is item entitled “ Sa lar ies o f referees” is to be found 

at page 372 of th e com mittee pri nt and begin nin g at pag e 152 of the 

jus tifi cat ion book.

We sha ll insert a t th is point in the rec ord pag es 152 th roug h 166.

(T he pages f ol lo w:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

Salaries of referees, U.S. courts (special fun d):

1965 app ropriatio n in ann ua l act..............................

1965 propose d su pp lem en tal due to p ay increases

Bas e for 1966__________

N et difference 1966 ov er 1965:

Person nel comp ensat ion a nd benef its.

Jud icia ry

$2,670,000 

1,278,000 

3,948,000

Req uiremen ts Difference, 

increase (+ ) 

or de1965 crease (—)

ad juste d

1966

est im ate

$3,948,000 $4,514,000 +$566,000 566,000

4,514,000 Tot al es tim ate for 1966.
124

Analysis by object

Object 1965

ad juste d 1

1966

es tim ate

Inc rea se or 

decrease (—)

11 Pe rso nnel co mpe nsation........ ....................................................

12 Pe rso nnel benefit s____________________________________

$3,683,500 

264,500

$4,210,000 

304,000

$526,500 

39,500

Tota l o bli ga tio ns ________ ______________ ___________ 3,948, 000 4,514,000 566,000

1

 Adjus ted to refle ct the pro pos ed su pp lem en tal for p ay c osts ($1,196,500 for perso nnel co mp ensat ion and 

$81,500 for re lated ben efits).

Summary of increased requirements for 1966

Nature of expense (or savings) : Amo unt 1. 3 additional full-time referees and the conversion of 4 part-time

referees to a full-time status as authorized by the Judicial Conference of the United States in March 1964_________________ $116, 000

2. 9 additional full-time referees and the conversion of 3 part-time

referees to a full-time status as authorized by the Judicial Conference in September 1964----------------------------------------------- 250, 000

3. Reserve for new referee positions and changes in arrangements

which may be authorized by the Judicial Conference at the March

1965 and September 1965 sessions_________________________ 200, 000

Increase, 1966 over 1965________________________________ 566, 000

jus tif ica tio n

Language changes

The language in the text of the appropriation for fiscal year 1965 authorizing 

not to exceed .$50,000 for the liquidation of obligations incurred during 1964 

will not be required in 1966 and should be deleted.

Objectives

The district courts of the United States are constituted courts of bankruptcy, 

vested with original jurisdiction at law and in equity in proceedings brought 

under the bankruptcy statutes. This jurisdiction primarily is exercised through 

referees appointed by the several district courts. Their compensation and benefits are paid from this appropriation, which is derived from a special fund in 

the Treasury to which are deposited payments of fees and charges by parties 

to the proceedings. No appropriation from the general fund of the Treasury 

is required.

Reference to basic statu tory authorities are contained in section P of the 

“Digest of Appropriations, the Judiciary,” on file with the Bureau of the Budget 

and the Appropriations Committees of the Congress.
125

Gen eral ju st ific ation s

The nu m be r of bankru ptc y ca se s file d duri ng fis cal year 1964 re ac he d anoth er 

al l-tim e high of 171,719. T he nu m be r of ca se s filed, th e nu m er ic al an d perce nt ag e in cr ea se s in filings duri ng th e p ast 10 yea rs are as fo ll ow s:

Fis ca l y ea r Cas es fi led N um er ic al

Increa se

Per ce nta ge

in crea se

1955_____________________________ _________ _________________ 59, 404 6,268 11.8

1956____________ ____________________________________________ 62,086 2,682 4.5

1957......... ......................... ................... ............... . _ . . . ........... . ................. 73, 761 l l ' 675 18.8

1958______________ ______________ _____ . * __________ ______ _ 91,668 17’907 24.3

1959_________________________________________________________ 100,672 9,004 9.8

1960_________________________________ ______ ________________ 110,034 9’ 362 9. 3

1961____________________________ ____ ______ ______ _________ 146.643 36,609 33.3

1962 147 780 1 137 . 8

1963_________________________ ____ ________ _________________ 155,493 7,713 5.2

1964_________________________ ____ __________________________ 171,719 16^ 226 10. 4

D uring th e ye ar , 162,356 ca se s w er e closed, 20,916 m or e th a n in 1963 but 9,363 

less th an th e nu m be r filed , re su ltin g in an in cr ea se of mor e th an 6 pe rc en t in 

th e pe nd ing ca se lo ad from 147,814 a t th e be ginn in g of th e vea r to 157,177 on 

Ju ne 30, 1964.

Of th e to ta l ca se s file d in 1964, 90.4 per ce nt w er e no nb us in es s ba nkru pt ci es 

(w ag e earn ers ) an d 9.6 pe rc en t wer e bu sine ss bankru ptc ie s (w hich includ es 

m er ch an ts , m an ufa ct ure rs , oth er s in bu sine ss, fa rm er s, and th e pr of es sion al 

gro ups) . D ur in g 1964 th e nu m be r of bu sine ss ban kru ptc ie s in cr ea se d but no t 

to th e exte nt of th e in cr ea se in no nb us in es s ban kr up tc ie s. The follo wing ta ble 

show s th e vo lume an d ra ti o (p er ce nt ag e) of bu sine ss to no nb us in es s fili ngs fo r 

th e p ast 10 y e a rs :

Fis ca l ye ar N onbusi nes s Per ce nt ag e 

of to ta l

B us in es s Per ce nta ge 

of to ta l

T o ta l fil ings

19 55 ......................... ................. ........... 50,219 84. 5 9 185 15 5 50 404

1956_____________________ . 52’608 84. 8 9’ 478 15 2 62 086

1957........... . ..................... . ............. 63,617 86. 3 10* 144 13 7 73 761

19.58_____________________ 80' 264 87. 6 l l ’ 404 12 4 O l’ 668

1959________________ _____ _____ 88,943 88.3 11 729 11 7 100’ 672

1960____________________________ 97’ 750 88.8 12 284 11 2 110 034

1961____ _______________________ 13 k 402 89.6 15 241 10 4 146* 643

1962________________ ___________ 132^ 125 89. 5 15 655 10 5 147* 780

1963___________________________ 139’ 191 89. 5 16’ 302 10 5 155’ 403

1964______________ ____________ _ 155; 209 90.4 16; 510 9.6 17k 719

Th e follo wing gr ap hs cl ea rly re flec t th e up w ar d tr end in th e nu m be r of ca ses 

filed and pe nd ing as well a s th e nu m be r an d ra ti o of bu sine ss to no nb us in es s 

b an k ru p tc ie s:
DIS TRICT COURTS

iso

0
DISTRICT COURTS

8 0 — 0 1 8 - 0 * BANKRUPTCY CASES COMMENCED SHOWING BUSINESS ANO INDIVIDUAL CASE FILINGS FISCAL YEARS

6

u s *

Sotaxa O**«a W taa i*>ta Stain CwR, a oR tar r»» tanai •> ta» Attarn*
DISTRICT COURTS

BUSINESS AND NON-BUSINESS

Sower: O«*« o1 Uni»«J Stairs Courts

to00
129

Sta tus of fun d

As of Jun e 30, 1904, the balance in the “Referees’ salary and expense fund” 

was approximately $10,721,000. It is estim ated th at receipts to be deposited 

into the fund during fiscal year 1965 will aggregate $10,224,000, or $1,334,000 in 

excess of the sum collected and deposited in the previous year. Deducting the 

annual appropriations and the proposed supplemental appropriations for fiscal 

yea r 1965, the balance in the fu nd on Jun e 30, 1965, will be in excess of $11 million. It is estim ated that, during fiscal yea r 1966, receipts to be deposited into 

the fund will approach $12 million. Deducting the appropriation estim ates for 

fiscal year 1966 of $4,514,000 for “Salaries of referees” and $6,735,000 for 

“Expenses of referees” there would be a surplus in 1966 of over a half million 

dollars and the balance in the fund a t the end of the year will be approximately 

$11*6 million. The following table shows the actu al and estim ated amounts 

available for appropriation, in thousands of dollars :

1964 a ctua l 1965

estim ate

1966

estim ate

Una pp ro pr iated balanc e, st ar t of ye ar . _______________ . . . $9,629

8,890

51

$l 6, 721 

10,224

$11,042 

Rec eipt s.. . . . . _ ____'.____________________ ____ 11,757

Un oblig ate d balanc e retur ne d to u na pp ro pr ia te d rec eip ts___

Tot al av ailabl e for app ro pr iatio n____ . ________ ____ 18, 571 20,945 22,799

Appropriat ions:

Salaries of referees____ _______________________________ 2,600

5, 250

2,670 

5,750

1,278 

205

4,514 

Expen ses of referees. _ _________________________ 6,735

Propose d su pp lem en tal due to pa y increases:

Sala ries of re fe re es ____________ _____________________

Expen ses of referees_______________ . . . . . .

Tot al app rop riations________________________________ 7,850 9,903 11,249

Un approp ria ted bala nce, end of year____ __________ 10,721 11,042 11,550

Detailed justification

The appropriation request for 1966 for “Salaries of referees” is $4,514,000, 

which is $566,000 in excess of the obligational autho rity granted for 1965, 

augmented to the extent of the proposed supplemental for pay costs under the 

Federal Judicia l Salary Act of 1964, Public Law 86-426, approved August 14, 

1964. Pay costs aggregated $1,278,000 of which $1,196,500 represen ts increases 

in compensation and $81,500 related benefits.

Additional positions and changes in arrangements authorized by the Judicial

Conference in March 1964

The Jud icial Conference of the United States in March of 1964. on the basis 

of a report and recommendations of its Bankruptcy Committee; the recommendations of the Director of the Adm inistrative Office, judicia l councils, and 

the dis trict judges, authorize d three add itional full-time refe rees and the conversion of four part-time referees to a full-time status. The actions of the 

Conference, of course, are subject to the ava ilab ility of funds. The sum of 

$116,000 will be required as fo llows:

New positions (full-time) :

California (sou thern) at Santa Ana__________________________ $22,500

Minnesota at Minneapolis___________________________________ 22, 500

Missouri (western) at Kansas City__________________________ 22,500

Conversions (part-time to full-time) :

Ind iana (northern ) at South Bend ($11,000 to $22.500)__________ 11.500

Iowa (northern ) at Fo rt Dodge1 ($11,000 to $20,000)___________ 9,000

Rhode Island at Providence ($11,000 to $20,000)________________ 9,000

Virginia (western) at Lynchburg ($11,000 to $22.500)__________ 11,500

Total personnel compensation______________________________ 108, 500

Related benefits____________________________________________ 7, 500

Total compensation and benefits___________________________ 116, 000

1

 H e a d q u a rt e rs to be changed to C ed ar R ap id s.
130

Additional positions and changes in arrangements authorized by the Judicial

Conference in September 1964

The sum of $250,000 has been included for the appointment of nine additional 

full-time referees and for a change in the sta tus of three referees from parttime to full-time. These additio nal positions and conversions were authorized 

by the Jud icial Conference in September 1964 based on a report and recommendations of its Bankruptcy Committee, the recommendations of the Director of the 

Adm inistrative Office, the judicia l councils and the dis tric t judges. Of course, 

the actions of the Conference are subject to the availability of funds. The 

additional positions and conversions which were authorize d in September 1964 

are as follow s:

New positions (full-time) :

Alabama (middle) at Montgomery____________________________ $22,500

Alabama (southern) at Mobile_______________________________ 22, 500

California (no rthern ) at San Jose____________________________ 22,500

Colorado a t D enver_________________________________________ 22, 500

Georgia (northern ) at Atlan ta_______________________________ 22,500

Louisiana (eastern) at New Orle ans_________________________ 22,500

Ohio (southern) at Cinc innati_______________________________ 22,500

Tennessee (middle) at Nashville_____________________________ 22,500

Washington (western) at Sea ttle ____________________________ 22, 500

Conversions (part-time to full-time) :

Illinois (eastern) at East St. Louis ($11,000 to $22,500)__________ 11,500

Illinois (northern ) at F reeport ($11,000 to $22,500)_____________ 11,500

New Mexico a t Albuquerque ($11,000 to $17,500)_______________ 6, 500

Total personnel compensation______________________________ 232, 000

Related benefits____________________________________________ 18, 000

Total compensation and benefits___________________________ 250, 000

Reserve for additional referees and changes in arrangements which may be

authorized by the Judicial Conference at the March 1965 and September

1965 sessions

The sum of $200,000 has been included in anticipation of the authorization 

of additional positions and changes in salarie s and arrangements for referees 

by the Judicial Conference in March 1965 and September 1965. Of this sum, 

$186,000 is for personnel compensation and $14,000 for rela ted benefits. The 

Judicia l Conference of the United States authorized the inclusion of this request for funds in the budget for the fiscal yea r 1966, in an atte mpt to avoid 

the delays experienced in the past in the implementation of its actions which 

have necessarily been subject to the ava ilab ility of funds. The estimate contemplates the creation of eight full-time referee positions or the equivalent 

thereof.

IN CR EA SE S RE QU ES TE D

Mr. Rooney. These pages ind ica te th at the request is in the un ­

precedente d amount of $4,514,000, which would be an increase of $566,- 

000 over the adjus ted ap prop riation in the cu rre nt fiscal yea r. It 

is ind icated at page 152 th at there is a proposed sup ple me nta l due 

to pay increases in the am ount $1,278,000 over and above the 1965 

annual ap prop ria tio n of $2,670,000.

PAT INCREASES

I am almost af ra id to ask this quest ion : How is it th at this is 

almost a 50-percent increase in avera ge pay of refe rees? Did we 

do som ething?

Mr. J ackson. Mr. Ch air ma n, I th in k the answer to th at questio n is th at the lim its within whi ch the salaries of refe rees are fixed 

have no t been changed since 1956, in the las t amendment to section 40 of t he Ba nk ruptc y Act.
131

In the meantime, there had been four general pay increases for 

the Government service in which the referees did not participate. The 

pay bill enacted last year raised the limits on salaries of full-time 

referees from $15,000 to $22,500. The upper limits on the salaries 

of part-time referees were raised from $7,500 to $11,000.

The increases in the salaries of referees under this bill accounts for 

the sum you have just mentioned. Those were approved by the Ju dicial Conference at the session last fall.

I think it should be observed in connection with this that since the 

last adjustment on the upper limits of salaries of referees, there has 

been almost a trip ling of the caseload, new bankruptcy cases in the 

country. The referee service, the number of referee positions, in that 

period increased, I believe, less than 24 percent.

INCREASE IN REFEREE POSITIONS

Mr. Rooney. It appears at page 154 of these justifications that once 

again you have a very delightful item of a couple hundred thousand 

dollars for referee positions and changes which “may” be authorized 

sometime by the Judicial Conference; right?

Mr. J ackson. That is correct.

Do you wish to speak to it now?

Mr. Rooney. Please go ahead.

Mr. J ackson. This item is a reserve requested for actions of the 

Judicial Conference at the March and September 1965 sessions.

I would recommend tha t tha t be reduced to $156,000 for this 

reason-----

Mr. Rooney. We may reduce it a little further than that.

Mr. J ackson. The survey which will be presented to the Judicial 

Conference at the March 1965 session is now complete and in it is 

recommended only one new full-time position. There are nine other 

districts largely in the larger metropolitan areas where further 

changes may be recommended. These will not occur until the September 1965 session of the Conference and any positions established at 

tha t session would not be in effect for more than 9 months of the fiscal 

year.

NUMBER OF BANKR UPTCY CASES

Mr. Rooney. At pages 156 and 157, gentlemen, you will find data 

with regard to the increase in bankruptcy cases.

Mr. J ackson. Mr. Chairman, if you wish, I can-----

Mr. Rooney. It should be noted at page 157 tha t the percentage of 

business bankruptcies to the total number of bankruptcies is the 

lowest it has been in 10 years; is that correct ?

Mr. J ackson. That is correct.

Mr. Rooney. Air. Bow?

Mr. Bow. I am looking at page 157 and it is a fact, is i t not, that 

bankruptcy filings are the highest now they have ever been in the history of the Republic ?

Mr. J ackson. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Bow. The percentage of wage earners of the country, the increases are also the highest they have ever been in the historv of the 

country ?
132

Mr. J ackson. The cases filed b y------

Mr. Bow. Say yes o r no, an d the n give th e expla nat ion .

Mr. J ackson. Th at is c orre ct.

Mr. Bow. Now if yo u wa nt to, expla in it, and go ahea d.

Mr. J ackson. Th e cases filed by the so-called wage ea rner or salari ed person have been inc rea sin g in rel ation to the total filings. In 

the 6 m onths end ing December 31, which is the firs t ha lf of the cu rrent, fiscal yea r, the prop ortio n has incre ased even sligh tly more. I 

believe the percentages of employee type cases filed in the first ha lf 

of the cu rre nt fiscal y ear is 90.4 percent. Tha t is the same as it was in 

fiscal year 1964.

I thou gh t th ere was a cha nge , bu t the re was not.

Mr. Bow. Altho ugh the per cen tag e of tot al business bankrup tcies 

is 9.6, it also is the high est numb er of filings we hav e ha d in the 

histo ry of the R epublic fo r business es; is it not ?

Mr. J ackson. Yes, s ir ; that is correct.

Mr. Bow. That is all.

E xpenses of Referees

Object classification

[In tho us an ds of dollarsl

1964

act ual

1965

est im ate

1966

est imate

11.1

Perso nnel com pensation:

Pe rm an en t p ositio ns.......................................... . ............ . 3,457 3,965 4,688 11.3 Pos itio ns oth er th an p er m an en t____________________ 411 550 300 11.5 Other p ersonn el c ompensa tion______ _______________ 1 2 2

12.0

To tal p ersonnel c om pe nsation____________________

Personne l benefit s___ _ __________________ ______ 3,870

275

4, 517 

313

4,970

348 21.0 Tr av el and trans po rta tio n of person s__________________ 126 125 139 22.0 Tr an sp or tatio n of thin gs ______ _____ ____________ 6 10 10 23.0 Re nt , comm unications, and utili tie s__________________ 544 560 674 24.0 Pr in tin g an d rep rod uction. _________________________ 66 80 89 25.1 Other services . . . _________________________________ 19 20 22 26.0 Sup plie s a nd m ate ria ls______________________________ 115 125 139 31.0 Equ ip m en t____________________ __________________ 197 205 344

99.0 Tot al obligations.................................................................... 5,218 5,955 6,735

Personnel summ ary

1964

actua l

1965

estim ate

1966

est imate

To tal n um be r of pe rm an en t p ositio ns______________ ______ 633 620 754 Fu ll- tim e eq uiva lent of othe r positions_____________________ 100 129 70 Ave rage n um be r of all employees .................... ......................... 760 784 858
133

Program and financing

[In thousands of dollars]

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

Program by activities:

10 Clerk hire and miscellaneous expenses of referees (obligations)__________________________________________ 5,218

32

5,955 6,735 Financing:

25 Unobligated balance lapsing__________ _____________

New obligational a uth ority____ ___________________ 5,250 5,955 6,735

New obligational au thority:

40 App ropriation______ _ _ ___ _________ ____________ 5,250 5,750

205

6,735 44 Proposed su pplemental due to civiban p ay increases____

Rela tion of obligations to expenditures:

71 Total obligations (affecting exp enditures)_____________

72 Obligated balance, sta rt of year.............. .................. -..........

74 Obligated balance, end of year____ ________________

77 Adjustments in expired accounts_______________ _____

5,218

685

-661

-4

5,955 

661

-754

6,735

754

-836

90 Expenditures excluding pay increase suppleme ntal__

91 Expenditures from civilian pay increase supplemental5,237 5,664

198

6,646

7

Mr. Rooney. Gentlemen, the next item is entitled “Expenses of 

Referees” and is in the requested amount $6,375,000. It is to be found 

at page 374 of the committee print and beginning at page 167 of the 

justifications which page together with pages 168 through 183 shall at 

this point be placed in the record.

(The pages follow:)

Statem ent relating appropriatio n estimates to current appropriation

Expenses of referees, U.S. courts (special fund ): Judiciary

1965 appropriatio n in annual ac t........... . . ....................................................................................$5,750,000

1965 proposed supplem ental due to pay increases....................................................................... 205,000

Base for 1966....................................................................................................................... ........ 5,955,000

Requirem ents Difference, 

increase (+)

1965

adjusted

1966

estimate

or decrease (—)

Clerk hire, compensation a nd benefits _ ________

Miscellaneous expenses_________ .. - _______ .

$4,830,000 

1,125,000

$5,318,000 

1,417,000

+$488,000 

+292,000

To tal_____________ _________________ 5,955,000 6,735,000 +780,000

Total estimate for 1966-........................... . ........... ................................................................... 6,735,000
134

Analysis by object

O bj ec t

11

12 

21 

22

23

24

25

26 

31

Per so nnel c om pen sa tion....... .................

Per so nne l ben efits ....................................

T ra v el an d tr an sp o rt ati o n o f p erso ns .

T ra n sp o rt ati o n o f t h in g s____________

R en t, co m m unic at io ns, an d u ti li ti es.

P ri n ti n g an d r ep ro d u cti o n __________

O th er s er vi ce s______________________

Supplies a n d m ate ri als ____ _________

E q u ip m e n t........................... ......... ......... .

T o ta l obligat io ns................................. .

1965* 1966 In cr ea se or

es ti m at e es ti m at e de crea se (—)

$4,517,000 $4,970,000 $453,000

313,000 348,000 35,000

125,000 139,000 14,000

10,000 10,500 500

560,000 674,000 114,000

80,000 89,000 9,000

20,000 21,500 1,500

125,000 139,000 14,000

205,000 344,000 139,000

5,955,00 0 6,735,000 780,000

1

 A dju st ed to reflec t th e pr op os ed su p p le m en ta l for pay co sts ($192,000 for per so nn el co m pen sa tion an d 

$13,000 for r ela te d be ne fits).

Sum mary of increased requirements for 1966

Nature of expense (or savings) : Amount

1. Deduction for nonrecurring cost of fur niture and furn ishings required in 1965 incident to the occupancy of new buildings--------—$41, 000

2. Deduction for the non recu rring cost of f urn iture and equipment required in 1965 for new refe rees___________________________ —14, 000

3. Provision for within-grade salary advancements______________ 49, 000

4. Amount required for expenses and for staffing new referees and

referees who are to be converted from a part-time to a full-time 

sta tus as approved by the Jud icial Conference in March 1964 and 

September 1964_________________________________________ 470, 000

5. Additional amount requ ired for postage and fees as a res ult of

an increased caseload_____________________________ ______ 40, 000

6. Rental of additional photocopying machines__________________ 10, 000

7. Estimated additional amount required by reaso n of a conversion

from commercial private telephone lines to swithboards operated by the General Services Administration_______________ 20, 000

8. Fu rni tur e and furnishings requ ired incid ent to the occupancy of

new buildings scheduled to be completed during fiscal year 1966

or 90 days thereafte r____________________________________ 6, 000

9. Reserve for expenses and additional clerical employees that may be

requ ired to staff new referees and referees who may be converted 

from a part-time to a full-time status by autho rity of the Ju ­

dicia l Conference at the March 1965 and September 1965 sessions----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 240,000

10. Authorization for the conversion of 60 employees from a temporary to a perm anen t s tatu s_____________________________ (______ )

Net increase, 1966 over 1965____________________________ 780,000

JU S T IF IC A T IO N

Language changes

None.

Objectives

Office and other expenses of referees, including compensation and benefits of 

clerical employees, are payable upon auth oriz atio n of th e Directo r of th e Administr ative Office of the U.S. courts. This appropriation is derived from a special 

fund in the Treasury to which are deposited payments of fees and charges by 

parties to the proceedings. No appropriation from the general fund of the 

Treasury is required. Reference to basic statutory autho rities is contained in 

section Q of the Digest of Appropriations, the Judiciary, on file with the Bureau 

of the B udget and the Appropriations Committees of the Congress.

General justification

Caseload data a ppea r in the account for “Salaries of referees.”

The estimate for 1966 provides for the employment of additional clerks, the 

procurement of furnitu re and equipment, and for miscellaneous expenses rela ting
135

to the appointment of additional referees and the conversion of part-tim e referees 

to a full-time status. Provisions have been made for within-grade salary advancements, the rental of additional copying machines, an increase in postage 

and fees, and the procurement of furnitu re and furn ishings requ ired incid ent to 

the occupancy of new buildings. The estimate also contem plates an increase in 

the cost of telephone services by reason of conversions from private telephone 

lines to switc hboards opera ted by the General Services Administration. Nonrecurring expenses auth orized for 1965 have been deducted in establishing the 

budgeta ry requirements fo r 1966.

Detailed justifications

The appropriation request for 1966 is $6,735,000, or $780,000 in excess of the 

amount available for 1965, augmented to the extent of the proposed supplemental 

for “pay costs” under the Fed eral Jud icial Salary Act of 1964, Public Law 

86-426, approved August 14, 1964. The increases in salary and rela ted benefits 

und er the act aggregated $229,000, whereas the proposed supplemental is only 

$205,000. The sum of $24,000, or 10.4 percent of the “pay costs” will be absorbed. 

The increase in budgetary requirements over and above the “pay costs” is 

explained below:

Deduction for nonrecurring cost of furniture for new buildings

The sum of $41,000 authorized for the procurement of furnitu re and furni shings in 1965 for referees in bankruptcy and the ir staffs incident to the occupancy 

of new buildings has been deducted. The amount required for this purpose in 

1966 has been included below as an increase in bu dgetary requirements.

Deduction of amount authorised in 1965 for the procurement of fur nit ure and

equipment for new referees

The nonrecurring cost of providing two new full-time referees’ furnitu re and 

equipment, including library facilities, has been deducted in establishing the 

budgeta ry requirements for 1966.

Provision fo r within-grade sa lary advancements

All of the clerks to referees a re subject to the promotional plan for judicial personnel and will be granted step increases corresponding with those provided for 

by title V II of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.

It is estim ated th at these within-grade salary advancements will cost $49,000, 

of which $46,000 represen ts increases in compensation and $3,000 rela ted benefits—Government contributions to the civil service retirement fund and for group 

life insurance. The estim ate, which represen ts approxim ately 80 percent of the 

full potentia l cost of step increases, takes into accou nt anticip ated savings due 

to turn over of personnel and the filling of vacancies at lower rates of pay. The 

net cost of within-grade salary advancements in 1966 is expected to be lower than 

in 1965 for the reason that a larger percentage of the employees will be in the 

fou rth or higher steps of the ir respective grades and consequently will be subject 

to longer waiting periods.

Clerk hire and expenses relating to requests for a dditional referees

Under the appropriation “Salaries of referees” fund s have been requested for 

the appointment of 12 ad ditional full-time referees in b ankruptcy and the conversion of 7 part-time referees to a full-time sta tus which actions were approved by 

the Judicial Conference in March 1964 and September 1964. The sum of $470,006 

has been included in this appropriation for th e employment of clerical ass ista nts 

by the referees and to cover the ir office expenses, including the nonrecurring cost 

of equipment, fur niture , and lib rar y facilities. The expenses are itemized b elow:

Personnel compensation (clerk hir e) _____________________________ $275,000

Personnel benefits_____________________________________________ 22, 000

Travel------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9, 000

Transpo rtation of thin gs______________________________________ 500

Rental of office space_________________________________________ 18,000

Communications (telephone and teleg rap h)_______________________ 9,000

Pri nting and reproduction_____________________________________ 6, 000

Other services________________________________________________ 1, 500

Supplies--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 000

Fu rnitu re and equipment, including library (nonrec urr ing )_________ 120,000

Total----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 470, 000

4 6 -8 1 6— 65 -------1 0
136

The amount included for personnel compensation will provide for the employment of 50 clerks at an average salary of $5,505 per annum, which is the’ 

base rate for grad e JSP -6. Each of the full-time referees will require the services of three clerical ass ista nts and the part-tim e referees who are to be converted to a full-time sta tus will each require the services of two additional 

clerks.

The cost of travel and miscellaneous expenses are estim ated on a unit cost 

basis. Unit costs are derived from samplings of expenses curren tly being incurred by established offices.

The sum of $120,000 included for the acquisitio n of fur nit ure and equipment 

(including librar y facilities) is based on a un it cost of $8,500 for each full-time 

referee. It is estim ated that the sum of $2,500 will he required for each parttime referee to be converted to a full-time status . The requ irem ents of a fulltime referee are as follow s:

Chambers_______________________________________________________ $1, TOO

General office space_______________________________________________ 4, 200

Courtroom______________________________________________________ 2, 600

Total____________________________________________________ 8, 500

Additional amount required for postage and fees (penalty mail)

It is estimated that an additional $40,000 will be requ ired in 1966 to reimburse 

the Post Office Departm ent for postage and fees incident to mailing notices 

of bankruptcy proceedings to cred itors and oth er par ties of interest. The payment to the Post Office Department is based on the average number of cases 

handled by the referees. The cost per case in 1964 was $1.83. Taking into 

account the difference between the full-yea r and part-y ear cost of the bulk 

rate increases which were effective in Janu ary 1964 and the increase to tak e 

effect in Janu ary 1965, the unit cost per case will be $1.90 in 1965, and $1.93 in 

1966.

The sum of $325,000 is currently available for th e postage and fees of referees 

in bankruptcy. On the basis of an estimated 190,000 cases to be handled by 

referees during fiscal yea r 1966 at $1.93 per case, the sum of approximate ly 

$365,000 will be required.

Ren tal of additional copying machines

During the past yea r or so the Adm inistrative Office has authorized the installation of copying machines, on a rental basis, in several referees’ offices. When 

practicable, re ferees have been asked to utilize machines which have been insta lled 

in clerk s’ offices, o r vice versa, with each office being billed on a pro rata basis. 

The arrangement, whereby the machines are leased instead of purchased outright, has proven most satisfactory. The equipment perm its the use of 

ordinary bond paper instead of sensitized photocopy paper, resulting in a substantial savings in the “Supply” allotm ent. A savings also has been realized 

in the allotment for “Other services” in that the machines are maintained at 

no additional cost under the rental contracts. Of course, it also obviates the 

need for the repla cement of worn or obsolete equipment. These savings to some 

extent have offset the cost of renting the machines, but n ot entirely.

At the present time the re are only nine referees’ offices who have rental 

machines available. These machines to some extent are utilized for making 

copies of documents requ ired for intern al use but also for the reproduction of 

records or other documents for sale to the general public and to the par ties in 

bankruptcy proceedings. Fees collected from the sale of such copies are 

deposited into the special fund in the Tre asu ry out of which the bankruptcy 

system is financed. Data as to the number of copies being sold each year or 

the tota l receipts from sales is not available. However, it is quite obvious th at 

a profit is being realized. Copies of documents which are being sold at 50 cents 

each cost only 4% cents each.

It is requested that the sum of $10,000 be provided for the ren tal of additional 

copying machines eith er for the exclusive use of the referees or to be used 

join tly by the refer ees’ and the clerk s’ offices. At a cost of $500 per machine p er 

yea r the sum requested will permit the re nta l of approximately 20 more machines.

Conversion from commercial private telephone lines to switchboards operated,

by the General Services Administration

The General Services Adm inistration has increased the number of switchboards in operation throughout the United States in order that a greater num-
137

ber of Federal agencies may avail themselves of the Fed era l telecommunications 

system (FT S) nationwide network of leased long-distance circu its. It is estimate d that approxim ately 80 referees’ offices will be converted from commercial 

private telephone lines to switchboards operated by the General Services Administration and that the cost of such conversions will average about $250 per office 

per year, or a total of $20,000.

The cost of switchboard services natur ally is higher tha n the cost of private 

lines for the reason that the subscribers, on a pro ra ta basis, are required to 

pay the salarie s of telephone operators and other related expenses. The additional cost is justified, however, in that the referees would be able to make an 

unlimited number of long-distance telephone calls and would derive the benefit 

of the services of the telephone operators.

Some of the referees have alread y tra nsfer red from commercial facilities to 

switchboards but with the understand ing th at the General Services Administra tio n would provide the services at no additio nal cost during fiscal yea r 1965, 

thus providing an opportunity to obtain the necessary funds. The Federal telecommunications system is being operated on a completely reimbursable basis 

and the courts under the law are expected to pay t heir fa ir share of the to tal cost. 

It should be recognized th at futur e cost increases resulting from high er tariffs 

and Fed eral employee salary increases will be passed along to all subscribers. 

Furniture requirements incid ent to the occupancy o f new buildings

The sum of $6,000 will be required for the procurement of furnitu re and fu rnishings for referees in bankruptcy incident to the occupancy of new buildings 

scheduled for completion during fiscal yea r 1966, or within 90 days therea fter . 

The requireme nts fo r each building are as fo llows:

Location: Esti mate

Bangor, Maine__________________________________________ $1, 453. 90

Newman, Ga_____________________________________________ 1, 957. 09

Tuscaloosa. Ala__________________________________________ 481. 65

Detroit, Mich____________________________________________ 2,189. 52

Total_________________________________________________ 6,082 .16

Tota l (ro unded)________________________________________ 6,000.00

The estimates were furn ished by the General Services Adm inistration in 

accordance with an agreement between the Directo r of the Adm inistrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts and the Admin istrator of the General Services Administr ation. The estimates were developed by the General Services Administra tio n’s regional offices in cooperation with representativ es of the courts. The 

Adm inistrative Office h as reviewed the estimates in detail and is satisfied that 

they represe nt the minimum requirements of the referees who are to occupy 

space in new buildings.

Reserve for expenses and additional clerical employees required to sta ff new

referees tha t may be authorized by the Judicial Conference in March or

September 1965

Under the heading “Salaries of Referees” a reserve of $200,000 has been included in anticipatio n of the authorization of additional positions by the Ju dicial Conference in March and September 1965. If the refereeships are authorized, fund s will be requ ired in this appropriation for staffing the referees 

and for the procurement of equipment, fur niture , supplies, etc. It is estim ated 

th at the first-year cost of establishing a full-time refe ree’s office, exclusive of 

the compensation and benefits of the referee, will average approximately $30,000 

per office. The following is a breakdown of the sum included herein, based on 

the establish ment of eigh t add itional full-time re fer eeships :

Personnel compensation (clerk hir e) _____________________________ $132,000

Personnel benefits_____________________________________________ 10, 000

Tra ve l----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5, 000

Rental of office space_________________________________________ 12, 000

Communications (telephone and teleg rap h)_______________________ 5,000

Printing and repro duction______________________________________ 3, 000

Supplies--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5, 000

Fu rnitu re and equipment, including librar y (no nrecurrin g)_________ 68,000

Total----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 240, 000
138

The amount included for personnel compensation will provide for the employment of 24 clerks at an averag e salary of $5,050 per annum, which is the base 

rate for grade JS P -6 . Eac h of the full-tim e referees will require the services 

of three cl erical assist ants.

The cost of trave l and miscellaneous expenses, includi ng the acquisition of 

cap ital assets, are estimated on a unit cost basis. Un it costs are derived from 

samplin gs of expenses curre ntly being incurred by established offices. The nonrecurring cost of furn itur e and equipment, includ ing libra ry fac ilit ies , will be 

deducted in es tablishing the budgetary requirements for 1967.

Au tho rization fo r the conv ersio n of emplo yees from temporary to permanent

stat us

The Congress for the fiscal year 1965 appropriated fund s for the employment 

of appro ximat ely 60 addit ional clerks for referees on a temporary basis. A t 

the time it was not considered advisable to employ the clerks on a permanent 

basis in view of the possibility tha t the trend in bankruptcy case filings would 

level off or decline. On the contr ary, durin g 1964, filings reached an alltime 

high of 171,719, an increase of 16,226 or 10.4 percent over the number filed in 

1963.

The temporary clerks authorized for fiscal year 1965 represented an increase 

in the cl erical force of the referees of approximat ely 10 percent, which is identical 

to the increase in the volume of business. There would appear to be ample 

justi ficat ion for the retention of the clerks authorized for fiscal year 1965 on a 

permanent basis. The change in statu s from temporary to permanent is primar ily for the benefit of the employees in that they would be entitled to civil 

service retirement coverage and would be allowed to parti cipat e in the group 

life insurance and health benefits programs. The conversions will result in a 

sligh t increase in the Govern ment’s contribut ions to the retirement fund , for 

group lif e insurance and health benefits. However, the amounts involved are 

neglig ible and w ill be absorbed.

IN CREASE RE QU ES TE D

Mr. Rooney. This requested amount would be an increase of $780,- 

000 over the adjusted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

It would appear that under this you are also going to give the 

referees an unlimited number of long-distance telephone calls; is that 

righ t ?

Mr. Anderson. Yes; tha t is correct, Mr. Chairman. The referees’ 

offices would also tie into the FTS system where available.

FU R N IT U R E AND FU R N IS H IN G

Mr. R ooney. Apropos of the colloquy a while ago with the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Cederberg, are there funds for furniture 

and furnishings in this budget ?

Mr. Garabedian. Yes, sir; there is the sum of $194,000 representing 

nonrecurring expenses.

Air. Rooney. Why would it not be the function of the Adnrn istrative Office to police a matter such as the one mentioned by Congressman Cederberg? Is it not their responsibility?

Judge McGuire. Where is that ite m; what page ?

Air. Garabedian. It is scattered through the budget. The $120,000 

results from new positions which we have included on page 175 and 

$68,000 of it represents a reserve for those other additional positions 

we spoke of earlier.

Air. Rooney. It seems to me this throws an entirely different light 

on the discussion we had earlier.

Wha t do you have to say about it ?

I understood you to take the position it was not the function or 

responsibility of the Administrative Office in the situation mentioned 

by Congressman Cederberg.
139

Mr. Olney. The approval of those items is made by the judges and 

not by us. When we get any information any of them appear to be 

out of line, we take it up. I took it up in this instance with the chief 

judge of the district, and that is where we got our action. We do not 

have any authority and do not have any way of policing it in the sense 

of going around and checking where all these things are put in.

Mr. Rooney, How much is in here for drapes ?

Mr. Garabedian. Mr. Rooney, I have a detailed statement of what 

we propose to buy with reference to each.

Mr. Rooney. The question was: How much is in there for drapes? 

Either you know or you do not know.

Mr. Garabedlvn. I have nothing listed for drapes.

N E W P OSI TIO NS

Mr. Rooney. How many new positions are you requesting under 

“Expenses of referees” ?

Mr. J ackson, Under item 4 on page 169 of the justifications is an 

amount of $470,000.

Mr. Rooney. I asked how many positions.

Mr. J ackson. There are 50 positions in tha t item to provide staff 

for the new referee positions. Tha t is computed on the basis of three 

additional employees for each new, full-time referee, and two additional employees for each part-time referee, changed to a full-time 

basis.

There is also in the item of $240,000 provision for 24 positions, 

which is in the reserve.

Mr. Rooney. Are you sure there are only 50 positions in that 

$470,000 item you previously referred to ?

Mr. J ackson. Tha t item is detailed on page 175 of the justifications, 

and the item for personal services is $275,000 plus $22,000; the rest 

of this is for travel and other office expenses.

Tha t is keyed to the new’ referee positions.

Mr. Rooney. In this entire item of $780,000, how many new jobs 

are requested ?

Mr. Garabedian. Mr. Chairman, there are 74 additional positions 

provided for in the budget.

Mr. J ackson. Seventy-four is correct.

Mr. Rooney. Are you including the 60 mentioned in item No. 10 

on page 170 being changed to a permanent status?

Mr. J ackson. No, sir; those positions are already established.

Mr. Rooney. How many permanent positions are you adding to 

the payroll ? was the initial question.

Mr. J ackson. There would be 74 and then we are asking these 60 

positions which are now on a temporary basis be changed to a permanent basis. So, there would actually be 74 plus the 60.

If I may explain that 60, Mr. Chairman, in the justifications when 

these positions were given to us, we asked they be placed on a temporary basis so w’e could have more time to study the caseload in 

these districts.

Mr. Rooney. You are just proving there is nothing so permanent 

as a temporary Federal job.

How many people do you already have? How many do you presently have as of the last available date on the payroll, under this item 

of “Expenses of referees” ?
140

Mr. Garabedian. 620 clerical positions in the bankruptcy system. 

There are several vacancies at the moment. I do not know the exact 

number.

Mr. Rooney. You want to add how many ?

Mr. J ackson. There are 134 we want to have on a permanent basis 

but, for the 60, t hat would be changed to permanent and we would 

knock out th at many temporaries.

Mr. Rooney. This was approved by the Judicial Conference, too, 

was it?

Mr. J ackson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. Thank you, gentlemen.

Judge McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Wednesday, February 3, 1965.

COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEAL S

W IT N E S S E S

HO N. EU G E N E W O RLEY , C H IE F JU D G E 

HON . I. JA C K M A R T IN , ASS OCIA TE JU D G E

Salaries and E xpenses

Object classification

[In thousands of dollars]

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate

Personnel compensation:

11.1 Permanent positions____ ________ _ __________ 335 387

10

396

11.3 Positions othe r th an per ma nent__________________ 10

Total personnel com pensation__ ________________ 335

19

397

21

1

3 

18

1

2

4

406

21

1

3 

18

1

2

4

12.0 Personnel benefits____ '.__________________________

21.0 Trav el and transportation of persons________________

23.0 Rent, communications, and utilitie s_______ _________ 3

17

1

3

4

24.0 Prin ting and reproduction_________________________

25.1 Other services___ . ___ ___________ _______ _

26.0 Supplies and materials____________________________

31.0 Eq uip me nt_____ _____ ___ _____ _________ . . .

99.0 Tota l obligations__ ,_______________________ _ , 381 448 458

Personnel summary

1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estim ate

Total nu mber of perman ent positions____________________ 29 29 30

Full-time equ ivalent of other positions____________________ 0 1 1

Average num ber of all emplovees 29 30 31
141

Program and financing

[In th ou sa nd s of dollars]

1964

actual

1965 1966

es tim ate estim ate

________________________________________________________

Prog ram b y ac tiv ities:

10 Salaries an d expenses (o bligat io ns) ... ............... ............ .........

Financing :

25 Un obligate d balanc e lapsing___________ ____ ___ ____ . . .

New ob liga tion al auth ority __________________________

New obliga tional a ut ho rit y:

40 App ro pr ia tio n_______________________________________

44 Pro posed sup plem en tal d ue to c ivilian p ay increases_____

Re lat ion of obliga tion s t o e xpenditures:

71 To tal o bligations (affecting ex pe nd itu res)_______________

72 Ob ligate d bala nce, s ta rt of ye ar ________________________

74 Ob ligate d balanc e, en d of y ea r_________________________

77 Adjus tm en ts in exp ired acc ounts _______________________

90 Ex pe nd itu res excluding pa y in crease s u p p le m en ta l. .. 

•91 Ex pe nd itu res from civilian pay increase su pp lem en tals.

381

7

388

388

381

41

-3 7

4

389

448

448

398

50

448

37

-4 0

399

46

458

458

458

458

40

-4 0

454

4

Mr. R ooney. Th e com mittee w ill please come to ord er.

Th is mo rning, gentlem en, we sha ll tu rn to th e item whi ch is to be 

foun d at p age 347 of the comm ittee p rint , en titled “C ou rt of C ustoms 

an d Pa te nt Ap pea ls, salaries an d expenses.” Th e justifi cation s with 

re ga rd thereto beg in at page 36 of the justifica tio n book, which pag e 

we shall insert at this po int in the record toge ther wi th pag es 37 

thro ug h 43.

(The pages fo llo w:)

Statem ent relating appropr iatio n estimate to current appropriatio n

Salarie s a nd expenses, Cou rt of Cus to m s a nd P ate nt A ppeals: Judiciary

1965 ap pr op riat io n in an nu al ac t................................ .......................................................................... $397,600

1965 pro pose d su pp lem en tal du e to pa y incre ase s______________________________________ 50,000

B as ef orl96 6........................ . ....................................... ............................................. ............ ............ 447,600

N e t difference, 1966 ov er 1965:

Req uiremen ts Difference, 

increase (+ ) 

or de1965 crease (—)

ad juste d

1966

est im ate

Salaries an d expenses____________________________ $447,600 $457,600 +$10,000

To tal est im ate for 1966_______ ____ ______________ ___________________ _____ ________ 457,600

An alysis by obje ct

Object

u

12

21

23

24

25

26 

31

Pe rsonne l c om pensati on___________

Pe rso nnel benefits________________

Tr av el and tr an sp or ta tio n of pers ons. 

Ren t, c om mu nic ations, an d ut ilitie s.

Pr in ting a nd re pr od uc tio n...................

Other service s____________________

Supplies a nd m aterials____________

E qui pm en t_______________________

Tot al ob lig ations ............................

1965 estim ate 1966 estim ate

1 $397,400 $406,400

120,700 21,400

1,000 1,000

3^000 3^000

18,500 18’500

<00 0 1,000

2j000 2^000

<000 < 300

447,600 457,600

Inc rea se (+ ) 

or decrease 

( - )

$9,000

700

300

10,000

1

 Adju ste d to reflect pro posed su pp lem en tal for pay increase s ($48,400 for perso nnel co mp ensat ion an d 

<1,600 for related ben efits).
142

Sum mary of increased requirements for 1966

Nature of expense (or savings) : Amo unt

1. Additional clerical position for the c lerk’s office_______________ $5, 700

2. Provision for within-grade salary advancements______________ 4, 300

Increase, I960 over 1965_________________________________10, 000

JU S T IF IC A T IO N

Language changes

None.

Objectives

This appro priation is for th e salaries of the chief judge, four associate judges, 

and other officers and employees of the Court of Customs and Pa tent Appeals 

as welkas for communications, supplies, and other incidental expenses of the 

court. For data as to the functions of the court, its jurisdictio n and basic 

sta tut ory authorities, reference is made to section G of the “Digest of Appropriations, the Jud iciary ,” on file with the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropria tion s Committees of the Congress.

General justification

The court has experienced a very sharp increase in the volume of appeals 

during the past 8 years. During this period the number of appeals in customs 

cases has rema ined at relatively the same level, however, appeals in patent 

and trad emark cases have increased 300 percent from 63 in 1956 to 245 in 1964. 

The court in 1964 disposed of 215 paten t and tra dema rk cases compared with 

only 70 cases disposed of during 1956.

A summary of the business of the court and a graphic p resentatio n of appeals 

from 1956 to 1964 follows:

Customs cases:

Pending, beginning of year____________

Docketed du ring year _________________

Disposed of during year_______________

Pending, end of year____________ . _____

Pa ten t and trad emark cases:

Pending beginning of year_____________

Docketed during yea r.......... ................... .

Disposed of during year_______________

Pending, end of year__________________

1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

21 23 20 30 35 39 30 24 30

31 40 42 40 45 32 29 37 32

29 43 32 35 41 41 35 31 36

23 20 30 35 39 30 24 30 26

91 84 92 92 129 134 148 207 245

63 82 83 107 127 126 174 251 245

70 74 83 70 122 112 115 213 215

84 92 92 129 134 148 207 245 275
143

COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT AP PE ALS 

NUMBER OF APPEALS DOCKETED

FISCAL YEARS 1956-19 64

Detailed justification

An appropriation of $457,600 is requested for 1966, an increase of $10,000 

over the appropriation for 1965 which has been adjusted to reflect the proposed 

supplemental for “pay costs” und er the Fed eral Jud icial Salary Act of 1964, 

Public Law 88-426, approved August 14, 1964. The increase in budgetary requireme nts is explained b elow:

New position— Clerk's office

The sum of $5,700 is requested for the employment of a clerk -stenographer for 

the clerk’s office, as follow s:

Personnel compensation, grade JS P- 5_____________________________ $5, 000

Personnel benefits_______________________________________________ 400

Equipment (nonrec urr ing )_______________________________________ 300

Total____________________________________________________ 5, 700

This requ est was included in the budget estimate for fiscal yea r 1965; however, as the record will show, th e court at the hearing s before the House Appropriations Subcommittees and the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed 

its desire to partici pate in the President’s economy drive and agreed to forego 

the additional position unti l 1966.
144

The sha rp incre ase in paten t appeals, as revealed in the accompanying statistics for the 8-year period from 1956 to 1964, has resulted in a proportionate 

incre ase in the workload of the office of the clerk since the filing an d disposition 

of all cases is centered in th at office. The clerk’s staff has not been augmented 

since 1926 when the court assum ed jurisdictio n of patent cases. The need for 

the addition al position is now more app are nt than ever. It would no t be reasonable to expect the clerk of the cou rt to absorb this increased workload indefinitely.

Provision fo r within-grade salary advancements

It is estimated th at $4,300 will be required in fiscal year 1966 to gra nt court 

employees within-grade salary advancements corresponding with those provided 

by t itle VII of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. The estimate includes 

$4,000 for personnel compensation and $300 for related Government contributions 

to the civil service retirem ent fund and for Federal employees group life insurance. Due to very litt le turnov er in the personnel of the court no savings can 

be anticip ated to offset the cost of within-grade salary advancements.

INCREA SES REQUESTED

Mr. Rooney. They indicate tha t the request is in the amount of 

$457,600, which would be an increase of $10,000 over the adjusted 

appropriation for the current fiscal year. The increases are set forth 

at page 38 of the justifications.

It is to be noted tha t one additional position has been requested. I 

think we had an off-the-record agreement on that, did we not, Judge?

Judge Worley. Yes, last year.

Mr. R ooney. Do you have a statement, Judge Worley ?

Judge Worley. Mr. Chairman, there are two requests for increases. 

One is, the $4,300 item for within-grade salary advancements, over 

which we have no control.

The other, for one additional position in the clerk’s office, $5,700, is 

the same request we made last year, but with the understanding that we 

would try to get along without tha t position for another year. Although the work has increased along with the number of appeals, as 

reflected in the record, we ask you to suspend action again until we see 

whether we can amend the rules and relieve the clerk of the printing 

supervision of the various records tha t come before us. Judg e Martin 

and I thin k we can, but if we cannot, we will come before you later. 

So, for the time being, please disregard tha t item in the spirit of 

economy that I know all of us want and try to practice.

Mr. Rooney. Very good, Judge Worley. That suggestion is refreshing. Are there any questions ?

Judg e Worley. If not, we tha nk you gentlemen.
LIST OF WITNESSES

Pate

Anderson, D. H _____ ________________________________ 39

Easier, How ard_____________________________________________________ 21

Be nnett , Hon. M. T ________________________________________________ 34

Black, Hon . H. L___________________________________________________ 3

Clark, Hon. T. C___________________________________________________ 3

Cowen, Hon. Wilson ________________________________________________ 34

Dav is, J. F _________________________________________________________ 3

Foley, W. E ___________________________ 39

Ca rabedian, E. V___________________________________________________ 39

Henlock, C. A______________________________________________________ 3

Jackso n, R. E ____ __________________________________________________ 39

Johnsen, Hon. H. M ________________________________________________ 39

Lipp itt , T. P________ 3

Mart in, Hon . I. J ___________________________________________________ 140

McG uire, Hon. M. F ________________________________________________ 39

Neeman, Miss He len ________________________________________________ 3

Olney, W arren_____________________________________________________ 39

Peartree , F. T ______________________________________________________ 34

Rao, Hon . P. P _____________________________________________________ 21

Ric hardso n, Hon. Sco vel____________________________________________ 21

Sharp, Louis_______________________________________________________ 39

Ste wart, J. G_______________________________________________________ 3

Sweeney, W. R _____________________________________________________ 39

Weinman, Hon. C. A_______________________________________________ 39

Worley, Hon . Eu ge ne _______________________________________________ 140

Zu econi, D. R ______________________________________________________ 3

(I)

IN D E X

B

Page

Budget for fiscal year 1966, summary of_____________________________ 2

C

Court of Claims_________________________________________________ 34

Court of Customs and Pa ten t Appeals______________________________ 140

Courts of appeals, district courts, and other judicia l services_____________ 39

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts__________________________ 110

Appropriation s for, in crease in ______________________________ 119

Paperwork handled by____________________________________ 120

Budget for fiscal year 1966, summary of_________________________ 40

Expenses of referees__________________________________________ 132

Furniture and furnishing__________________________________ 138

Positions, new___________________________________________ 41,139

Fees and expenses of court-appointed counsel____________________ 87

Administrative costs______________________________________ 98,103

Appointm ent of counsel____________________________________ 94,9 6

Eligibility for________________________________________ 107

Cost of program______________________________ 93,97 ,99 ,10 3,1 06

Guilty pleas, effect on____________________________________ 107

Minimum and maximum fees______________________________ 105

No-year funds requ ested__________________________________ 102

Supervision by the court __________________________________ 104

Fees of jurors and commissioners, U.S. court s____________________ 64

Position, new ________________________________________________ 41

Probation officers, additional____________________________________ 42,63

Salaries of judges____________________________________________ 44

Salaries of referees___________________________________________ 122

Bankruptcy cases______________________________________ 126,131

Positions, increase in_____________________________________ 131

Salaries of supporting personnel________________________________ 49

Clerks, additional deputy__________________________________ 57

Messengers, re quest for___________________________________ 61

Trav el and miscellaneous expenses__________________________ 61

Travel and miscellaneous expenses, U.S. cou rts___________________ 68

Electrical antitrust suits__________________________________ 83

General Services Administration, reim bursements to __________ 85

Printing costs___________________________________________ 86

Telephone calls, long-distance_______________________________ 74,8 5

Travel of judges___________________________________________75,8 4

Customs Court__________________________________________________ 21

Jurisdiction of_______________________________________________ 28

Equip ment__________________________________________________ 32

Organization of__________________ 29 Salaries and expenses_________________________________________ 21

Salary costs absorbed_____________________________________ 31

Trave l______________________________________________________ 33

Workload___________________________________________________ 32

S

Supreme Court of th e United Sta tes__________________________ t ______ 3

Automobile for the Chief J ustice_______________________________ 11

Books for the Supreme Co urt __________________________________ 12

Care of bu ildirgs and grounds_________________________________ 14

Miscellaneous expenses________________________________________ 10 Prin ting and binding Supreme Court reports_____________________ 9

Sala ries_____________________________________________________ 5

o

i h i *